16 versus 24 mega pixels

[dje]

I have an A37 and I'm looking at a used A99.

These cameras are of similar vintage I think so you probably won't get a big technology improvement with the a99. One thing to consider is whether your current lenses are full frame compatible. If not you will need to get more expensive lenses. The used a99 may come with a suitable lens of course.

For me, I'm not sure going from an a37 to an a99 would be worthwhile. But then I'm a bit averse to investing in old technology!

Not really sure where Sony is heading with their A mount cameras either.

Dave

[Gord Jones]

These cameras are of similar vintage I think so you probably won't get a big technology improvement with the a99. One thing to consider is whether your current lenses are full frame compatible. If not you will need to get more expensive lenses. The used a99 may come with a suitable lens of course.

For me, I'm not sure going from an a37 to an a99 would be worthwhile. But then I'm a bit averse to investing in old technology!

Not really sure where Sony is heading with their A mount cameras either.

Dave

Only a couple of my lenses are not full frame compatible. I agree with your aversion to the point where budget becomes a concern.

[Tronhard]

I think, looking a the discussion here, that there are Nikon and Canon camps with equally loyal users - and they rightly do as they are both great brands. So much of the discussion I read is about the body and the sensor, but to me that is a bit of an over-simplification. As has been alluded to, when you choose a body in the digital world you are pretty much going to be tied to the lens system that goes with that manufacturer - yes, I know there are third parties like Tamron and Sigma, but you are tied to a mount, especially with Nikon that, as I understand it, does not play nicely with adaptors to other makes of lenses - if I am wrong about that I will happy be corrected.

I too crossed over from film to digital. In the film days I had the luxury of using Nikon and Canon bodies with Tamron's Adaptall SP lenses. In those simpler days one did not have to worry about the complications caused by autofocus etc. When I moved to the digital environment I did not do so in the basis of the body - these change with monotonous regularity: and one brand will get ahead at one stage, then the other puts out something to match. But lenses don't change very often, and if you get good glass they cost as much as the bodies do, especially if you get several.

SO my advice is not to limit your research to the bodies, look at the lens systems and their offerings for the kind of photography you are going to do. They represent your long-term investment probably more than your first body.

Hello; I am a former film user, still miss using film, and I am "crossing over" to digital. My question is about the number of pixels. I intend to do landscape and nature photo taking with no intention of printing large photos. I may go as big as 14 by 10. I have finally found out the differences between the "full" frame and the APC-S sizes and I am going with the APC. Since the sensor is smaller in size, is there a maximum of pixels where there may be "crowding" in the image. I am tossing between Canon and Nikon and I've narrowed down two Nikon models and one Canon. Any help on this subject would be greatly accepted.

Bob Speicher.

[Gord Jones]

I greatly appreciate your input on this subject. Most of my lenses have been purchased used from Henry's. There are a couple that I would put in the lower quality range like my Minolta 75-300 and Minolta 28-80. Both give decent images but require a lot of work in Lightroom to make the images look decent. I also have a Sony 85 f2.8 and a Tamron 90 f2.5 that give very good images with very little in the way of adjustments. I have noticed a difference in lens quality and image quality.