Help me choose!

I've been a semi-serious photographer for a few years (but still have yet to take a decent "still-life" pen photograph!). Since 2003, my digital weapon of choice has been the Canon 10D. A friend of mine is offering up a Canon 5D at a pretty good price, and I've been shopping around online and have seen some decent prices (under $1K) for the Canon 40D. Both seem like excellent cameras, but I'm undecided about which to get - both have their advantages and disadvantages, as I see it.

The biggest advantage of the 5D is a full-frame sensor - I love wide-angle photography and would like to really enjoy those wide lenses again without a multiplication factor of 1.6x. On the other hand, the technology is going on 3-4 years old, and I've got this lingering sensation that Canon's about to replace the 5D with a successor, perhaps the 5D MkII.

The 40D features 10 MP, has live view and a new DIGIC III processor as well as a host of other features. It's primary drawback (for me) is the APS-C sensor. Other than that (and the 3 million fewer pixels), I think I'm leaning towards the 40D.

Is the image quality in one camera considerably better or worse than the other? Any other factors to consider here?

James

Hi James,

I made the jump from a 20D to the 5D a few years ago for some of the same reasons you mentioned. Mainly I wanted my wide lenses to take wide-angle shots and the better low-light performance was a nice bonus. I don't regret the decision or the extra money I put in at all. But... when I look back at the shots that I got from the 20D I see very little to complain about. If my keeper rate has improved I think it is mainly due to lots of practice, not the camera upgrade.

If the wide angle and/or low-light performance is critical there is no doubt that the 5D is worth the extra cost. I don't think you should expect significantly better image quality. If that is the key factor I say go for the 40D and buy yourself a nice prime lens with the money you save. I think you will see more improvements in the quality of your shots with a lens upgrade.

The 5D replacement has been a strong rumor for a long while now. If you wait, it will probably take forever. If you go for one of the other cameras, it will probably be announced a week later. It is also pretty likely to cost twice what you can get a good used 5D for.

Taking pictures of pens, or any similar type of products, is tough. I am happy with about 2% of my pen shots... I need to study up on lighting techniques. That seems to be the key.

Enjoy your new toy, whatever you decide.

/Woody

This has been an issue with me too. I have the 20D and question is 5D x or 40D with all the new software. It does boil down to a personal choice. From what I hear the 5D is still a very good camera (I still love using my 20D). I do wish for some improvements in the LCD, spotmeter and less noise at 1600 and up. I do shoot quite a bit in low light and also I love using a wide angle, these requirements have made me wait for the 5D upgrade.

A good web site to research this is photo.net and go to the Canon EOS forum. This question has been asked multiple times, but the decision still will be based on your own requirements.

Hope this helps.

<Joke mode> Nikon D3 of course !</Joke mode>
I'm sorry I won't be of much help, since I am still using film cameras (Canon A1 + Nikon F4s). I intend to switch to the digital realm one day, but I have spent too much money on fountain pens Apart from my uninteresting life , I just wanted to say, as haywoody has already pointed out, that the lens is far more important than the body. The body's just there to help you take the picture, nothing more. The rest is up to the lens. A 5D with a "bad" lens will provide you "bad" pictures, and you'll be disappointed.
By the way, what lenses do you have? We might be able to help you better knowing that

Regards,
Shinichiro.

With film photography, I used to say that the camera body was nothing more than a "light-tight box." And while some had more bells and whistles, other factors had a greater impact on your images than the body. Lenses and film in particular affected image quality. Then, of course, there's the technical skill and creativity of the user. This was especially true with 35mm or medium-format, where the sensor (film) one used had a considerable effect on the outcome of the image. But does that hold equally true for digital when the film (the sensor) is actually built into the body? I'm not sure.

As for the lenses I have: All are Canon EF lenses. 100 mm f/2.8 macro; 28-135 USM IS; 50 mm f/1.4; 70-200 f 2.8 L IS and a 24-85 USM. Most are decent, some are great. That doesn't stop me from wanting more, though.

Thanks for the link to the forums on photo.net. I've been there many times before, but not to the forums. That helped out a lot. I learned quite a bit (negative) about one of the sellers from whom I was considering buying the camera! Oh well.

James

James - For a more heated debate - go to www.dpreview.com and check out their forums. I plan on buying a new camera this summer and if they don't come out with a 5DII or 7D I will most likely get a nice 5D at a great "closeout" price. I love the fact that it's full frame. THe fact that a DSLR has a live view makes no difference to me. IF anything, I want my SLR to be like a true SLR - none of that live view stuff.

And lastly - just so you know what I am using ... I was one of the early adopters who jumped on the 300D when it came out back in 2003. Still works really well with my 50mm 1.8 lens. If you need tips on pen photography let me know but since you've been semi pro for years, I doubt you need any tip. I also didn't know how to do good still life until just a few weeks ago when I started reading more on still life photog.

James,

I believe you would be happier with the 40D.

The only disadvantage the APS-sized is the need for the digital-specific lens at the wide angle. You probably need a new wide zoom in your stable anyway. Or maybe a fisheye, too. For me that is offset with the BIG advantage of getting more out of my teles. For example, my 300/2.8 is now a 450/2.8 or either 675/4 or 900/5.6 with the matched converters. If you compare the raw pixel numbers, APS/DX still wins.

I've been using DSLRs since 1996 and and get to play with both formats and most brands and choose to buy the APS/DX format for my personal gear. In fact, I just bought a D300 over the D3 because the D3's full frame gives me nothing.

This eagle shot from a few months ago was possible only with a 500/4 lens on a D200 which has a 1.5 magnification factor.

Bill

[edited to add photo]

I think it is. But it also depends on your use. Do you print your pictures in a larger size than A4? A 6 million pixels sensor is enough for that. Of course, the more the better, but it is not a vital need. The main question is why do you want to change your body. Of course, there's always the pleasure of using a new camera, who offers more advances features, but what is wrong with your current one? What is it that makes you want to change it? Do you shoot raw or jpeg? What about the necessary post-processing?
You've got nice lenses, with large apertures, but, you said that you liked wide angle and I don't see any, so maybe that would be worth the investment? And if you want to get rid of the 1.6 factor, just go full frame and take the 5D for example.
That was just my thought.
Best Regards.


@Bill: Seems like you switched from the D200 to the D300. I don't want to question your choice, I just want to know why you did that, because imho, the D200 and D300 are too close to each other...apart from a 100% field vision maybe. Switching from the D200 to the D3 makes more sense to me, as you can keep the D200 with your tele for the 1.5 factor, and even if you're not interested in the full frame, the D3 has an incredible way of handling high isos (it has a 6400 soooooo neat and clean!) but of course... the price is not the same...

Edited to add I forgot... you can also visit the equipment forum of OneXposure here where you might find informations you're looking for.

Well, James was already directed to photo forums and will get a lot of info from there. But for the rest of us:

40D over 5D has a slightly faster rate of taking photos in burst mode. Not really useful if you are shooting pens with macro - they are not going to run away.

But 40D liveview may come in handy in macro still lifes such as pens.

/Tojusi, a recent 40D owner

I didn't switch. I just added a D300 to the stable. And, I'm not saying I won't get a D3, at least at work where I'm a generation behind even with the Canons.

To me the D300 seems a significant jump over the D200 in areas important to my needs: ISOs from 25 (flowing waterfalls without filters?) to 6400, 100% viewfinder, the new auto focus sensor and image processosr, 2 live view modes, HD video ouput, UDMA support, and of particular interest to me, the improved (and adjustable) dynamic range that may finally surpass print film. Many of these features are shared with the D3.

Don't get me wrong. The D3 is a great camera. But I feel that Nikon only "needed" a camera with a 35mm-sized sensor to counteract Canon's marketting. I remember people converting lenses from larger format film camera to fit smaller ones decades ago. Eventually, the manufacturers made a full line of lenses for the "new" 35mm format. I suspect a lot of the general public today is deceived into believing that the smaller sensor is a cripled version. But then, most people believe the Canon sports photographer ads are real, too!

Bill

Don't forget that the D300 with grip and good batteries will do 8fps whereas the D200 will only do 5fps. The weather sealing is also better on the D300 IIRC.

Personally, I would love a D3, but for the same price I could get 2 D300 and a lens or speedlight. The high ISO performance of the D3 is spectacular but I cannot dump $5K on a body. Not that I can dump $2K on a D300 either at the moment, but by the time I can afford to step up from the D80 there will probably be a prosumer full frame Nikon body that does 6-8fps.

James, to discuss your point, I have witnessed others who have gone from Xti to the 5D and the difference in images are amazing. Less noise and more detail. The 5D is a superb camera and worth every penny for a good used one. If I were going to be shooting more commercial imagry and less sports I would definitely pick one up. With the little one starting soccer soon, I need every fps I can get. Were I a cannon shooter and only going to be shooting images of my daughter playing soccer then the 40D would be my choice. Money being no object then I would be picking up a MkIII D. Were I interested in wide angle and IQ then the 5d would be it. I do think that the 5D can do 5 fps which is marginally slower than the 40D at 6fps. Based on that I would go with the 5D.

Cheers,
Sean

If it was me, I'd go for the 5D - I tend much more to the wide end than teles, so FF is a big plus.

There may well be an update to the 5D coming soon, but it's still a good camera and will continue to be a good camera.

By my understanding they are both great pieces of kit, so neither would be a bad choice.

My .02.

Get the 5D. I bought it two years ago and never looked back. The main advantage for me is to have the film focal lenghts back again plus the beautiful bokeh effects. I really don´t know how they can better this camera.

Hi James:

You can get good quality wide angle EF-S lenses today (10mm, 18mm) or reasonably priced L series lenses that will give you a fair degree of wide angle capability on a 40D. The live view is the selling feature for me (I have a 10D that won't die, and I can't convince my wife to let me replace it until it does!!! . Once it goes, I will be going for the 40D (or its replacement), for two reasons:

First, because of the ability to use the inexpensive EF-S lenses (for wide angle images, I will continue to use my higher quality lenses for everything else). 10D doesn't accept EF-S lenses, so I have needed to spend $$$ on something more expensive, like the 17-40 f4L.

Second, the live view is a huge improvement! No more contorting myself on the ground trying to see through a viewfinder when taking shots from weird angles!

The camera body is just a box that handles light. Major magazines have started weeding out the "prosumer" photographers by requiring 12 or 13 megapixel images (or higher). Unless you have a contract with a major magazine, the difference in quality between these cameras is almost negligible (compared to the price difference) at most ISO levels with good glass. At ISO 1600 or 3200, there is a significant difference.

Otherwise, take the money you save and invest in good glass, maybe a 17 - 40 f4L or 16 - 35 f2.8L and a 70 - 200 f2.8L. This is a deadly combination. You won't regret it!

One more thing, if your friend has a 5D, he is likely a heavy duty photographer. How many cycles has he put on the shutter of that 5D? I would take a new 40D with warranty over a well-used 5D for the same money any day. Electronics can be flaky...

Good luck and let us know what you choose!

Chris

EDIT - One more thing, the smaller sensors only use the middle 60% or 65% of lenses. Most consumer lenses are pretty decent in the middle and only lose a lot at the outer edges. Unless you need heavy duty bokeh (hard to get with the smaller sensors), a lot of middle of the road consumer lenses (the 28 - 135 IS lens is a favorite on my camera body for everyday use) take amazingly sharp pictures on the smaller sensors)

Thanks for the input, Sean. I've seen your work (yours, too Bill - No disrepect intended), and respect your abilty, and your opinion, immensely. The Soccer thing is important for me, too, now that I've got little ones playing the game. That's why I picked up the 70-200 2.8L IS. Faster focus, better quality (WAY heavy!) and image stabilization. With the Canon 2X tele-extender, it's a monster!

The 6MP on the 10D doesn't give me as much opportunity to crop deeper into the image to exclude extraneous stuff, while still being able to enlarge the image to a decent size. Most importantly, the start-up time on the 10D is downright depressing - 2 seconds to wake up from "sleep" mode. A lot of stuff can happen in that 2 seconds!

James

Thanks for the offer - I'm far from a semi-pro! I'm semi-serious - a huge difference! I welcome all advice on how to improve my images. One of the things I know I need to do, for example, is slow down - I have too many irons in the fire, so I tend not to have the patience for all of the steps critical to making a studio shot a success (such as dusting the lens, ensuring there's no dust on your subject, etc.). I also need to learn to trust my light meter more than my on-camera display.

So - fire away! I'd love to learn from you.

James

Jeez that's worse than my old Canon point and shoot. That is why I made the jump to DSLR in the first place, too many lost shots waiting for the S2IS to focus. The D50 and D80 are ready to image faster than I am.

Thanks for the nice words on my images, I appreciate it. Now that the good weather is coming finally, I can start to get out and do some imaging of our daughter running around and what not.

I don't think that you would be dissapointed with either camera, it all comes down to cost really. That and your extender will not give you as much reach with the 5D.

Cheers,
Sean

I'd go for the 5D... and sell the 28-135 and the 24-85 and buy a better zoom in that range. I hated mine, they just weren't sharp enough for me... The 5D is better than half your lenses.

Sure "its "older" technology but as long as it takes the pictures you want then why worry about not being bleeding edge?

Funny that you mention selling the lenses . . . I'm giving serious thought to doing just that. I've my eye on a 24-70 f/2.8L which, when coupled with the 70-200 gives me a pretty decent range, not to mention that they're fast and "L" quality at that.

I'd love to get something even wider - fisheye, even, but I'll probably have to wait a bit. This is a big financial bite to swallow all at once.

James

Yes, the 2 second delay on my 10D is a bit slow. That' why I travel with it turned on, and I have through the years learned to just half-push the shutter button every once in a while to prevent it from going to sleep. Harder on batteries, but not really by much. I can still get a few hundred shots on one battery, and I rarely use it without the battery pack and two batteries.

But that isn't an issue with either the 40D or the 5D. Like I said, my 10D is a bloody tank that can pound nails into the wall when I am bored and won't die. until it does, I face the "Wrath of Wife" if I try to upgrade...

Chris

Why only think about zooms? Canon has some very nicely priced and excellent prime lenses which beat the hell out of zooms when mounted on 5D. Plus you will get some unbelievable f-numbers. My collection is: 28/1.8 , 50/1.4 , 100/2. With those f-numbers I can shoot anywhere, anytime without a flash.

You're right - I shouldn't exclude the prime lenses. I already have two - a 100 f/2.8 Macor, and the 50 f/1.4. They're excellent pieces of glass. I was looking at a fisheye prime, too, but haven't decided what's next.

James

While not "L" quality there are some second party brand zooms out there that are relatively inexpensive and much better than the "regular" Canon zooms.

Your 100/2.8 macro is a beautiful lens, I have one and its my favourite. Fixed focal lengths are much better quality for $ but less convenient sometimes. (Mainly for casual shooting.) If you're doing preplanned shooting then choosing a focal length is part of the planning. I tend to prefer the short tele perspective in my shots.

The 14/2.8Lmm that Canon makes is a truly amazing ultrawide, but the price isn't cheap. I've borrowed a friend's at times and while its fun I just don't do enough of that style to like it. If I want real width, I stitch panoramas. One is 9' long at 300 pixels per inch.

I'd LOVE to see that!

I'll see what I can do about putting some of the panos up someplace where they can be viewed. Even if in condensed form. Its a rather large file made up of about 20 frames from a EOS 20D.

James,

I would add the 24-105 IS f4.0 lens. I love this lens. I have the 17-40, 24-105, 50 (1.8), 70-200 (2.8 non IS), 100, and the 100-400. Weight is the primary issue with the heavy glass. Of course it depends on what you shoot, but I see my self using the 17-40, 24-105 and 50mm quite a bit.

Hi Susegad:

The 50 f1.8 is a gem!

I bought one strictly because of the price and the f1.8 feature (cost is under $100 US for near L-grade shots) and after playing with it a bit, I found out how much I love the quality too. There are some drawbacks - The focus is noisy, non-USM, and it rotates which is a pain if you use filters, but you can't beat the image quality for about 1/4 the cost of the 50mm f1.4 with USM

Chris

Hi James,

I'd like to add my 2 cents too, if you don't mind.

I currently own a 40D and 19 lenses (yes, you read that right, 19, almost as bad as my Etrurias ).

Essentially, my opinion, and that of many others, is that the investment is in the glass, not so much in the camera body. The latter has more or less become a consumer item, with new releases every 12 or 18 months these days (except for the 5D of course ).

The 40D is a newer camera than the 5D is, and I think that does show. Personally, I am planning to get a 5D II about 6 months after it is available, so that all the bugs are ironed out. For me the main reason not to go with the 5D right now is the fact that it is known to be a bit of a dust attractor, and that it is a relatively old model by now. Whether you need a full frame camera or not you can only determine, of course. The argument with regard to wide angle lenses on APS-C is a bit of a moot point these days, as several good UWAs are available for this format, and the Canon EF-S 10-22 is one of the best currently available in that regard, and by many regarded as an L-quality lens optically. Fisheye wise, there are several options nowadays, such as the Tokina 10-17 zoom fisheye (which can be used both on FF and on APS-C BTW), and two new Sigmas, namely the 4.5 F/2.8 (circular fisheye) and the 10 F/2.8 (diagonal fisheye).

All other lenses can be reused with an APS-C, as you know already, be it that you need to keep the crop factor of 1.6X in mind.It'll make the 50 F/1.4 a very nice portrait lens.

I did have a 350D to start with, followed by a 400D, and a second one, which I both sold to get the 40D. I only got the 40D because I needed better quality 1600 iso, and 3200 iso in a bind for the type of photography I was doing lately. The 40D is better again than the 400D in this regard.

What I do like about the 40D is the viewfinder, the exchangeable focusing screens, LiveView, the large and excellent LCD (much better than the 5D's BTW), and the excellent and very fast AF system (better than 5D I believe), the 3 user setting choices accessible via the mode dial, the incredible amount of shots you can take with a single battery load (I managed 4000 once, on a single load!) and 3200 iso of course.

What I like less is the bulk and weight, but then, I do like small cameras, after having had the small model Pentaxes in the past. That is the only negative I have found so far : ).

Another useful site for photgraphy info is POTN: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/, which is dedicated to Canon, and overall a lot friendlier than dpreview.

Anyway, rambled enough for now.

Warm regards, Wim

I'd go with the 40D and save the money you would have spent for lenses.

IANAN owns a 40D and some seriously nice 'L' Series glass...

I'd say either go for the 40D immediately, or (since I don't follow rumors of new models) if a new model of the 5D is coming out soon, wait anf get the 5D cheaper. that's what I did recently with a 30D, and I paid less than half its original retail.

It arrives Tuesday, and I'm clueless about what all I'll need xD It'll just add another hobby forum to my list!

I have the EF-S 10-22 and use it on a 40D and absolutely love it. It's probably the most affordable quality wide-angle lens for the APS-C camera. It's not the lens for pen photos, but it's so wide at 10mm that it can be used in really tight spaces, and when you consider the rest of the zoom range, it's really a great wide-angle lens for most wide-angle needs. I was really surprised too that the distortion isn't as bad as I expected-- it's no where near a fish-eye, and most of the time I can manage to get a composition with distortion that would go unnoticed by most people.

The 40D is a great camera for the price. It's the best SLR that my fiancee and I can afford right now, but even if we were able to afford a full-frame SLR, I think I'd be happy with the 40D for quite a long time before I felt the need to upgrade. I have used it to photograph some pens and have had really good results with even the stock lens that came with the camera (28-135mm). I don't have any examples online yet, but I plan to post some soon. I'll say this though: the "Live View" feature is very helpful when doing pen photography.

James, just the fact that you own and are planing on buying L series lenses lets me know that you're very serious about your photography. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably wait for a new full-frame Canon that has many of the great features of the 40D. After all, if you get the 40D and the 10-22 EF-S, that lens will be worthless when you do decide to upgrade again. (add: worthless in regard to being able to take advantage of the features of the new camera.) I knew this when I bought mine, but I plan on getting a lot of use out of it before I'm financially ready to upgrade the body, so that's how I justified the EF-S purchase. Once you start to get a lot of EF lenses though and get used to them on the 40D, their application will completely change when you get a full-frame camera. Right now I'm in a tough situation. I really want a low aperture lens for low light situations and portraits, and I need it to be in my price range. The lens I want is the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but with the 1.6 crop factor, I might be better off with the 35mm f/2-- at the expense of a smaller aperture and lack of USM. If I had a full-frame, I wouldn't be stuck with this decision, but I think I can make something work out.

(by the way, James, how do you like the 50mm f/1.4?)

--Stephen

Hi Stephen,


Have you considered the EF 28 F/1.8? I know it is a little bit more expensive than the 50 F/1.4, but it has proper (ring) USM, and is a wonderful lens. I sold mine to get a 24 F/1.4 L , but I still wonder whether I shouldn't have kept it, because it was so good (and obviously less conspicuous then the 24L ).

Another alternative might be the Sigma DC EX 30 F/1.4. By many this is regarded as an excellent lens, and I think it sells for about the same price as a 50 F/1.4. It was made for APS-C. Personally I prefer OEM stuff, which is why I went for the Canon 28 F/1.8, but to many it certainly is an option.

HTH, warm regards, Wim

Wim, this is the first time I have learned that there are two types of USM. I looked it up and was sad to learn that all USM lenses aren't the same.

How big of difference would you say it is between the micro-USM vs. the ring-USM?

Which lens will be good for portraits? I like nice quality bokeh in portrait shots. I also hate using flash, so that's why I'm looking for a large aperture lens, but do I need to go all the way to 1.4? Too bad I don't have any friends who own these lenses for me to try out before I buy one. I am planing on buying one some time in early-to-mid May so I can use it in June and July.

I wish I could afford an L lens!

--Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Sorry for the late reply, I have been AWOL for a while .

The biggest differences are speed, and lack of FTM (Full Time Manual focusing), with the exception of the 50 F/1.4, which has MM (MicroMotor) USM and FTM. However, the latter's mechanism is reported as being prone to early failure, often outside the warranty period. A new motor is about half the cost of a new lens, unfortunately.

You don't need to go all the way to F/1.4. The 85 F/1.8 is a lens with nice bokeh, and about the same price as the 50 F/1.4. It certainly is a step up from the 50, with proper USM, very fast AF, and FTM of course. A little soft, altough very usable, especially for portraits , at F/1.8, but very sharp from F/2.2. It suffers a bit from PF (purple fringing, i.e., purple edges around very high contrast transitions at very large apertures), but nothing much to worry about, normally. Occasionally there may be a slightly worse copy, but that is immediately noticeable. Of course it is a little long on a crop camera, having efffectively the FoV of a 135 mm lens on FF, but that is manageable in most cases.

If you think it is too long, you could consider the EF-S 60 F/2.8 macro. It has nice bokeh as well, especially at the larger apertures. Not only great for macro photography, but also great for portraits, architectural details, and slightly compressed landscapes. It also has proper USM, and hence quite fast AF (not as fast as the 85, but that is because it is a macro lens; still very fast however) and FTM. I have used this in reasonably well lit rooms (tungsten light) for candid photography, both with the 350D and 400D at 800 and 1600 iso.

Regarding its maximum aperture, F/2.8, which isn't as fast as the F/1.8: this doesn't matter all that much, because at F/2.8 you still won't have a portrait sharp from the tip of the nose up to and including the ears - you'll need at least F/4 for that.

It is at least as sharp as the 85, and very sharp already wide open. It even is slightly sharper than the 100 macro is.

Well, we all do I guess. I do have quite a few, but I have been very lucky last year, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford them either.

However, two of the best are not priced that badly, namely the 17-40L and the 70-200 F/4L. Both excellent lenses, and only a little more expensive than a good consumer grade prime with USM.

HTH, warm regards, Wim

Its been awhile since I said I'd do this, but here's a scaled down version of the panorama I was talking about, with a couple of full res insets showing what it would be like to view it that way.

The full res image would print about 9' long at 300 ppi.


(Potty Mouth). Photobucket resized it. I'll have to see what I can do to get the full res visible.

Grumble... Maybe better on flickr... or PM me if you want the bigger size and I'll send it direct.

My recommendation would be the 40D. I went from the 20D to the 30D to the 40D. If I hadn't got such a good deal on the 30D I'd say that the 30D was a complete waste as there were very few improvements. But the 40D was enough of an improvement to definitely justify the cost. Now I've just got to save up the money for some "L" lenses...

From talking to some professional and amateur photographers who actually make some dough off their prints, 5D for wide, 40D for tele.

If Nikon had a relatively inexpensive full-frame DSLR I'd go with it in a second.

As many have already said, it all depends on what you want to do with your current lenses. There is no doubt that the 40D is a much newer and more feature loaded camera. Don't underestimate the usefulness of liveview as many "photo snobs" used to do not long ago. If you are going to get a lot of new glass anyway, I would just stick with the 40D. The sensor size disadvantage is over-hyped and it doesn't apply in all shooting situations anyway. Higher end lenses are cheaper and newer for the 1.6x format.

I went through a dSLR purchase decision last year. Having a Canon film camera (Elan II), I thought about staying with Canon for digital. But I only had one semi-decent lens, the 28-105 (f3.5-4.5 USM). But that wasn't an all around zoom for the 1.6x format. FF was out of the question because of price. And for the 1.6x format, while there were a few really nice high-end lenses (L or near L quality), I couldn't find the type of decent mid-grade lenses I wanted. It was the really good lenses or the sub $100 kit grade lenses. So I ditched Canon and went for a cheapie, an Olympus E500 with the two lens kit. It has drawbacks and weaknesses, but at less than $600 for the whole thing, I won't be worried about using it "in the field." The body feels much better in the hand than the very cramped new Rebel and the kit lenses are much better than Canon's low end kits. It was a compromise I was willing to do and that I didn't agonize over much given the very competitive price.