...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.
This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.
Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.
I don't know if it's real enough, but the 28-70mm f/2 is my main lens for work.
I work photography full-time, photographing news (not sports) and events. Last year I took about 40k photographs with that lens alone, and I do not use burst shooting at all.
My base shutter speed is 1/200, that is what I set my cameras to when putting them in the bag.
By default, the 28-70 f/2 goes attached to the R6. The RP is carried without a lens, so I can choose whether I'll attach the 16mm or the 70-200, when I arrive at my destinations - sometimes I don't use the RP.
If there's enough light, I try to maintain at least 1/200. However, if I'm shooting inanimate subjects (or a room), I'll drop the shutter speed to lower my ISO. When in the field, for inanimate subjects, my usual lower limit with the R6 is 1/10th, whatever the focal length from 28 to 200mm. I may go lower with the 16mm, to half a second or one second. If I'm using electronic shutter, then half a second is the limit.
In all scenarios, the stabilisation systems can go further, but I'm not doing math in the field, I just pick a shutter speed I know will work with all my lenses. Also, it becomes tiring changing so many settings for one or two photographs, and I'm still carrying my bag in the other shoulder, so the steadiness of my body isn't necessarily at its best.
My only lens with IS is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, all my other lenses are unstabilised. So yes, I find IBIS to be very effective.
I don't know, does that sound real enough?