if it has, i would buy NEX5!!!

So did the Nikon D3/D3S. I just wish their sensors came in a smaller package (for me, even the D700 is way too big for anything but landscape, where I don’t mind carrying lots of things -like a tripod, lots of filters…).

But that’s the point: I’d take better image quality at higher ISOs over any stabilization system no matter how good. There is simple more that I can do being able to select faster shutter speeds at will without worries about image quality loses.

Regards.

@Jose

Streets, architecture and landscapes are far more interesting than people at night. I prefer to have them blurred, a kind of basic “Tourist removal tool” . And if I take low light pictures of people I want to shoot, there’s always a flash.

Stabilization indeed works for me, it opened new ways of taking photos at night ever since I bought my first P&S with IS. I am able to take hand held photos with exposures of up to 1second and even more if I rest a camera against a something solid. Previously, I couldn’t go under 1/15 without blurry photos ( with a P&S ), so I’m not buying a camera without IS any more.

For concerts though, nothing beats a fast lens and/or high ISO, but try taking an F2 zoom to a concert these days .

I’d take one stop of ISO over stabilization any day. Stabilization can’t stop movement, so for street or social photography I prefer a higher shutter speed (I don’t care if the church is sharp when the people in it is not). And for landscape, where it could be of some help for me, I still prefer a good tripod.

The only use I can find for stabilization is hand holding large lenses (something I rarely do), and again the possibility of higher shutter speeds without image penalties will be of more use. And I just don’t understand why people want stabilization in a wide lens so bad…

Does stabiilization work for you? Fine. It doesn’t for me.