A gimbal produces smoother footage than in-body stabilization alone, full stop, that's not really a debate. Whether that smoothness is worth the setup time and the extra weight for a specific shoot is a genuinely different question, and I've landed on a fairly clear personal rule for when each makes sense.
Setup time is the real cost, not weight
People focus on a gimbal's added weight as the main trade-off, and for me the bigger cost is actually setup and balance time, a poorly balanced gimbal produces worse footage than no gimbal at all, and getting the balance right takes real minutes I don't always have between moments at a fast-moving event. In-body stabilization requires zero setup time and is always ready the instant I need to move, which matters more than raw smoothness on genuinely unpredictable coverage.
When smoothness is worth the setup cost
For planned walking shots, a deliberate reveal, following a subject through a predictable path I know in advance, the gimbal setup time is a non-issue because I'm setting it up before the shot starts anyway, not reacting to something unexpected. That's where a gimbal's extra smoothness is a clear, uncomplicated win with no real downside.
- Unpredictable, fast-reacting coverage: in-body stabilization, always ready
- Planned walking or tracking shots: gimbal setup time is a non-issue, use it
- A poorly balanced gimbal is worse than no gimbal, budget real time to balance it
My actual rule of thumb
If I know the shot is coming more than a minute in advance, the gimbal comes out. If I'm reacting to something happening right now, I trust in-body stabilization and stay mobile. That simple time-based rule has served better than any more complicated decision tree I tried building around shot type or subject matter specifically, because the real variable that matters is how much warning I actually have.