Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT 8.0 MP Digital SLR Camera - Silver (Body only)

I have an old Canon D30, a 3-megapixel digital SLR from 2000. I decided to upgrade. The D30 was followed by the 6-megapixel D60, which is very rare on eBay, and then the 10D, 20D, 30D and 40D semi-professional SLRs. The 20D seems to be the current default choice for amateur digital Canon SLR fans, judging by its popularity on Flickr. The 30D has the same 8-megapixel image sensor and processor as the 20D, and doesn't seem worth the extra money; the 40D is new. The 10D is 6-megapixel, just like the D60. On a psychological level I think of eight megapixels being a useful sum; six megapixels is too little, ten megapixels plus isn't worth the premium for me.

Alongside their semi-pro line, Canon sells a range of consumer SLRs, the 300D, 350D, 400D, and now the 450D. Most 300D models on eBay tend to be the silver variety, which looks tacky. It's a 6-megapixel model, which seems a bit low. It also has a cut-down set of photographic features, which is a no-no for me. There is an unofficial firmware upgrade that will restore some of these features, but it hardly seems worth the bother for such an old model. The 400D is new, and the 450D isn't out yet. That rules out most of Canon's line. The professional 4-megapixel 1D MkI is relatively cheap, but too quirky for everyday use. The later 1D models, and the 5D, are very expensive.

My first thought was to go for a 20D, but I opted for the 350D instead. It has essentially the same resolution and image quality as the 20D/30D, but it is much cheaper. It's also smaller and lighter, and unlike the 300D it's generally not silver.

I can understand why the 350D is cheaper. The body is smaller and harder to hold than the 20D, it feels hollow and plastic in comparison, and the buttons on the back are wobblier and smaller. The 20D has a very useful command dial, which rotates easily but feels solid, whereas the 350D has a typical set of digital camera menu buttons. On the other hand, I haven't heard of a rash of 350D fault reports on the internet, and although the shutter is supposedly only rated for 50,000 shots the forums are hardly abuzz with angry 350D users damning Canon's parsimony.

As for the camera itself, you've probably read a bunch of professional reviews already, I will not duplicate them. The image quality is great at ISO 100, with a bit of shadow noise up to ISO 400; you could use ISO 1600 at a pinch (there is no ISO 3200 mode, and as far as I know there's no firmware hack to enable one). The camera has several custom functions, including a sort-of mirror lockup, and you can set up sharpness/contrast/saturation profiles with the menu, rather than having to download them from the PC, which is an advance over my old D30. The tripod thread is aligned with the middle of the lens. The LCD screen has a backlight, although this turns off if you press any of the control buttons, which is irritating. It uses a different, smaller kind of battery than my D30, but the batteries are dirt cheap on eBay. Start-up, image review etc are much quicker than on the D30. The handgrip is smaller, and I have to contort my pinkie to get a good grip. But the pictures have nothing wrong with them, with a good lens (the XXXD range also takes EF-S lenses).

All in all this is still a very useful SLR, and I can understand why it was so popular. It has no quirks. There's a wide range of adapters that will take old second-hand lenses from the 1970s and earlier. The batteries last several hundred shots.