peterboy - Many old Canon users are very happy that their $80 EF50/1.8 is now a very decent portrait lens.

Or those who have long telephotos lens now find themselves with every longer telephoto lens that would have cost them thousands of dollars.

In fact, there are professional Canon shooters who will buy a crop 40D exactly because they give them a 1.6x crop factor. A $1,200 300mm/f4IS on a crop camera gives you the same focal length as a $5,500 500mm/f4IS on a full frame camera.

Or you can put a 600mm lens on a 40D, but you can't buy a 1000mm Canon lens for a full frame unless you can get them to restart their production line for the 1200mm.

Let me clarify. I don't mean the full-frame Canon pro shooters are giving up their FF cameras. I mean many use a 20D/30D/40D as a secondary camera when they need that extra reach provided by the 1.6x crop factor.

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry if I over reacted but, to new DSLR buyers, this situation is rarely explained clearly. I wonder even now how many reading this thread know what a "1.6X factor" is...or that hter wide angle film lens is now no longer wide angle.

This confusion breeds a sales opportunity that some saleperson are more than happy to take advantage of.

Fill me in if you will rk on how the auto focus and exposure functions of legacy film SLR lenses translate to the APS-C sensor sized cameras. Still auto focus and exposure on those cameras as well?

Peter,

I agree and disagree with you on being happy with a lens brought over from a 35mm SLR to a DSLR.

It's a matter of trying it out before you buy it.

I found that for everything except travel my older lens was excellent.

In fact, I went to two days of practice rounds at the PGA Doral golf tournament and on the 2nd day brought my older (more telephoto lens) because the newer lens wasn't long enough.

I do agree with you for travel. Contrary to what most people think, when you travel you're not photographing a distant bird on a tree.

You are capturing scenery and sights and they usually require a wider lens rather than a longer lens.

Often you are squeezed into a restrictive area and can't move back or can't gget a good angle.

Peter with the EF lenses, it will work the same on the digital camera as on the film camera regarding everything except the FOV (and in connection, you may find corner softness in some lenses due to the crop factor). The auto-focus, etc. works the same.

The EF-S designation I believe means "EF shortened". They've shortened the distance between the sensor in the camera and the back element in the lens to allow for a smaller lighter lens, however in doing so, the lens is now too short at the back to fit on a full frame camera body.

FD lenses, which are the older Canon lenses, won't fit on ANY EF camera body without an adapter. In addition, even with the adapter, auto-focus, etc. will not work properly.

I don't believe there is a "best SLR" or "best camera" out there. They all have their benefits and their disadvantages. What makes the decision the "right one" or the "wrong one" is the person who will be using it.

If the Pentax dSLRs had been available when I bought mine, I would have gone with one of them. But they weren't, and now I have a Canon. Either one would have allowed me to take the photos I have taken. Either one would have allowed me to gain the photographic knowledge that I have gained.

Peter,

My older (EF) 28-105 USM lens works perfectly on my Canon XT350.

The auto focus works fine and so does the metering.

Photos are all sharp and peroperly exposed.

The only difference is the 1.6 factor.

For those who don't know what that means I'll explain.

Suppose you have a 100mm lens on a 35mm SLR camera. It will act a certain way. That is, your image will capture a certain amount of what you see.

If you place that lens on a 1.6 factor camera such as the Canon XT350 or 400, the same lens will act like a 1.6 x 100mm (or 160mm) lens would have on the film camera.

You will end up with more telephoto and less wide angle.

As I explained in my previous response you normally want wider and not longer for travel. Thus, that extra length at the expense of some on the wide angle may not be acceptable.

peterboy - Yes, all metering and auto-focus will work the same. And the f-number also remains the same, so you don't get a smaller aperture like if you use a 1.4x or 2x extender.

A f/2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens on FF or 1.6x crop.

However, depth of field is not the same. I don't remember if it's a direct 1.6x multiplication or not, but let's just say that if you want that really <b>thin</b> DOF you get on a lens wide-open on a full-frame, you cannot get that effect with the 1.6x factor. You'll need to use a wider aperture - and if it's already maxed out, you need to buy a much more expensive lens with a wider aperture.

Thanks Myer &amp; rk for clearing that up. I've heard good things about the new Canon Rebel and Nikon's 40D.

In my case, I had no legacy glass to try to adapt.

I decided on Oly for a couple of reason. I do a lot of close up and macro so, a deeper depth-of-field is important and Oly's 4/3 format provides that. I also like the 4/3 aspect ratio. I lose less to cropping for the common larger print sizes. Also, the quality of Oly lenses is hard to beat.

I tried the Rebel but I didn't feel quite right in my hands and (sorry) but the kit lens seemed like junk compared to Oly's.

The Nikons all just seemed huge to me. WhileI'm sure they are top quality, I don't like the bulk.

As important as the camera you choose is your understanding how to use it and get the most from it.

Do your research folks and then, before you buy, go and handle the cameras you're considering...you'd be amazed at the differences.

Let me say this. While I have been a Canon user for about 15 years now, and I upgraded from the film Elan to the digital XTi and then the 40D, I am not one of those &quot;Canon loyalists&quot;.

In fact, my co-worker just ordered the Nikon D40x 18-55 and 55-200VR kit from B&amp;H for $750 under my recommendations.

The thing is again is that anyone considering a dSLR needs to think what they're actually buying into. Is it just camera and kit lens? Camera, two lenses and a flash? Or the potential to build into a multi-lens, many accessory <b>system</b>.

If one thinks they'll get many lenses for various kinds of situation, they need to look at lens first and body second. Canon and Nikon users have much more to choose from than the other brands.

As for reusing old lens, actually it may not be as important as one may think. That is unless you already have a lot of really high quality lenses (like Canon's &quot;L&quot; lenses) to keep. Take my case in example, all 4 lenses I regularly use now are purchased after I've bought the Digital Rebel XTi. I sold or gave away all the old lens I used to have. The old EZ420 flash won't work with Canon newer cameras, and even the wireless remote won't work with the 40D. So, I actually have nothing left over from my Elan days.

I touched on this earlier but feel I should emphasize it regarding DSLRs.

When you used your old film camera, the printer (processing) did all the Post-Processing (PP) and you had little or no say unless you went to a printing service that paid attention to your printing instructions.

For inexpensive Point &amp; Shoot cameras (P&amp;S), since almost everything is automatic, the camera also does a fixed amount of PP. The idea is to &quot;jack&quot; everything up to give you the best chance of being pleased with a bright result.

Unfortunately that causes issues that you normally accept or write off as your fault or normal limitations.

With a DSLR camera, you can usually set the amount of PP it should do.

What I'm getting at is that in order to get the best final images, be prepared to add a PP step to your process.

I do it and I know Peter does as well.

Let me give an example. Let's say you want to photograph a scene that has some quite bright and some dark areas. One side will be washed out and the other will be too dark. Detail will be permanently lost.

I have my camera set to record slightly low in contrast. That way I have less chance of losing the very bright and very dark areas.

I know and expect that I will have to correct (improve/enhance) during PP. That is my decision so as to keep the very bright and very dark areas.

Expect more time spent in PP and image selection due to the greater number of images you will record.

That's very true Rkkwan.

When I was looking into getting a dSLR, I was lucky enough to have a group of photogs who I respected and admired to help me.

Not one of them ever said &quot;buy a Canon&quot; or &quot;buy a Nikon&quot;. Instead, they asked me questions about what I wanted to do with photography.

I ended up with the Rebel XT with kit lens and 75-300mm USM (non IS) lens and later added the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, but I could have just as easily have gone with the Nikon. In fact, if they had been around when I bought, I very likely would have gone with one of the Pentax (sister has a film Pentax and I could have knabbed free lens(es)).

A good friend who bought a dSLR around the same time went with the Nikon D200 and the 50mm f1.8 prime. Later she bought the 55-200mm VR lens.

We're both extremely happy with our choices.

I do think one important thing to remember is not to get carried away with the &quot;must have the latest and greatest&quot; when it comes to SLRs. I've seen a lot of people upgrading their lenses and bodies (at least every 2 years, usually every year) and yet their photos still look like crap.

Whatever camera you buy, learn it. Learn it by heart. If you don't know your camera by heart, then you don't know if your photos are lousy because of the camera (which means you need something different) or because of you (which means you need to learn HOW to take photos).

I'll be more specific.

The current system I own is a Canon EOS Elan with a Canon EF 50mm 1.8 lens and a Tamron AF 28-200mm 3.8-5.6 lens. I have assumed that since the Tamron works with the Elan, it would work with the Rebel XTi. If it doesn't, it changes the picture. I had planned to eventual pick up an 18-50mm lens to allow me to use my familiar framing.

But the real question is as follows: given the type of pictures I take, why not go with Panasonic FZ18? It would represent a considerable cost saving over the XTi, especially given the negative reviews of the deep discounters. For an idea of what I take as pictures, go to http://www.photoworks.com/members/mksfca. The albums are pretty much in alphabetical order. The FRANCE: Normandy and Brittany Albums would give a pretty good idea of indoor and outdoor pictures I take.

What I do with my pictures: I currently have slides that I project on a screen, giving a picture size of approx. 40&quot;x26&quot;. I want to switch to digital projection.

So should I go with the XTi or go with the Panasonic?

Your last statement toed is the crux of the issue. It is the main reason why digicam users freak out when they upgrade to dslr. While it is possible to take a superior image with a dslr, YOU must learn how to make it happen.

The user interface is totally different on a dslr vs. any digicam. Unless you're willing to put in the time, you're probably better off sticking to your digicam. I took wonderful shots with my Sony 717 but it died so...

I bought into a dslr system...the 4/3 system supported by Olympus, Leica, Panasonic, Kodak, Sigma and Sanyo.

Lenses from one company will work on another company's dslr body. Olympus has the most extensive group of lenses now but Leica should be able to make a decent lens eventually...Sigma too.

I won't need but a couple more anyway.

As sensors improve, the smaller sized sensors like Oly's and the APS-C sensors in the Rebels and small sensor Nikons will benefit greatly.

Full frame cameras like the high end Canons and Nikons will become the &quot;new medium format&quot;. We're already most of the way there.

Look at the differences:

Panasonic:

not an SLR so you have a set lens range
usable ISO is only up to 400
less stuff to carry around
good zoom range (28-504mm)
good range of controls
not really good for low light situations
pretty good on shutter lag
lower price, not going to spend additional money on lenses, etc.

Canon:

is an SLR so you have fairly unlimited lens range (dependent only on your budget)
usable ISO is great up to 800, and doable at 1600
your camera bag could get huge
will cost more initially and has potential for costing more as you go
no shutter lag
your existing Tamron lens should work with the Rebel (I didn't verify, but am pretty certain it will). It will give you a 45-320mm lens on the Rebel. You will need a wider lens for your travel photos, however it will make a good telephoto lens. If you go with the Rebel and want a wider lens, go ahead and get the 18-55mm unless you want to pay $600+ for the 10-22mm lens (which is a great lens). The 18-55 will give you the wide angle you currently are used to (29-88mm equivalent), the 10-22mm will give you 16-35mm equivalent.

IMHO Michael, I don't think the FZ18 or any digicam will be able to do as well as your slides. Film sets a high standard even still.

I think you'll have to delve into a dslr to satisfy your image qualty demands. And good, &quot;made for digital&quot; lenses as well.

Wonderful pictures BTW.

Peterboy - it really is the difference.

And always remember that you never know everything about photography.

And always remember that there are 50+ ways to get the same result.

I love my Canon 30D. My firsr SLR however Im still in the learning stages. I bought it a few months back to give me plenty of time to get use to it for my trip to Yellowstone in Sept 2008. Hopefully I will know more than the basics by then!