With 5-axis matrix stabilization, the information space in the field of photography is already crammed to the maximum. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are very active in inspiring inexperienced people that they desperately need additional image stabilization due to sensor shift. And if this is combined with optical stabilization in the lens, then there will be a bomb at all and you don't need anything else. It's like a magic button "make a masterpiece".
Matrix stabilization is everything, - in any case, a whole generation of photo / video amateurs already believes in it. I emphasize that we are talking about amateurs. In the professional field, tripods / monopods / steadics / glide cameras / rails and much more are used for image stabilization. Matrix stabilization is not used in more expensive and professional cinema cameras, nor is it relied on by professional photographers for shots where the camera needs to be locked. But recently, this feature has become a popular marketing weapon against those manufacturers who have not implemented this very stabilization.
It’s a shame that some people repeat these two words in fascination. "Matrix stub"without understanding at all where it is really needed and how REALLY important it is.
Some general information from the site dphotoworld.net:
In general terms, the essence of the technology is well described here. I am saddened by the confusion in the heads of people who think that the presence of this very matrix stabilization will fundamentally change everything. This is not true.
Matrix stabilization in video
A prerequisite for using this technology when shooting video is the ability to get a smooth image without additional devices when shooting handheld. Sounds nice in theory, but not in practice.
First, the mirrorlesswhere this technology is applied is usually compact and unbalanced. If you take any full frame Sony camera with a good native lens, you will feel how uncomfortable it is in your hand and how the optics outweigh the camera. This means that when shooting handheld, the amount of random vibration will be significantly higher than if you were holding a professional camcorder with a comfortable grip and good balance. That is, the stabilization system will already be overloaded due to the fact that you are shooting video on an unusable camera. Cameras with a comfortable grip and correct balance are much better suited for handheld shooting.
Second, how the technology itself works. Matrix shift is possible only within certain limits. The work of the matrix stabilizer, even in theory, cannot dampen any camera vibrations, as professional steadicams do. Accordingly, handheld shooting with this technology is possible only if you make very careful movements and hold the camera as tightly as possible (as mentioned in the previous paragraph).
Continuing this point, it is worth noting that Sony Alpha cameras have a relatively narrow bayonet as for a full frame, so the work of the matrix stabilizer is very limited there. Matrix stub from Sony often works significantly worse than optical stabilization in optics from other manufacturers. The same cannot be said for Micro 4/3 cameras, where the ratio of sensor size to mount diameter is very good. Matrix stabilization works much better there than on Sony cameras.
How effective is matrix stub?
There are no miracles. If you want to take a really long exposure (1 second or longer), you need a tripod. If you want to make a smooth video with amplitude camera movement (walking or running), you will need a gimbal. Sensor shift cannot compensate for strong vibrations, just as optical stabilization cannot. I must say right away that their combination does not produce a miracle.
What about optical stabilization?
Similar. The two technologies are very similar in effect. Newer lenses with advanced optical stabilization have the same effect. You can make discreet postings on the video or even move around a little and the video will be viewable. The trick here is using wide angle lenses. Longer focal length optics are harder to stabilize. However, such telephoto models as Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L II or Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM III allow you to shoot handheld at very long exposures (as for such optics). I personally managed to get sharp shots at 300mm and 1/25 shutter speed. It should be clarified that I shot with a camera with a firm and comfortable grip - Canon r... Once again, when you have the ability to hold the camera firmly, you facilitate the work of any stabilizer, be it optical or matrix.
When should you stabilize the image?
In general, it is impossible to say for sure which of the technologies is better. Both serve the same function - help a LITTLE stabilize images when shooting handheld. You need to understand in what situations you will need this technology and whether you will need it at all.
For example, stabilization is absolutely unnecessary for reportage shooting and studio photography (since you must set a sufficiently short shutter speed so as not to blur people's movements), for subject and interior photography (because you must use a tripod), for night landscapes (because if you want a good photo, you should still take a tripod).
As for video shooting, you can make short hand-held footage with equal success both with matrix and optical stabilization and with necessarily even and strong hands. If you want to get dynamics in the frame and make active movements with the camera, you cannot do without additional stabilization means (like a steadicam).
The point of this article is to explain that matrix stub is not a panacea and not exclusive technology. It's good to have it. But if it is not there, but there is stabilization in the lens, you have nothing to lose.