No.

It's fine.  It's not the world's best lens, but there seems to be
a consensus that it's a good deal for the money.  I have one -- I
don't find myself using it very often, but your mileage may vary.
I don't think you'll find a lens that wide for cheaper.

Yeah.  On any low-to-mid-range Canon DSLR (10D, 20D, 300D, 350D),
it'll seem like a longer lens -- about 45-128.  If you like the
28-80 range, then go with the 18-55, as it gives a similar field
of view (29-88, roughly) on the digital cameras.

Note that the 18-55 only fits on the digital Rebel and the 20D.  You
can't use it on your film camera.

Dunno, sorry.

Many people who post on digital camera newsgroups have limited or no real
experience with high end EVF (electronic viewfinder cameras like the Sony
828, Nikon 8800 et al) cameras but they have a lot of opinions.
The main drawback as well as the main asset is the EVF as for most people
the zoom lens is of sufficient range and quality. If you do not understand
why the lens diaphragm is limited to f8 then it should not be of any concern
to you whatever.
Also those who have not worked extensively with images created from these
8mp sensors have absolutely no idea how stellar the images can be compared
to 6mp dSLRs.
If you want to see noise, moire and fringing pick up a D70. Because I am
used to a lifetime of using SLRs I tend to use my D70 more than my Sony 828,
but in general I prefer the image quality from my Sony 828. However because
of the lens, which is of excellent quality and effectively maintains f2.8
through its zoom range, the 828 is much heavier than other EVF cameras in
its class.
The extra 2mps of an 8mp sensor make a real difference in image detail and
sharpness prior to applying software sharpening.
In fact, if one wants a dSLR I think it unwise to buy anything other than
the new 8mp Canon dSLR (unfortunately I have a shelf full of Nikon lenses).
Nikon has not let out any information about their upgrade for the D70/D100
but market conditions demand it be out in time for the next Christmas buying
cycle and compete with Canon's upgrade to 8mp sensors.
It is not clear who is manufacturing the 12mp sensor for the new high end
Nikon dSLR (Sony? Mitsubishi?) or whether this will be the basis for Nikon's
upgrade of their consumer dSLR line.
An EVF allows one to preview  what happens with exposure adjustments prior
to taking the picture, e.g exposing for the highlights or the shadows. This
can be very helpful as well as instructive.
However it can be difficult to track moving objects or to use an EVF in very
bright sunlight: sometimes one can only guess when to press the shutter
button. This is probably not  an issue for most casual users.
EVF cameras handle much more slowly than dSLRS, most of which, like the D70,
handle almost as quickly as film SLRs.
If you do not want an SLR style/size/weight camera do not hesitate to get
the EVF camera of your choice. It will allow you to grow into digital
photography much more readily than any P&S style digicam.

get the 350D. You already have a lens for it and it will be an ecxellent
camera.

For "mostly smaller", 6 Mpix is more than enough; for 8x10 or 8.5 x 11,
Mpix is sufficient.  If the dollar difference makes no difference to you
then simply go for the 8 Mpix.

Canon have their own sensor design capability and are close to the
fabricator (if indeed they don't fabricate themselves).  Nikon, Pentax
and Minolta get their sensor from Sony, so they're slaves to Sony's
desires and pace.

Pity.

Sure.  On a 300D it will crop out to seem like a 44-127mm.

I don't believe the older flashes work properly on the digital cameras,
although in manual mode it might... then you have to set the flash power
per an incident flash meter reading or via a chart.

Cheers,
Alan

One advantage of 8MP over 6MP is your cropability....  I know I'm always
taking a simpler, better image out of the taken one.  By having a 20D I can
go deeper, and still print at 20cm x 30cm.

I agree that you don't even need 6MP for making 10x20's, and If I were
offered a choice between a quick 6MP and a slow 8MP I'd go for the quicker
working camera.... Fortunately it's not a decision if you go with the two
Canon 8MP right now... The write time is very quick on the 20D (and I assume
it will be on the 350XT as well).

As far as the 18-55 kit lens from Canon.  My first copy was not great, but
I'm very happy with the replacement.  I don't use it that much, but it does
take decent images... especially for the price I paid to have it.

Al...

Get the 8MP if you can afford it. I just printed a 12x18 at Costco from
Canon 20D. It's an interior shot of a new pipe organ, using 17-40/4 at
17mm, f/11, ISO 100, 5 sec, I upsized the file to the native resolution
of the printer (3876x5814), The print is absolutely amazing. You would
be happier with 350D's quicker response. Spend a bit more and you'll be
happier for a longer time.

Certainly at 4x6 you won't see any difference between 6 and 8 Mpix.
The best thing you can do to improve the quality of your digital
prints is not to use JPEG compression.  The next step is to invest in
a good lens.  If you money left over, buy more MPix....

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases:  http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't look just at megapixels. Many of the 8 megapixel non-SLRs have
very high noise levels, the result of small pixels.

The 28-80 lens that came in the Rebel kits was a really poor lens, so
don't base any decision on what to buy on that lens. It will still work
on a Digital Rebel or Rebel XT, but it is not worth enough to make that
a decision point on what to buy.

Look at the Nikon D70 and Canon EOS-350D. Your old flash may work on
the 350D, what model is it (the EZ series doesn't work).

I'm just going to repost an earlier article I wrote up...

Digital Cameras, A short analogy...

Digital Camera       Automobile
---------------------------------------
Image sensor resolution……..Engine
Processor...............Transmission
Lens......................Tires
Buffer....................Suspension
Battery...................Gas tank
Storage medium.....Trunk

Lately advertisers are pushing "Megapixels" harder than ever as the
standard measurement of how great their latest cameras are.  With this
Camera-to-Automobile analogy I am going to attempt to explain why
"megapixels" alone is simply not enough to judge the superiority of a
camera.

The sensors (measured in Megapixels) keep increasing in resolution
just like automotive engines increase in horsepower.  However, all of
the horsepower in the world is wasted if you have bald slippery tires
(or a crappy lens).  A car will just spin the tires and a camera will
give you high resolution -but still blurry- images.

The improved automotive engine gives you more horsepower, but if the
transmission hasn't been beefed up to handle it you get a pile of
scrap metal.  The higher resolution camera gives you more information
but if the processor hasn't been beefed up you get slower response and
longer wait times while the processor tries to render the larger
files.  Thus you may miss shots.

The same applies to the "Buffer/Suspension" parallel.  A more powerful
engine might be able to haul a larger load, but an undersized
suspension will collapse under that load.  So will a too-small buffer
choke under the load of larger image sizes, causing extended waits.
Etc, etc.

My point is simply that a dramatic improvement in one aspect of a
digital camera can be rendered absolutely moot if the rest of the
digital system has not  kept pace.  So cameras need to be judged a bit
more "as a unit" not just by one criterion (like pixel count).

Like automobiles, which camera is right for you also depends on what
you plan to do with it.  A small Ford Focus is perfect for commuting
around town just like a pocketable point-n-shoot is perfect for
snapshots of the family reunion.  But that same Ford Focus would not
do very well in a rugged off-road environment just like that
point-n-shoot would not work for photographing distant nesting eagles
or trying to keep up with the action of  a sports event.

Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."

For that usage, 8 MP has absolutely no advantage over 6 MP, unless you
plan to crop and enlarge a very small portion of the overall image to full
8x10 size.

Merritt

For prints that size, 3 1/2x5 or 4.6, 3mp is sufficient, frankly.  The
difference between 8mp and 6mp for even an 8x10, if you're not cropping
much, is mostly in the bragging rights.  We're printing up to 24x36, for
that, 8mp is the bare minimum, in fact, maybe a bit under minimum.
There's an interesting article in this months Digital Photo Pro about this
very subject.