Hi all, I'm new here, so please be gentle if I break any forum rules... First off, I know this topic has been brought up before and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but people in this situation are usually considering upgrading from like a 30D to a 50D or a newer Rebel to a 50D. My situation is slightly different… I’m rocking the Rebel XT (vintage, I know) which I have had for roughly 5 years. Overall, I’m pretty happy with this camera. It’s never failed me and it delivers consistent shots. I would like to upgrade to something with more mega pixels for larger prints and a better AF system would be really nice. Below is the rest of my kit: Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 Canon 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens) Canon 50mm f/1.8 So here’s the dilemma… I have the opportunity to get a lightly used 50D at a really good price ($600) which would be a nice upgrade from my current camera. It seems that everyone here is pretty hardcore, so I'm not going to list the benefits of the 50D over the XT...plus, I would be typing all day. My only hesitation on pulling the trigger is everyone ALWAYS says to invest in glass for better pictures which I haven’t been able to do as you can see from my gear list. I could also pick up a PRISTINE Canon 17-40mm f/4L for the same price which would be a welcome replacement to the kit lens. Also, I could replace the 50mm with the f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8. I’ve shot a few weddings as a second shooter and I usually rent lenses when I need them…but that’s getting OLD. I enjoy shooting weddings and sports along with land/cityscapes so I'm not 100% which would the best move. The 50D would be a nice upgrade in speed, features, fps, and MP but lenses really do make the difference. I guess the real question is, which would make more of a difference as far as the quality of images goes? I know lenses make the difference, but the camera has to count for something…especially when you are upgrading from something over 5 years old. Has anyone made this jump and what were the results? Can anyone speak from experience?