Thoughts please....

I'm thinking of upgrading my XTi. I've got 2 scenarios....or at least 2 I've been milling over. One scenario has me selling my XTi and Tamron 17-50 and buying a used 40D + 24-105L and a UWA like the sigma 10-20 to go along with my 70-2004L and my 50 1.8. The second scenario has me selling the XTi and keeping the Tamron and buying the 50D + a UWA sigma. I know there is a slight difference in cost (3-400 bucks) assuming I can find some good used deals. I'm just not sure which way to go. I guess I've been intrigued by the number of good deals I'm seeing on the 40D and kit split 24-105's. At the same time the 50d may be nice......

I shoot a little but of everything, if I had to narrow it down I'd say I mostly landscapes followed closely by portraits.

Thanks for your help.

Sorry I have no gear list, still figuring out how to add that.

On balance, today I think the 40D/24-105/UWA is the way to go. The other way, you'd not really have anything "normal" except your 50.
Also, there could be a flood of used 5Ds on the market next week

xarqi wrote in post #6290994
On balance, today I think the 40D/24-105/UWA is the way to go. The other way, you'd not really have anything "normal" except your 50.
Also, there could be a flood of used 5Ds on the market next week

+1. go for it

The 5D is definately another option. I guess if I got the 5D I could sell the Xti and the Tamron to help fund a 5D kit maybe. I've read a million threads regarding the 5D vs 40D and now 50D. The hard part for me (probably because I still working things out)is I don't really have one or two types of photography that I focus on. When I read the threads I come the the conclusion that the 5D is great for portraits, landscapes...and the 40D/50D is great for sports/nature... I'm intersted in both types of photography so I guess my question is which camera will provide the best overall coverage? I know this has been asked a whole bunch...sorry to bother...still haven't been persuaded one way or the other.

you can cover easily with 40D landscape , but its hard to cover with 5D sports/birds.
5D for birds will require very expensive lenses.
besides, from what ppl told me on many threads i opened is that IQ of 40D doesnt fall much behind 5D (its a bit sharper , and one stop better with noise).

Gotmoose wrote in post #6292827
The 5D is definately another option. I guess if I got the 5D I could sell the Xti and the Tamron to help fund a 5D kit maybe. I've read a million threads regarding the 5D vs 40D and now 50D. The hard part for me (probably because I still working things out)is I don't really have one or two types of photography that I focus on. When I read the threads I come the the conclusion that the 5D is great for portraits, landscapes...and the 40D/50D is great for sports/nature... I'm intersted in both types of photography so I guess my question is which camera will provide the best overall coverage? I know this has been asked a whole bunch...sorry to bother...still haven't been persuaded one way or the other.

Well, let me answer this way.
I've got a 30D. As soon as I can afford FF body like the 5D (but with liveview, micro AF adjustment, 100% viewfinder cover, a dust shaker, and ideally weather sealing), I'm getting one. For me, the 30D is a stopgap measure only.

My reluctance to recommend the 5D for you was twofold, as I indicated: you'd have no "normal" lens, and if the successor to the 5D comes out next week, as it well might, 5D prices may drop, so it could be worth waiting at least until then.

Yeah it sounds like waiting is a good option. Really the next couple months should be a great time to upgrade new or used I'm thinking. Thanks for the advise/ideas.