[Rover]

I can appreciate the humor here (though not the spelling ) but the IS is a proven capability by now, and dismissing it is pointless - as well as so 2000. The development vector is towards more of it, not less, and I'm thankful for - say - the stabilized 16-35/4 lens, my bread and butter lens. Getting a lens with a defective stabilizer unit is unfortunate but no more or less so than just stumbling upon a poorly centered one, or - say - a copy with faulty aperture actuator and whatnot.

 

And dragging a tripod around, setting it up for every shot, would get tedious very quick, innit. I tried that routine and would never go back to it unless I'm only shooting long exposures (nightscapes, astro, fireworks etc.)

[Brightcolours]

After the 2nd time of posting, I appreciated that joke even less than the 1st time. The 3rd time... No appreciation left what so ever.

[miro]

OK it time to post the 3-th one. ;-) This time no jokes and appreciation at all.

We all live in 2018, where pictures are taken with smart phone, processed with apps like snapchat . and posted in social media/skype/whatsaapp.

 

@ Rover – I dont think that my kids will make any difference between your and my approach.

1. We all bring equaly bilky equipment – something huge from dinosaurs ages.

2. Equal weight – Canon 400d+Tamron 17-50+ Tripod is equal to yours is int it?

Looking outside I see two types of people with big camera – either crazy or too old to learn new thinks.)

I’m from first category :-)

[Rover]

No, I don't get that. I don't weigh my usual gear vs. something I don't have (like the 400D and lens you quoted...) AND a tripod, I weigh it against what I have and a tripod. If I can save a couple of kilograms this way (which is what the body + short lens weigh anyway...), I'll go for it. Besides, tripods are just impractical to use in most situations. And no, the smartphones and whatnot have no relevance to this discussion.