I hope that the photos that you take with your new QuickPod turn out better than the one above.

For all those green screen chroma key portrait taking opportunities.

Seriously fifty dollars? I'm sure I could pay a passerby only $5 bucks and get some better pictures. Not to mention having to lug a fishing pole on my back all day for one shot.

Well, at least SLR's don't have as much of a suck problem with blurriness, because imagining someone use this with a teeny digital point and shoot, you'd never be able to get a clear photo.

@Yifkong: yeah, really underdone photoshop work there, disgusting.

I'm waiting for the first complaints when someone drops his few thousand dollar camera because of that pole.

rofl... now try to hold that heavy dSLR with tank of a lens on a stick steady enough to achieve in focus shots. Just use a tripod and remote release.

xD

Jenkies!
Those people have been SHOT with an Ugly Stick.
U G H L E E !

I'd love to see someone dare to try to hold it out with one arm on a pro-slr and $2000 lens that weighs 5 pounds. And like winkie said, keep is steady as well. Who is this product aimed for? Even light intro SLRs and DSLRs have a considerable amount of weight to them. This product does not make much sense.

This is useful because you know, tripods haven't been invented or anything.

You can hold an SLR on a stick? That's heavy dude...

Is that a smile? Or a grimace from the shoulder strain?

As a photographer AND a backpacker, I can see the value of its less expensive predecessor, as I usually bring a lightweight point & shoot or a super zoom camera when I'm operating in backpacker mode. If I do bring my DSLR into the backcountry, it's usually not with the intent of taking self portraits.

The $25 point & shoot model - kinda cool, actually useful, and fairly lightweight & compact to bring along.

The DSLR $50 model - pricier, heavier, I'd leave it behind.

So what took the picture I'm looking at? Does he have another quick pod in his left hand? That couple makes me mad.

So... it's a monopod. Great, they invented the monopod. Again. Someone stop the presses, or something. You know what, don't bother - I'm tired. Keep them bad boys running - I'll be in the storage closet on the cot.

What's riskier - using this pole to hold your SLR, or handing it to someone you don't know to take the pic?

This has to be at least the third time this thing has been on Gizmodo. I know, because every time it does, I suggest the same product name for it - the Narcissistick. 'Cause it's all about you, baby.

@hakubak: Brilliant.

Also, why is this so painfully Photoshopped together? They couldn't afford to actually go to nature to shoot the damn thing for their press images?

she's hot, he's not, this product is an English cigarette idea.

I have a hard enough time keeping my 5lb Nikon D200 setup stable when it's handheld... this is JUST what I need to extend that weight out 53" from my body.

I guess it would be a great accessory to help with my drop-test review...

I could create my own Survivor Man episode using a cradle using something like this...or I could just get a tripod, sit in the woods, and cry until daytime like he does.

This will be a much better product when you can also make it trigger the shutter to take a photo. Right now it is limited because you have to set a timer and grin like idiots till the camera snaps your picture. Needs some way to tell the camera: NOW...!

@sxs3200:

True dat.. I'd rather stick with a cheap tripod.. you can always level the shot, it seems safer (for the camera) and you'd get a better shot out of it as well.. Though I've never tried a monopod before.

This was in one of those "unuseless things" books a while ago.

"* Self-portrait camera stick - a 57-cm telescoping pole which allows young and apparently shy couples to take pictures of themselves without having to bother passing strangers. The only sacrifice is the constant appearance of the pole in every shot. "

i like still like the butter stick better
[www.angelfire.com]

"Take the Best Self-Portraits Ever!" just like this totally fake one you see here!

@Windhawk:

Most DSLRs can be shot remotely through wired or wireless RF or infrared triggers.

Photographers have been doing this for years, its basically a painters stick with a tripod head on it.

WINKIE : rofl... now try to hold that heavy dSLR with tank of a lens on a stick steady enough to achieve in focus shots.

It's not really a question of focus (focus is all about how light converges in the optical system), it's a question of blurring caused by motion.

IE, you could stick a camera on a tripod and still take out of focus shots (you'd probably have to switch to manual focus though). Point is, technically focus doesn't have anything to do with the motion of the camera.

Great -- Just what I need! A stick to carry around so I can take pictures of myself! I'm sorry, but has everyone forgotten the good ol' timer function that comes on just about every DSLR out there? Or use a remote, as above mentioned. Honestly, the only thing I would use the stick for would be to beat off people who tried to steal my DSLR. Now, if you can make it sturdy enough for that and compact, then we might have a deal here.

Sweet, I can finally get that 'blue flame' shot i always wanted.

waste of good 50

whats going to stop your hand from shaking. that's a lot of weight to hold out like that. try holding a monopod with one hand in the air.

Damn! If I knew about this, I would have never bothered to get this cumbersome Manfrotto 190XP tripod that keeps my Canon 5D rock steady for any portrait shot, when I could have just spent $50 for a stick with a cheap-assed joint on the end.

Assuming that they don't use remote shutters, and that most jackasses leave the timer to 10s, the majority of the portrait shots will be either a blurred shot of one of them rolling their eyes as the other has a bitch-grimace face because his plastic dSLR is so damn heavy when he holds it out 2 feet away, or a blurred shot of the camera falling to its demise.

Sorry, tripod wins. Portraits look best when you're not bitter over a broken camera.

@brian1cj:
@winkie:

If you're using a "tank of a lens" you're not really going to get a person in the shot from 3 or 4 feet away. A wide angle or small zoom weighs what, 500 or 600 grams?

Jeff Goldblum likes the hippie chicks.

That dude is the evil Kurgan. He's three seconds from using that QuickPod to lop off her head.

Her, "Is that a Quikpod in your pocket or are you just happy to see me.

Him, "No. It's a Quikpod."

Hey, baby. I've got something that'll grow to 18" in your hand.

Is it just me, or does that dude look like he's waaaay too much into his sister?

Do they make a longer version for use with zoom lenses?

@JESSEDYBKA:

These two "tank" lenses are excellent for portraits at three to four feet:
Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 weighs 26.6oz.
Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR weighs 27.9oz.

Ok, do they have any idea how fuckin heavy this will be? I have issues holding my 30d steady with my arm extended outward. Good idea, but it'll fail in practice. This will only work for cheap dslrs like the digital rebel xti that are small, anything higher than that has those heavy magnesium bodies.

You can pay me only $40 and I can point you to the self-timer.

Aw, crap.

Great, how does this reduce camera shake? A heavy object on the end of a long lever arm... sounds like a great recipe for blur caused by camera shake...

Hey, I KNOW! What if you balanced the end of it on a TRIPOD!!! Then you would hardly get any shake at ALL!