Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

I agree. I use mine for weight, not shake. I do get more stability however, but I don’t use it for long exposures. That’s the job for a tripod.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Pretty impressive flexibility. I had envisioned rigid 3 legs. I admit that ive never tried it, but constantly adjusting heads and legs seem unlikely to work for a sports shooter. I do understand the appeal of the “gimbal” like head for birds and I actually have one (Wimberley) mounted on my stick , but for sports where up and down movement of the lens plane is rather small, more times than not i lock the head and just rock the stick forward and back.


For birding, if im using the stick instead of tripod, i do use the up down motion in the head, but still don’t see three tiny feet working better than one. But would never disagree with others who have used it and love it.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

I think personal style and desire comes into play here. The three feet gives a bit more safety, while it won’t hold my Z9 and 400 2.8 TC upright on its own, I can lean on it a bit and it stabilizes me and the camera. The three foot bottom piece does act as a table top tripod that is stable enough. I used it the other day for an in camera focus shift of 40 shots with my camera attached to it with my RRS ball head. Worked like a charm the quick releases on top and bottom make configuring it very quick and easy.

I know, I sound like a commercial. I’m not on Sirui payroll and I have no affiliation. I am just very impressed with their products.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

While I've used both tripods and monopods, personally I wouldn't waste the money and the space on adding 'feet' to the monopod. After all, unless it allowed the monopod to stand on its own, with an attached camera without tipping over, what's the purpose? Now I've seen people have these 'feet' on a cane, but in those cases, this actually does allow the cane to be free-standing, which would be convenient when setting down somewhere, but I can't see how that would be of any value with a monopod. If you need your rig to stand on its own, use a tripod.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Interesting discussion. At the end of the day, we use what works for us. Regretably, too many members here refuse to accept that their opinion is NOT the gospel. Like “filter/non filter” nonsense.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

A beautiful set depicting Mission Control at your place

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Thank you to all who tried to help. Here is an update.

1. My monopod, it turns out, does not have a common bolt thread on the point. Rather, it has, from Sirui, a proprietary kit that includes an adapter and a sturdy looking tripod that can double as a tabletop tripod. One of you showed pictures of the same thing but on a different model. So I if I want to add a 3 footed adapter I have to spend about twice as much money. The large, flat, circular foot looked interesting, too, but it would not work on my gear. That's a shame.

2. All who point out that a monopod with feet is not a tripod and should not be used that way are correct. Obvious, but true. I have a tripod - two or three, actually - but carrying them around and getting them in and out of the car and then quickly setting up is not what I want right now.

3. When shooting birds, even in good sunshine, I use F8 for DOF and, besides, that is all my reflex lens offers. For the obvious reasons, I use at least 1/000 shutter speed. That means that I'm at ISO 200 already. I am thus already in the corner of the envelope. I'm simply not as steady as I was when young. I use trees, railing, car windows, etc. when available. But the monopod could offer another method. Another stop of shutter speed would help but can introduce noise in the image. I've experimented with this and found that sharpness is reduced from 1/000 to 1/2000 for that reason.

4. My 500 mm reflex lens offers AF and is very sharp. But it doesn't have any image stabilization of its own. My camera, a Sony 𝜶6500 has in-body stabilization but that's much less effective than when the lens also has it. When I rented a Tamron 150-500 the net effect was greater stability. But I haven't made up my mind to spend $1400 quite yet.

4. When shooting with a monopod some axes of motion (such as vertical) are stopped or steadied but some aren't. For example, yaw (left-right motion) is not affected. With a foot such as a little tripod device and a friction-set ball, more of the possible motions are either eliminated or slowed. Pitch is another that can be better. Some of you agree and some of you don't. I lean toward increased resistance to camera motion. The physics and geometry are easy. Real life is sometimes more complicated. At an equivalent of 750 mm, even the tiniest motions are detrimental to sharpness.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

Haha! Thank you. You should see some of my other stuff! I do love my gear.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

It might be cheaper to buy the monopod that comes with the feet and the quick release head. The aluminum version is $89. The carbon fiber one is $179.

https://store.sirui.com/collections/am-compact-series-monopods/products/sirui-am-404fl-3-in-1-with-qr-system-monopod

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

I was thinking that exact same thing.
To me, it makes no sense to have more than one foot on a monopod.
When I want to use a monopod, I use my monopod. And when I need to use my tripod, that's what I use.

What do you call a monopod that has three feet anyway? A tripod?

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

Excellent suggestion.

paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand

I agree 100%, and that is exactly what I use my monopod for.

My Tamron 150-60mm is a big heavy beast, so unless I am shooting with it from down low on the ground (which I do do) then I prop my gear onto my monopod (monopod with 'one' leg, plus my two legs) to take action shots of moving cars, sports and wildlife, etc.
For anything else, and when I need stability (such as for long exposures, portraits, and macro), then I use my tripod.

To want three legs on a monopod simply makes no sense at all to me.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I already have the carbon fiber monopod so the economics favor the attachment. But thanks for the suggestion.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Those who say it makes no sense to them to add feet to a monopod will not be persuaded. I am OK with that.

However, the freedom of motion with a monopod that has a friction-adjustable ball joint at the bottom and then three feet beats a tripod's. That should be obvious.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the slimmer dimensions or the lower weight. I'm talking about being able to aid the camera while still having some support and some steadying forces.