I'm completely new to dSLR's - I've only had compact point-and-shoots (currently a Casio QV-R62), and always end up quite disappointed with the quality of images, especially in low light / indoor / outdoor by night situations (where I seem to take 80% of my photos) - either very noisy, shaky or both. Had a bit of a go with a work colleague's EOS20D - and really liked some of the indoor pics (though understand he had a posh "portrait" lense that didn't need a flash?), but I'm getting to be of the opinion (right or wrong) that I'm not going to ever be very satisfied by the picture quality from the compacts.
I've been reading up on the internet on the Dynax 5D (as the anti-shake feature really interests me) and it looks like it could be the one for me; but every time I go into a Jessops and as the assistants what they think they tell me they'd go for the Canon EOS-350D. Being inquisitive I asked if it was just as it was a bit more expensive
. In one store, I was told the Canon lenses are much better, and in another I was told that while the anti-shake on the Dynax was useful; the Canon worked much better at higher sensitivities, alevieating the need for the anti-shake.
I wasn't really bowled over with confidence from either assistant - so were their points really valid? And would something like the Canon be much better suited to me?
Thanks in advance