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.

Harry,
I just got back from the lake, and even with VR and have found a monopod
can be nice when you are holding the camera waiting for a shot. I have
purchased a nice, but very heavy lens, a 70-200mm f2.8 VR Nikkor. I
have been using a treking pole that converts to a monopod (sort of
double double pole). I don't really think I get a sharper picture, or
less blur with the trekking pole/ monopod, unless I have really slowed
the shutter speed way down below 1/30 at 200mm, but it does make it
easier to hold and wait for the shot without my arms feeling like they
are going to fall off.

If I continue to use the trekking pole as my substitute monopod, I think
this will upgrade and this will be real monopod, because it does allow
for a quick 45 degree flip. They guy at the photo store was
recommending I just go ahead and get this lightweight tripod

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/291400067.htm

It folds up nice and small and is very lightweight. Before I spend
$260, I really need to figure out if I will actually use a tripod. His
logic of using the tripod is I could open one leg, use it as mono if I
needed it, and still have the flexibility of using a tripod if I needed
it. It would fit easily in the back pack with my camera and lens.

--
Reggie

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