MDI Mainer

Christian Irmler, an Austrian landscape photographer and painter has written a thought-provoking piece for Fstoppers in which he argues that the current state-of-the-art in image stabilization and sensor performance at high ISOs may have made tripods obsolete. Fstoppers is an online community and resource which reaches 1.5 million photographers each month.

As he provocatively put it a tripod may have "become a relic from a time with poor technology." (He does acknowledge that a tripod is still necessary for focus stacking and can serve as a useful aid to thoughtful composition.)

Given the frequent (some might go so far as to say obsessive) discussion of tripods on UHH (to which I will plead guilty to some degree) I think the question merits further dialog.

My personal conclusion is that ponderously heavy, stable (and expensive tripods) are no longer the critical tool they once were, and that the still-useful functions of a tripod can be fulfilled by lighter and more portable gear.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't believe that high ISO sensor performance is so good now that using a tripod allowing low ISO still will result in better image quality.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I have never been a fan of "ponderously heavy" tripods. However, for my own landscape work I routinely carry a highly capable, steady, heavy duty tripod and head weighing a total of 6 pounds. There is no way i could match the quality and low noise by handholding. There are many instances where operating without produces acceptable results. Recent high resolution bodies and sharper lenses accentuate this divide.

MDI Mainer

I guess I would consider anything over three pounds excessive (including a ball head, more of course with a gimbal).

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Ask Gene about the utility of a 3 pound tripod.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

My opinion: Tripods may not be as critical as they once were, but they are far from obsolete

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

Tripod still have a function for studio work or for long exposures and other specialized uses. But for me as a travel photographer, tripods in fact are obsolete. I am currently in Portugal where I am doing a lot of hand-held shots of dark church interiors, while my tripods languish in a closet at home.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I respect Mr. Irmler's statements about tripods but I do not share his opinion. Although IBIS and in lenses IS have been great advances in technology a tripod is still of great help for super steady shots using proper tripod techniques, and for composition.
It is true that in the past heavy cameras and lenses, without modern technologies, required using a tripod specially true under low light conditions. When shooting macro, where depth of field is so limited a tripod makes the difference specially for composition. I have never used focus stacking so I will not make any comments about this tripod application.

Heavy tripods are most useful for studio work. For the casual and landscape photographer and as per my experience, a heavy tripod is not a necessity. When traveling a light tripod is most convenient. I use a cheap Dolica aluminum tripod that has given me excellent results even when using my dSLR cameras and heavy lenses. Today it is my most useful tripod. I hardly touch my Gitzo or the Manfrotto except when I shoot not far from home and that is still unusual. A lighter tripod is convenient and as I said, if proper tripod techniques are used that tripod is steady enough.

For accurate composition a tripod is a must.

Zooman 1

Simple, use one if you want, don't use one if you do not. No need to defend either way.

Zooman 1

Simple, use one if you want, don't use one if you do not. No need to defend either way.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

I have a nice aluminum tripod and a nice carbon fiber tripod. I don't use either very much, but I have them if needed. I think they are still essential in certain situations.

Will

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I agree completely. My most used tripod is small, and light...I would have considered it flimsy 5 years ago.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Nothing will replace the tripod for everyone!!!
I have a light weight well made (for me) tripod I use for landscapes and my D800 I will NOT leave this setup unattended!!!!
But I prefer my Gitzo GT5561 sgt carbon fiber, I use it with My D810 + 200mm macro and/or 150-600 Sigma Sport
It is heavy & sturdy, very stable ( not low cost) but will stand in anything short of a gale or hurricane. I am 82 yrs old and yes this setup is getting heavier,But I can't see this tripod being replaced by a lighter unit.
And damned sure not by a 6k camera

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Your personal conclusion eliminates photographers who need platforms able to open shutters for extended amounts of time. When expounding exclusion you open yourself to criticism you never expected. You do not like tripods? Your choice. Do not expect many serious shooters to flock to your philosophy.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I would routinely use a tripod for all portraits and groups in wedding photography with my Hasselblad system. It was always slow and cumbersome, but necessary while using 100-400 speed film since I usually dragged the shutter to pick up ambient light. When digital came around dragging the shutter introduced color temperature issues that film was more forgiving with. But I still used one outside of the studio since low ISO’s were needed most of the time. Today I use a tripod for real estate mostly since I need precise leveling of the camera, and for multiple exposures and masking. But for everything else I totally agree. The need for a tripod has diminished for my line of work.