Is a monopod useful for steadying a camera?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13552112
How else does one hold a 'pod beyond resting on the ground?

If you have the monopod straight up and down then the rotational point is the pod and you have to move your body around it, same as on a tripod.

If you have the leg of the monopod angled back and place the foot of the pod against your instep (like a medieval pikeman bracing against a cavalry charge) then the rotational point is your rear foot.

But then you're not letting the 'pod support all the weight. Plus, you're varying the camera to subject distance as you swing through that arc.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #13552144
But then you're not letting the 'pod support all the weight. Plus, you're varying the camera to subject distance as you swing through that arc.

The pod is still supporting a portion of the weight, it is still providing vertical stability and the subject distance is not changing any more than when hand holding.

I bought a monopod hoping I could do without the tripod/gimbal as I like to be very mobile but after a few months I purchased a tripod setup for certain situations. The tripod is great and certainly has its pro's but I use the mono 90% of the time. It is almost as nimble as hand holding with the RRS head I use imo. It is impossible to hand hold some of the long lenses on a target in the field waiting for action and a monopod is a great bridge between the rock solid steadiness of a tripod and the versatility of hand-holding. My experience is almost exclusively wildlife orientated though.

tvphotog wrote in post #13549364
With a 7D and a 100-400 lens at 400mm, the result at 1/1000 was dramatic using a monopod compared to handheld. I'm a fan.

With the same kit, I agree...

bobbyz wrote in post #13549151
If lens has IS and weight is not an issue, why you need monopod for?

Because monopod + IS is better than either alone.

This guy: http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=LOFkCZ6TtGQ

Apart from the fact that he slates his products ALOT he does make them sound handy...apart from the line where he goes on about how we're lucky that we don't get camera shake in shots...

At least he's honest about that manfrotto being junk

bobbyz wrote in post #13549151
If lens has IS and weight is not an issue, why you need monopod for?

self defense

René Damkot wrote in post #13563339
At least he's honest about that manfrotto being junk

I find it funny that he still uses it and calls it 'essential' :P
Anywho, I've just scored the 790B for £35 and the 484RC2 ball head for £26 early Christmas presents ahoy!

I found a monopod converted all (and exagerated all) movements into left/right swings which were larger than normal so made shake worse.
Ash

Roy I could not do a day at the track without one, either a 300 or a 500 mm at below 200th sec being panned is very hard work with no support. A tripod even with a Wimberly would just be to cumbersome.

I do see their value with lenses of that weight Neil, but I was pondering their value with smaller lenses.

neil_r wrote in post #13564242
Roy I could not do a day at the track without one, either a 300 or a 500 mm at below 200th sec being panned is very hard work with no support. A tripod even with a Wimberly would just be to cumbersome.

Lucky for you, race cars only move in two dimensions...

Until I got my 100-400 I never used my monopod. Now when It is on the camera I usually use it. It really makes a difference.