Camera for nature photography?

[KmH]

Investigate the advantages/disadvantages of having image stabilisation (IS) in the camera body, compared to having IS in the lens.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

One of the primary disadvantages of moving the image sensor itself is that the image projected to the viewfinder is not stabilized. However, this is not an issue on cameras that use an electronic viewfinder (EVF), since the image projected on that viewfinder is taken from the image sensor itself. Similarly, the image projected to a phase-detection autofocus system, if used, is not stabilized.
In-body image stabilization requires the lens to have a larger output image circle because the sensor is moved during exposure and thus uses a larger part of the image. Compared to lens movements in optical image stabilisation systems the sensor movements are quite large, so the effectiveness is limited by the maximum range of sensor movement, where a typical modern optically stabilised lens has greater freedom.

 

[Abr]

Thanks, the input I have gotten here has been extremely helpful even though I have not had time to comment everything. Honestly I'm humble to the gathered experience willingness to help on this forum. "Cheap optics" - What I meant was that most semi-pro lenses are 1-200 eur cheaper when I get an equivalent lens without built in stabilizer. (Looked at same brand and series when comparing of course.) I changed my mind minutes before buying the Sony and instead I got a K5. Simply because according to an article I read (can't seem to find it again) it had the best weather resistance of all the cameras in that price class. Unfortunately it's not a FF, but in the tests it had less ISO noise than the way more expensive a900(FF) and a good automatic "multiple exposure function" (regardless of the abbreviation). Yes FF have more advantages than that, but I can't be that picky. The List:

1. My old stuff and memories.
2. Pentax K5 with 18-55mm WR (Weather resistant) and 50-200 WR
3. Samyang 500mm mirror tele, this is my "cheap lens" which I will upgrade later.
4. Tele-extension: Sigma x2
5. Macro extension tube: No name sturdy metal
6. Adapter for my old m42 lenses: Low profile, no name but sturdy metal.
7. UV and Circular polarisation filters from b+w (this is where I'll never go cheap)
8. Ant to contradict my last point I'm getting a cheap IR filter, will buy b+w IR later on. (Yes, according to google k5 can do infrared, are my exMIL friends gonna be envious or what? Though this is not like the FLIRs we all remember.)
9. The help I got from you guys: Priceless. I'm totally gonna upload pics here as soon as I get my old skills back on track and take a shot I'd feel comfortable showing to others.

Cost? Over budget. But that just means I won't be upgrading my PC for a while. It can still do image processing. In a resent test the Samyang FIXED (zoom not tested) tele lenses preformed very good, much better than you'd expect from a cheap brand like that. However they are still low Q so I'll upgrade later after saving some more money. Just one question left. This has been debated again and again but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter dedicated macro lens or macro extension tube For reference; butterflies where a 1½" wide insect covers 1/3 to almost the whole image. In your oppinion, should I stick to the extension tubes or get a dedicated macro?

 

[Abr]

The reason I first fell for this is because I have worked (played) some with optics (both in physics and IRL). Whenever you move lenses too far you almost always get distortions of different kinds, perhaps this is not a problem in stabilized lenses, but I kind of like having the optics stay as stationary as possible. That's just me.