Tripods vs Monopod

[wideopen]

I like to take a lot of different photos, sports, flowers, family, architecture, etc... I was wondering what the benefits of each a monopod and a tripod are? I am unsure of which one would help me more. A friend suggested I get a nice tripod, but then I have read that some people like a monopod better. Can anyone here spread some light on this for me?

[Adaptive]

Monopod is more for if you need to shoot and move quickly. Great for sports and using with heavier lenses and cameras so you don't have to stand around holding a 10 pound camera up to your face for many hours.
But you can not let go of your camera while it is on a monopod or obviously it will fall to the ground.

Tripod is not soo useful if you are shooting sports because tripods are more stationary.
Sure you could easily move around with a tripod but it is more cumbersome with the 3 long legs that you have to worry about tripping over.
Also you can't exactly set up a tripod in the bleachers as easily as you could a monopod.
Tripods are great because you can set your camera up and walk away.

Tripods are also great for long exposure shots where you don't want your camera to shake or move. (could not do this with monopod)
Tripods are great for macro photoraphy & landscape & archatecture & night photography.
Monopods are really only good for sports, I use my monopod as a portable boom arm, by attaching a strobe to it and having an assistant walk around with it.
Tripods can be turned into a monopod if you put all of the legs together instead of opening them up, but this is heavier than a dedicated monopod.
Monopod can not be turned into a tripod. But actually there is a fairly new monopod that can turn into a tripod, but the tripod feet are tiny and not really that safe.

Some good info I found on the subject
-----------------------------------------------
"What you should get largely depends on your needs and preferences.
A tripod is for shoots and locales where you need the absolute steadiest camera and the immobility of the tripod isn't a problem.
Monopods are used where you need more control than handheld, but need more portability than a tripod allows.
Many sport venues prohibit tripods on the sidelines. Justifiably so, because stationary tripods can pose a physical hazard to the athletes.
Monopods are also useful when you could otherwise handhold the shot but have a camera-lens combination that's too heavy to comfortably handhold all day long.
If you go with a monopod, don't skimp. Get the beefiest monopod you can reasonably afford. If you get a monopod that's merely sufficient to hold the basic camera and 50mm lens, you might find the stand is too wimpy to hold the camera and a fat telephoto and a flash unit PLUS the downward pressure you exert on the whole assembly to steady the shot. If you go with a monopod, try to get a really good ballhead mounting. You'll seriously limit yourself if you just mount your camera onto the flat top of the monopod. The ballhead will enable you to lock your camera into odd angles yet still maintain camera stability."

Hand Held
Pros- When you have to move a lot and you have enough light to work with, change angles fast easy.
Cons- Not good in low light, long exposures or long telephoto shots, run in to camera shake.

Monopods
Pros- Photography that needs a little more stable than Hand Held, great for sports where you have to move but still need long telephoto shots.
Cons- Monopods don't stand up by themselves. can't move quite as easy as hand held.

Tripods
Pros- Rock solid for low light, long exposure, telephoto shots. Great for fixed photo area, like portraits. Stand by themselves, good for remote shutters.
Cons-Harder to move around than above. extra weight.

Now for which is best. It all depends on all of the above. Most people do all of them at one point.
I have a tripod that when I need rock solid support it is there, If I need a Monopod style I put the legs together it's not the same but I don't have to carry both types, and I only had to buy one item a good tripod.

[Walkabout]

as adaptive wrote, both have their place...do yourself a favour and buy both. If you can afford a good tripod with a ballhead or pistol grip, you can certainly afford a simple monopod as well.

[Cbreaux]

I shoot mostly nature and wildlife. The monopod is great for hiking and shooting wildlife because you can move quickly to compose and to follow the animal. I find tripod are good when you want the long exposures for sunrise and sunset. I agree with Walkabout, get both. For shooting sports, if you are on the field I think a good tripod with a gimbal head (pretty expensive) would be great.

[Fibonacci]

I agree with the consensus here; you need both. They are two different tools with two different purposes and a good arsenal will have both.

[SNAPaPHOTO]

Adaptive answered this quite well, the only thing I would add is get the same head for the monopod and the tripod. So you can use the same quick release and move your camera back and forth. Manfrotto has a series of heads that use the same plates so if you want a ball head on one or a pistol one one you can use the same quick release plate. I am sure others have this as well.

[Richard A Busch]

Each does have a place in the world. The newer carbon fiber are very light weight like a Mono yet very strong. There is a new Tri out that works like a tent pole. It has the bungie string in it and snaps together and breaks down very small. It is only for light weights like a DSLR's w/ standard lens. So it would never work w/ my Sigma Bigma 50-500.

Richard

[Muskogeeradtech]

I have both but I just bought a Trec-pod it is a monopod with the last section able to open up into three legs so it can also be a tripod. It is not quite as good as a tripod but for wildlife and sports it is a great device plus it can be used as a walking stick. While it is semi expensive around $200 I find it very useful. Most of my shooting is of wildlife. Hope that this helpsl