Why monopod not tripod in Sport photography?

[supaxui]

Hi guys, I'm not quite sure where to address this question so I will just leave it here in the general discussion area.

I have being looking into sport photography and one question i keep on asking my self is why on earth are those people using a monopod when shooting a game? Why don't they just use a tripod and a gimbal head? The latter seems to provide better support, stability and control to the lens to get the shot.

Could it be a restriction to the venue, as in say maybe ACER arena does not allow the use of tripods even for professional sport photographers?

Thanks guys

Jason

[JJM]

Not that I use either for sports but the first thing that comes to mind is tripping over the legs of a tripod when panning and for speed of mobility when having to change positions quick.

[yummymummy]

answer, have you ever had to run the sideline at a footy game with a tripod?? :-/ it's not fun, monopods are easier to collapse, and easier to move around with.

[ricktas]

^^ and you can go from head height to ground level in an instant with a monopod, every tried adjusting the height of a tripod to get down low cause the ball is about 5 feet in front of you, on the ground, in a scrum? Getting down to ground level could be the best photo you got all day.

Basically using a monopod allowed you more freedom than a tripod does, to quickly move to a new location, change height, angle etc.

[supaxui]

Ah thanks guys. I never thought sport photographers moved that much. It would make sense to use a monopod then.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[yummymummy]

yes.. yes we do. At any footy game, you're probably going to do on average, 9 or 10 laps of the field... ( at least that's what I did when I shot the reds and the QRL at Suncorp Stadium)

[Warbler]

And, if 400's weighed less than a kilo, most sports togs wouldn't use a mono either. :lol:

[supaxui]

yes.. yes we do. At any footy game, you're probably going to do on average, 9 or 10 laps of the field... ( at least that's what I did when I shot the reds and the QRL at Suncorp Stadium)

Wow that's quite a lot of exercise, especially when carrying all that gear. On a seperate note, if I'm using a 120-300 2.8, Is a second body with 70-200 necessary?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[yummymummy]

well you'll want something for when they come in closer, I use my 70-200 with the 1.4x tc on, and on the other body I have the 24-70 2.8 ... you just never know when they're gonna come infor a try right in front of you. ;)

[supaxui]

well you'll want something for when they come in closer, I use my 70-200 with the 1.4x tc on, and on the other body I have the 24-70 2.8 ... you just never know when they're gonna come infor a try right in front of you. ;)

H'm… maybe I just get a D7100 and use the 120-300 on that, and the 24-70 on the d600. That should cover the range XD. A lot cheaper than getting another full frame body

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[kiwi]

Safety is a big concern - you can't quickly get a tripod out of the way