I am thinking about buying a DSLR, and Georges Hoens mentioned the Canon 400D to me. I was wondering if anyone here had an opinion on it, and on the EF-S18-55 lens that comes with the kit I found. My SLR days happened long before the digital age and right now I use a "point and shoot" digicam. My main interest would probably be macros, but there are days when I like shooting landscapes or architecture too, so I am looking for something flexible. Being able to take some decent photos without a very steep learning curve and reading a dozen "how-to" books would be nice too, even if I am aware that unlocking the full potential of a good camera will involve some learning and experimenting. Would the 400D be okay for me, what do you guys think? (My alternative might be the Olympus 510, but I am only starting to begin considering making up my mind right now, so I'm not adverse to other suggestions. g)

Canon has a very wide range of dedicated lenses and is as far as i know the most widely used make of Digital SLR camera.  That is the main reason i went for a Canon camera - there will be people saying Nikon is better for this that or the other reason, but when you are paying so much for a product which is for all intents and purposes going to give you extremely similar results then either will do imo.

So as for make - it is all about the range of lenses and then the "upgradability" of those lenses and bodies which work with those lenses.  Say you want to upgrade to a better camera later on - with an extensive range of lenses you effectively have a "routemap" planned for upgradeability - i have heard that the Olympus lenses - although a rather small range, are superb - but the "L" series lenses of Canon are almost industry benchmarks - but then again you get what you pay for and there is the fact that you pay diminishing returns on quality - increase in price is disproportionate to increase in quality as with pretty much all things photographic.  Anyway, my point is that if i wanted to upgrade my 30D to a 5D or even a 1D then i would only have to get rid of one of the 6 lenses that i own - which is always a good thing.

As for the model - the 400D is a superb camera, as are most other "entry level" DSLR's - the one peice of advice which stuck with me when i was in your situation was to go to the shop and hold each camera you are thinking of buying. I got my 30D over the 350D because i have large hands and the 350D was too small for my grip - plus it was slightly better and i knew it would hold off my wanting to upgrade in the future for a while longer if i really got into photography.  So yes the 400D is a pretty good idea - but if you ware wanting to take macro shots with the SLR you will need to get hold of a dedicated macro lens.

So yeah... that is one person's view on things hope it helps with the decision :)

I do have a Canon 400D camera with a 18-55 lens. I am pretty happy with my pictures. They say a kit lens not realy have a good quality. I have a "proper"  28-80 lens too, honestly I don't see different on my picture. Both lens delivers excelent photos. I am not a great photographer perhaps in technical term is some different but I can not say nothing about that. 

Rick touched a very good point about handle a camera. I am using tripod most of the time but when I am handheld a camera I  wish it would have a bit more grip on a body. (or wish I would have a smaller hand...lol) Some photographer using a battery pack what gives them a good grip. 

seeya  Tunde

Thanks for the comments so far, you two. :) About actually handling the cameras: Yes, that is my plan. In fact it's about the only thing about this new camera busines that has been firmly decided by now. g

The other thing is your budget... the kit lens for the canon - i had one (sold it for an upgrade with IS and a bit more range) and really couldnt see much wrong with it - when it is going for about £50 on ebay you cant really complain about the quality because there isnt much to complain about at that price!
If you have a bigger budget then adjust your "requirements" accordingly. However until you actually get a DSLR you wont really know what you want until you have used it for a bit - so i would recommned just getting the kit lens and work from there, dont go in for buying everything at once, you might not want or need the lens that someone reccomended to you...  ebay is your friend ;)
Also you said you used an SLR back in the day so you will probably know a bit about things. One thing to consider is that until you get to the 5D and the 1D in the canon range of bodies ($$$'s) then you are looking at a 1.6x crop sensor, so that means the 18-55mm lens you think you have in your hand is actually a 29-88mm lens on what you might have been used to ;)

Quote - However until you actually get a DSLR you wont really know what you want until you have used it for a bit - so i would recommned just getting the kit lens and work from there, dont go in for buying everything at once, you might not want or need the lens that someone reccomended to you...  ebay is your friend ;)

Well, if there is anything I would buy sooner or later it's a macro lens, which might be a Tokina 100/2.8 given the price range and some reviews I've read. That should work with the whole Canon EOS series and some Nikons too. But not going overboard right from the start is sound advice. :)

Another thing to consider is that once you chose a brand, it's difficult to change without spending (or losing when selling second-hand) a lot af money.
Me too I chose Canon. I started with a 350 which came with a kit lens I can easily call the worst lens I ever owned.  As my budget and demands are limited, I got Sigma lenses. I love close-up, so the 105 f:2.8 was what I wanted as it goes to 1:1 . You'll be happy with the Tokina also I guess.

Not that I now want to change if Olympus had been earlier, I would have stayed with them, coming from the OM syste), but even if I would want:

1/ my lenses now are canon mount, so I'll have either to stick with Canon or try and sell the lenses
2/ my lenses are for 1:1,6, digital, meaning the 5D and 1D are out of range.

Personally, I see no reason to go 1:1 (the old film size) despite my love for wide-angle - just try (!) to get the quality of a 400D with 24x36 film in 12x17inch prints - but if you think on changing later to a 5D ( or whatever its successor will be named) or 1D, don't buy lenses that are specific for digital camera's as they are unuseable.

My idea is that most brands are good. Don't listen too much to testers. Watch photographs with a critical eye and you'll see that most camera's are like human beings. We're all healthy, but when analysed in laboratoria and hospitals, they always find something. Neither camera's nor their bosses are perfect.
Hold the camera's in your hands, act as if you're shooting (imagination!!!) and you'll get a weak but very decisive feeling. Thrust that.

Have fun!

For my demands, this is sufficient. When tested in a laboratory on aberrations, chroma halo etc, there are certainly better lenses. But in real-life this difference in quality is only visible if you are a real master-photographer.

For those wondering: I asked Tan about the (Canon) equipment she used in some of her photos, so she posted the above. It may look slightly out of topic, but to me it isn't, even if she uses a 350 and not a 400. Thanks, Tan. :) Awesome pic, and close to what I hope to shoot one day. :)))

not a capture I wopuld up)load to a gallery as it isn't sharp enough. But usually you don't have time to think when capturing insects. It's point and shoot and hope for the best.

the 400 has a better processor than the 350, so noise will be even better.
personally I can't see this noise as worse as the grain on a slides film of 400 and set to 800.
On the contrary if you remember this is only part of the whole capture.

My previous camera was (still is!!) a Canon EOS 50E, so when I decided to go digital the choice was easy - buy a Canon or replace all of my lenses!

Not wanting to make the jump straight to a "semi-pro" I opted for the 400D, and haven't regretted it once.  It has all of the feautures & abilities that I require for my (mostly landscape) photography, &  crucially it has the ability to save RAW as well as jpeg.

I echo the comments above about handling before buying.  I have quite large hands, and one review that I read said that the 400 body was too small, with awkwardly placed controls for those with larger hands.  I can honestly say that I have never found that to be an issue - all of the controls fall easily to hand, and I find the camera easy to handle.

So would I recommend the 400D - unequivocally, but I wish they hadn't brought the 40 out so soon after I bought it!!!!  :-)

BTW: I love she's but I miss an "s" to be one.
;)

Thanks, Tan. :) I am really stunned by the "handheld" you just posted - but OTOH I know that a bit of luck is usally necessary to capture insects. ;) Than again, if the 400 is anything like your 350 it starts to look more and more like a good option for me. Now, here's something else that's important to me. Maybe some of you Canon users can answer this: How steep is the learning curve with the Canon, or to put it another way, how good are the automatic settings? I know myself, and I know that once I get a DSLR I want to go out and shoot nice pictures immediately and not study the manual for a week before I can take my first shot. ;) :D

I think all this labelling of cameras as entry level, semi pro, pro is just stupid.

My 400D earns me money and I get repeat business in a very demanding area of photo work.

In fact I bought a second 400D body a few weeks ago.

1/ load the battery
2/ place your CFCard

(warning here: do ask what card your camera can handle! tyhe 350 was limited to 2GB.)

3/ choose autofocus on your lens
4/ set to P

shoot

then learn the rest.

I personally prefer aperture priority because I'm used to it. I also live by the old rule that says that the number in the time of the exposure should be larger than the length of the lens. Here: 105 x 1,6 equals some 170, so to get acceptable sharp shots you need a time of 1/170 or shorter, or in the real world 1/200 and shorter.

You can compare lenses with violins. Only a real master will be able to get that out of a Guarneri or a Stradivari.
Otoh: Image Stabilisation does really work, and can come in more than handy!

Something else, and completely different. If you have the time, visit the gallery of leeco:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?username=leeco

then look up his camera, the Nikon 7900

a real master gets fascinating results with , sorry, common equipment.

Tan, yes, I have seen leeco's gallery and I was mighty impressed. And I will keep your advice about exposure and length of the lense in mind. It's been so long since I used an SLR that I think I will have to re-learn almost every one of the small lessons I taught myself when using an SLR. :D Garlor, while I don't think your reply answers any of my questions :p ;), your photos certainly enlighten me to the capabilities of the 400D, which looks pretty good to me. I'll try to get a good solid look at the 400D tomorrow - together with the Olympus 510, Pentax K10, and Nikon 40x and 80, which look like the most promising options for me right now, even if the Nikon 80 is at the upper end of what I am willing to spend on an "entry-level" DSLR. I'll keep you guys posted on how that turns out. :)

My $0.02: I was previously not interested in photography at all, really.. This past year, I decided to dump my archaic Hewlett Packard point&shoot & get a new camera. I toiled over the decision of P&S vs DSLR, and what brands to consider. I consulted a co-worker who has a recently purchased an Olympus 8MP DSLR (sorry, but I don't recall the model). I consulted with a non-Renderosity online associate whose husband is an amazing photographer. After all that, I decided on the EOS Rebel Xti (As it's known in the US market/400D elsewhere). Immediately, using the kit lens & "Basic Zone" shooting modes, as they call them (Portrait/Full Auto/Macro/Landscape/etc), I was blowing myself away with the quality of the output. When compared with ANY semi-pro photographs, they weren't as sharp or interesting, but I admittedly know little of what I'm doing.. I found myself wanting to do wildlife photography for which the 18-55mm just wouldn't cut it, and after more consultation & discussion, ended up with the Sigma APO DG 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro. The included pic was taken the day I received it, using (automatic)Landscape Mode at 300mm (non-Macro), resulting in ISO-100, f/7.1, 1/500" settings.

Now, since I got my Sigma, my Olympus-using co-worker had decided it was time for him to upgrade to a Sigma 50-400mm lens, which he ordered in (May?), and still hasn't received yet. I can't speak for actual Olympus lenses, but this situation makes me happy I decided to go with Canon for architecture.. My co-worker has begun considering whether he should dump the Olympus simply because he's concerned about availability of lenses as time goes on.. Your mileage may vary.

As I've gotten to know the camera, I have settled on mostly Aperture Priority shooting, and I'm getting to the point that the 300mm lens doesn't get me close enough to what I want to shoot (very often, anyway). Conveniently enough, here in the US at least, there are vendors that will rent you lenses for multiples of weeks for very reasonable rates, so I have a feeling next Spring (or earlier) will find me experimenting with a 2x teleconverter, and/or a Canon 70-200mm f/2.4 USM IS plus some wide angle lenses, loong before I finally decide to actually spend more money on glass.

I think your research is going to pay off for you in your decision very well. I personally have only used the 400D/XTi, and am still a complete novice, so my opinion is skewed, but take a look at some of the recent additions to my gallery, and see what you think about the things this camera/lens combination can do in the hands of an impatient, untrained idiot..

I just got back from getting all "touchy-feely" with some cameras, and here is what I found. (Might get a bit longish, but I want to write down my first impressions for my own future reference and inform you guys at the same time.) Cameras I held (in alphabetical order): Canon 400D/XTi, Nikon D40x, Olympus 510, Pentax K100. Before I get into the impressions these cameras left with me, three remarks: (1)For a guy who is 5'10"/178cm tall I think I have small, long hands. My right middle finger is 7.5cm long, my right palm about 9cm wide. (2)From way back I am used to (non-digital) SLRs that are rather boxy, without the grip so common in current DSLRs. I was surprised to find that the grip - and the placement of some buttons that comes with it - makes very little difference to me. Felt quite right with all the cameras, even when I held them like I would hold a "box". (3) I wear glasses, and I must say I am impressed how well the viewfinders of all cameras agreed with that. Not once did I feel my glasses were getting in the way. Nice! :) Now, for the cameras: (I) Pentax: Nice handling, solid viewfinder, but a bit heavy compared to the others - or at least it felt a bit heavy to me. Might be a matter of the mounted lense, but it was the first thing I noticed about this camera. All in all I think it might work for me, but I would call it average, i.e. a good solid camera, but perhaps nothing spectacular from where I sit (at least when it comes to handling it). (II) Olympus: Feels good to hold, but somehow the position of the viewfinder felt somewhat... "wrong" to me. Sorry, can't describe it any better. Might be a matter of the size of this camera, which seems a bit wider than the others. At first I thought that would be a good thing, but the other three just felt better in my hands, as I could really wrap my hands around them. That aside I am still somewhat tempted by the in-build image stabilization and live view on the monitor. (III) Nikon: Nice to hold, the viewfinder really agreed with me (both in terms of size and placement). One thing I am less certain about is the dohickey for the shoulder strap. It didn't really cut into my left fingers, but I am afraid it might make things uncomfortable if I handle this camera a lot. Apart from that the Nikon felt really good in my hands. (IV) Canon: IMO the viewfinder here falls somewhere between the Nikon and Pentax, i.e. good, but not superb. But holding this camera felt really good, at least as comfortable as the Nikon, and I like the placement of the controls on the right side of the back, which really agrees with me. The "button circle" is placed low enough to leave me more room for my thumb than the Pentax, while it is still easy to reach. The 400D/XTi may lack one or the other feature the other cameras provide, but now that I've held it I am more tempted than ever. I'll mull over the decision for another day or so, but right now it seems a close call between the Canon (feels nicest to hold) and Nikon (a viewfinder I really love). I'll probably end up with the Canon, but right now it is just a little too early to tell. :D

One point you may wish to consider is the lens choice available to you if you are considering a Nikon D40.  You have mentioned third party lenses and I don't think these will auto focus on that particular model of camera.

Difficult choice indeed!
A friend has the Nikon and from there I know that the Nikon has spotmeting which can be a grezat plus. But, and that I find personally less good, no bracketing option for exposure (very useful to extend the range of a shot with the help of software) and, like Onslow said, no motor inside the body so the lenses that don't come with a motor are indeed only manual focus.

Thanks, guys. :-) Looking into the technical details of both cameras - and especially the lense options - is what I was about to do next, but getting some pointers on what to look for will probably serve me quite well. :-)))

I won't be able to add any more comment to help you with your selection as you have already rec'd good advice from folks here.
But....after reading your analysis, there is one statement that puzzles me;

**"One thing I am less certain about is the dohickey for the shoulder strap. It didn't really cut into my left fingers, but I am afraid it might make things uncomfortable if I handle this camera a lot."

**If you are holding the DSLR with a proper technique...your left hand should be nowhere near that dohickey...

Quote - If you are holding the DSLR with a proper technique...your left hand should be nowhere near that dohickey...

LOL. You may well be right that I wasn't holding it properly. I was holding it the way that came natural to me, and learning to work with a DSLR "properly" may take me a while. Once I do,it may not be a problem at all. That said, I have made up my mind, and the Canon 400D/XTi it will be. While I have read only good things about the Nikon 40x, and it felt really god in my hands, the lack of an autofocusing motor in the camera body made the difference. I liked handling the Canon almost as much as holding the Nikon, so I could concentrate on the technical aspects for my decision. I briefly considered the Nikon D80, but it seems it is more expensive here in Germany than it is (for example) in the US, and with the "cash back" deal Canon has going right now the monetary difference will be quite big. The money I save by buying the Canon can go towards a dedicated macro or telephoto lense whenever I feel I need it, but until then I think the Canon should serve me well enough. :) I'll let you fine folks know when I get the camera, and how I like using it. :) Many thanks again to everyone who helped me make up my mind. I love you guys. hugs

I got my 400D/XTi yesterday. Haven't been able to take as many shots as I wanted, as the best lighting these days is only available when I have to sit at my office desk, but so far I like it very very much. :-) Thanks again to everyone who chimed in about the Canon. So far I really like it, and I don't regret buying the 400D. :-) (And if anyone comes across this post looking for opinions on this camera, feel free to contact me by site mail. I didn't intend this to be a detailed review of my personal opinion, but I am willing to share it.)

Enjoyed reading this thread.  I am also trying to decide between a Canon Powershot S5 IS and the 400D/XTi.
  Can anyone suggest a good second lens for the 400D/XTi  for telephoto work.   The standard 18/55 lens would be ok for a lot of shots but I would want a nice lens for telephoto work.    Where is a good place to buy this lens and not cost an arm and a leg to get. :)

No idea yet, but I bought a 28-135mm lense on ebay this week. I hope it will arrive Monday or Tuesday, but unless I have given it a good workout I wouldn't dare to make any comments on it. Another problem is that I have looked into a lot of internet sites before I made up my mind about this lense, but all of them are in German, so they may not be of any use to you(?). I guess that you should not look into a lense that fits your camera, but rather one that fits your purpose. There are a lot of lenses available for the 400D (and maybe for the S5 - no idea, really) by Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and possibly a bunch of other companies (these are only those I looked into). Just use Google to search for a site that gives some reviews of the camera you intend to buy. Some of the comments you may find could offer a lot of details about the lenses people used with the camera you may buy. Sorry that I can't offer better advice, but I am pretty new to this DSLR business myself.

An important thing when you consider a tele is that for the 400D you have to multiply with 1,6 (because of the sensor) to get the equivalent of the same lens on a film SLR. Now, to get a sharp pic with a lens, you have to shoot at a speed that is faster than your lens "length".
Meaning that to get sharp pics with a 200mm, you must roughly shoot at 1/250 or faster.
Unless you have a tripod (and use it) or a lens with image-stabilisation (costs more than a leg).

The advantage of the 400 over the S5 is that at higher sensitivities you can still shoot without too much noise. The advantage of the S5 is that the lens has image-stabilisation.

My very personal opinion is that it's very difficult to get acceptably sharp pics when you shoot handheld with a lens of more than some 135mm (meaning 216mm in film speak). Also (even more personal) tele's tend to flatten things, and if you shoot things far away, you get atmospheric effects like haze etc. So a really long tele is for specialized work. Which translates as money!

Tanchelyn, thanks for that information.    I would proably be better off with the S5 than the 400D.  I use to use an Olympus O-EM 1(film) with different type lens of which I still have.

  The image stabilisation is new to me but the reviews I read say it works good.

I have been using an Olympus C-50 for the last 4-5 yrs which is a point and shoot. 
The S5 I am sure would be a good set up and also would have telephoto built into the camera so would not have to buy more lens. :)

So hard to choose a camera with so many new ones available.  All depends on how much money a person wants to spend I guess.    I want a decent camera but dont want to spend a small fortune for it.   I am not into photograpy as some people but do want some good pics when I take them. :)

before you buy it's very important to go to a shop and hold the camera in your hand, try the buttons etc and also look through the viewer. It may be that the S5 has an electronic viewer, and you do have to get used to those.
Ideal would be to be able to take some pics with it because word goes that it's rather noisy at higher sensitivity (everything from 200ISO and upwards).

Tamchelyn, You seem well up on cameras.
  What would you suggest for a person that would be $1,000.00 and under.  That is a limit I have set to get a good setup.
  It can be dslr or plain ole point and shoot kind of like the S5.   I was looking at the A650 IS but it was recalled and I don't know if they are available yet.
  Thanks for your suggestions. :)

If you have used an OM it must have been quite a step to a point and shoot.

It all depends on what you want to do and what quality you want. In the old days, a film had a certain sensitivity, expressed in ISO (asa, din,...). Digicams have a range of sensitivities. Which is very good for less light situations, but if you want some quaity, a DSLR is better because less noisy.
So if you can invest the money, you're always better off with a dslr like the 400.
I'm not shure, but the lens that came with my 350 was really not good. The 400 comes with the same lens so I would go for a body only and add another lens. I personally have Sigma lenses, but other brands can be good as well.

But it all depends on what you want to do with it. A dslr is the best, but you'll effectively be spending $1000. As I live in Europe, unfortunately I can't advise you where to buy.

**Tanchelyn, after a long talk with my wife I am about decided to go with a Canon EOS 40D with a 18mm to 85mm lens to get started. :)
  This is not for sure yet as I am still looking at the 400D.  Lots to ponder.

Yes my old SLR Olympus OEM-1 was one the best cameras in its day.......:)
 
Anyone reading this thread do you have a 40D or 30D.  Would like some opinions on it.  Most reviews do look good. :)**

Well, I have a 40D. (I lost the 350 body in an unfortunate way.)
I can only say that I like it a lot. So much that it can make me "forget" my OM. (yes, me too...)
Forget...no. Rather, I don't miss it anymore.

I did not get a kit. I only got the body as I already had my lenses.

18 to 85 makes, in OM speak about 28 to 155. This should cover most of your basic needs I guess. Because you can crop a lot - you only need 1000x800pixels for a decent 5x4inch- your "tele" or "macro" options are in fact much longer/closer.

The 40D has 14bit raw. This means that if you want to shoot raw, you won't be able to use Photoshop's raw conversion nless you have CS3. (I don't). The soft that comes with the camera is quite good.

So if you want to invest the money, you won't be disappointed. Unless of course the exception to the rule that something should be wrong from the start, but that's what an express warranty is for.

What is express warranty....   Is that part of the one year warranty that comes with the camera.
  Not sure I can pull it off but if I can I am going to try and get the 40D. :)
  

Express warranty is the expression I found at Wikipedia. I could/perhaps should have used simply warranty. If it's a year over there in the States, then that's what I meant.

After lots thinking and talking to couple local photographers I have decided to get the Canon 400D/Rebel XTi. 
I can get the XTI for about 1/3 what the 40D will cost me and can use that money for accesiories like extra lens and other msc stuff I will be needing.
  Maybe later in couple yrs can upgrade to a better body and still be able to use the lens I will buy for the 400D/XTi.

Will pick it up when I visit DC over Thanksgiving. I will have lots quetions once I gt it and start shooting dSLR pics. :)

http://scoleman123.deviantart.com/ If it does not look like it has post-work, then it does not. The 400D with the kit lens is a great combination. I've had mine for about 6 months and am still learning all it can do. And just recently (tomorrow infact) decided to purchase a new lens. Its a wonderful camera that is almost too east to use. Its great for point and shoot, as well as stills and some macro work. I do look foward to seeing yor work.

scoleman123, What kind of lens are you buying.
 I am thinking about getting the Sigma 30mm/f4 lens for my first lens. :)

A canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM A chap at my local camera shop recomended an 85mm canon prime lense or a 18-55mm Tamron lense. Inshaala (rich) gave me this site that really helps in choosing - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php

I think (my idea) it's a good idea to think about the future (and live today). I mean: Why buying lenses that overlap one-another?

Also: dslr's are sensitive to dust, so it's best not to change the lens with every picture you take., or at least avoid this as much as possible. Which is why a zoom can be attractive.

And: one stop halves or doubles the needed light. Yes: dslr's have the option to change sensitivity, just like having a set of films in your camera with a range from 100 to 1600 iso and being able to choose the one you want with each pic. But this goes at the expense of noise. Noise that will be most visible in higher sensitivities and low-light conditions. It's not necessary to dramatize this. But, depending on what you want to shoot it can be a factor. If you want to shoot indoors without flash, then it may be an argument to get a lens with a wider opening, say, a 2.8. If you prefer to flash inside, then this is not a problem.

Back to the start: if you already have a, say, 20-70, why buy an 18-85? Imo, that's wasted money. (once again: my opinion!). If you plan from the start, taking into account that whatever you buy, you have to multiply the "length" with 1,6, you can actually save money by buying what you want most, and, eventually add another lens later on to expand what you already have, not to overlap it.

Ok its very easy to get confused when not been using an SLR for a while.
 With the canon 400D/XTi coming with the 18-55 mm f 3.5 to f 5.6 as the standard lens what do you suggest to get for a good first lens to use for most outdoor landscape shots.  Preferable wide angle zoom if possible.
   I ride a motorcycle a lot and like to get shots in the mountains and countryside. Would be nice forsame camera be able to get a good shot of animals.  Is there one lens that might work good for me to do this. :) 

I had looked at some nice pics taken with the Sigma 30mm/F2 lens but thisn may not be a good lens after reading the above. :)

Quote - Ok its very easy to get confused when not been using an SLR for a while.

 With the canon 400D/XTi coming with the 18-55 mm f 3.5 to f 5.6 as the standard lens what do you suggest to get for a good first lens to use for most outdoor landscape shots.  Preferable wide angle zoom if possible...

I'm still an inexperienced amateur, but I'll add $0.02 anyway. That kit lens is pretty lacklustre as far as objective quality goes. It blows away a lot of point & shoot lenses, but I would definitely consider either getting ONLY the body and buy your own lenses, or get a slightly more expensive kit with a better lens (I've think I've seen it  bundled with the 28-135 instead, but I can't remember where). I've been doing OK with that 18-55 kit & a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro zoom, but I'm looking to upgrade BOTH of these lenses. I'm renting the Canon 18-55 f/2.8 IS USM to see how that is, and I will also be checking out the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM along with a teleconverter for wildlife stuff. My problem with the cheaper lenses is in the glass, aperture size AND in the focus motor. That Sigma only cost me $200US and the kit lens is valued even lower I'm fairly certain. I've had issues with both autofocus clarity & with exposure due to small aperture in a lot of the things I want to shoot. I know I could do a little better with technique, but I suspect I'm going to continue to be limited by the hardware I currently have.

As usual, your mileage may vary..

That Sigma is a very good lens. But 30mm is about what a standard 50mm was on your OM.
Thing is that for landcapes you need a wide-angle, and for animals a large tele. Don't go for lenses that can handle both as that is asking too much.

For a digital slr, a wide angle of 17-18 is ok.  As far as tele is concerned, unless you want to print at 12x8 inches, you can crop in the photo you took. Yet for animals (not macro!) a 200mm would be needed. As this is about 320mm in "normal" size, you need to shoot at 1/500 or shorter to get a sharp shot (Image stabuilisation can help a bit, but is far more expensive). Which is why it's best to get a lens with a wider aperture. Never go for a lens that has 5.6 or even less (higher number) as autofocus gets into problems!

Also, I guess a decent quality is enough. High-end stuff is superb, but the difference is only visible in the hands of very experienced people (not me!).

I can say from personal experience that the sigma 18-50 f:2.8 is a good lens.On the OM this would have been about 28-80mm. Good for landscapes up to portraits. I did not get the kit lens, but this one and it really fulfills what I expected from it.
If I ever want a real tele, it'll either be the 70-200 f 2.8 zoom (which costs more than I want to invest, unfortunately.) or the 150 f 2.8. Which is also quite expensive but the macro interests me a lot. Also, 150 is in fact 240 in "normal" size. This is a more than decent tele and , as said, it would allow me to crop about one third for viewing on screen, making it an impressive tele. The 2.8 allows to eventually add a teleconverter (taking it to 300 or nearly 500 in OM days) without losing minimal brightness. Also, it's difficult to take sharp shots with those lengths. (I even use a tripod on wide-angle, but that's me). You would either need a monopod or tripod. If you're not too critical, the 150mm can still be handheld. If you shoot at 1:250 or shorter that is.
Of course, tele's are expensive.

There are lots of good brands, so don't fix on one. Get the most for your money, but don't let yourself be fooled in "this-can-do-it-all". Because it often can't do anything good.

That is my opinion.  Feel free to follow your own intuition. That's what life's all about.

Happy rides!

The difference between the new digital MM is something new to me. 

My old Olympus I had 3 lens for it.  A macro. The standard 50mm and a 200 mm telephoto lens.
  The telephot was a pice of junk. :)

  I want the least amount of lens that will do what I want my camera to do because I ride a mtorcycle on long 3-4 week trips each summer and need to carry only what will be needed.
  This is why I want a good landscape wide angle lens as 90% of the shooting will be in this mode.  Rest will be for Animals and buildings.

I will use the kit lens 18-50mm for a couple months and see how it differs from my old lens I used with my OEM Olympus and then may have better idea what I will need.
  Money is important to me so I do want best bang for the buck I can buy. :)

If you want to shoot landscapes and buildings I think the kit lense should be okay. Animals may be an entirely different beast (only a small pun intended). Depending on how shy these creatures are, and how close you manage to sneak up on them, you may need a dedicated macro lense for those shots. But - from my very, very limited experience - there simply isn't a single lense that will do everything for you. If you hope for the "egg-laying wooly pig", as a German expression goes, you may never find it. If you have a chance to rent a lense for a few days I would suggest you check out something in the 28-135mm range, to see if that will serve you well. It's what I use, and the only thing I miss compared to the kit lense of the 400D is the slightly wider wide-angle setting. And if the price is important to you, try ebay or similar sites, once you have decided on a lense. The Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM I now use on my 400D I bought used, but it works perfectly well and I got it for quite a bit less than a new one would have cost. Even if you want to support your local store, check around first, then mention to the local guy that you could get item X for $Y online and see if they don't offer you something better than they offer the average customer.

I am reading a lot about lens and slowly narrowing it down to I think 4 lens for the future.

Lot good reviews about the 50mm F 1.4 289.00
Also looking at the Canon EF 70-300 F4.5-5.6 IS USM 549.00
Canon 18.85 might be a good replacement for kit lens a little later.

Will play with the kit lens for a while and then decide if need to replace it with a better lens. :)

My wife is buying me the XTi for Christmas so all other accessories I have to buy and I am on a fixed income because of disability so I have to plan well what I need for the camera. :)

Thanks to everyone for their advice. :)