Image Stabilizer vs a tripod. . You're Thoughts Please.

I have one IS lens (24-105 L) and most of the time it's on a tri or monopod with IS switched off. Also given I tuck my elbows tight into my sides and release at the end of a breath the results are sharp 90+ percent of the time.

IMO develop good habits and there will be no need for an IS motor. Also my rule for handheld is nothing less than 1/60 shutter speed while hand-held. So higher ISO and fast lenses are important.

Somebody calles tripod a poor man IS. I totally agree. I'm poor, that's why i lug my tripod around whenever i shoot.

I would think that they are both useful for different purposes. Hard to take action pictures with a tripod, but then again the best portraits would always be on a tripod.

I use my non-IS 70-200L on my monopod all the time to not just stabilize but to prevent my arms from getting tired. Even if I had bought the IS version, it'd probably have ended up on top of my monopod 90% of the time just for the weight reason alone, so I consider myself to have saved about $500-600 for the feature that I normally won't need.

Set nearby the dug-out the next time you take you're kid(s) to a baseball game (Atlanta Braves of course) and you'll see the pro's using a Mono and the big honking Canon 300 or 600mm fixed focal lenses. Of course most of them are shooting 1Ds and have several of them laying on the rail with the lens choices already mounted.

Must be nice to have a Mark-II for each lens you wish to shoot during an event

I would call IS a lazy man's tripod. I use my IS when I am too lazy or it is just too inconvenient to carry a tripod.

why do you have to pick between to two? tripod are chear, and eventually you will need one.

Good tripods are not cheap. Buy a good one and it will outlast almost of you other equipment. IS certainly has it's place, but you can't use the self timer and get yourself in the picture with IS.