Thanks, Rich.

I saw that http://www.cameralabs.com/ had a full review now also of the
400D.  The D80 seems to have noise reduction turned on by default that
reduces the resolving power somewhat but that can be disabled.

You're probably right.  Most people want more megapixels.  Also I see most
of the new compact cameras are making even more saturated  colours,
excessive contrast, and oversharpened pictures.  It appears that is the
style that is wanted.

I have a Rebel XT 350D and I am very pleased with it.  However, I could sell
it for a significant amount of the price of a 400D so the upgrade would not
be very expensive if it is an upgrade but if it has problems or isn't really
better, then I would not want to do it.  I was having trouble finding
critical reviews even after the camera was on store shelves here.  I did
finally find some good reviews with direct comparisons to the 350D.  It
looks like the 400D is a worthy upgrade overall.

The battery life is reduced a little but all of the accessories like remotes
and grip work with the 400D.  I have seen a few reports on forums about the
metering being out for certain situations though where the 350D gets it
right and some complaints about the focusing but most saying it is better.

I think I'll have to wait a bit longer to decide whether to sell the 350D or
not to see if any serious problems are appearing in the 400D.

Anyone ever point out to you that you're an arrogent son of a bitch?

Putting a smilie face at the end of your post does not hide the fact
that your comment is off unwarranted.  The 400D potentially offers an
excellent segway into the DSLR arena for people that do not have the
necessary funds to purchase a 5D right off the bat.  It does not make
those people any less serious about their hobby and it does not mean
that they are all ignorant either.

Initial indications are that the 400D does in deed provide more
megapixels which arguably will not make much difference as it is really
only a 25% increase, but it does so without comprimising on noise (or
so early reports and the head to head of the D80 vs the 400D/XTi on
dpreview seem to suggest).  In addition - Canon has put the same 9
point AF system as the 5D making this a very attractive model. Granted
it is not full frame - but then again neither are the much more
expensive 30D, D200, D2X etc... and yet no one seems to suggest these
are cameras targeted at amatures.

Hmm, after reading your previously arrogant and deprecating posting, I
decided to review just what a putz you were by pulling up more of your
articles.  

You seem to even denigrate(1) yourself and your own opinions in the
haste put people down. For reference, see:

In article <jim.redelfs-96FFD2.17464504022006@news.central.cox.net>

In article <jim.redelfs-AC191E.18582204022006@news.central.cox.net>

In article <jim.redelfs-18EA14.08512705022006@news.central.cox.net>

In article <jim.redelfs-21C422.08464205022006@news.central.cox.net>

After all the times you have proponed that the higher the megapixels
the better, you now appear to disparage those who would like to move up
by placing them all into a category you have apparently decided that
they all belong in (somehow, you seem to feel that all people who don't
have your "expertise" [and I use that term loosely] are morons who
don't know the front of a camera from the back).  In fact, you yourself
advocated the idea of moving up in the previous quote.  

Could it be penis envy that they now have a higher resolution camera
than your belovved 20D at far less than you paid for yours?

It's a shame that someone who apparently DOES have some decent
knowledge is so quick to try to smack down certain [self-assigned]
categories of people.

And yes - I own an XTi, having recently moved up from an XT, and will
eventually (next summer, as I have it budgeted) move up to the 1Ds Mark
II (or whatever happens to be the top of the line at that time).  Right
now I'm concentrating on the glass (as long as your camera is
functioning properly, glass, is, IMO, the determining factor in
gettting the picture right) by expanding my current collection of L
lenses (many of which I brought along when I moved from film to
digital).  

Choosing to not go to an actual "Pro" body at this time and
concentrating on the glass was a conscious decision.  So I guess,
because I moved up from film to to "Non-Pro" body (the XT), and because
I decided to upgrade slightly now instead of making the larger leap , I
fit into your disparaging remarks which classify everyone generally as
a moron who doesn't use what you personally think qualifies them as
knowledgeable. [Believe me, it was more than the "megapixels" that
inspired that move up, not the least of which was to grab the narrow
window of opportunity to resell the XT at a reasonable return before
the word of the new XTIi spread - and indeed, I resold it and a handful
of Cokin filters + an adapter I had laying about extra for only $120
less than I paid for the XTi]

My next purchase is a 600mm f4 L.  Currently, I own a 24-105L f4 (my
"walkaround" lens), a 50mmL f1.2, an 85L f1.2, a 100-400L f4-5.6, along
with my 10-22 EFS f3.5-4.5 and my older (pre-L) 75-300 f4-5.6 IS, and
of course the 18-55 that came with the camera [which has never even
been put onto the camera and gets left at home because I have better
lenses that cover that same range].  I use a Speedlite 580ex, and I'll
bet I know how to use it in more ways than you do.  I have a Gitzo 2220
tripod, and an Acratech Ultimate ballhead.  And yet I use an Canoon
Digital Rebel XTi, having just bought it because of the increased
performance.  So therefore, according to the implications of your
little comment, I am a clueless noob who doesn't know anything about my
camera equipment, just that it's "better because it's a fancier
camera!" [your snide words].  Right?

The XTi is better in so many ways than the XT was I can't even begin to
list them here (and that's not what this little rebuttal was about,
anyway).  I'll match it any day, lens for lens, picture for picture,
against your 20D - with the exception of sustained continuous shooting
and top shutter speed (you've got me there on both FPS and number of
shots, but it's not something I need, so I'm content to not be
equivalent or better, and I've never needed 1/8000th of a second - in
fact, I've never needed anything over the 1/4000th that I can get, so
again I'm content).

I'd recommend that you learn, along with what appears to be some
genuine knowledge you posess, not to classify people by their camera,
and not to a.s/u/me things about their knowledge base simply because
you're under the mistaken belief that because you _think_ you're better
than they are, that you actually are.  There's a word I'm looking
for... it's t-something.  Tol... tole.... tolera....  tolerance....
Maybe you should look it up.

Also, I'd learn, if I were you, to not make fun of people who are doing
the very same thing that you have previously advocated right here in a
public forum.  It makes you look silly.

Yup, I'm new to this group.  Not to usenet (having been here longer [in
other guises, personalities, and newsgroups] than most people have even
been aware of "the internet" as a whole, indeed before it was even
_known_ AS "the internet"), not to cameras and photography, and most
certainly not to people who pre-judge others based upon their own
personal predjudices.  Long enough to not be bothered by flames, nor
drawn into a flamewar, so don't even attempt it.  Just pointing out
your own inconcistencies in your attacks on others.

************
(1) denigrate: disparage, belittle, deprecate, decry, cast aspersions
on, criticize, attack; speak ill of, give someone a bad name, defame,
slander, libel; run down, abuse, insult, revile, malign, vilify, slur;
informal badmouth, dis, pull to pieces.