50d or full frame slr?

i am looking to up grade my camera. i have been looking at a canon 50d, but in doing some research i have looked at the full frame slr's such as the canon 5d mark 2, sony a900 and the nikon d700. i want to buy a camera that is going to last me. i like taking pictures of kids, families and pets, landscapes and flowers. i liked the fast frames per second that the 50d, sony and nikon offer, but i am confused about which would be the best for me. the sales i have spoken each tell me something different. do i really need a full frame? will it provide me with any benefits?

I don't think so. If you were doing more serious photography for newspapers and professional assignments, then the full frame may be worth that above $2500 pricetag. But for the average family user, full frame is nice, but not entirely vital. You may want to take a look at the new Canon T1i. Because not only do you have the advantage of the same 15MB processor as the 50D, but it also shoots 1080p HD video.

Thanks for the advice, i already have a good digital video camera. i am after something for good still shots. photography is an expanding hobby of mine so if i was going to spend a bit of money then i want to get something to last me another 5 - 10 years at least.

The camera will most probably last for the 10 years you are looking for unless abused or you take a lot of shots and exceed the shutter lifetime. But, depending on the seriousness of your hobby, the camera will probably be exceeded by cameras with much more capability in less than 5 years at a lower price point. Consensus today is to concentrate your investment in lenses as opposed to the camera. Hopefully, a higher capability SLR in 5 years will be able to utilize your current lenses. Need decision on lens purchase whether you get an APC sensor specific lens to a full frame sensor lens (more expensive than APC). If you step up from an APC sensor SLR to a full frame sensor SLR, then APC specific lens will be obsolete.