Is that a Lancaster?

Looks like a painting, so while technically not a great photograph, if pleasing to your eye, it definetly has earned a place on your wall.

Using an APS-C sensor format Nikon will turn the 35mm into a 52.5mm which is the aproximate focal length of the human eye, meaning what you see is what you will get. The 55mm will become an 82.5mm which is a moderate telephoto and can be used for portrait work, but will not give you nice compression like a 105mm. A Canon APS-C will turn the 35mm into a 56mm and the 55mm into an 88mm. Full frame sensor cameras will of course have no effect on the focal length . As far as the macro capabilities of each lens, they will be contained in the specs of each individual lens, only altered by the narrowing of the focal lengths due to the APS-C crop factors which are 1.5X with a Nikon and 1.6X with a Canon. Obviously if you want the macros to perform according to original design specifications, you will need a full frame camera. However if cost is a consideration, the full frame camera will be much more expensive as opposed to the APS-C format cameras, and there affect on the macro capabilities should be negligible. I'm new to digital photography as well, but shot film for over 45 years, but like you, with a long period of "dormancy", there is a lot to learn with this new technology. Just have fun with it and learn as you go, it all comes with time. Not as daunting as you think, because if you are a seasoned photographer, all you really need to do is to understand the vast array of controls now available to you. Again, you'll learn it all in time. Good luck!

My old photos from an SRT 101 Minolta w/ Rokkor lenses and a roll of Kodachrome ASA 25, were better than any digital, and I love digital, but that old film had that "look".

Canon.

And what would be the estimated cost of such a camera? Seems the only way to justify buying a camera w/ such a massive MP count would be if you need images blown up to poster size. Maybe I'm missing something, but sounds ridiculous to me, as approximately 20 MP replicates the resolution of Kodachrome ASA 25. Perhaps this is to compete w/ larger formats? But you are then cramming all these mega-pixels into a relatively small space which is self defeating . There has to be a theoretical limit of image quality as it pertains to pixel count on a full frame 35mm sensor. Perhaps Canon has calculated that limit and wants to take a giant leap over Nikon. Interesting.

Look at your "bridge cameras ". LUMIX ( Panasonic / Leica ), makes a beauty with a powerful telephoto zoom with an f 2.8 aperture through the entire focal range ! Unless you're contemplating blowing up photos to over 8X 10, the smaller sensors in the bridge cameras are fine. And they give you a little more creative control than what a point and shoot would give you. You can't beat a DSLR, generally speaking, but if money is a factor and the majority of your work will appear on small computer screens, in my opinion, a bridge camera is the way to go for you.

I shoot aperture priority a lot, controlling ISO to the lowest level, manual for creative shoots. In a pinch automatic. Your camera is a tool, and although I can use a block of wood and sandpaper, I take advantage of an electric belt sander a lot too. If you want to sand everything by hand, that's fine too.

Good to be aboard ! Where you enlisted or a CO in the USN? Thank you for the welcome and thank you for serving. This looks like an excellent site to learn digital, and I sure need it, as I'm an old film guy, everything chrome, manual everything, with my Minolta SRT's and Rokkor lenses. Things sure have changed ! Post production looks daunting, but that is way down the road if ever. If I got 3 really good shots out of a roll of 36 Kodachrome, I called it a good shoot. Roughly 10%. With this digital instant feedback it looks like the percentage could be higher, but with all the digital controls I can see this will involve getting the "drawing board" out again, which is fine with me. Looking forward in learning a new format. Thanks again.

Thanks for the welcome, looks like a great site !

Started taking photos when I was just a kid, got my first SLR in 1972. Have done some professional work, but largely just shot on occasion just for fun in the past 9 years. Just purchased a DSLR because I'm " getting back in the game". Lots to learn about digital in general and this looks like a great place to do it!