Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I wouldn’t bet on it. Not now, not ever, never!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Greater stability is greater stability.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I didn't read the article, but I can't be successful without tripod support in numerous situations:

1) Long macro lenses, where I have either 180mm or 200mm depending on the camera.
2) Long 'wild life' lenses that are too large / heavy to hand-hold for hours, such as 300mm to 500mm.
3) Many manual focus lenses on mirrorless bodies, especially the longer focal lengths above, where I need two hands to focus and shoot and need the tripod as a 'third hand' to hold the camera weight steady.

srt101fan

You say "For accurate composition a tripod is a must". I put myself in the shoes of a novice photographer reading this and scratch my head. Do you really mean you can't get an accurate composition without a tripod??...🤔

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There is no question that today's image stabilization systems are quite good. The two problems are first, that their performance is not perfect (they still has limitations), second, not all of our lenses have the latest IS systems, and third, that a large number of photographers have no clue or understanding of just what they are trading off when they choose, or alliw their cameras to choose, very high ISO values.

I don't use a tripod a lot. But when I do, I expect it to be stable, quick and easy to adjust, and stable. I no longer have my old top of the line Bogen/Manfrotto tripod. But there has been more than one occasion when I was reminded that it was a mistake to get rid of it. I will not make that mistake with my current mid-grade tripod.

Bill_de Loc: US

I never gave it much thought until reading this post. It is true that a couple of my newer, lighter lenses have allowed me to leave my tripod in the car. I can easily hand hold the 300 and 500mm PF lenses. When I want zoom, my aging body and my aging Nikkor 200-500mm prefer leaning on a tripod.

Although my AFS 800mm is only used on a tripod, the new Z 800 mm might be the incentive I need to go mirrorless. I've seen reports that it is hand holdable, but that doesn't mean I could hand hold it. Since my bank account isn't ready, I have a good amount of time to make a decision.

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have a slightly different view, somewhat influenced by my own experience as well as a recent composition discussion in a utube video. The video was emphasizing the importance of moving around, camera in hand, and not getting 'stuck' with (only) the images framed by the tripod set-up. I can see how only shooting / framing from the tripod can generate static (maybe stale) views, as in only what you can frame from the tripod set to an easy waist-level to standing view.

Here's where maybe your choices of tripod and enabling quick-release technology comes into play? For me, it's a thumb-flick of the QR lever to immediate / easily release my camera's L-plate from the tripod for that walkaround view of the area. My clamps also allow me to travel (walk / modest hiking) confidently with the tripod over the shoulder with camera / lens attached.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Image stabilization might let one get away with one or two stops for speed for hand held.
Key operator:might.
Most people will still use a tripod in order to eliminate as much camera movement as they can to begin with.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I think he answers the question in the title of his article in his summary:

"This is why tripods will maybe never become obsolete for me, even when image stabilization is able to stabilize 20 stops and when we can use ISO 50,000 without any noise. It will always be in my bag, unless I forget it, of course." Which he wrote specifically pointing to the value of a tripod in compositional fine tuning, but which can easily be expanded to include other types of photography.

The simple answer is nope.

https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/have-tripods-become-obsolete-601694

You may be in a small minority when you state that a three pound tripod is "excessive." In fact, a three pound tripod is often considered a travel tripod because it is light and small. And when carefully used with short focal lengths, can be indispensable for reducing camera movement at low shutter speeds, or allowing for partial subject movement (moving water, people/animal blurring to accentuate movement while keeping everything else crisp and sharp). But a three pounder does have some limitations - and those directly impact shooting with longer lenses or at very high magnifications.

In general use, a tripod is very helpful for macro/closeup, long lens use (landscape, wildlife etc), night sky photography, light painting, time lapse, remote operation, in studio use to preserve a particular composition when shooting different subjects (people and or product), etc etc etc. Lots of uses which stabilization and low noise/high ISO can't duplicate.

On the other hand, "ponderously heavy" is a relative term. In the big picture, it would likely be used to describe an aluminum Bogen 3051+3047 pan/tilt head - that would be about 15 lbs. Or an old Gitzo steel and aluminum Studex, or Majestic which would come in around 18 lbs or higher. Somewhere in between the 3 lb travel tripod and these old monsters are the high performance carbon fiber leg sets that come in between 4 lbs and 6 lbs most of which totally outperform the old metal stuff at a fraction of the weight, which is still far short of "ponderously heavy". If you shoot wildlife with long heavy lenses, a tripod simply makes a longer day possible when you consider physical stamina as well as stability when using longer shutter speeds. And while not completely critical with some of the newer lighter long lenses, certainly helpful especially when the shooter has strength and stability issues.

To this point, after acquiring a Sigma Sport 150-600 in hopes of being able to ditch the tripod and heavy (600mmF4) lens I was pleasantly surprised. Below, the first two images show the results of testing with hand holding at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. The cat was at a distance of about 20 ft, and a shutter speed of 1/25 sec, F8 and ISO 400. But this is a special case, since cats cat completely freeze their motion. Had it been a bird, as we way in NY - fuggedaboudit! The second image was of a young heron, taken with a tripod mounted 12mp crop camera, 600mmF4+1.4X TC, F8 1/10 sec, ISO 400. The equivalent focal length was 1260mm. Everything was static, including the bird, with only its right leg in motion. A shot like this would have been impossible, even with today's state of the art sensors and mechanical stabilization and software.

So I mostly agree with Irmler - good shots that would have required a tripod in the past can still be made without one thanks to improved tech and better software. But there are times when I know from experience that current tech cannot be considered substitute for solid support. It doesn't have to be heavy, but it shouldn't be cheap stuff that is no better, and often worse than relying on tech.

As far as your conclusion, you are certainly entitled to it. You may have a different opinion when you've been shooting over 55 yrs - but then again maybe by then we'll have cameras that can shoot at 50,000 ISO and lenses and/or bodies that can offer 20 stops of stabilization.

BTW, do you still hold on to the myth that changing focal lengths alone without changing camera to subject distance changes perspective?

.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Answer to the topic title question is No.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Sounds like most responders did not really read and think about the conclusions of the OP... I don't recall him saying tripods were dead. Computational computing is going to put egg on a lot of faces and stabilization just keeps getting better and better...You can already get up to 7.5 stops when throwing a stabilized lens on an Olympus IBIS body. A lot of street shots at dusk are now feasible where in the past they were unheard of. Change is inevitable... Wasn't that long ago that we heard " Film will never be replaced ", and then it was " DSLR will never be replaced ". Well, nothing was really replaced, we just have additional tools that help us in our endeavors... In general, heavy, bulky tripods are NOT as critical in a lot of situations as they were in the past.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

If a tripod is not feasible in certain situations, a monopod is a good alternative.
Most monopods can be collapsed to a small size that makes carrying them easy.
I have a carbon fiber and an aluminum monopod.

Will

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

My preferred walkaround set-up is an IS-enabled lens or an IBIS-enabled body. No fuss with more lenses and definitely no fuss with a tripod or monopod. These are all-day set-ups including after dark. But still, I know when the lenses and / or subjects won't work for this minimalist approach.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

I have not taken one on an overseas trip for 14-15 yrs and appreciate not having to deal with it. I find "work arounds" for those 2-3 times it would have been useful.

Bill_de Loc: US

Love it or hate it, UHH is a place where threads drift from one side of the original post to the other. The zigzag nature is what keeps UHH from getting boring. Sometimes new threads, even unrelated ones, rise from the ashes.






---