I defenitely disagree on most parts, but I do agree on some parts of his story.
<div>I'll just quote here:</div>





"Shoot at ISO 400, 800 and 1,600 on a DSLR and the results are as good as slow film used to be."


Yes, that's true...but do we really want that quality? No! We want high quality. High ISO is in my opinion for emergency only.


Tripod is an important equipment in certain conditions. Yes vibration reduction or image stabilizer helps you out, but not like a tripod can do. I don't use it really often, but I do have one. Just for the times I can't do without like with long shuttertimes and bracketing.


I also have to agree with Ken in a few ways. You could miss some shots when carrying around a tripod. It just narrows down your responses. (Even really small and light tripods consume space)


And for most point and shoot and amateur shooters high ISO and top notch sharpness aren't really important. But for serious (amateur and professional) photographers a tripod comes in handy a lot of time. We don't choose a fatter and bigger DSLR over a tiny and lightweigth point and shoot for just the looks [H] The fact that my 5D can do iso 25000something doesn't mean I intend to use it at those numbers. I'd rather pick my tripod and go with iso 100 then to go where no-one really wants to go. Unless you got no other options of course. Like to have to stop action.


I think Kens story got some good points, but he can't justify it to generalize it to ALL photographers. For a lot of point and shooters it is true I guess. That's my opinion.