If you are going to fork out for a 7d you may as well just go for FF (5d II etc) I have 1.6xphobia ;/

1d(x) > xd > xxd > xxxd generally speaking.

Sigma lenses are rarely ever better than the Canon variant. I don't know any pro's that use Sigma gear.

I guess it is okay for entry glass. Pretty sharp would be an over statement though. If it's pretty sharp, what does that make your 70-200 2.8?

I know the 7D is not a FF sensor.. but it just seems more technologically advance. The 5D and 1D mark III is still quite a bit more then the 7D : /

Well, from discussions on FM and POTN forums, i see alot of people ranking the sigma 50/1.4 over the canon 50/1.4 due to IQ and bokeh. Ofc the canon 50/1.2L is a whole different animal.. also a whole different price range

I dunno if it's my my 70-200, but wide open, my 70-200 f4 is sharper.

it's pretty soft with the 70-200 2.8 wide open.

Imma have to read up on that

40d is not weather sealed, but it has some sealings, but those sealing is only some foam crao in battery and cf card department, so its basiclt nothing. only weather sealed bodies from canon are the 1d series, but 5d mkII has some weather sealings, but not as good as 1d series.
iso performance is more than just slightly better.
its much better to use since theres a joustick for changing focus point and wheel to change the f-number.
viewfinder on 40d is better allso.

heres some link 40d vs xsi(450d) http://www.dpnotes.com/canon-40d-vs-canon-450d-digital-rebel-xsi/

I know you can get sharp Sigma lenses but I just don't trust the fact that it's a lucky draw in most cases.

Pretty soft @ 2.8? That's strange man. I've shot heaps on a 70-200 2.8 and it's always been pin sharp.

i recomend the nikon d3000.
its cheaper then canon, and works wonders!
plus, i think its easier to use and figure out.