There's a lot more people who think this or that system should improve their photgraphy than there are people who actually post better images after they upgrade.
The one thing one people never seem to want analyze is what their weaknesses are.
From last winter.... photographing Crosbills from the Algonquin Park Visitor's Centre deck.
If in lens stabilization is so great, why are all these people using tripods?
Algonquin Park, Mew Lake, waiting for the Pine martins to come.
The point being these people, all pretty serious, do not depend on in lens stabilization for wildlife. You say it's a thing. They say it sin't. Who do I believe, the people who own Nikon and Canon gear, and actually shoot wildlife, or the guys who just think it might be nice.
In picture #1 you can see my camera there , my Pentax is on tripod, just like everyone else. What ever the factors are, they mean nada if you are serious about what you're doing. I always give preference to what I see, not so much what I here or read.
So, in summary, there might be some longer focal lengths, where in lens stabilization might be an advantage. But there is clearly a lot of range with long telephoto's where you still need a tripod. Unless you know where that magic point is where in lens stabilization is superior, you don't really know any thing. If you think you know in-;ems stabilization is superior for some longer focal lengths, surely to make that statement you need to have some experience to tell us what the parameters around that are, and some explanation of under what circumstances you might exploit that.
Can't explain the parameters? Your advice is useless. Or is it that all these people who actually own these lenses are wrong, and you know better?
I shoot 500mm ƒ4.5 hand held with in body stabilization. It's not an issue.