tossing a few pineapples
Figure I'll toss some more fruit into this salad of opinions
First, do you already have anything significant invested in a modern 35mm SLR?
If you do, then because dSLR's are generally backwards-compatible to their 35mm forefathers, you can leverage your existing lens investment.
But do keep in mind that if your lenses aren't worth much, you shouldn't let the tail wag the dog.
Second, the current "top dog" in the dSLR marketplace is generally considered to be Canon, in no small part because of their impressive lens suite.
As such, they're a safe bet for a long-term investment that will give you room to grow (if you choose to).
But...if you don't have the money for many lenses, this becomes the "if I can't afford it, does it really matter anyway?" philisophical debate: it may or may not be an item of consideration.
Third, ergonomics are NOT(not, not, not) something to be lightly disregarded. It doesn't matter if its got the greatest specs in the world if its usability quotient is low - - - and since this is a Mac website, the point here should be painfully obvious. Personally, I'm not familiar with the 350, but simply hearing someone raise the question on the possible poor suitability of its buttons raises a red flag for me to go do more research.
IMO, its more important to personally fondle and see if the controls are laid out in a way that I like and buy that camera, even if in the 14th layer of technical debate, there's a 10% difference that has a chance of showing up for 1% of my photo opportunities: you can have the best technical hardware in the world, but if its hard->impossible to use, you'll miss the shot.
Get ahold of each of your short-list candidates (with their lenses) in your hands to hold and twist the knobs and look at the indicator displays. And go find and carefully read the reviews that go beyond mere pixel counts and talk about the camera's interface even though they are subjective. The underlying problem here is that there are cameras being designed and approved by committees of non-photographers these days, and features important to photographers are occasionally forgotten.
Fourth, if you wait for the next best thing, you'll never by anything digital. Decide why "A" isn't worth buying, but "B" is worth buying, and you'll go a long ways towards understanding your own requirements that you're trying to buy to. For example, if you enjoy scenic shots that have everything in focus, you had better get a camera that has a good DOF (Depth of Field) l system - - such as a dedictated button.
Personally, I made the virgin Nikon-vs-Canon-vs-X-vs-Y decision on film a few years ago, and ended up with Canon because they had a better set of ergonomic controls (IMO), and a slight edge in lenses (which has since become more pronounced, with the advent of IS and DO lenses).
As such, since my lenses are Canon, I'll look at a Canon dSLR. Today, that's probably the 20D.
However, no SLR is complete without a lens, and in the long run, they're going to be what a photographer spends his money on. For some insight, here's what I'm currently packing:
(off-brand) 19-35mm f/3.5-4(with 1.6x digital --> 30-55mm)
Canon 50mm f/1.8 (with 1.6x digital --> 80mm)
Canon IS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (1.6x --> 45-215mm)
Canon IS 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (1.6x --> 120-480mm)
Except for the 50mm, each of these lenses run around $500, so adding a 20D body to the above, this is probably around $3000 worth of stuff.
Don't worry too much, for you can build it up over time .
I got the 50mm is purely to continue to experiment with my Coken filters. Its diameter is backwards-compatible to my existing collection, whereas the rest of these lenses are not (they're too big in diameter).
FWIW, the 50mm wasn't my first lens: an off-brand 28-200mm was, which I quickly replaced with the Canon IS 28-135mm.
The "1.6x multiplification factor" that we get from Canon's APS-sized digital sensor is pretty typical of the consumer/prosumer dSLR products. And we love how it "gives" us more telephoto, since it quickly gets expensive to get better than a 300mm at f/5.6 ... I've been looking to push out to 400mm and the basement is over a grand for the least lens, and my dream lens is the 400mm DO SI ... which lists for a bit over 5 grand.
But also notice with how what was "given" to us on telephoto was "taken away" on wide angle. Personally, the entire reason I bought that 19-35mm WA was because I found that the 28mm- was good, but not enough for what I wanted to do with it. To push a dSLR back down into the ~20mm WA range gets expensive.
Finally, because no camera is complete without a lens, you need to be thinking about what you want your first lens to be concurrent with the camera. IMO, I'd not go with a simple 50mm prime as your first & only lens...it seems to be just such a waste.
-hh
