There has been much discussion on whether "in body" or "in lens" stabilisation is better with many proponents suggesting that Nikon and Canon should adopt the former because "it works with all your lenses". This seems to them to be a compelling argument but to me it is flawed. Both Nikon and Canon started producing stabilised lenses before digital imaging was the norm. At that time moving the sensor was not an option so it was a case of either put the stabilisation in the lens or don't have it at all. Now if, say, Nikon were to produce a camera with built in stabilisation I would be able to have the benefits on all my lenses but not all my camera bodies. On the other hand, should I buy a stabilised lens it will work with all my camera bodies film or digital. It seems to me that whilst "in camera" stabilisation may be more attractive to someone just buying into SLR photography but for anyone using multiple bodies and/or film "in lens" stabilisation is more attractive. So I suggest that, despite its apparent flexibility, "in body" stabilisation is ultimately of less utility than in lens stabilisation. What does anyone else think?