Until recently, I used the real // // photographing exclusively my EOS 100, which shoots really excellent pictures. For the snapping between, I've become quite an elderly but still digital Olympus 3030Z. What I noticed was that I digital camera grip more and more simply because you can immediately judge the photos and it cost side does not matter whether you take pictures of the same motif 2 or 20. The way the whole then subsequently with photo editing software (take a look in this respect absolutely the Freeware "The GIMP" to) also improve still and disturbing elements just taken out of the picture should be for well have been the driving forces. For a long time I had to upgrade defended on Digital SLR easy to believe that the paper copies of the recordings would not meet my needs. Meanwhile, however, I let myself be convinced by the reality is that even the no argument is still analog photograph. Now the only real weakness of digital cameras left: it goes by a relatively long time between the trigger and the real illumination. This problem exists but in the EOS 350D is not, about that later. Which manufacturer was not a question for me, at least I can use with the EOS 350D also the lenses that I used already on the EOS 100. Here now I can say that this step was absolutely right. The 350D is sufficient for the average consumer of any professional claims represents all times from. The pictures can be brought up to a size of 30x40 cm in very good quality paper. The functionality of the camera lags that of the EOS 100 is not behind and with this has never gone off me in many years something. Back to my note that digital cameras are too slow. I had heard that the 350D is fast when it comes to take a picture. But still, I was surprised that the time is no longer perceptible elapses between triggering and recording - you get the impression you shoot analog. Just as is the case with the time to readiness. The camera is ready to shoot in considerably less than one second. To philosophize about the difference between the optical D-SLR and D-compact camera is idle, the difference in the pictures is enormous. Why now so the 350D and not a different model from the digital EOS range. Now this was mainly a decision on price-performance. Of course, EOS-1D are (in all its forms), EOS 5D and EOS 20D again a notch above the EOS 350 D, but the functionality and quality of here to be discussed camera does all the time - even for very serious amateur. What are the major advantages of the bigger brothers. Now they have one hand higher resolutions (like I said, the resolution of 350 D extends to 30x40 from), rapid image sequences (the 350D can "only" 3 frames / second) and can more series images in succession (here creates the 350 D as well as 14 shots - that was good enough). In addition, these cameras have better autofocus (but also the seven focus areas of the 350D provide sufficient quality) and some other functions, but essentially playing no role. On the other hand, the question arises: Why not grab for even more favorable 300D? Now this is certainly not a bad choice, but lags the 350D just in resolution but also the speed significantly behind. So much cheaper it is then not even turn that you want to be without this quality benefits. Disadvantages and weaknesses? There are no real weaknesses of this camera, the only thing that seems to me worth mentioning is that the 350D does not allow presentation of the subject on the screen. That has to make a photo look through the viewfinder always. Although now that's nothing unusual for SLR but sometimes taking pictures across the screen has its advantages. Conclusion? I am very happy with the choice that I made. I can still use my old equipment and yet have an instrument in their hands that can do everything what the photographer wants.
