[Chongker]

The doubt I have ist the following ... in-body stabilization has obvious limitations set by the physical

limits in which the sensor can move (obviously, it can not move indefinately). So, the longer the

focal length gets, the less good IBIS will work ... if shake is too strong, it simply stops working at all.

With ILIS, this is not that much of a problem, since you basically disalign a lens (or a group) ...

this might be done by shifting the lens, or by turning it ... nevertheless, it is much less limited.

 

For your example you had to take one of the oldest IS lenses, and you had to name about the

most sophisticated IBIS to make your point. (And I still doubt, the point with 4.5 stops is valid for

long focal lengths).

 

In general, yes IBIS is really nice, and certainly lenses without IS are likely more robust than

those with IS ... still I personnaly found your statement of "ILIS being a desing flaw" unqualified ...

but eventually, this is just me.

 

Rainer.

 

First post, but felt like weighing in here: The new A7II can combine both IBIS and ILIS (for lenses that have it), for arguably the best of both worlds, and potentially renders the efficacy at longer focal lengths argument moot. I really doubt anyone can complain with having IBIS available on it's own as well, that's for sure, and removes the need for shorter FL lenses (<100mm) to have ILIS. I'd be really curious to see how effective the over all stabilisation effect will be when combined with the OSS of the FE 70-200mm F4.