What is considered the standard for a digital SLR camera?

[BenjaminXYZ]

The EOS 30D is just a minor improvement over the EOS 20D that's all. (The extra $$$$ are not worth it IMO). Just because the EOS 30D isnew as all new cameras are - The EOS 20D is any time just as good.

The decision is;

The EOS 20D body with a suitable lens, or the EOS 350Dbody with a better lens, or the EOS 30D with an even lower glass (Since it is more expensive)... Your choice. Factually, the EOS 350D with the best lens will produce the best image quality in there since it's natural image qualityisidentical to the EOS 20D and 30D's. IMO lens quality is the most important and I usually emphasize a lot on it. (It makes a big difference).

On the other hand, the Sony Alpha A100 captures the most image details compared to the EOS 350D, 20D, and the new 30D. The camera also have a build in "Super SteadyShot" and dust buster with anti-static coating on the CCD. Don't forget the advance "Hardware based" dynamic range optimizer that the A100 has as well. There are many other qualitative features on the A100 such as the 230,000 pixel clear photo LCD plus with anti-reflective coating, large and bright pentaprism TTL viewfinder, oreintation sensor, eye-start AF, smart mirror-lock up feature, and some advance WB functions (Temperature & fine tuning) etc...Overly an impressive camera indeed for my super hightype expectations. :|The camera is also darn fast (High performance overall)!

[JohnG]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

The decision is;

The EOS 20D body with a suitable lens, or the EOS 350Dbody with a better lens, or the EOS 30D with an even lower glass (Since it is more expensive)... Your choice. Factually, the EOS 350D with the best lens will produce the best image quality in there since it's natural image qualityisidentical to the EOS 20D and 30D's. IMO lens quality is the most important and I usually emphasize a lot on it. (It makes a big difference).

I think you're oversimplifying just a bit. The right combination of lens/body is dependent upon the shooting needs of the photographer. In general I agree glass is always a better investment but you still must consider if a photographer has specific needs that require the feature set of a given camera. For instance I shoot sports - sometimes in low light. I've used ISO 3200 quite a bit - especially for HS football. There's no way the ISO 1600 of the 350 could cut it - unless you want about 3 bodies with 3 different 2.0 primes on it (one being a $3500 200mm 1.8). As a sports shooter the added burst rate is also of benefit - especially in sports like baseball and track where an extra 2 fps can be the difference between capturing peak action and missing it. So, the statement that the 350 with better glass will always produce better images than 30d with lesser glass isn't necessarily true.

Or, for a given style, the spot metering may be of great benefit - same with the incremental ISO ability of the 30d.

IMO, any purchase of photographic equipment should be based on getting the combination of equipment within your budget that will best allow you to meet your needs. So, first step is identifying what your needs are. Second step is identifying what equipment is necessary to achieve those goals. I tend to agree with you that you don't always need the newest camera - you only need it if it has a feature YOU SPECIFICALLY need even if that feature is unimportant to someone else.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Sorry;

Actually I meant to make it easier to understand: :idea:

By getting the Canon EOS 350D or theEOS 20D, the money saved could well buy you a better glass. :-)If you are on a budget andthe image qualityis the most important factor; then by getting the EOS 350D with a better glass will get you crisper image qualities.