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

I agree with your thought that tripods slow you down because of its cumbersome nature. But I don't see that as a negative. In my case, it makes me shoot like the old days - whether with a field and view camera plus maybe about a dozen two-sided film holders, (very limited, by today's standards) that would let me take 24 pictures. So I I took pictures like EVERY shot counted. I had to nail the exposure (bracketing was expensive), and the composition simiarly had to be very thoughtfully executed.

When shooting sports or wildlife, stabilization ceases to be effective at the shutter speeds required to stop the action and minimize subject motion blur. Most of the time the sampling frequency of the OS system tops out at around 1/1000 sec, making the shortest shutter speed where it can be effective about 1/500. Shooting at faster shutter speeds often results in blurred images. It's explained in the link below.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/08/19/stabilisation-is-good-but-only-up-to-a-point/

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

😁😁😁

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

My own use for a tripod is to take photos of the grandkids.... with the remote cable also attached to the camera.
As soon as the kids see me put the camera to my face, they start mis-behaving, pulling faces, etc.
With the camera on a tripod and pointed at their playing area (e.g. trampoline) and the remote control in my, they don't realize I can still take photos, but their fooling around has stopped and I get photos with their "natural" faces!

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I feel it depends on the "shooter & shooting situation" - time lapse, very slow shutter situations, photogos capabilities/physical impairements, steadiness, subject matter, etc. etc... While I do have several, I seldom use them for my particular shooting style, but when sitting in a blind, or perched somewhere trying to get an elusive shot, holding the camera for long periods/big lens, etc. etc., they are much more necessary. There are just many situations that would exceed the capabilities of the best vibration control. Now, when I was much younger, the current stabilization equipment may have made me feel i could throw away the tripod/monopod.......maybe...my $.02

ELNikkor

My most used tripod is a handy little Slik, (yes, Slik!). It had a worthless extending center-post and head on it when I bought it, so I took them out and chucked them. What I got it for was the clip-lock leg extensions, and solid, but light-weight legs. To replace the wobbly center-post and jiggly head, I jerry-rigged a $25 ball head that will even hold my 300mm f2.8 Nikkor. It only maxes out at 3 feet tall, but holds all my camera/lens combinations when I need it to, and has lasted many years. If I ever need more height, there's always my faithful (heavy!) Leitz Tiltall...

sirvive Loc: South Louisiana

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I still and even more use tripod with heavier longer lenses due to my arthritis. Also I use a tripod for nearly all my macro photography and is a requirement for focus stacking. Also it is virtually impossible not to use a tripod for one of my 4x5" film view cameras.

clemente21

Aside of the technical reasons to make a photo, I've always said that the tripod serves a purely selfish motive. I'd like to be in the pictures too! It is also handy for self-defense: the tripod in one hand and a flash set to full power on the other.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Interesting info on sampling frequency of OS system... never really gave it a thought. thanks for mentioning and link.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...it makes me shoot like the old days... ...I took pictures like EVERY shot counted..." Gene this remains as the "Gold Standard" when the client (or their rep) is reviewing captures in "real-time". You know fully well, they are not going to be happy scrolling through dozens of captures to correct an illumination and/or composition anomaly. Spray & Pray is the "Hallmark of Hobbyist". One's credibility and perceived worth as an accomplished professional is quickly shattered by lack of finesse behind the lens.

Also your inference that "...shortest shutter speed where it (Optical Stabilization) can be effective about 1/500..." is really lens specific. Case in point: Nikon's infamous Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens was initially plagued with serious VR issues when shooting at around 1/125 or lower shutter speeds on D8xx cameras. Steve Perry did a lengthy analysis (with documentation) of this issue.

Initially Nikon denied this issue... However in the face of mounting criticism they had to release a software patch.
Here is Nikon's "Official" explanation...
https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000028600&configured=1&lang=en_SG

Another Nikkor plagued with vibration anomalies is the highly popular AF-S 300 mm f/4 ED-IF Nikkor...
Like the infamous Chevy Corvair "Unsafe at Any Speed" where a design flaw caused the issue....it's design relied on an unusually high front to rear pressure differential (15psi front, 26psi rear). Inflating all four tires equally caused massive over-steer i.e. spin out which proved deadly on way too many crashes.

The AF-S 300 mm f/4 ED-IF Nikkor likewise becomes unusable when on a tripod at SS lower than 1/125 the problem being with a flaw in the structural integrity of it's mechanical design (it allows for unacceptable "flexing" of the Tripod Foot which results in a harmonic vibration (much like a musical string instruments octave harmonics)).

Bjørn Rørslett (a highly respected commercial photographer) details this issue here..
http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_test_images.html

Bjørn also later noted that Nikon redesigned the foot which virtually has eliminated this issue on newer units but did not recall the older flawed units (buyer beware).

Fortunately I have the previous AF version and it's tripod foot is absolutely stellar as are it's optics.
Best advice? Maybe consider the AF version over the AF-S of the 300mm ED Nikkor version...

Oh, below is a gifted ballerina at 1/2500 sans VR... Yep, like you mentioned Gene OS, IS and VR are totally irrelevant for Action Sports and Fashion Editors involving player/model motion.

Again thank you for sharing your wisdom here Gene... UHH is a much better place with you on board...
Cheers! Thomas

A gifted ballerina at 1/2500 sans VR

(Download)

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

Newer tech and lighter internals have slowly increased the maximum shutter speed, but it is still not fast enough to stop a hummingbird's wings AND have stabilization.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

At my age a tripod or monopod is mandatory, nuff said.

photoman43

I agree. I have been using a camera to take pictures since 1955. Now, like then, I took pictures with a tripod and without. I never used a really heavy tripod as I was not using a heavy view camera, just a 35mm or a 2 1/4 film camera. To get the best out of every pixel in your sensor, sometimes a tripod is needed--better composition, lower ISO, and no camera movement, lower shutter speed. For applications that do not require the "best pixel" use what is needed and that might mean no tripod.

billt1970 Loc: Gambrills, Maryland

Well, a tripod is NOT an option in my business as a real estate photographer!

High Dynamic Range (HDR) shooting for real estate is a staple. I usually shoot HDR with 5 images, then blend them to get the best balance between interior and exterior lighting, emulating what our brain synthesizes from what our eyes see. I can't imagine doing this without a sturdy (not necessarily heavy) tripod.

Also, I'm a Google Certified Trusted Independent Photographer shooting 360 panoramas to "See Inside" businesses. While there are single shot 360 cameras out there (and I have and use the Ricoh Theta V), most of my serious work is done with a DSLR (D7100) or mirrorless camera (Z7) mounting a Sigma 8mm fisheye lens.

For each 360 scene you shoot four (4) sets of HDR3 or HDR5 images rotating in four quadrants. The HDR images are then blended and synthesized into a single 360 degree photosphere. I can't imagine how you would do that without a sturdy (not necessarily heavy) tripod. I use a Manfrotto 190 series carbon fiber tripod with an Acratech Spherical Panoramic Head.

As an example, my best shoot ever was last November 30th, 2021 where I was privileged to be the second photographer on a 2-man team photographing White House Christmas Decorations for Google.

[NOTE: For some reason the link string below will not copy and paste as a link. Please copy the entire string and then paste it into your favorite browser.]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8976581,-77.035558,2a,75y,265.3h,91.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUS7BLWSDEboAAARNuhgnoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?

After clicking on this link click on the arrow in the center to walk down the hallway of the East Wing and look left and right to enter the rooms beautifully decorated for Christmas. The White House is a national treasure. Enjoy!

The bottom line is that a tripod is not necessary for everything, BUT, for some specialized work, as described above, it is an absolute necessity.

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

Thanks for the kind words!

The various versions of the 300mm lenses, both the F4 and at least one of the F2.8 - was plagued by poor tripod collars. As was the 80-200 F2.8 AF-D. But the tripod mounted lenses that were used between 1/60 and 1/200 probably vibrated due to shutter shock - which Rørslett did not address. Good long lens technique - draping the left arm on the lens and lightly pressing your forehead against the rear of the camera really minimized the low amplitude/high frequency vibration that was typical when those lenses were mounted using their collars. I suspect the F4 VR version could be made useable with a slight adjustment in technique.

There was more to the air pressure issue that caused rollovers in the Corvair. Oversteer was controllable as long as it was anticipated - as is evidenced by the very popular drifting competitions, or anyone who ever drove an early Porsche. The bigger issue with the Corvair was the use of a simple swing drive axle, and no sway bar in the front - which did not adjust camber on cornering. The result was that the tires would break their bead and deflate in the front, and the rear tires would "tuck under". This was also a common issue with VW Beetles. Later versions of each of these cars had better rear suspensions that had CV or universal joints at the transaxle and the wheel, so that camber remained constant, avoiding the tuck-under.