I know there's a few people interested in photography on here. I was browsing just to get an idea of prices and stumbled across this.

Seems to me like as it stands that's a pretty good deal and would be great to get someone started in DSLR photography

Of course, my judgement might be wrong here and it could be terrible (but looks good compared to everything else!).

Here it is:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170522224613&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT#ht_945wt_1137

It's a great camera for the money it was back when it first came out. I got one in 2005 I think it was – 600ish quid back then. So long as it's in good condition – it's gotta be worth it. I've used mine a lot over the years – took it travelling around the world where I used it almost every day for a year and it held up fine.

Advantage over more expensive models is it doesn't weigh as much. Main disadvantage is general pic quality (although for the £ it's good!) but this can be improved by a better quality lens – quality of lens can have more effect than number of mega pixels.
Also in ISOs over 400, pics can get a bit grainy (refered to as 'noise') with the cheaper Canons but you'll only really notice this in low light conditions, over all you can't go wrong with the canon and nikons at the cheaper end of the market.

(Only Canon I'd avoid is the 50d – too many mega pixels crammed into the sensor creating too much noise – hence grainy pics).

Also if you like the computer editing side digital photography, get hold of adobe lightroom, aperture etc and photoshop. You can then shoot in RAW mode and edit the pics far better than those you take in JPEG. Really will make a big difference 🙂

Only Canon I'd avoid is the 50d – too many mega pixels crammed into the sensor creating too much noise – hence grainy pics)

Did wonder about that myself,but the 500D has the same pixel count and the 7D/550D has 18mp, both of those cameras get great reviews.
Surely Canon know better than to keep on increasing the pixel count and make cameras with poor image quality.

Admittedly I have a 40D with far fewer pixels,but had a 500D as a standby and never noticed a problem unless I went silly with the ISO

Not sure about any of this and would need convincing, I do know the 50D was much improved by turning off the noise reduction feature along with the highlights optimiser too

Yup, Canon do know better than to keep on increasing pixel counts – the newer models don't suffer from the same noise problems as the now relatively old 50D. The 7D is in a different league, it also uses a different type of sensor – I think it may be slightly bigger too.

The 40D was a better camera for the money than the 50D. 50D never got glowing reviews and it came out around the time that Nikon were making cameras that coped with noise far better which didn't help.

I'm hoping Canon ditch the 50D and bring out something else to compete with Nikon in that price band.

"sold" prices are ~ £160-200.

I've never known why folk think a mid-auction price has any meaning but there you go.

I used to have a 350D and got some great pics out of it. This is tempting me!

I'm hoping Canon ditch the 50D and bring out something else to compete with Nikon in that price band

Would be good, can't see them using anything other than the sensor from the 7D if they bring out a 60D though

All I want is a camera, no video and around the 12-14mp mark, few more focus points might be handy too. My 40D has got nearly 70K clicks and can't go on forever

The rumours are that the 60D will be more video focused than previous cameras to avoid too much competition with the 7D. Alledgegly will have a articulated screen.

Take a look here: http://www.canonrumours.com