Todd,
Excelent point. Yet, I will challenge if you don't mind.
I am a proud tyro-newbie, and had investigated quite toroughly in this first-buy blah-blah SLR issue (a year of reflexion: may be I don't need this damn camera!!).
Here are my thoughts:
1. What you say is not only true for photo, but for any other kind of specialised activity!
2. However, on the contrary, I see some interest in putting money in a good lens - simply in term of value because it is not going to loose value while you would learn to use it - and this is true in other hobbies as well, provided you are skilled enough to learn fast.
3. there might be a sort of rule: price of the body should not be higher than price of the lens? - or even should be half the price of the lens?. I feel it would be stupid to have a Canon 20D with an average lens?
Now my situation:
I have a crappy gadget-like numeric video/camera thing. This is what I use for everything! it's awfull.
I know I need a zoom: I know I want to do 1st portraits, 2nd outdoor sports and landscapes, and stop image. I feel I am going to invest in Canon. I want only one lens (I am a newbie, let's remember - I just had my father's AE-1 for 10 years with 2 lenses, but this was 5 year ago)
I know I don't want a body better than a Rebel xt.
Lens (blah-blah..) : I hesitate, could you advise?;
EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM,
EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM,
or EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM
or a 50mm?
Oliver-the-tybie