Ive been asking myself the same questions many others have recently, judging from a quick trawl of the Forum whether to get a Nikon D70 or the Canon 300/350d. Having tried all three in two different shops, Ive decided that the D70 is the best choice for me. My overriding criteria is image quality, and having spoken to the guys in the shops, both of them said that the 18-70mm Nikon DX lens is vastly superior to the Canon 18-55mm provided on the cameras. One of them said that buying the D70 at 930 includes a lens worth 300, while the Canon for 799 has a lens worth 50. Also, I just liked the feel of the D70 a little more, which helped slightly to sway my decision But - but - I have a little niggle in the back of my mind. D70 has 6m pixels to the 350D/Rebel XTs 8m. Does that in any way close the gap between them in terms of image quality? I would like to be able to print 16x20. Is there any significant difference in quality between a 6m and 8m pixel shot with the same lens. So when I saw the Canon 20d body-only brand new boxed on ebay going for 930 it has made me stop and think. While Ive settled the D70/Rebel question, would a body-only 20D be a better bet. I could then add a decent quality lens or two. It would cost extra . But would it be worth it? I dont want to start a Nikon/Canon argument here, I suppose the crux of the issue is how important is an extra 2m pixels? AIRICs work on here reassures me on the D70s image quality, (not that I could produce work like that), but Im viewing small pictures on a small monitor, so dont know how that translates. Thanks all.