1. The corrected viewfinder makes composition easier.
The camera vibration is compensated by the mechanism in the lens, so the picture seen in the viewfinder is corrected. This makes it easier to focus and compose when shooting. If the fuselage anti-shake system is used, the picture in the viewfinder is still uncompensated.
2. Every shot has been optimized.
Compared with the fuselage anti-shake system which can only provide a single anti-shake mechanism, the anti-shake system of each lens has been optimized. Therefore, it can provide an anti-shake effect equivalent to 3-4 shutter speeds.
3. The autofocus and photometric information of the photos are more accurate.
This is the main difference between lens anti-shake and fuselage anti-shake. Using lens anti-shake, the camera can obtain autofocus and photometry data faster and more accurately.
4. Not all shots have the same blur mode.
The blur caused by camera vibration is different for each lens. This is more obvious when using telephoto lenses. Therefore, the anti-shake system should be adjusted separately for each lens.
This probably explains why high-end cameras have no anti-shake body.
Anti-shake lens+no anti-shake body vs no anti-shake lens+anti-shake body
I really don't have any idea about it. . According to my personal understanding, the main difference should be reflected in different focal segments. If it is a wide-angle segment and a standard segment, there should be no difference, because this focal segment actually does not need anti-shake, and the effects of the two anti-shake schemes should not be much different; If it is in the telephoto section, such as 100mm or more, it needs anti-shake. From the above two points, it can be inferred that the lens anti-shake is better.
If you only use the anti-shake body, you can only choose non-anti-shake lenses when buying lenses, which can save a lot of money. If you are not short of money, don't play non-mainstream