| A | is outstanding and exceptional, rated in the top 10% of digital cameras. |
| B | means they are good, with some standout features. |
| C | means they are mediocre, and probably more trouble than they are worth. |
| D & F | mean they are absolutely awful or old. Avoid at all costs. |
- 5 out of 5
- 5 out of 5
Submit your own Canon 350D review!
- 9th of 53 in 8 Megapixel
- 29th of 50 in SLR/Professional
- 49th of 82 in Canon
- 29th of 87 in $350 - $600
| Compare 2 store ratings and prices... | ||
| Shop for Canon 350D accessories. | ||
| Vanns | $689.98 |
|
| 47digital | $690.63 |
|
- 4 out of 5
Great camera
(Si2005 - 10/13/06)I previously owned an Olympus 5060wz. That's a great camera too. It turns out that the difference between 5mp and 8mp is not really that big. The smaller sensor of the 5060 means that more is in focus than on a digital SLR at the same f-stop. But that also has disadvantages, eg. sometimes on a macro photo or a portrait you want a shallow depth of field so the background is blurred - that's more difficult to achieve with a non-SLR.
The advantage of 8mp over 5 mp is that cropping gives better results. Sometimes I take a photo, then realise that by cropping it has more impact. Better to crop an 8mp photo to 5mp than a 5mp to 3mp.
For those people having focusing problems... I think it's down to the 7 point AF. Try selecting the central focus point and just using that. The camera may be focusing on something else. I like to choose what to focus on rather than leaving it to the machinery.
The 350D takes great pictures. You only have to look at some of the photo blogs which use the 350D and you'll be convinced.
Why did I mark it down? The 18-55 lens is soft although it's still capable of great results. The Tamron 55-200 Di II is a good buy as long as you use it at f5.6+ (total bargain at ����80). My opinion is that to get the best from the 350D you need to fork out extra for a higher grade lens than the 18-55. Don't get me wrong, you won't be disappointed, but all the best photo's I've seen use the 17-40 Canon or the 10-20 Sigma. These add to the cost (not just by a few ����'s either). The same go for Nikon lenses too. The 18-70 Nikon is good but the pro lenses are a whole other level.
The upside of this is that if you want even better pictures you don't throw away the camera, you add a better lens. Also, if you do upgrade the body, the lenses can be used on the new body.
Noise levels are nice and low. I shoot at rugby matches at ISO1600. There is noise, but it's less than I would get at ISO400 on most other cameras. That means I can get shots I wouldn't normally be able to attempt. A good shot with a bit of noise is better than none at all.
Given the choice to "re-choose" I would go with the Canon again.
