Looking for some advice re monopods and quick release plates

PB_PM

@JJ_SO Using a term that Apple haters often use... "you're holding it wrong." If you hold the monopod like that you will have issues. To gain stability you need to lean it back towards your body, using your two legs and the monopod leg to form a tripod of sorts.

To fully utilize the monopod a head is required. If you just mount stuff onto the monopod and leave it square like that, you'll have stability issues.

Msmoto

I heard my name...with a monopod, the advantage for me is this. When the monopod is on the ground, it carries the weight of the camera/lens, saves some strain on the muscles. For panning shots, I think it is potentially easier to get a smooth panning motion.....The use I have for the monopod is to get the camera overhead, like at the auto show, to stick the camera in the face of the dancing girls, like at the auto show, and to allow the camera to be placed very low without this old lady being forced to ask for help after I get down on the floor to get a very low shot.

I am not very certain the monopod has a lot of help in low light...maybe one f/stop, possibly, but I think VR has a big advantage over this. Now, the Manfrotto monopod I use has a three legged base and this is better at giving some stability, but not like a tripod.

I actually use the gimbal on the tripod, this for the cars, bikes, wildlife, birds, etc. and primarily so I do not have to hold the big lens. It also makes the panning shots very easy.

I agree with the idea of holding the monopod against the body, this does create in a sense a tripod and adds stability. Probably we all find our little secrets and what works for one may not work for another.

JJ_SO

PB_PM, you can hold it your or the Apple way - the problem with the remaining movement is the same and the multiplying little movements as well. I just made some indoor test shots. My winner is VR. And of course, the big Gitzo.

PB_PM

My point was that using VR along with a monopod was better, which you seem to have totally missed.

JJ_SO

Haha, I tried - but as I expected it was not better. The VR has limits, no matter if the shake is going everywhere or just from one to the other side. Now, If you have samples which clearly show an advantage, I'll be happy to see them. My attempts were
down to 1/25 no difference between VR with or without monopod - for that reason I just leave the monopod at home.
slower speeds were completely shaken without monopod and shaken only sidewards with monopod - but both were not acceptable.

PB_PM

nm

Gitzo

JJ_SO said;

Now Mr. Gitzo, to your ideas of about how good a QR plate treats the 1/4" thread of the camera: it's the other way round. With a solid L-Plate one has a real good chance to rip the threads out of the body. If in doubt, google " principle of the lever".

In the 12 or 14 years I've been using arca style QR plates, I have never seen, or even heard of any one "ripping the threads out" of a tripod socket on the bottom of a camera, by attaching the camera to tripods with QR plates; I HAVE however, seen more than one set of threads on camera body tripod sockets almost completely worn out, from constant, day after day, "screwing on, screwing off the camera body to the threaded stud of a tripod head, and I will have to respectfully disagree with your "idea" about an L plate exerting "leverage" on the internal threads of the socket; that would only be an issue if one were to attach the camera body to a long thin rod, having 1/4X20 threads on the end of the rod; as I'm sure you realize, the width of the average flat plate (or "L" plate also), is app. 28 to 32mm X maybe 3 or 4 inches long; with all of this surface area held in firm contact with the bottom of the camera body, I'm seriously doubtful if you could exert enough "leverage" against the mounting threads , if you were mount the camera body to the tripod, and hang a four foot long tele lens from it; ( not that many photographers with average common sense EVER use a 600mm or 800mm lens, with the camera body mounted to the tripod; if you care to hang a 70-200/ f 2.8 Zoom on YOUR camera body, then mount the BODY to the tripod, rather than "balancing the load by using the tripod collar on the lens, about all I can say is, it's your camera and your lens;
( and I would seriously suggest, in a case such as this, you would be the one suffering the effects of quite a lot of "leverage"!)

Perhaps when I have a chance, I'll mount my 105mm Micro and take a nice "close up" of the "like new" threads in the tripod socket of my F 5 film body; as you know, the F 5 is a rather large, heavy body, and mine has been on and off of my Gitzo several gazillion times over the past 14 or so years, (always with either a flat plate or an L plate attached) , and doesn't seem to be showing the slightest signs of "damage from leverage" in all that time........

Msmoto

I think the attachment of an "L" plate almost guarantees the camera tripod mount will remain in the best condition. As Gitzo stated, the wide area of support makes it almost an impossibility to damage the threads, provided the attachment process does not over tighten the bolt holding the plate to the camera.

Gitzo

"Msmoto" said: I think the attachment of an "L" plate almost guarantees the camera tripod mount will remain in the best condition. As Gitzo stated, the wide area of support makes it almost an impossibility to damage the threads, provided the attachment process does not over tighten the bolt holding the plate to the camera.

Msmoto...........you hit the nail right on the head ! That has ALWAYS been my big short coming.....I used to always try ti tighten things too tight; you can tear anything up with the leverage afforded by a "too big" ratchet drive; (that's why I finally "bit the bullet" and went to Harbor Freight and bought myself three torque wrenches; a 1/4 in, a 3/8 in and a 1/2 in. Now I take the time to use the torque wrench on everything; ( and no more stripped out threads from over-tightening.) Now I wish I had bought those torque wrenches years ago.

JJ_SO

... and I thought about asking "how could one wear out a 1/4" thread in a camera bottom plate?". Well, with a torque wrench a lot of things are possible

Just kidding. i know you don't tighten camera screws with such a wrench. Or maybe - I don't know, but I don't believe

I also went on, theoretically of course, how much a replacement of such a thread could cost, compared with the costs of a RRS L-plate and if we gear heads could manage to wear it out faster than we buy new bodies? Please, Gitzo, don't take that seriously...

Msmoto

@ Gitzo

This is a good idea...every bolt has a torque spec, and the camera manufacturer probably has one foe the tripod screw.

JJ_SO

Now you are making fun, aren't you, Msmoto?

Which camera manufacturer makes tripod screws?

Which tripod screw manufacturer delivers specs like torque moment for their screws? Even if you speak simplified chinese fluently you will have a hard time to find that out. These are made of steel, brass or aluminium, each of those material allows different force to tighten the screws made of it. And a surface treatment can change that, too.

If one uses a coin to tighten the screws with a slit made for coin sizes and you're name is not Schwarzenegger, you'll likely be on the safe side.

Msmoto

@ JJ_SO

I have friends at a place called "Automotive Fasteners" and they can supply torque specs for any screw into any nut. I use SS for most of my photo stuff, although these are very weak compared to Grade 8. But, the specs into the bottom of the camera can be used for preventing damage. It may be as low as 10 inch pounds.

adamz

@msmoto - not everyone has such friends and when we speak about the wrench strength, I just picked up my d800 from service (delivered it on friday afternoon, was ready yesterday ) and Nikon decided to change my bottom rubber free of charge - it was little bit wavy from kirk arca swiss plate... I guess I put a little bit too much force so maybe next time will just use dynamo wrench, though any suggestions about the strength I should set it for?

Juergen

@JJ_SO Using a term that Apple haters often use... "you're holding it wrong." If you hold the monopod like that you will have issues. To gain stability you need to lean it back towards your body, using your two legs and the monopod leg to form a tripod of sorts.

To fully utilize the monopod a head is required. If you just mount stuff onto the monopod and leave it square like that, you'll have stability issues.

I agree, using the monopod with a head is a must.
But leaning it against my body to gain stability, does not work for me. The harder I try to stabilize it, the more I am cramping up. I try to find a good body balance and control the field of view with my arms as loose and relaxed as possible. If that does not give me the motion blur free picture, it is tripod time.

Jürgen

Msmoto

@ adamz

A 1/4 - 20 bolt (the tripod socket) will take about 75 inch pounds for a stainless steel screw. A high quality aluminum screw about 45 inch pounds. Divide by 12 for foot pounds.

So, I would torque to about 4 foot pounds or 5.4 Newton Meters. This will be entirely adequate for a tripod screw and should not damage the camera socket.

tcole1983

I am not very certain the monopod has a lot of help in low light...maybe one f/stop, possibly, but I think VR has a big advantage over this. Now, the Manfrotto monopod I use has a three legged base and this is better at giving some stability, but not like a tripod.

I think it is near equal to VR. I have shot my 17-55 without VR using a monopod with about the same success as hand holding my VR lenses. There is still definitely a need for a tripod and there are shots that aren't going to happen without one. I haven't had a chance to test monopod + VR because my 105 is my only lens left with it and I haven't used it much with my monopod. I would suspect you might could push a 1 second exposure with VR and monopod, but that is only a guess. 1/5-1/10 seems about what I can muster handheld VR or monopod no VR.

I find it most helpful with my 300 F4 which is very hard to hold steady without VR. I like it with my 17-55 for a little longer exposures. It is more convient then a tripod to carry while hiking. But if I really think I am going to need a little longer exposure...low light, flowing water, night time shots...it is the tripod.

JJ_SO

@ adamz

A 1/4 - 20 bolt (the tripod socket) will take about 75 inch pounds for a stainless steel screw. A high quality aluminum screw about 45 inch pounds. Divide by 12 for foot pounds.

So, I would torque to about 4 foot pounds or 5.4 Newton Meters. This will be entirely adequate for a tripod screw and should not damage the camera socket.

This is no less a rule of thump than "tigthened with hand strength". There's yield strength and tensile strength, defining the stress limits of any material. Yield strength defines the force with which a material will start to deform and not going back into it's origin form after the force is reduced.
For steel, I find a range between 120 and 1050 N/mm², for Aluminium between 20 and 200 N/mm² and for brass betweeen 230 and 530 N/mm² (source: "Tabellenbuch für Metalltechnik, Verlag Handwerk und Technik, 2003"). Given this range of forces, your advice is best to be a good guess and worst the wrong advice. Maybe you find a recommendation in one of your Nikon manuals - I didn't.

Calculating the forces for a bolt joint always looks at the weakest parts. Sometimes it's the bolt made of cheap aluminium, sometimes it's the fixation of the thread socket.
I suspect the 3 tiny threads in the inner body would break sooner than the main thread they try to hold. This is a cheap Yashica FX3 body - but your advice was meant for all bodies, or did I misinterpret? So each body will be a little different. But to change this thread socket they charge less than for a QR plate of the expensive brands.

@tcole1983: It depends on the VR version, the size of camera and the focal length - but it doesn't add or multiply. Now, for some reason I wanted to know which guess comes closer to reality. At least to my reality, others may have a superior monopod technique


Tripod, 1/3 second, 4m distance, VR off, 200mm on FX but cropped


Monopod, 1/5 second, no VR


VR (of the new 70-200/4, others may result different)


VR and monopod, 1 second. As there was no improvement at 1/5 second, I tried if I could add VR and monopod - although I was sure, the limit is set by the (second) best system and not a combination of third best and second best. The second best is VR and the best a good tripod. Anybody else coming to a different conclusion - I'd be happy to see the pictures

PB_PM

Here are samples, taken with the 70-300mm VR, on a D700, which was mounted directly on a monopod. I used the Normal VR setting. Both images taken at ISO 1600, 1/5s, 200mm. Note that I used mirror lockup, both images.

Without VR...

Larger size: http://www.robdphotos.com/photos/i-L9b7rDH/0/X3/i-L9b7rDH-X3.jpg

With VR

Larger size: http://www.robdphotos.com/photos/i-rWgqRKj/0/X3/i-rWgqRKj-X3.jpg

Msmoto

@ JJ_SO

The numbers come from a standard table on SS and aluminum bolts
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/torque3.htm

The numbers I would recommend are about half the standard torque figures as a tripod mount usually has a soft base on the bottom of the camera, and is often removed and reattached. So, the bottom line is....if the figures are insufficient to hold the camera, one can tighten to the maximum listed torque.

Your point is extremely important, however, the construction of the camera base may not allow much torque...thus my recommendation at half the stated torque in the table.

I am not certain how the pressure numbers (N/mm²) relate to torque...maybe you could give the numbers in Newton meters (Nm).

JJ_SO

My point was that using VR along with a monopod was better, which you seem to have totally missed

You may be right. In your excellent examples I miss a shot with VR only. And I probably misunderstood you.
Did you mean
VR is better than a monopod (that was my conclusion after my experiments)
Or
VR and monopod are better together than VR only (that is something I could not see in my experiments)

Anyway, I'm grateful for the opportunity to get my answer to your question, thank you.

@Msmoto: I think, in general we tend to use more force than necessary, just to be on the safe side. The Nikon bottom plates usually are rubberised, so there's not a lot movement after tightening the bolt even with low force.
And I know, the torque wrenches for small forces are not so easy to use for inexperienced users in terms of accuracy. The surface of the threads and the speed used to turn the screw will influence the result a lot.

Msmoto

@ JJ_SO

I suspect we agree...don't screw it on so tightly it breaks... and, on a forum from another brand, (boom, boom), someone mentioned Locktite. And, LOCTITE® THREADLOCKER BLUE 242 can be used so long as it is not in contact with any plastic parts. An amount applied with a toothpick, about a quarter of a drop, will be adequate, and this will prevent vibration induced loosening of the bolt. This is easily disassembled as well. I would recommend this only for something like an "L" plate which will be nearly a permeant fixture on the camera.

turnthedarncranks

I have to say that I am now more confused than ever as to whether a monopod is a worthwhile investment! But I am following this thread with complete fascination.

JJ_SO

That's what we working so hard for: complete fascination Thank you, your admiring is appreciated.

I think (after this thread, before my opinion was different):
A monopod is a very good investment
for long focal lengths
or heavy equipment
or extension of your own height (bring the camera up and release with remote)*
or going down very low (bring the camera up and release with remote)*
or keeping your videos more steady
or turn the camera to track moving objects horizontally.

and of course for self-defense (now that was most probably a joke)

not so good as replacement of a tripod
less good than up-to-date VR

*together with a wireless transmitter, LiveView and a mobile screen like an iPod touch or iPad. I don't know anything about Android devices, but guess, CamRanger would work for them, too.

PB_PM

My point was that using VR along with a monopod was better, which you seem to have totally missed

You may be right. In your excellent examples I miss a shot with VR only. And I probably misunderstood you.
Did you mean
VR is better than a monopod (that was my conclusion after my experiments)
Or
VR and monopod are better together than VR only (that is something I could not see in my experiments).

I found that using using VR, while on a monopod was better than purely using a monopod. I did not test without a monopod. I doubt the VR of the 70-300 could get a remotely sharp image at 1/5s at 200mm, So I didn't even try.