> I'm leaning towards the Canon 1000D. It seems to be the one with
> the best performance and fewest flaws or missing features for the
> average user. There's a bit of a price war and a twin-lens bundle is
> affordable
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/page34.asp
>
> Maybe the Sony A300, although reviewers aren't kind about the
> image quality with the kit lens

> http://www.theage.com.au/news/digital-life/cameras--camcorders/reviews/review-sony-a300-dslr/2008/09/23/1221935645076.html

If DPREVIEW give an opinion on the lens, take what they say as near holy 
writ. Take almost any other web review comment as suspect until proven 
otherwise. Luminous Landscape is OK. DYXUM will provide in depth comment and 
specs on specific lenses (DYXUM = DYnax maXUM)

You can buy Minolta AF lenses on Trademe (local NZ auction site) at good 
prices when the kit lens palls (or before).

In-body antishake means ALL lenses are antishake. In lens antishake *MAY* 
show a commitment to quality - but may just show a lateness to the patent 
queue and a desire to charge more N times rather than just once.

Fast shutter response live view makes vast sense. Having a 1 second shutter 
delay in live view (as some have) is worse than pathetic.

I have a 500mm auto-focus mirro lens. The ONLY AF mirror lens ever sold 
(apart ftom the thousands of identical ones :-).) If you ever want AF and a 
compact light weight long lens (750 mm equivalent) then the Sony may be more 
attractive.

I'd buy an A300 over an A350, probably (Lower MP is better and shooting rate 
is higher. 10 MP is enough - 14MP largely just gets you more noise in an 
APSC frame size).



        R





-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist