Camera shake is a given, and it happens all the time. Some people do not realize that it is even going on. It is a very normal accepted feature in all modern video cameras to have image stabilization. Yet, in cameras it has been very slow to arrive.
There are 2 reasons to have stabilization and it addresses 2 distinct different type of shooting. The first and most common is for zoom lenses. Because the need is so strong there, and the marketing makes it easy to sell this feature the long zooms have added stabilization to them a long time ago.
For normal range lenses it is not as easy to sell the person on the idea that they need it. You actually sound like one of the people not realizing the need and are therefore not sold on it. So, in their marketing, the camera makers have been slow to implement this feature because people are not convinced they need it.
Yet, for anyone that does a heavy amount of shooting they will eventually realize that camera shake is a problem. I shoot weddings. About 15 percent of my pictures suffer from camera shake, yet I could be macho about it and refuse to recognize it, say it is my technique that needs to be fixed and cast the issue aside. But the truth still remains no matter how I bury it. People who refuse to see or understand that they are having camera shake use all kinds of methods to bury the issue but once you see it for what it is, it needs to be addressed.
There is camera shake, and there is subject motion. The 2 are not the same. A trained eye can easily spot the difference. A lot of the complaints about soft images are also a low level of camera shake, but then again the majority denies this even exists and the problem just hounds us but can never be fixed because it is never reveled as the root.
There are 2 ways to address camera shake. Image stabilization, in either the lens or the camera body is one way. It gives you some terrific advantages. But it only addresses camera shake and does not address subject movement.
The other way to introduce solving camera shake and also address subject movement is to raise the shutter speed to the point where neither is present. Instead of putting image stabilization into the camera system, a camera maker can focus on cleaner high ISO ranges that allow faster shutter speeds. Canon happens to have an advantage in this area and they may look at this avenue to address this topic rather than to implement a stabilization scheme inside the lens or camera.
Operating by fear does not solve any of these possible answers. People who are afraid to introduce in camera image stabilization because the sensor is moving are way out of tune with reality. This is fear motivated and not logic motivated.
I have owned the Konica Minolta 7D and I can tell anyone who wants to hear what a pleasurable relief it was to have stabilization on ANY lens I can put on the camera (other than a few select macro lenses). The camera was a dream to use for available light photography. There just isn't any other experience that compares with it. The camera has some serious interaction problems with the user when you want to do flash photography though, at least in a pro sense, and this basically causes the camera to shoot itself in the foot.
The 7D does the job very well and it does it for every lens you own. What an exciting feature that is.
Now, instead of a mechanical stabilization scheme, imaging an ISO of 1600 that is clean as ISO 400, and ISO 3200 that is as clean and detailed as ISO 800, and an ISO of 6400 that works as well as ISO 1600 and you will be looking at the best way to "image stabilize". No mechanical movement to limit you to an artificially slow shutter speed, and no having to turn it to position 1 or position 2 or turn it off on a tripod. You just get high shutter speeds that just chew up and spit out camera shake AND subject motion in one swift kick.
Either way, a camera today that has no image stabilization scheme available for it's user is handicapping that user. It is very necessary. It isn't about muscle strength or shooting techniques, it happens and it happens a lot. Don't box yourself in to looking at it from your point of view only. Think of the other guy too. The wedding photographer may have to stand on his feet for over 6 to 10 hours and most of that time is with the camera up to his eye. No technique is going to compensate for just plain old getting tired. The journalist has to get that once in a lifetime shoot at every assignment. He will take every precaution to eliminate camera shake. Having stabilization is a very welcome friend to have in your bag. The sports shooter has to track for long periods of time and uses long lenses. Stabilization is indispensable. The wildlife shooter is very similar to the sports shooter and also has the need for stabilization. And then finally, there is daddy. He takes pictures of his kid. He doesn't have technique, no fancy lenses, no education on lighting or shutter speeds or depth of field. But included free of charge with every camera sold, is camera shake. So good old dad can use stabilization as much as all the rest of them.
Peter
--
Peter Gregg
[email protected]
pbase.com/pgp777 
