What do I want -- a tripod, or a monopod?

I'm trying to decide whether I want a tripod or a monopod, and which of either I want.

I'm going to be taking the equipment out into nature via my snowmobile to take shots of the beauty and as well to photograph my buddies and I doing tricks, etc. So far I have been very unhappy with the shots that I have been able to take but I am getting there -- they always come out blue. I'm very, very green to photography. I have a Digital Rebel XT

Anyhow, am I going to want a tripod or a monopod for the deep snow shots?

Generally speaking, if you're doing landscape, then get a tripod. If you're doing some snow action shots, then a monopod or handhold...

Why not buy both, they're pretty cheap these days. I picked up a great quality Manfrotto monopod from my local store for £30.

What lenses, and for what purpose? If it is just to help steady a long lens, then a monopod would suffice. If it is for low-light shots, self-timer shots with everyone in the photo, then you'll need a tripod. A little more specific info would help.

Get a tripod and fold the legs in while extended to get a monopod feel. Voila!

The lighting conditions will vary greatly, so it's hard to say there. Could be early morning, could be dusk. I think that I am settled on getting a tripod -- now I just need to decide what one to get. I'm not really sure on all of the various heads, etc. I understand that manfrotto is a good brand, but what tripod/head would I want that isn't enormous and works well with my camera and can tilt? I would like to to reach to 6 feet fully extended as I am a tall boy and (i think) that it would then be ideal for taking pics of my friends, etc. Does this logic hold true or am I being odd as I find that most tripods come in around 60 inches. Just seems like it would be a pain to set it up otherwise. I am also a college student, so I'm really not wanting to spend more than 125$ (used is ok)

i love my tripod and monopod setup very much.

Check my sig. for details.

Atheist - if you don't mind - how tall are you? Bear in mind you will have the height of the ballhead on top of the legs (which could be 5/6 inches), and then you will have your camera (and the eyepiece will be a few inches heigher than base of camera). So if your tripod reaches say 65 inches fully extended, then add on the 5 inches for ballhead, then 3/4 inches from base of camera to eyepiece and you are at the 6 foot / 6 foot 1 mark.

Obviously check out the sizes of these things before commiting yourself.

Ah I hadn't considered that. Do I want eye level for me or will that shoot over most things? I'm 6'4. I should also note that this needs to be reasonably portable in case I take it cross country skiing, so please help me decide how to compromise.

I picked the lowepro Slingshot 200 for my bag (ordering tmr) as I had felt like it'd be ideal for trail riding w/ the ability to swing it out and snap a photo of something cool. I'm going to sort out a way to attach the tripod to this bag.

Well I think it would be good to have the ability for the camera to be at your eye level - if you don't want it that high you can always lower it, but if you get one that isn't high enough then you may be forever wishing it was higher!

However, if you think you won't want it at eye level all the time then maybe get a slightly more portable model with a reasonably high normal height, but with an extended column that will bring it to eye level (you want to keep the column down if you can help it). What kind of weight will you be putting on it?

Probably a monopod would suffice especially if you are shooting fast shutter speeds.

The reason your pictures are blue is that your white balance is off - very easy to do over snow. Read your manual about setting a custom white balance, shoot in raw and get a whibal card. Do not use auto white balance. It will get screwed up every time on this. If you have to pick a white balance on a white snowy scene, I prefer 'cloudy' - it gives a slightly warmer tone that helps to contradict the blue you are seeing.

A tripod would be the best bet for any landscape shots. However, in deep snow you need to be careful - if you force the legs down into the snow, it can put huge pressure on the spider at the top.

For a monopod in snow, you may be surprised at how far it will go down when you put it in the snow. Consider a snow basket that is usually an accessory from the monopod maker.

J.

I believe that I should probably start with a tripod as it seems to be the most versitile in what it can acomplish. JohnJ I really appreciate your comments.

Red Hot Sheep* Not a ton -- 350D + kit lense for now, probably stepping up to something a bit larger later. How does the extended column bit work?

You sort of defeat the purpose of a tripod by extending the column. Think of it as balancing a weight single point. Any breeze or vibration is going to be transmitted to the camera. Find one that you can use without doing that if possible. If you need the size and weight to be small, then consider shooting while kneeling etc...

Here is a very interesting link on what a tripod needs to do for you. Given that you will be outside in the winter - presuming that it will be windy, you will be most at risk for vibration and the subsequent blurring in your shots. You are trying to control oscillations that are on the order of 50um (50 millionths of a meter) during the exposure time. This is easily induced by wind on an unsteady tripod or one of lower quality and pretty much any tripod on an extended center column.

http://markins.com/cha​rlie/report4e6.pdf

J.

Interesting JohnJ!

Everytime I make my mind up about what tripod I want to get something changes it! Same goes for the pack, too, I'm going insane!! Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced brand for tripods that I can search? I have decided one that will go close to 6'' is good enough for me, even if its a touch under. I'd really like to be <125-150.I found one the other day, but Im afraid I lost it. I'll post back on that later.

http://bythom.com/supp​ort.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/t​ripods_&_heads.shtml

Your tripod is about as important as your lens in terms of getting sharp pictures. You cannot hope to achieve the resolution of your lens, in most cases, without a tripod or some means of supporting the camera especially if using telephoto lenses.

There is also a study that was done by Leica (and not available on the web due to copyright) that shows that heavier tripods (no surprise there) do the best with vibration coming from the ground up and CF tripods do better with torsional forces (like wind etc...).

You can typically make a tripod heavier by hanging a mass like your camera bag either around the legs or from the bottom of the center column (hook). Stiffness in the legs is the prime contributor to resistance to torsional forces and is much more difficult to achieve since in many cases, increasing stiffness also can increase the vibration coupling from the ground. This is where the science and engineering come in.

If you read the markins article, then you realize that we are talking about vibrations here that are to small for you to detect or feel (on the order of 5-50um or so). Because of that, you really cannot 'kick the tires' of a tripod and tell how it performs unless you take one out and make some high detail shots and see how it performs or to do a test using lasers and long, long lenses as Leica did. It is not possible to tell by whacking a tripod and seeing how 'stable' it is to know how it will do in reducing and isolating the camera from small microscopic, sharpness destroying vibrations. A whack and the vibrations we are talking about are many orders of magnitude different.

Because of that, and because engineering to achieve these results are expensive the better tripods are also expensive. My rule of thumb is expect to pay for one with a ballhead what one would pay for one of your better lenses. Seems to hold relatively true.

You won't want to hear my advice on this - but I think you would have a hard time getting a decent tripod and ballhead for $150. My advice would be to treat it as a major purchase like a lens and save for it in the same way and then get the good stuff. In that way, you will avoid the expensive iteration to get there eventually but with having bought several cheaper and less capable tripods in the meantime.

I guess, in my opinion, it all gets down to how serious about photography you are and how long your view is. If you are serious and the view is long, then the dollars per year is much less since the better stuff (manfrotto top end and Gitzo) will last your natural life time. If you are less serious, then perhaps it isn't as important (or more short term) and getting the cheaper stuff to last a bit with less result is ok.

I've basically lived the Tom Hogan article and I have 3 increasingly expensive tripods sitting in the closet as a result. I'd have saved a lot of money, and had better results in many of my shots, if I had done it the right way in the first place.

Anyhow, my $0.02. YMMV.

J.