12/23   More cameras... so it seems to be more about the lenses than
        the camera. Someone suggested looking at the 28-135 or 70-300 IS ones
        for Canon, those look great, nice and compact. Only the 28-135 is
        affordable for me though. The 70-300 is $1100 and no rebate. I would
        still get the kit lens for wide angle to save my finances. (so $1100)
        On the Nikon side, the 18-70 DX kit lens looks perfect but what might
        be a decent telephoto? thanks.
        \_ I think that person actually meant that 75-300. A COMPLETELY
           different lens. The 70-300mm is actually a pro lens even though
           it's not classified as L and costs $1200 while the 75-300 is only
           about $350. At the same time, the 75-300 is a really low quality
           lens. If you are using a non-full-frame DSLR I wouldn't even
           bother with it. The 28-135 is a great lens and will give you an
           effective zoom about equiv to a 220mm lens on a 35mm camera.
           My professional friends often carry a Canon 28-70mm 2.8L, a
           Canon 70-200mm 2.8L, and a 28-135mm IS during a shoot. These
           are people who make 100% of their income with this gear.
           \_ Still a problem with what to do for wide angles then.
        \_ if you have a DSLR, don't forget about the cropping factor of 1x
           to 1.6x.  that means a 28mm might become a 44 mm.
           \_ yeah but it's good for that telephoto: the 135 becomes 216.
        \_ First of all, allocate your money on lens *FIRST*.  After you
           buy the lens you wanted, then use the spare cash to buy the best
           camera you can afford.  *NOT OTHER WAY AROUND*
           Secondly, don't bother with zooms that is more than 3x.
           Third.  Digital SLR has a multiple factor, so, you really want to
           get somthing like 17mm  on the short end.  The long end number
           is much less important.
           \- unless you are talking about a pretty significant lens budget
              like stabilized or fast lenses or really wide angles, then
              dont worry about lens budget. the nikon 50/1.8 is $100.
              the decent 28-105 is also fairly cheap. it's more like when
              there is a $500 difference between some expensive nikon lens
              and a decent canon lens, this becomes significant. but if you
              are looking at modest lenses, this is not really a big deal.
              it's one thing to compare a $1400 vs a $800 lens, another
              thing to consider $30-$50 difference in say a 50mm or a 24prime.
              you should pick the body you like functionally at your capability
              level and budget. at the high end there are big price jumps
              like when i bought my N90, it was either that or the F5 ...
              $1000 vs $2500 ... the choice was clear. if you expect to
              buy a <$1k body and one ~20-100lens which is 3.5 or slower
              and one 100-200/300 lens which is 4.5 or 5.6 at the long end,
              dont worry about it. if you are also looking at some primes,
              a macro, a 2.8 big lens a really fast like 1.4 or faster short
              prime then worry about it. --psb