All the talking heads on YouTube are "get a 4 section monopod because they don't flex" and then they push stuff like the Leofoto MPQ-404C, that is as thick as my forearm. So what if the monopod flexes now and then? As long as it does not break, it is not like you are using it to keep the camera rock solid. All it is doing is taking the weight off your hands.
And this weekend I realized 6-section monopods have another important advantage. Because they collapse so small you can leave them attached to the camera as you stash the camera on the passenger seat while driving around.
Generally agree about the flex thing. Some flex is acceptable but it also depends on what you're supporting with a monopod. If it's a 400/2.8 or 600/4, a stiff monopod is appreciated. That said, modern versions of these lenses are about half what they weighed 20+ years ago.
IMO the biggest annoyance of high section number monopods/tripods is the time it takes to deploy them at maximum extension. And then collapse them. But it's a tradeoff for other benefits (compactness).
There are a lot of simplistic nostrums offered about tripods. The tricky thing is that they are often based on facts, but the facts are, too often, irrelevant or misapplied.
It is true that fewer leg sections will give you a sturdier and lighter tripod at a given potential tripod height. But... it is also true that the thing won't pack nearly as small and it is quite possible that the "less stable" tripod is plenty stable enough.
I do have one honking big, relatively heavy tripod that I recently got to replace a 20-year-old honking big, relatively heavy tripod that I use for landscape photography. As I was shopping for the right one for me, various reviews an individual people told me that I really needed to the the "most solid" tripod in one of the lines I was looking at, a so-called series 5 model. There's no question that it is solid, but so is the series 3 that I ended up getting from a different manufacturer.
You do need a solid tripod (probably, but read on) but you don't necessarily need the World's Very Most Solid Tripod except is some pretty unusual cases.
About non-solid tripod: I own three tripods. My big one for car-based landscape photography. A slightly lighter one with a lighter head for photography while hiking or backpacking. And a tiny little thing that looks like a moderate breeze might vibrate it, attached to one the tiniest heads that RRS sells. What am I thinking!? It is for travel, where I almost always shoot handheld, but occasionally might want to put my (smaller) travel setup on a tripod. If I'm careful, it is plenty stable for that purpose.
Usually I grab my 4 section monopod because it's lighter to carry and faster to operate. Opening and closing the extra twist locks makes the 6 section stick slower to deploy. It also seems like I have to twist the locks much more tightly on the 6 section stick or else it has a lot of lateral play at the joints. I only carry my 6 section monopod when I specifically need it to fit in a small bag. Everything is a trade-off.
Thanks for all the comments and perspective. I think there are valid usability arguments on both sides and they largely depend on use mode. For me the ability to leave the lens attached to the monopod was a very welcome feature. The MH-100 is very nice head to use but it is a bit of a PITA to attach, particularly with a heavy lens like a 500/4 or a 600/4. Not having to do this every time I got out of the car on a 3-day trip that was very driving heavy was a godsend.
