I'm getting back into enthusiast photography after a few years absence. I've done quite a bit of film photography and printmaking in the past, but I put the hobby down for a decade or so, and I am trying to adapt to new tech. In the film days, a good tripod was essential of course. Now, with reasonably fast lenses (f/2.8-4) and modern IS giving 2-4 stops of shake prevention, I'm finding I don't reach for my tripod very often. Obviously I'll take it along if I'm shooting a group photo that I'd like to be in, waiting for the right shot with changing light, or maybe with strenuous hiking where I'm not always steady. But I've found that for most shots, if I'm shooting slow enough to make use of 2-4 stops of IS, subject movement is going to be an issue before handheld blur, even in landscapes. I visited a waterfall yesterday, and got nice water motion blur with everything else usably sharp, handheld. I think it was f/22, 1/4s and ISO 50 (middle of the day). I understand that for low light, completely still landscapes, a tripod allows more freedom for deeper DOF, but i still usually get very sharp shots at f/8-11 handheld (which is about where I want to be). I also have an older body (Canon 1DS2), so I avoid ISO higher than 400. Although with more modern bodies, this might be another argument against the tripod. Am I being really obtuse and missing something, or is this a real trend?