What is to be done? Image stabilization - lens or body? 2012

In lens stabilization is tailored to specific lens design, so possibly has potential to get done better.
Perhaps providing multiple stabilization, in lens and in camera, could be too costly?
So, to be double protected, multiple stabilization could possibly work even better ?
There are people wearing belt and suspenders, being double protected...:)

I'm not sure there's a huge difference for most lenses. Lens stabilization may be a little better, plus it gives you a stabilized viewfinder with a DSLR, which is a plus. With mirrorless cameras you can have a stabilized image (though not all cameras with in-body stabilization do).

While in-body stabilization will work with any lens, unless the lens has electronics that tell the camera the focal length, you have to set the focal length in the camera, otherwise the stabilization my over or under correct.

Cost aside, I'd rather have lens based stabilization if I had set of lenses that all had stabilization built in. However not all lenses are available in stabilized versions, so in that case body based stabilization is sometimes an advantage.

I will say again (as I think I said before), there's no reason you can't have BOTH lens and body based stabilization in the same camera system, as long as you only have one system active at any given time. An example would be an Olympus Pen camera (body stabilized) used with a Panasonic micro 4/3 lens (lens stabilization). They work perfectly well together as long as at least one of the stabilzation systems is switched off.

Nikon and Canon arguably make the cameras with the best high ISO performance. This is a lot more useful than extending image stabilization for use with short lenses. For longer lenses many if not most lenses made by these manufacturers have IS/VR already, so there isn't so much of a problem. For short lenses VR/IS is typically not very useful because stopping the subject movement requires a faster shutter speed than is required to avoid camera shake. And in my opinion there is nothing more ghastly than poorly controlled subject blur in a sharp environment. To do well controlled subject movement blur, which can be attractive, VR/IS doesn't cut it, a tripod is needed.

Olympus, Sony, etc. are trying to fight for market share and they have in-lens stabilization implemented in some of the cameras. I don't see these very often in the field. I guess most people made the same conclusions I did.

I've been very happy with the in-body stabilization on my Pentax cameras. As near as I can tell (totally non-scientific testing on my part) it does indeed work. I don't know if adding stabilzation to a lens increases its size, but I do know that I really like the very small size of the little Pentax DA Limited series of lenses that don't have either focusing motors or stabilizers built into the lenses. (Yes, I do realize that those lenses are also designed specifically for APS-C sized sensors.)

I thought I read somewhere that in body stabilizing doesn't work all that well with longer lenses. Any info on this?

I really don't have a concern, being a Canon shooter. Just curious.

I know for a fact my Pentax K100D's on body IS doesn't work positioning the camera for vertical shots, but does excellent IS holding it horizontally. I shot under some very dim UV/IR blocked halogens at my local museum and got tack sharp results shooting at 1/5's shutter speed. Turn the camera on its side and I blurry shots.

Maybe my camera model has something wrong with the IS shooting vertically. Not sure.

I'd rather have body stabilization. It's a better solution for smaller sensors than resorting to higher ISOs. There will always be older manual focus lenses I'll want to use.

well its good to have is. you never know when you might need it. having had both systems i believe its cheaper and just as well implemented now and may work better having in body is as opposed to in lens is. i believe the in lens is remains a more expensive alternative today for at least the 2 major canikon manufacturers. i think in body is today is cheaper and well implemented and works just as well as an in lens is system. ll

Not sure but which one draws more power from the battery lens stabilization, or in-camera stabilization ?