In lense vs in camera stability ??

I am thinking of getting the new E-510 from Olympus because it has image stability. I don't have a lot of 'big glass' experience but I am very suseptible to motion sickness(eg binoculars) and wonder if anyone can enlighten me on the pros and cons between the two methods of IS. I know you can't see the effects of the camera IS in the viewfinder and that is my prefered way to shoot. The web site below shows Canon's take. It is worth a look.
Thanks Rick T

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/emails/eosmarch07/index.html

Obviously the big advantage of having the stabilizer in the camera is that it can be used on all lenses, and also results in simpler (hopefully less-expensive) lens design.
Personally I don't see much advantage to stabilization in the finder. I use the finder for composition and if I need careful focusing I'm usually on a tripod. Cases that require image stabilization are usually handheld or tracking fast action where examining the effect in the finder will probably not buy you much - you just trust the AF system to do its job.
I do think there's something to the claim that having IS in the lens allows the manufacturer to tailor the type of stabilizer to a given lens, though I haven't seen any kind of comparison between the systems at equivalent focal lengths to say if there's any truth to it.

Guy

The way that I understand that the in camera IS works is to either move the sensor or to do the same thing electronically, which could reduce the effective image size. you would see this in the viewfinder only if you were using the electronic viewfinder of the LCD screen on the back of the camera. The in lens method is supposed to be tailored to the lens, as Guy says. The advantage to the in lens from your standpoint is that the image is stabilized before it enters the camera and is the image that you see. I have used the electronic viewfinder on a previous camera and was not pleased with it at all. Using the LCD screen on the back of the camera puts the camera in front of you where you cannot hold it as steady as you can when looking through the viewfinder.

I would go to a camera store and try out different combinations to see what works for you. Good luck!

The only thing that I've seen that suggests in lens stabilization would be better is that the in lens stabilization will be closer to the nodal point of the lens, therefore requiring less corrective movement for the stabilization process to work. On short lenses the range of corrective motion required for in body IS doesn't seem to be all that much of a problem, but as the focal length increases, the stabilization requirements will exceed the range of motion available in the camera body. Just picture the focal length like a lever arm and it will make sense.

I agree with Mel. I'll also add some observations of my own. I get motion sick very easily too. I can actually get car sick when I'm the one driving if the road is twisty/turny enough. I've been using the Nikon 80-400mm VR for several years and have never felt queasy from it, not even once. There is a switch on the lens where I can turn off the viewfinder view if I want to. I sometimes get sick when looking through a camera and taking photos from an airplane, and that seems to be worse the longer the lens is. That's a different deal though. I prefer the IS in the lens deal but haven't compared them.


Kent in SD

I agree with Mel. I'll also add some observations of my own. I get motion sick very easily too. I can actually get car sick when I'm the one driving if the road is twisty/turny enough. I've been using the Nikon 80-400mm VR for several years and have never felt queasy from it, not even once. There is a switch on the lens where I can turn off the viewfinder view if I want to. I sometimes get sick when looking through a camera and taking photos from an airplane, and that seems to be worse the longer the lens is. That's a different deal though. I prefer the IS in the lens deal but haven't compared them.


Kent in SD