are Tri-pods an endangered speices?

I was at a friend's house the other day, and he told me that he never uses his tri-pods anymore. He is a professional photographer, and does verry well at it, which is why I was suprised to hear that from him. He told me that he uses Lightroom to correct the horizon rather than mess with a tri-pod. Has anyone here stopped using a tri-pod for the same reason?

Even if there would be software that would correct camera shake 100% foolproof (and please don't start about SR.....)I still would use my tripod. It slows me down, and makes me think again before I press the button. Sorry......Old school, you know.

Martin.

I nearly always use a tripod I think it good practice to use one.

Sandy

I use one as a tool when required. I don't think it makes me think any harder just delivers sharper pictures - and I certainly forget how easily camera shake creeps in.

I also have a monopod which I should use more, well actually I have two

Mike

i use a tripod for all my landscape shots, and if possible, more situations. Being new this slows me down,rather than firing away,and expecting/hoping for one good shot from a batch!!!

But what does it slow you down to do? I find that once the tripod is in place I can feel some resistance to moving it, especially the Benbo. But I do agree that for landscapes the added stability can be very valuable.

Mike

Don't understand that a photographer would not use a tripod, it's not about horizens you can use a tripod and still need that handy Lightroom tool - it is just that no normal person can hold a camera still for more than approx 1/125 sec. so if you need a shot that takes 2 sec then a tripod or a tripod replacement is required.

But you dont say what kind of photography he does, I dare say its quite possible to be a professional photographer and just use the minimum of kit or even a compact, so just losing the tripod is no big deal.

I know why I dont always use a tripod and I suspect your friend is guilty of the same reason, its called lazyness

Erm...guilty as charged officer

I'm guilty of "tripod laziness" as much as anyone, but these days I'm using one more and more. Macro and studio work in particular need a tripod.

I think it's horses for courses, really. Tripods don't help for anything moving, unless you know for certain where something will be. They also don't help for anything transient, again, unless you know for certain where (and when) it will be, and often they're completely impractical to lug around. Fine if you have the time and energy, but I often don't.

Aeroplanes in flight and candids are among my favourite subjects, and a tripod is a complete waste of time for these. Much more important is an ability to see predictively, so that's what I tend to work on most.

But I've also been taking photos of gear for eBay auctions a lot recently, and as John says, the tripod is essential for the long exposures needed for the tiny apertures required to get everything sharp.

I do use my monopod a lot; and not just as a walking pole

I find it easier to reposition, but it does slow me down a bit as I can't just put the camera to my eye and click.

for most of my photography a tripod simply gets in my way. It makes moving around hard, and by the time it's set up the subject has long since re-located out of range of my camera.

I use one for posed portraits, astro and still life. Otherwise, its hand held with SR on all the way.

For my landscape shots at dawn/dusk a tripod is essential. It would be impossible for me to pull of decent/sharp shots without one.

For anything else during full daylight I usually dont take my tripod, unless I'm after long exposures with a ND filter.

For people mostly taking landscapes though I'd be suprised that they did't use a tripod from time to time.

I seem to be using my camera handheld more often now, but I think this is more down to confidence than anything. If I think a tripod will be required then I carry one with me & will use it if I think a photo has real potential & I want it to be critically sharp.