I just bought the Panasonic lens for use with my Olympus, and a quick handful of test photographs at 200mm has left me confused about what provides the best image stabilization.
With long exposures (1/30 of the second and more) any image stabilization looks a lot better than no image stabilization, but I can't see any obvious differences between using the Olympus stabilization (IS1-auto focal length mode), the Panasonic in-lens stabilization, or both at the same time. It doesn't seem like any one has an advantage over the other, just that any image stabilization is better than none.
At high shutter speeds (1/100 of a second and less) I'm seeing just the opposite; any combination of image stabilization-- in lens, in camera, or both -- seems to be slightly worse than leaving it off entirely.
To put it simply... ?????
I could drive myself crazy trying to figure out what's going on, but I figure there have to be folks here with more experience than me who I can ask.
Yes I'm aware of the oft-made statements to the effect that one shouldn't have both systems on the same time. It's never been clear to me whether those statements have any knowledgeable authority behind them or just assumption. In this case, I seem to be seeing that it doesn't make any difference at all, and that does seem a little odd.
The business about getting steadier results with no stabilization at all at higher shutter speeds seems more than a little odd.
Comments, suggestions, advice, people? Too many variables and much weirdness here for me to figure out on my own.
~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com