And cost you a little more time clappping it all together. You might want the 484RC2 head for quick release to carry the camera and stick seperately, though it will make it all a bit little longer and a bit more top heavy. The 676B certainly doesn't wobble and has a very small amount of flex which I like. Some people prefer overkill, while some don't want to kill themselves lugging stuff around (me!). Perhaps CDS could tell you better in that he has a lot of experience. Practically, with the lens cantilevered out there, I don't know how well it will hold or how much you will have to crank the ball tight.
I hope someone finds this information useful. If you can't accept that risk, there's always the IS lens. My suggestion is to shoot a lot of frames to cover yourself. For portraits, you run the risk that when the perfect expression finally comes along, you aren't as steady as you need to be. The monopod should be most useful for scenics, since taking multiple shots to cover the occasionally mushy frame is easy for those. When taking portraits of adults, the wonderfully easy to use adapter will come in handy with the tripod. For photographing small children when they are running and playing-when setting up a tripod is useless-this is just what I needed. Also, it beats the price of getting the $1600 IS lens, which is quite a bit heavier. You really should have a monopod anyway if you have long lenses, and the tripod adapter for this lens is really terrific. Is it worth the just over $200 cost of the monopod and tripod/monopod ring combination? For me, the answer is yes. My conclusions are that even a beginning monopod user can consistently get about a one stop improvement using the monopod, and that with practice, an experienced user can likely do better (I'll continue testing as I improve and let you know). At speeds above 1/80, the results were even more encouraging.
With the monopod, I was able to get more than half of the shots acceptably sharp at 1/80, according to the EXIF information. Below that the results were more mixed, with some mushy throw aways, especially when zoomed out to 200mm (320mm equivalent on a 35mm camera). Without the monopod, shooting at 1/250 gave me consistently good results no matter what focal length I had the lens set. Note that how slow you can go will always be dependent on technique, so there should be differences among individuals, and results should improve with practice. I've run some very simple tests and now have data to pass along. Specifically, I was hoping someone could tell me how many steps slower I could go on the shutter speed by using my new 70-200/4L with the tripod adapter and a monopod. Some time ago I posted a message asking about people's experiences using a monopod.
0 kommentar(er)
