As much as I love to hear what Billie Bob has to say about my lovely Nikon D80...I too, would like to see/read some proof to his statements. Every image I've looked at from the 20D/30D (in comparison tests) looks better than the competition (short of maybe the D50)...if only by a fraction...

I just don't see the truth behind the 20D being "so far behind" Nikon in noise performance...Perhaps I just don't know what to look for.

Billie Bob, here's to looking forward to your 5th post that explains and proves all this! :-)

Billie Bob wrote: I shoot nikon, but these statements are published reveiws from a reliable source, and this is the general consensus throughout the industry. I think Nikon biggest edge is in features and ergonomics, as well as some quality inexpensive glass (notably the 18-70 and new 18-135 lenses) that can be had as kit lenses.

[to the OP] Well I was going to say to consider that while its out of your budget you probably really want a 70-200 f/2.8 lens for sports/action. Better yet, you probably want image stabilization.

Canon = $1100 or IS $1700
Nikon = $830 or VR $1600
Sigma $840 or maybe as low as $500 used (no IS option)

But with pentax or sony you get the IS for free, a K100 for $580 and a (used) sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for $600 fits your $1200 budget, just barely. You could drop the IS and get the a similar deal from canon or nikon. Seeing 6mp 13x19 prints is enough to make me COMPLETELY IGNORE resolution. Grain and lens characteristics will likely have more impact than the few extra pixels (nevermind photographer skill). At 8x10 its not worth stressing over too badly. Of course, especially with cheaper (slower) telephoto lenses, you'll be using iso400-800 a lot in action shots. Its worth comparing the cameras in this situation, as megapixels are NOT the (only) measurement you want to be looking at.

I havent tried it, but have heard recomendations and seen some great examples of near-macro with the canon 500D close-up lens (attaches to the filter threads of any telephoto lens like the 70-200, gives about 1:2 magnification AFAIK). They run about $140 and, I think, do better than the 1:4 macro modes of most "macro zooms".

The kit lens included with any camera will take care of the other duties until you find that you need to upgrade it or supplant it with a bright prime (35mm f/2?).



Anyway, you still might want to consider a used 70-200 f/2.8 sigma lens for the action/sports. At least to compare it to whatever other options you consider, since it might not be that much more and might just be in the cards anyway (cheaper to do it once than to do it twice!).

Well just a follow up. I just got to do my first real outing with the XTI, its a load of fun to shoot with I will tell you that. Picture quality is pretty good, not great, but I blame that mostly on me, and some on the weather conditions. I was on a boat and it was a really windy day, so there was some movement no matter what I did.

Uhm, New Jersey in the background I think.

Just a sailboat, as you can see they took down one of their sails do to the heavy wind.

Manhattan???, Maybe it was Jersey City, can't remember.