At 0.15 zoom it makes it pretty costly for that zoom, have you ordered your
5D?

WOW! 15% zoom, wonderful! I can make my 100mm lens look like 115mm, now
I can sell the 200mm because I do not need its bulk with such fantastic
zoom as 15%!

You must be dreaming.

An amazing 15% zoom.....unbelievable!  That's HUGE!!  not.

and an extra 15% is the answer huh?!
you are simply deluded that this makes any significant difference.

Second the above, the difference is negligable. Oh and the Ds or Ds2 is/are
great little cameras, I did replace my "kit" lens with a Pentax 16-45mm ED
AL, sweet combo.

This is probably the best advice I've read so far.  The 20D model (8.2mp and
my camera of choice a little over a year ago) is over a year-and-a-half old
and probably due for discontinuance soon.  It's replacement will no doubt be
more capable with, among other things, more MPs.  At that time, you'll
probably be able to get a new 20D at a discounted price.

16 x 20 is not all that large of a print and well within the resolution
capabilities of even 5 megapixels. The thing is, cropping actually can
blow up a section of a frame much larger than even 16 x 20, so this is
a consideration.

I went with the Nikon for two reasons, neither of them having to do
with spot metering. The first, and primary, reason was simple
ergonomics. I liked the feel and handling much better. The Nikon felt
like a well-used tool. The Canon felt awkward to me. Now, that is
simply my very subjective opinion. I am sure that the Canon feels much
better to other people. But I feel it is actually a more important
factor than 2 megapixels. A camera that is comfortable and easier to
control will produce far better pictures than one that is awkward, no
matter what the technical merits of one camera over another are. 8
megapixels of blurry picture is worth a heck of a lot less than 6
megapixels of razor sharp. So I think ergonomics is at least as
important as megapixels.

The second reason was, well, the Canon just did not seem to me to be
built as well. The D70 is built like a little pillbox. Actual use has
borne this out. I have dropped the camera a couple times, once onto
concrete and once onto a marble floor. It has been blown over on its
tripod onto a rock. Aside from a small scratch, it is just like new. It
is truly an amazing piece of equipment.

So, if you want to make your decision solely on the basis of
megapixels, then by all means get the Canon. Millions of Canon users
can't be wrong. It is a great camera. But remember that megapixels are
not the only thing affecting picture quality.

Some pundits are predicting that Nikon will this year introduce a 10
megapixel camera between the D70 and the D200. Perhaps. We shall see.
Personally, I don't see a great need for this camera. Actually, I have
to wonder whether Canon has not got too many models in production,
despite their greater production capability. I have not heard of
quality control beginning to suffer, yet, but from a purely business
standpoint I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand it helps
Canon grab shelf space -- an excellent marketing strategy. On the other
hand it can be confusing for consumers and spread your resources a
little thin. You have to strike exactly the right balance. Personally,
if I were the chairman of Canon, I probably would axe one model. I am
not really sure which one. Instead, it looks as if Canon intends to
actually add a couple models. I guess that's why their execs get the
big bucks, making tough decisions like that.