Extensive tests have been documented on the other forum and it's accepted that the Oly in-body SR is the best at present. (They also have the fastest AF). These are all highly scientific tests. The K-5 which is supposed to be better hasn't been tested yet. link A lot of Nikon lenses aren't available with SR and in-lens SR was developed in the film days for film cameras. It adds enormous cost and weight to every lens. You even pay more for a lens with 4 stops stabilization than one with 2 stops. It's hardly coincidental that all the manufacturers who didn't develop film lens stabilization opted for in-body.

I have never seen any scientific evidence stating that in-lens was better than in-body it all points either the other way or that they are the same.

This link Oly E-520 scientific test concluded:

"The bottom line on the Olympus E-520's IS system is that
it turned in a superb performance, very much on par with
the best lens-based IS systems we've looked at."

So I await with interest a scientific test showing that in-lens is better than in-body otherwise it's just pure nonsense and lies that Pentax can well do without. In fact one poster on the US forum brought the matter up on a Nikon forum expecting to get flamed, but to his surprise they all agreed with him saying we wish we had in body stabilization.

Don't forget also that SR is designed for use around 1/25th sec.

My local newsagent has loads

Do you have any proof of that.... or are you just making up nonsense?

Welcome from me as well Tord, nice to have you here.

I'll have to take a look at Phocus considering it's free!

If you look around the top portrait photographers sites, you won't see many using wide apertures.

Look at the Photo Gold Awards on this site link mostly sharp images.

Most top portrait photographers don't even stand behind the camera. It will be pre-focused on a certain point and they will direct the sitter(s) around and fire the camera with a remote.

This type of wedding shot link can be taken quickly with flash on camera, so can shots of the flowers rings etc.

Not exactly my cup of tea but this pro seems to use flash on camera link

RioRico is right from a commercial point of view you
will receive complaints about pictures being fuzzy and the
sharp ones will just sell

As they used to say the secret of success in photography
is f/8 and be there

I regularly used to use a 6x6 Minolta Autocord with a big flash attached
guessing the distance and looking through the sportsfinder
at f/22..... lovely and sharp and SOLD!

Can't understand these togs who complain of venues being too dark
to focus! Simple solution don't bother to focus

I didn't mean 1.5 stops was the limit.... just 1.5 stops
isn't a problem.

Nice to know 5 stops is possible, although how you managed
to underexpose by 5 stops in the first place is quite amazing

I saved this as a bookmark sometime ago. Someone used the
Paterson chart to show how bad a 'K' Series 200mm f/2.5 was
compared to the later A 200/2.8 ED It quite clearly shows
that all the colours aren't in focus at the same time. link

I didn't know whether to mention that or not! I call it "the fig leaf pose"

Sorry John, not meaning to give you a hard time over this, especially as you didn't do this test, but this graphic actually shows at f/5.6 the edge is higher than the centre and this is on a wide angle zoom which normally has poor edges.
link Click on "Resolution at 18mm" Graph

There's no need to reply to that anymore than you have done, I'm just saying why I don't like Imatest.

Just for reference this is another (Imatest?) showing nearer to what I would expect from the Kit Lenses, although it's hard to accept that the edges are so bad. link

And just for reference (not much point in discussing Zeiss and Nikon here) this is the forum where they are unhappy with the DxO tests link

Pity the Paterson Lpmm chart won't work with Digital properly.