Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:37:53 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

I think I mentioned once that I rarely use a tripod, but frequently
use a monopod. Well, I wanted one a bit stouter than what I've been
using and just picked up one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/oey2s


I'm going to give it a tryout this weekend, but already I am
impressed with its design, quality of parts, assembly and lever
extension controls. If you want better "nature" shots and you don't
want to mess with a tripod, you might like a monopod.

Oh, and it makes one hell of a nightstick. Smack someone upside the
head with this Manfrotto and he's out for the count. Or even
permanently.

What camera?
That looks like the same mono pod I returned when I got the tripod. Hell,
the damn thing is as big as, and weighs almost as much as, a tripod. --
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


This particular monopod weighs 1.7 pounds, or about a third of what my
tripod weighs.

As for its size, well, I have a lighter, thinner monopod that works well
with my lighter, smaller cameras, but as I stated, I wanted a "stouter"
monopod. I'll be lugging it around later today to see how it works for me.

The primary purpose of a monopod or tripod is to hold the camera or lens
steady. Even with the newest carbon fiber tripods, it still takes a bit
of weight to do that. A flimsy camera support is useless.

You asked the other day "what camera" I was using. I told you. It's an M3:

http://tinyurl.com/mdjwf
Harry,
Why file vs. digital? Unless you are processing the film yourself, I
would think you can do much more with digital and photoshop than you can
with film.



--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it!