Sounds like a pretty weak defense of in-camera stabilisation to me. And I think Sony also has a vested interest in making their claims
I don't see that it's any weaker than your defense of in-lens?
Of course they all have a vested interest, never said that they didn't.
In-lens is not less good for 'fast wides' - I don't know why you should say that.
parking errors etc. show up dramatically on wides, less so on teles.
I'm sure that you can see that it's easier to optimise a lens design with fewer moving parts?
It's just not necessary, which is why so few fast wides have it. My 17-55 2.8 has IS, and that seems to work very well.
it's maybe not necessary for you but other people may want to shoot at e.g. 35mm f1.4 in poor light without flash. So few fast wides don't have it because it's extremely hard to do. f2.8 isn't that fast.
In-lens has proved time and again, in independent tests, to out-perform in-camera when it comes to the range of stabilisation. Ignore maker's claims, and compare the lastest versions of each system.
well, I'm going to disagree with you on that as I've seen independent tests where in-body outperformed in-lens.
& part of the argument is that comparing the latest against the latest isn't necessarily the real world situation. Most people pay more for & keep their glass longer than their bodies - with in-lens you are stuck with what you bought whereas with in-body if you upgrade bodies all your lenses get an upgrade too.
In-lens stabilises the viewfinder, as well as the image. This is a huge benefit when tracking fast moving subjects. With long lenses, it makes the difference between getting the shot, or nothing, some of the time. Hit rate is certainly dramatically improved.
I shoot fast jets & don't have a problem with an unstabilised vf (in fact panning is an area where I've already agreed that IS isn't much benefit).
On the other hand some people feel ill with a stabilised vf so that's a negative for them.
Sigma may well sell their OS lenses for cameras that already have in-camera stabilisation, but since the camera won't be programmed to adjust to it, the benefits may be compromised.
wasn't your point that "In lens stabilisation is tuned to the optics and characteristics of the specific lens", the OS is done in the lens so the body isn't involved ...
You can't have it both ways.
There is nothing to stop Canon and Nikon producing in-camera stabilisation to work alongside their in-lens systems. They could do it now. That really will be the best of both worlds.
So Sony gets the best of both worlds first then?
little things like patents & also adopting it would be an admittance that in-body is as good/better under some circumstances & that would undermine their sales of IS lenses.
The technology is already semi in place with sensor cleaning facility. Sony etc does not have this option without replacing their entire lens range.
They wouldn't have to replace the lens range merely add to.
& Canon would have to replace their whole body range (which admittedly they would be doing on a faster turnover than lens updates generally happen).
meantime Sony (& Oly, Pentax etc.) could use the IS/VR versions of Sigma & Tamron lenses as well as of course their in-body IS systems with non IS/VR lenses.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if ultimately we end up with the situation where they all have both available.
The thing is & as I've said before they both work similarly overall & having 1 is better than not - the differences really aren't that large as to get hung up on.
