[Class A]

We are in 2022, and what matters is the lens stabilization is the right choice for DSLR.

But it isn't.

At most it is an alternative, but a number of reasons have already been mentioned via IBIS has many welcome advantages when used in DSLRs.

IBIS is a valid (and, AFAIC, better) choice for DSLRs just as it is a valid (and, AFAIC, better) choice for mirrorless cameras. Those who don't mind the image degradation that is part and parcel of moving lens elements around in a lens, may combine IBIS with lens-based stabilisation, but there is no doubt that even IBIS on its own is a great choice (including for DSLRs).

[Wheatfield]

But it isn't.

At most it is an alternative, but a number of reasons have already been mentioned via IBIS has many welcome advantages when used in DSLRs.

IBIS is a valid (and, AFAIC, better) choice for DSLRs just as it is a valid (and, AFAIC, better) choice for mirrorless cameras. Those who don't mind the image degradation that is part and parcel of moving lens elements around in a lens, may combine IBIS with lens-based stabilisation, but there is no doubt that even IBIS on its own is a great choice (including for DSLRs).

I had a look at a friend's (yes, I do have a few) Nikon a few years ago that had a VR 80-200/2.8, or whatever Nikon has in that range, mounted to it.
I did like how the viewfinder image was stabilized but I also saw how it could make a photographer very sloppy very quickly. One of the side advantages of IBIS is it tends to keep the photographer from using sloppy handholding techniques.
Whe ILIS is definitely superior for longer lenses I do question exactly how many users it will benefit both because it is a fairly small user base using 400mm+ lenses and because those lenses tend to be heavy enough to demand tripod use anyway.
I can kind of sort of hand hold my A600/5.6, but there isn't any chance I could do the same with a 600/4.
Otoh, I like that every single lens that I own has the advantage of image stabilization even if that advantage is somewhat lessened the longer the focal length and I like that there are no optical compromises made in my lenses to accommodate floating elements.

[reh321]

I had a look at a friend's (yes, I do have a few) Nikon a few years ago that had a VR 80-200/2.8, or whatever Nikon has in that range, mounted to it.
I did like how the viewfinder image was stabilized but I also saw how it could make a photographer very sloppy very quickly. One of the side advantages of IBIS is it tends to keep the photographer from using sloppy handholding techniques.
Whe ILIS is definitely superior for longer lenses I do question exactly how many users it will benefit both because it is a fairly small user base using 400mm+ lenses and because those lenses tend to be heavy enough to demand tripod use anyway.
I can kind of sort of hand hold my A600/5.6, but there isn't any chance I could do the same with a 600/4.
Otoh, I like that every single lens that I own has the advantage of image stabilization even if that advantage is somewhat lessened the longer the focal length and I like that there are no optical compromises made in my lenses to accommodate floating elements.

I was a Canon user back in 1995-2007, so no lenses {at least I wasn’t aware of them} were stabilized when I purchased them, and I certainly saw no reason to give Canon money in return for stabilized lenses. I held camera systems sufficiently steady that I had no need of stabilization. My first stabilized system was the Q-7 I purchased in Dec 2014. After using it inside a Catholic Church while visiting our daughter in SanDiego {April 2015}, I shot mostly using my unstabilized Canon Rebel outside and my stabilized Q-7 inside for the remainder of that visit. I never did get anything stabilized for that Rebel since it died just a few months later, and I got a K-30 as a replacement. I have been appreciative of Pentax’s IBIS, and have taken advantage of it, but I really have never felt a need to spend my money for it. Honestly, I would never have come back to Pentax because of stabilization, and I personally believe we focus too much on it.

[Rondec]

I was a Canon user back in 1995-2007, so no lenses {at least I wasn’t aware of them} were stabilized when I purchased them, and I certainly saw no reason to give Canon money in return for stabilized lenses. I held camera systems sufficiently steady that I had no need of stabilization. My first stabilized system was the Q-7 I purchased in Dec 2014. After using it inside a Catholic Church while visiting our daughter in SanDiego {April 2015}, I shot mostly using my unstabilized Canon Rebel outside and my stabilized Q-7 inside for the remainder of that visit. I never did get anything stabilized for that Rebel since it died just a few months later, and I got a K-30 as a replacement. I have been appreciative of Pentax’s IBIS, and have taken advantage of it, but I really have never felt a need to spend my money for it. Honestly, I would never have come back to Pentax because of stabilization, and I personally believe we focus too much on it.

When you are discussing cameras these days, they all have really high end features that wouldn't have been dreamed about fifteen or twenty years ago/ What separate them are small differences -- 100 auto focus points versus 20, 8K video versus 4K, buffer of 30 raw frames versus 200 and so on. In Pentax's case, one of the things that they stand out in is in body stabilization and all of the things that they have leveraged it for.

I do use stabilization when, say, I want to shoot a waterfall at 1/8 second and I don't have a tripod with me. More than that, I use pixel shift a lot. It gives me close to medium format quality for a price that I can afford. Yes, I need to use a tripod, but that isn't an issue for me.

[biz-engineer]

But it isn't.At most it is an alternative

I don't follow your opinions anymore because I made two purchases after reading your comments and using the products showed that your comments were wrong.

I don't follow your opinions anymore because I made two purchases after reading your comments and using the products showed that your comments were wrong.

[ZombieArmy]

Doesn't matter what the history is. We are in 2022, and what matters is the lens stabilization is the right choice for DSLR.

For that 1% of the user base that uses ultra long lenses hand held.

[Class A]

I don't follow your opinions anymore because I made two purchases after reading your comments and using the products showed that your comments were wrong.

What products did you buy?
In which way were you "misled"?

What did I claim and why were you expectations not met?

Please share these pieces of information. If you don't, you are accusing me of misleading people without giving me a chance to respond which is not nice, to say the least. I expect that you either misinterpreted what I wrote or did not know how to properly use your purchases. I simply don't spread incorrect information.

BTW, what I wrote about IBIS is not a personal "opinion". You'll find these views expressed by many experts.

[reh321]

For that 1% of the user base that uses ultra long lenses hand held.

and aren’t photographing motion.
I tend to follow the ‘1 / focal length’ rule of thumb because stabilization doesn’t help if there is motion in the subject.

[Serkevan]

and aren’t photographing motion.
I tend to follow the ‘1 / focal length’ rule of thumb because stabilization doesn’t help if there is motion in the subject.

Eh, I'd argue that the in-lens stabilizer of long lenses is best for photographing motion because it helps keep the finder (and therefore the AF points) right where you want them. It doesn't have a lot to do with lowering the acceptable shutter speed.

I've handled a 300mm Nikon with ILIS - it does feel less wobbly and is certainly more comfortable to use, but I wouldn't be able to say how much bearing -if any- the feature has on actual keeper rates.