Should I get a monopod or invest in a tripod?

Excuse my newbieness, but I'm going to purchase the 40D before the rebate period is over and I was wondering if I should invest in a monopod or look into a tripod? Most of all I'm looking for a very lightweight alternative to carry around with me (possibly fit in or on a Crumpler 7MDH) that will help with taking solid pictures in a Something where it's easy and quick to use which is where I think a tripod might not be what I'm looking for. Having to fold and uncollapse the legs each time I want to setup a shot might end up being too time consuming. What added benefits do a tripod have over a monopod outside of enabling you to remotely release the shutter and enable you to be in the picture? I don't mind not being in any pictures since in the last 10 years or so of taking pictures I've only been in a handful of them.

I probably will invest in a tripod in the future but in an effort to minimize costs and efforts at the moment, will a monopod suffice my needs? And if so, any suggestions on a quality one? I keep hearing good things about Manfrotto, any particular one I should look at?

It really depends on what you need them for. If you are carrying a big lens around and need something mobile that give you the ability to hold it steady you could use a monopod. If you want photos of yourself than you want a tripod. Now most here wont recommend it but there is a monopod with pop out legs that allows it to work as a tripod--- small legs--and not as stable but might fit what you are looking for.

I personally am a wedding shooter--- I always have one tripod and a monopod in my car but rarely use them. Typically I use the monopod if I want creative shots of the dancing---I can hold the camera high up on the dance floor and take photos of the drunken wedding party.

many dont recommend using a monopod as a tripod
you just dont get the same stability you get with a tripod than a monopod

but if youre looking into getting a mono or tripod...
i say get both...but tripod first

Lots of stability: Tripod.
Some extra stability + remove the load on your arms when using heavy lenses for long periods of time while still providing mobility: Monopod.

This was in response to a question to me on another forum re purchasing a momopd.
===============.
I only use mine for motor sport and birding. Not so much for the stability with motor sport but to make it easier on your arms when shooting for hours on end with heavy lenses.

Mine is a Giotto MM9950 (Aluminium)
www.warehouseexpress.c​om/product/default.asp​x?sku=1018156

with a Manfrotto/Bogen 3229 head on it.
www.adorama.com/BG3229​.html

The head is only there to give it more height and to allow me to attach a quick release plate to it. A lot of motor sport photographers out here use the same heads for the same reason.
That particular head makes it very easy to flip your camera to portrait mode if need be.
See very few ball, if any, heads in use on monopods.

The main thing is to make it high enough so you don't have to bend your neck to use it when standing.
It is a real pain in the neck.

Mine has twist locks on the legs which are ok, however if my hands are damp it is very difficult to get a good grip to tighten them.
If I was buying a replacement monopod I would get one with levers to lock the legs.
===============

Eventually you'll need both. A monopod isn't anything like a tripod in terms of stability. You'll might be surprised, when using a monopod, how much camera shake still occurs. I think most folks would agree that a monopod is about like image stabilization, you'll be able to shoot 2-3 stops slower than you would handheld. However, on a windy day, that's more like 1-2 stops. As dicktay notes, it is a great way to take the weight off of your arms though.

Feisol makes pretty good (and inexpensive) carbon fiber monopods.

Monopods are used for support. In other words, you use a monopod to reduce the load on your hands, arms, and shoulders while taking a shot. Inherently, it does not provide stability. You provide the stability when using a monopod.

Tripods provide stability as well as support. Each is an important tool in photography. You need to determine what you want to photograph and then you can determine whether you need one or the other or both.

If you main purpose is to get into the picture, I would just have some who will not be in the picture take the shot. You don't need a monopod or tripod.

I would not be in the picture at all. Recently took some pictures from a 3 week vacation, almost 2,400 pictures or so, I appear in at most 10 of them.

TMaG82 wrote in post #5748384
I would not be in the picture at all. Recently took some pictures from a 3 week vacation, almost 2,400 pictures or so, I appear in at most 10 of them.

Then, you should ask yourself how many of the 2400 shots did you say to yourself I wished I had a tripod or monopod? That may help in your decision.

As others have said - if you want stability so that you can use significantly slower shutter speeds than you could when hand-holding a camera, a tripod is the only real solution.

On the other hand, if you have a six-pound lens/camera that you want to hold in shooting position for an hour, a monopod can help with that.

A monopod provides very little stability over hand-holding a camera, but it's great to take the strain off your arms.

The monopod with three little legs is NOT a tripod and should NEVER be used as one. If you leave an SLR camera on one without holding on to it, you will very likely be picking up the pieces soon.

A monopod designed for those situations that a tripod is prohibited, or not practical. The monopod is not as effective as a tripod and it is seriously limited when you are after a solid platform from which to capture and shot. Tripods are far steadier and will provide you with superior results when motion is critical to a sharp image. Use a monopod when you must, use a tripod when you are really after great images.

A parallel discussopn is going on here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=522692

If you can only afford one, the tripod is the best choice. Which one is another question - lots of threads on that on this board. Don't cheap here - it would be a waste of money.

Homersapian said you'd eventually end up with both. That's probably true - I did. They really have different functions and are optimized for differing situations.

If you don't need anything immediately, think about the situations you will be using them in.

A tripod does not have to be all that slow - like anything photographic, there are techniques and shortcuts. Think about after a shot, leave the camera firmly attached, just push the three legs together, and walk to your next location - with the three legs together, it can act as a monopod - and in under a second, spread the legs, and your tripod is set up and stable, ready to go.

Good luck - and keep asking questions!

Another point to consider. If you want to take some long exposure shots (such as night shots), a monopod won't help you much. You'll need the extra stability of the tripod for a multi-second exposure.