IMHO You have to be very serious about your photography to care about the "ruggedness" and lens handling capabilities of the 350D.
I've had a 300 (film) for years, used it extensively with my 70-200 F/4 L and 100-400 IS L. I don't have any problem using these lenses with the 350D. The 300 (film) even had a plastic lens mount, still had no problem with that (years of hiking, outdoor use swapping lenses etc). When you get to anything even the size of the 70-200 you don't just hold the camera, you hold it by the tripod colar on the lens, it's not like you have to support all the weight by just holding the trip on the camera. Of course that's how you pick it up but I'm talking about stabalising yourself for a good shot.
The 350D does have a metal "chasis" and metal lens mount, but plastic body/case and definitely not as solid as the 20D which is has much more metal construction.
I am disapointed that the 350D has a smaller grip than the 300 (film) did, but I've come to get used to it. I would only ever use the 350D (or 300 for that matter) with a verticle grip, to provide the extra gripping capability.
I bought the 350D instead of the 20D because of price, I simply don't have the extra money for the 20D right now. Also, I always go on the philosiphy of buying top lenses (hence the L's) and upgrading body later. The glass in the lenses lasts for ever, the technology in the 350D/20D gets out-grown in months.
Considering all the other factors that can affect every photograph (daytime or astronomy) (skill, lighting, tracking, DOF, focus, etc etc) I wouldn't worry much about the difference if you can't decide, and get the 350D. Then later upgrade to a 12+ megapixel camera if you outgrow the 350D.
Roger.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmarsh81
Striker. Are you serious about the large lenses being too heavy for the plastic case? I am currently saving up for a 350d, might keep saving for a 20d if they are too plasticky.
|