The dragonfly photo was handheld, so I guess the in body IS does work. I bought the E-p2 in order to use many old lenses with the IS. I bought a cheap adaptor for Nikon, and am waiting for the same for Leica mount. I also took a number of photos with a 55mm macro that did not turn out well. I don't understand why the handheld 300mm shots were mostly sharp, but the "easy" 55mm photos showed a lot of motion problems. I wonder if the IS was not set right.
Thanks for your message. I had thought that an improper focal length setting might be the problem. I had the camera set up with the 300mm when I saw a turtle that I wanted to photograph with the 55mm macro. I quickly changed, but did not have time to change the focal length setting. So I guess the camera measures motion at the "film plane", and then uses the focal length setting to determine how much correction to give. In this case, there would have been too much correction as the camera thought I still had the 300mm mounted. The patterns in the highlights was interesting, however. They were recorded in a U shaped pattern.
So I guess the lesson is that it is better to not use IS, than to use it with the wrong IS setting. I have to get this right as one of the main reasons I went with the E-P2 was so I could have an in body IS that would work with my old lenses. My lenses are old, and I guess so am I. I now really need IS if I want to hand hold a long tele.