This came up in a different thread (in all caps no less), but I thought it deserved its own thread. What are you guy's thoughts on in-camera stabilization. It's obvious to me that its more profitable for Nikon\Cannon to build the stabilization tech into the lens rather than the camera, but clearly we poor photographers would prefer to only pay for it once.
I've read that lens based stabilization gives slightly superior results in some situations. How is the tech different, and which would you rather have. What happens if you have both?