I am very new to photography in general, but have been bitten badly by the bug. I want a good all around learning camera for now, and then I intend to do sports photography and wildlife with this firstbody. Ultimately I want to end up with a crop-factor bodyAND a full frame for portraiture and landscapes, likely the 5D or 5D Mk. II for budgetary reasons. Unless I win the lottery, I will likely never have an EOS 1Ds Mk. III. I have only one lens for now, which is the 17-40 f/4.0 L zoom. I will probaby get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS next and rest there until I can afford a 24-70 or 24-105, whichever will be a better companion to the 70-200. Philosophically, I am interested in great glass, and would rather put money there than in bodies if compromises are to be made, which currently they must be.


I like motorsports, so I am concerned that an affordable20D or 30D would betoo slow, frame rate-wise, to cut it.I am currently thinking I should get a 40D, even though the more expensive50D is available now and looks overall like a great camera, since the DLA of the 50 is lower than the 40 and I think the 40D resolution is probably good enough. Is the lowDLA a serious concern for most people? Who shoots at f/11? Is that a non-issue in the real world? I sort of thought that getting the most light possible is paramount, but I also know enough to understand that there is more depth of field available with higher f numbers. Is being practicallylimited tof/8 a problem?


I have found clean 20Ds for $300, the 40D is $800 currently everywhere. Is the difference worth it if I have to wait a few months for the 40D? I thought maybe a 20D or 30D could always be resold for a reasonable amount later, which might helpget in the game now and allow for atrade up later when finances allow. I don't think I want to end up with three bodies anyway. Is the interface on the 20/30different enough that I might not want to relearn to use the 40/50, or am I maybereading too much into that?


Sorry to ramble, but I had a lot I wanted to say.