I am planning to buy a SLR for myself and I am wondering which one should I go for EOS400D or 40D and I am alos looking at
EOS400D and nikon D80, D40s

Let me know what you think....

If the money is not the big problem and you have not any lens of Canon or Nikon, Canon EOS 40D is the best answer among your candidates. You may refer to

1. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

2. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-400D-Digital-Rebel-XTi-Review.aspx

3. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-XSi-450D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

Nikon D80 may be the alternative.

Anyway, however, I suggest waiting for the successors in this new year

I own both. The 40D costs much more just for the body, but is well worth it:
1. The camera is fast! Digic III processor makes all the difference (buffer for 17 RAW shots compared to 9 on 400D and far more in JPG)
2. Viewfinder is larger, more comfortable and includes more info (ISO setting, etc.)
3. Autofocusing uses horizontal and vertical AF points, so faster and more reliable
4. Far more control with top LCD screen
5. 3" LCD screen huge compared to 400D 2.5"
6. Case more rugged and weather-proofed
7. Live view available in 40D, not in 400 (but not much use, really)
8. Customisable menus, all of which are much easier to use than the 400D along with Auto AE button (not on 400D)
9. RAW and sRAW (compressed) formats + JPG
Some disadvantages (really unimportant):
* The 40D is bulkier so may not fit in your camera bag
* There is no cheap wireless remote available for the 40D (but there are two timer modes on the 40 and only one on the 400)
* Price, obviously.
Both bodies can take ef-s lenses although IMO only the 10-22 wide-angle is worth it.
The 400D was my first dSLR and I love it still, but it feels like a toy compared to the 40D. If you have other Canon lenses, don't bother with kits (unless the deal is really good). The kit lenses on both cameras, so far as I know, are really poor.
Both cameras have the same 1.6X crop factor. The 400D is a great start. You'll need more knowledge and experience to get the most out of the 40D.
If you do choose the 400D, your first purchase really should be Camera Amor protection. The 400D shell is made of plastic, has no weatherproofing and is very dust-prone.
Hope this helps.

I use one of the 40D's predecessors, the 20D, and I think it's a fantastic camera. I would definitely recommend the 40D over the 400D.

if its anything like the 30D, i would have to suggest the 40D.
i have both the 350D (XT) and the 30D. after using the 30d, the xt feels like a toy. either way though, i think either or would be a great start. the 400D can be had very cheap these days.

as already mentioned, the kit lenses are not very good. i have the 18-55 kit lens and i must say its a waste of space. but does come in handy the odd time. it would be worth swapping it out for a different lens upon purchase, IMO.

I started with a digital rebel and now have a 40d and love it. Go with a 40d if you can. In response to the efs lenses.. I have the efs 60mm 2.8 and it is a great lens.

Get the 40d if you can. There's no comparison imo with the 400d.

I own two 1d's and if I didn't need them for sports at night I'd go with the 40d in a heart beat.

Get the new 450D coming out at the end of April (also known as the Rebel XSi). The same processor as the 40D, live view, spotmetering, larger/brighter viewfinder and 12MP. The only advantage I can see the 40D has still are 1. build quality (it's pretty good) and 2. it shoots 3 frames per second faster. However, it is also $400 more expensive...

40D!!!

i just got rid of my 400d and replaced it with the 40d. ridiculously huge differences in terms of usability, customization, options, intelligence (faster af), and build.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 400d, and i had it for almost 2 years and it's done me great, but if you expect to grow and push your limits with your photos, i'd go with the 40d.