Neither of the subjects you bring up are my area of expertise, but I can give you my thoughts while keeping you bumped at the top of the forum. In-body stabilization is nice because it adds stabilization to any lens, as you mentioned. However, you’re mistaken in thinking that it’s only old lenses that don’t have lens stablization. Many modern lenses don’t have stabilization, likely to save money on some of the budget lenses. As for me, I rarely feel like I need it. I generally use very fast shutter speeds and/or flash, because my subjects are moving, or I have a tripod for times when I need a slow shutter speed. So while it’s a nice feature to have in either the lens or the body, it’s never been a deciding factor for me. For macro, you’ll probably usually want to use a tripod, and for moving bugs, you’ll need a fast shutter speed anyway. For wide angle landscape, the shutter speed doesn’t need to be quite as fast (shutter speed needs to get faster to accommodate longer focal lengths.) So while in-body stabilization is a nice feature, I’m not sure that it should be a dealbreaker for your uses. I’m not a huge fan of Canon, so I won’t really speak as to the overall Canon vs Sony debate. (My reasons are subjective and completely based on personal preference, not anything you should be concerned about. Canon makes excellent cameras.) As for APS-C for macro, however, there is an advantage. A wide aperture will provide a more narrow depth of field on a full frame camera than on a crop sensor. For instance, if you put a 6d and 80d next to each other, but the same lens on both of them (say, 50mm), and set the aperture on both to 1.8, you’ll come out with two very different looking pictures. The 80d will appear more “zoomed in,” by about 1.5 times. The 80d will also have more of the scene in focus, while the 6d will have more blurring. In portraits, this is often desireable, because they like to have just the subject isolated. However, it can become an issue with macro. Because the subject is so small and you are so close to it, the depth of field can become so thin that nothing at all looks like it’s in focus. You need to stop down quite a bit before you can get something useable, and that’s also where techniques like focus stacking come in. APS-C would be beneficial in this situation, because while it still opens up wide to let the same amount of light in, it doesn’t give as narrow a depth of field. I apologize if this is too technical. As far as I can see, that would be the main advantage of APS-C in your situation, other than things like being smaller and lighter and sometimes cheaper.