Mountain King Trekking poles

[Nomad]

Thought my rant elsewhere might make this thread spark back up.

Hadn't seen it before.

My current camera is a Canon 650d with a 17-85mm IS lense on the front.

Is that what you expect to be using? I make that combo 1050g...

Body: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_650D/#p-specification21
Lens: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/EF-S/EF-S_17-85mm_f4-5.6_IS_USM/

I am after a monopod, so that I can stabilise the camera when taking shots. It's not for massive long exposures, it's not for taking self portraits, it's just so I can stick the camera on it to take some weight and make things steadier when taking that little bit longer exposure than my hand holding alone would allow.

Okay. Camera level only, or is there a need for tilt?

Hence asking about the mountain king poles.

I currently hike with a pair of Mckinley Evolution Lite AS poles, which as a trekking pole are great and have served me very well since I got them 3-4 years ago. A friend uses Mountain King poles for hiking and rates them highly, I just wanted to know if anyone had used the mountain king expedition photo pole.

I can't comment on trekking poles for use as a monopod because I've never used them. I do wonder, though, if they are long enough. When I went shopping for a monopod ages ago, one requirement was that it could hold the camera above eye level. That way, I can be reasonably sure of getting it to eye level if the ground in front of me is lower than where my feet are. (For anything, else, I can extend the monopod less.) I went with one of these, for what it's worth...

https://www.calphoto.co.uk/product/calumet-7104-5-section-monopod/CK7104/

Very good build quality (little real difference between that and my Manfrotto 110PROB legs).

Anyway, adding another stick is probably not what you want to do. If I were going the adaptable walking pole route, I'd give serious consideration to the height aspect - stooping is uncomfortable and reduces stability. The Mountain King web site says the Expedition Photo is 135cm, but not what height it is when used as a monopod (is the handle screwed onto the end, or does it wrap over the end?). 135cm would be too short for me, but might suit you. If the height reduces when the handle is removed, it might go down to 120cm or so. Add about 10cm to get to the camera viewfinder, and work out if it will fit. Bear in mind that some of the tip will likely disappear into the ground.

Strength-wise, I find it hard to see why it couldn't hold up a camera if just being used for steadying with the hands still around it. If use of walking poles means that much of the weight of the walker's arms hangs down on them with every pace (or is it every second pace?), then a static load of 1-2kg applied by a camera should be fine. To put it another way, I wouldn't expect the typical monopod to last as long as a walking pole if it was used as a walking pole.

If it goes high enough, and if it works - and lasts - well as a walking pole, then I don't see a problem using it as a monopod. If I wanted to use one, and it wasn't tall enough, I'd be making an adapter.


ADDENDUM: Judging from the photos of the Expedition Photo and Expedition Photo Partner (comparing where the decals are), it looks like the Photo has a hollow handle, so its length as a monopod is probably 133cm or thereabouts.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Is that what you expect to be using? I make that combo 1050g...

Body: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_650D/#p-specification21
Lens: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/EF-S/EF-S_17-85mm_f4-5.6_IS_USM/

That is about right.

I also have a 1.7KG sigma lense I sometimes use, but for lightweight travel it stays at home.

Okay. Camera level only, or is there a need for tilt?

Just camera level. If needed I can add a ball head to it, I've found a couple that are sub 100g that would do the job just fine.

I can't comment on trekking poles for use as a monopod because I've never used them. I do wonder, though, if they are long enough. When I went shopping for a monopod ages ago, one requirement was that it could hold the camera above eye level. That way, I can be reasonably sure of getting it to eye level if the ground in front of me is lower than where my feet are. (For anything, else, I can extend the monopod less.) I went with one of these, for what it's worth...

https://www.calphoto.co.uk/product/calumet-7104-5-section-monopod/CK7104/

Very good build quality (little real difference between that and my Manfrotto 110PROB legs).

Alas, that is 500g. The advantage of the walking pole, is I am carrying a walking pole anyway, so it becomes a multiuse item, and effectively adds nothing to the weight. I have a big monopod, but I leave it at home as it's so heavy.

I envisage that if I am taking a photo with this pole I will be sat down, with the camera at eye level to take shots. Nice and simple.

Anyway, adding another stick is probably not what you want to do. If I were going the adaptable walking pole route, I'd give serious consideration to the height aspect - stooping is uncomfortable and reduces stability. The Mountain King web site says the Expedition Photo is 135cm, but not what height it is when used as a monopod (is the handle screwed onto the end, or does it wrap over the end?). 135cm would be too short for me, but might suit you. If the height reduces when the handle is removed, it might go down to 120cm or so. Add about 10cm to get to the camera viewfinder, and work out if it will fit. Bear in mind that some of the tip will likely disappear into the ground.

Yep, it's only really going to be sensible when used sitting. It's never going to be an ideal solution, just a compromise that is better than nothing.

Strength-wise, I find it hard to see why it couldn't hold up a camera if just being used for steadying with the hands still around it. If use of walking poles means that much of the weight of the walker's arms hangs down on them with every pace (or is it every second pace?), then a static load of 1-2kg applied by a camera should be fine. To put it another way, I wouldn't expect the typical monopod to last as long as a walking pole if it was used as a walking pole.

If it goes high enough, and if it works - and lasts - well as a walking pole, then I don't see a problem using it as a monopod. If I wanted to use one, and it wasn't tall enough, I'd be making an adapter.

Aye. That pretty much sums it up nicely.

Thank you.

Julia

 

[Globetrotter.uk]

I've got a mountain king one which I keep at my in-laws in the lakes. Got it free from country walking yonks ago. Still ok, but I only use it a few times

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

 

[Nomad]

I envisage that if I am taking a photo with this pole I will be sat down, with the camera at eye level to take shots. Nice and simple.

Watch out for minimum height. If sitting bum on the ground, 66cm (64 without handle?) would be marginal for me if on hard ground that I couldn't push the spiky bit into.

Yep, it's only really going to be sensible when used sitting. It's never going to be an ideal solution, just a compromise that is better than nothing.

I wouldn't discount being able to use it standing. If nothing else, it lets you see over things, gives you more foreground composition options, and keeps the bum dry. Also better for leaning against things for extra steadying than when sitting. What's your eye level when standing in boots?

 

[Graveworm]

I've got the add on for my Leki Poles and it works Ok with a DSLR and just fine with a compact. Advantage for me is that I had the poles then got the adaptor and when not in use the poles are the same. The disadvantage is it is a lot of money for not a lot and is still a bit fiddly to use.

 

[muffinski]

I have been using the mountain king super trekker for a couple of years and they are still going strong. The foam padding runs below the normal handle place which means you dont always have to adjust the lenght when going up hill etc, a very useful feature, british made good price, go for it!