All, I have owned a Canon Rebel XTi with a 17-85MM lens for about 2 years. I also own a 50MM 1.8 lens. We also own a Canon SD400 5.0 MGP Digital Elph. Frankly, I am frustrated with my experience with the Rebel, which is admittedly compounded by the fact that the 17-85MM lens ($500) is no longer autofocusing, and I must send it back to Canon after only 2 years of moderate use. However, my broken lens is giving me a chance to reevaluate digital photography. Although certainly not a professional, I used manual focus Nikon SLR's for nearly 30 years before I bought the Rebel. I quite familiar with basic photographic techniques. The main frustration with the Rebel is that the APS-C sensor in combination with the 17-85MM f4-5.6 lens does not permit one to blur backgrounds. I bought the 50MM 1.8 for use as portrait lens, and even at 1.8 the background is blurred some, but not obliterated as it would be if I used my Nikon FM2 with a 50MM 1.8 lens. I sometimes wonder if the trend in wedding photography to show the bride and groom with the church, outside site, etc. in full focus in the background is simply a response of professional photographers shooting with digital SLRs with APS-C sensors because they cannot afford digital SLRs with full-sized sensors. My photography instructor in the 1970's would have considered failure to blur the background in portraiture to be poor technique. However, the most frustrating thing is that I do not believe my Rebel XTi (10.1 MP) takes better photographs, particularly landscapes, than our 5.0 MP Canon Digital Elph. The Rebel and the lens cost me about $1400, whereas the Digital Elph cost me $250. The essential question is this: if one cannot blur the background with a APS-C sensor digital slr with a lens that most people can afford, then why not buy a good point and shoot, such as the Canon G10, instead? Any thoughts or comments that you may have would be most appreciated.