How limiting is lack of image stabilization in Pany bodies?

I had an E-P1 (and P2), and their IBIS simply sucks compared to the OMD. As does all nearly other stabilization implementations, optical or in-body. The OMD's IBIS is actually as good as manufacturers claimed their very first attempts at stabilization were... which is to say revolutionary.

I've tried Canon EF, Nikon DSLRs, Panasonic OIS in compacts and m43s, Pentax DSLR IBIS, the aforementioned E-P1/2, and now have an OMD they'll pry from my cold, dead hands. Only the really good Nikon stuff (like the 70-200 2.8 VR/VRII) is any good at all compared to the OMD, and it's still not quite as good due to the OMD's 5-axis implementation.

People obsess about high-ISO performance. Some use and maintain you must use FF for this reason (along with the silly unusably thin DOF craze). I obsess about staying at base ISO - for that's the biggest thing you can do for IQ aside from using good glass (which I also do).

The really short lenses on m43 are not stabilized. The 14 and 20 panny, the 45 oly. Their short barrel lengths offer less of a lever for your shakes to be amplified with. Combine that advantage with the OMD's awesome IBIS, and it's hard to take a shaky shot. 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, even .6s handheld, no problem. I like nearly everything else about the Panasonic m43s gear, but their stabilization does indeed suck and is indeed limiting if you compare to the big dog of little cameras.