Did you know you actually see the image stabilized in the viewfinder with Canon Image Stabilized lenses?
I spent $1,459 last spring on a brand new eos 70-200mm 2.8L IS which is less coin than a 10 year old FA 80-200mm 2.8 costs used.
I agree K20D with inbody shake reduction is cool but so is in lens IS.
Having two brand systems is eyeopening for me. I look foward to adding nikon this year to my bag to see if their 2008 screw drive af hunts like 2008 Pentax does or is more spot on & lighting fast like Canon's old 2005 technology is.
Originally Posted by vinzer 
It might be nice to go the route most people take, being the safest bet and all, but I really don't appreciate the additional cost to get stabilization with lenses. Outside of the two basic zooms, every other lens with stabilization costs a whole lot more than their non-stabilized counterparts.
Having been spoiled with in-body stabilization, I'd rather go Sony or Olympus if Pentax goes belly-up, with the slight edge going to Olympus because it can accommodate my Pentax lenses via an adapter and because Sony lenses are *expensive*. The A900 looks pretty good, though.