"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Rachael of Nex, the Wiccan Rat" wrote in message
...
[...]
I only use a tripod or monopod for landscapes (or very close studio
macro
work where the depth of field is paper thin), and the monopod isn't
really
worth having unless conditions are quite bright, due to the
possibilty of
side to side movement, IME. In bright conditions your basic modern
point and
shoot camera should be able to judge the shutter speed and aperture
well
enough not to get much camera shake without support anyway as more
light
means shorter shutter speed (usually, if you let the camera choose
for
you) - so less time for the dreaded camera shake to occur. If you've
got
digital of course then take as many shots as you like - some of them
are
bound to be good. It's the technique I use, anyway !

(If you wish to decide for yourself if this technique actually works
for me
or I am in fact talking total rubbish, go here
http://littleurl.com/?01k5 )

But getting down to slight side-to-side movement is already reducing
the shake to within practical limits, since plant photography usually
likes a wide aperture and hence high shutter speed. Try also a good
length of bath-plug chain with a short 1/4" Whitworth bolt on the end:
the bolt goes in the camera bush, of course, and you just stand on the
free end of the chain, and tauten.

Or, like me, you just forget to bring the camera anyway. D'oh!

Mike.

********
Mike!, We are gardening friends and we are not to quarrel over this,
but, with respect, - you have not mentioned the "depth of field^
required which is the third or fourth consideration when quickly
planning , - before the shot, - our masterpiece!.
As regards camera shake , with a unipod you have its leg at the right
length, put the camera to your eye, with each thumb stuck out backwards
and steadied against the cheekbones. The camera cannot move
any-which-way except if you sneeze! (/:^)
I never used a 33mm camera. (I have one now, of course). I used a 2-and
a-quarter-inch by three-and-a-quarter-inch Mamya Press with rear bellows
as well as at front folding camera which was hinged back to allow
straightening up of the verticals of buildings.. The other was a
5inch-by-four-inch , and also a two-and-a-quarter by two-and-a-quarter
inch Rollieflex. You can't print 16 by 20inch pictures with a 33mm
camera, - they won't blow-up sharp during processing.
We are discussing here, nearby subjects so a 33mm camera is fine.
For panoramic pictures we need at least a 300 to 400m lens to collapse
the distance otherwise all we'll see is a thin horizontal line in the
distance on the print.
Proof of this is, look at any panoramic scene through binoculars. The
distance is right up near you, - the foreground is collapsed and it
makes a lovely scene. Also the distance is raised so if there are
mountains in the background it lifts them up and makes tem much more
dominating and dramatic.
Comments stated about the digital camera's versatility is correct. There
is practically no cost to take the pictures, so you can bang away at
random.
Any road up, lets each and all of us keep on clicking the button and
enjoying ourselves as we think fit.
So! ..But getting back to growing beans and peas..........!
Keep happy!.
Doug.