I previously posted asking for a camera recommendation without much response... so let me get a little more specific. Would you recommend spending an extra $400 or so on a 30D, or would you save some money and get a Rebel? And if you think the 30D is worth the extra money, is it worth stepping up again and getting a 40D?

Well, they're all good cameras... My feeling is that lenses are more important than camera bodies - so choosing a camera becomes more of a question of which lenses out of any particular system you'd want. Any ideas what you'd get, assuming you bought a Canon camera at all?

Don't the Rebel and the 30D both use the "EF" lense collection?

Not 100% certain as I'm not a Canon fan - but it's my understanding that all three cameras take the same lenses. It'd be the Canon 5D that takes the lenses designed for "full frame" sensors.

If I was buying Canon, however, my preference would be for the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. I'd try and buy it second-hand, refurb, off a friend disillusioned with photography, or brave eBay to keep the price down; and I'd happily make any concession with regards to camera bodies to get it, even if that meant a 400D or, perhaps more interestingly, a second-hand 20D/30D.

I have no doubt that a Canon 350D with a fantastic pro lens would wipe the floor with a Canon 40D with a standard kit lens when it came to measurable image quality.

Of course, this isn't what the photographic press want to peddle these days. It's camera bodies, after all, that sell magazines, rather than lens reviews. But if lenses became all important, people would start wanting to know what happened to all those old lenses that can be picked up for nothing (but don't autofocus or stop down automatically)...

And *then*, $2/£1 bargains like this would become a thing of the past:



... once the public found out they were effortlessly capable of stupidly sharp photos like this:



Camera companies want you to believe that everything that's come before isn't as good but that's insanity. The twentieth century was documented with mechanical cameras and photographers who thought aperture priority or pattern metering were fanciful science fiction.

This week, I've been reading about a well-known British portrait photographer called Jane Bown:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk...2197373,00.html

For the past forty years, she's used a lovely camera called an Olympus OM-1 (second-hand price is about $50 these days). Most of her pictures are taken with an Olympus 50mm f1.8 which go for $15-20. Her camera offers full manual mode, a range of shutter speeds and apertures, but she likes 1/60s and f2.8 - and finds the spot in the room that'll allow her to use those settings.

Now, let's say you wanted the convenience of digital. All you'd need is a camera that'd let you mount the same lens or something similar (and ther's plenty of them) - and you'd be, kit-wise, on equal footing with one of the greatest portrait photographers alive.

Makes you think, doesn't it? At the end of the day, if you truly know your photography, there isn't a single feature in a modern camera that you actually need. And, once you acknowledge that, you might as well buy anything that tickles your fancy - it doesn't matter! But knowing your photography is a different thing, a more difficult thing, from making a consumer purchasing decision - so that's why the press makes the whole discussion about kit.

My advice? Think less about the kit, and think more about the kind of images you want to make. It's easier in the long-run, and you'll enjoy photography more.

Thanks for the post! I definately agree that the lens is more important than the body, I guess I was just wondering what features the 40D would have that I would really miss on the 400D. I also checked into that lens (EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM). Its certainly pretty expensive ($929 on BHphoto), but i'd be willing to spend the $$ if its worth the money. What makes that lense better than say the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I also notice the lens you suggested is a super-wide... would that be the best lens to use in an "everyday" situation? How about the lens that comes with the 30D (Canon EOS EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS USM ), this lens is about half the price as the 17-55... is it half the quality? Thanks for all the help!

Again, "worth the money" is contingent on what you plan to do with it. What you're paying for with the 17-55mm is the f2.8 aperture across the range, which is useful for all sorts of creative/low-light situations. So many people stress about high-ISO performance these days but f-stops overcome that: shooting f2.8 at 400ASA produces the same exposure as shooting at f5.6 at 1600ASA... The more expensive 17-55mm also boasts higher resolution, better resistance to flare, less distortion and faster-and-quieter autofocusing abilities - or so the reviewers say. As I said, I've never shot a Canon camera before... but what I can say is that pro-glass is an absolute revelation.