Charlie wrote in post #16788518
from my understanding, a failed inbody IS wouldnt matter much since you can turn it off anyhow. On top of that, I think in body IS is probably a lot less likely to fail due to the size and weight of the sensor.
I'm sure sony or olympus have these numbers.
If it's the "shaker" that fails, then you could consider turning in-body IS off.
Potentially, the sensor would be slightly shifted horisontally or vertically, unless there is some spring that centers it. The amount of sensor shift would greatly affect how large focal lengths that would be meaningful to try to stabilize - the required sensor shift increases proportionally with the focal length of the lens.
But shifting the sensor means that there must be some constantly vibrating signal and Power connection between the sensor and the camera electronics. If this connection fails, then it wouldn't matter how much you play with any IS on/off settings.
Small P&S cameras have tiny sensors. So they manage a long reach (narrow field-of-view) with very short focal length lenses. So they can make do with quite small sensor shifts.
If a full-frame body has four times wider sensor, then it needs a four times longer lens to get the same field-of-view. And it also needs to shake the sensor four times as much to manage the same amount of stabilization. So the connections between sensor and camera electronics must be able to stand a four times larger amplitude of sensor shake.
This is a big reason why a mechanical sensor shift is so much easier to incorporate in P&S cameras, while the problems crops up if going the same route with a full-frame body.
