B&H is best for service, I believe. There might be better prices out there, but I would not hesitate to recommend B&H for service. I would rather not deal with anyone else if a problem in shipment should arise. ^

For a few more bones, keep your eye on the 40D. With the 50D out, the 40D is a superb camera and a great value.

IMHO I would go kit 18-55 and 70-300. You're paying more but you're getting the longer end that you want. I'm comfortable saying that despite the absence of coverage from 55-70mm...I haven't found too many of my shots to be in that range, so it's a YMMV thing. I'm a conservative technology buyer - I won't early adopt because I fear problems too much. New lenses, despite that it's Canon we're talking about, just make me cringe a little.

I'm not sure I'm ready to drop over a grand on a camera. :)

All of this camera talk is really starting to intensify the itch...

It's also worth noting that the venerable Canon EF 70-200 f/4L lens is in the $500 range as well. What it lacks in range it more than makes up for in quality and sharpness.

Indeed on all counts. I was looking at 40D vs. 50D and will likely go 40D after I get myself reestablished. 15.1 MP is nice, as is the HDMI, but the 50D has been getting slammed over the high noise ratios that the 40D avoids.

Totally understandable. The Rebel line is quite capable these days, and it is better to consider an investment in a better lens than a pro-sumer body.

My XT is still behaving fine, but I'm getting bored with it. I also want something that fits my hand. Even with the grip on, that Rebel body size is just too small for me. The 40D fits me perfectly without the grip, and I would grip it anyway solely because I'm a battery-life freak.

Nothing has fit my hand so nicely as the 10D.

Upon re-reading this, I'm kinda divided on it. I know conventional wisdom is spend heavier on glass, but the technology in the camera might be a differentiator in getting "the shot" - ISO, AF points and frame rate come to mind quickly.

I think the technology available on the Rebel line these days - XTi or XSi - is darn good for the price. If I had $1200 to spend, I'd couple an XSi and the aforementioned 70-200 f/4L lens hands down over a 40D and kit lens. Of course it's just my opinion, but the consumer level glass has always left me wanting more.

sdm1130
I will give you a small piece of advise which was given to me in here
Be careful with SLRs
the hobby gets expensive and addicting really fast

Kind of like that other hobby we all join here to discuss? ;)

yeah but we are already in that
this next one you still have a chance to get out

My other two passions aren't cheap either - lest we forget golf, and my other thing, though not shared by many here...the fine art of putting a bullet on target.

Agree totally re: consumer glass. The 18-55 kit XT lens leaves much to be desired for anyone with some appreciable level of skill. I do think that the majority of what someone shoots is a large factor in camera body choice these days. For the hardcore action shooter, the frame rate is going to be a big selling point. The cute artsy landscapes guy won't care. My XT at 3fps means that if I catch a perfect motion stop, there's still some degree of luck and not skill involved. My Blue Angels crossed solos shot is a perfect example of that. Yes, I attempted the shot...but to freeze it where I did at 3fps is not skill alone.