the dude said:
What did you decide? We are looking at the Xsi with 18-28 IS lens and the 40D with 17 -85 IS lens for $500 more.
I am not sure it's worth the $500 difference. Does anybody have any opinions on the two?
The 40D is a camera, the Xsi is a toy. The difference is in the build quality. If you take your camera out into the great outdoors, dustproofing and weather-tightness and body strength is imporant. I have a 20D, precursor to the 40D. I once sliped when decending a large rock formation (the "staircase" on the Broken Arrow trail in Sedona) and SLAMMED my 20D and brand new 16-35 Mk II F2.8 L lens into the rock at the end of my extremely long arms as I swung them wildly in an a high speed arc. The camera hit so hard I just turned it off and tossed it into the back of the truck. I was almost in tears.
Later, after some wine and time, I pulled it out, dissassembled it, cleaned it, put it back together and it takes images sharper than ever. Hardly a scratch on it. Thank goodness for a good lens hood/flare shield which must have absorbed some of impact, but otherwise everything is fine. Since then, I have had the camera in for it's yearly service at Canon, and I can't tell anything different other than it's a bit cleaner.
The 20D/40D and higher range of cameras are like good tools from SnapOn or Matco.
The dRebels take great images, but don't stress test them! This is true for the Nikon range as well - D40, fun, good images, toy. D80 and up, excellent.
Another extreme example. My friend went to Antartica on a National Geographic boat tour (how cool is that!). He had two Canon 1D's and a DRebel. The DRebel literally froze solid, the 1D's kept on shooting.