Stabilised lens or not?

Would I be right in thinking that a lens with built in stabilisation and a camera with built in stabilisation (K-r) would be a bad combination?

At the very least overkill but more likely the two systems would end up fighting each other?

It should be possible to turn one or the other system off shouldn't it?

Well that's true of course, bit of brain fade there

It's just that I'm going boggle eyed looking for an additional all rounder lens and there are one or two that might fit the bill which don't seem to be available unstabilised. I'd hate to spend the money on one only to find the lens and camera didn't get on.

You can either use the one in the lens or in the camera not both at the same time.

The camera and lens stabilization don't talk to each other so in effect any movement they sense they will react to without keeping in mind what the other is doing so the movement gets stabilized twice which means it gets over corrected.

I've accidentally left them both on with my Sigma 150-500 and the pics were still sharp, albeit they were at fairly high shutter speeds anyway.
Dave

I tend to use the camera's SR if I borrow a Bigma with OS. Mostly as it's easier to turn the OS off than rummage through my camera menus for the SR option!

Pentax SR seems pretty bombproof providing you don't ask ridiculous things of it, I'd rather they left OS off and made the lenses cheaper.