In-Body IS vs. Optical IS

As anyone seeing my increasing posts here, it's a bit obvious that I'm becoming more and more attracted to the m4/3 systems.

For me, the choice is between the Panny G5 and the Oly OM-D. (Please, let's not debate this choice in this thread.)

Here, I'd like your comments/advice/experience/links to relevant reviews on the relative effectiveness of in-body IS vs. optical (in-lens) IS, that is, the Panasonic approach vs. the Olympus approach.

I understand that the in-body way allows the use of a much wider range of lenses. But that's not what I'm asking - it's rather which one works better, that is, which one is better able to give sharp images at lower shutter speeds.

In the DSLR world, there seems to be a consensus that the optical way, all things being more or less equal, works better than the in-body way - 3-4 stops (depending on the lens and the optical implementation) vs. c. 2 (perhaps 3 at best) stops. ( I saw a post somewhere that Nikon may be claiming as much as 5 stops with their latest VR, which of course is an optical IS system. Don't know if that's correct.)

Is there any such consensus in the m4/3 community?