Narrowing down a choice ... advice?

[Abraxsis]

So I was planning on getting a Canon 400D with a kit lens just to start out and get familiar with a DSLR. But seeing everyone is talking about how the body isn't where the magic happens, Im considering going with the 350D, and spending the other ~300.00 that I save on some decent glass for it. Then sometime next year, once Im more comfortable with using an SLR system, I'll sell the 350D and upgrade to either the 400D or something better.

Is there any reason for me to go the "400D first" route?

 

[Abstract]

I don't think there's much of a difference at all, and if the $300 you say you'll save is the difference between getting a crappy lens and getting a decent lens, go with the decent lens.

After all, a 400D + kit lens = a very good point-and-shoot camera that also performs well in low light situations.

Hell, the lens in some high-end point and shoots are probably better than that kit lens, although you're still going to get nice photos from a consumer/amateur photographer's point of view.

And don't judge a lens by price. If you don't know what lens to get with that extra $300, ask us here and read online lens reviews from places like Fred Miranda, SLRGear, and Photozone.de

 

[ChrisA]

The biggest problem with Canon is the quality of their low-end lenses. Nikon's 18-55 is good (within the limits of a f/5.6 lens) but Canon'r low end stuff is just cheap. Once you move up to Canon's pro level the quality is as good as it gets

I think you will find that if you are only showing photos on an electronic screen or making prints up to 8" wide a lower priced 6MP body will do fine. The 10MP body is better if you make 11x14 prints