I've been reading so much about the Canon 350D that I finally went into a store to handle it, see how it felt. I keep telling myself I won't buy a DSLR just yet, but husband will be in Singapore in a few weeks, so I'm tempted to have him pick one up for me. This is a reputable store, and I made it clear I wasn't going to buy that day, but that I was seriously interested in that particular camera. I'd been assuming that I would eventually buy the camera with the kit lens to save money, get used to the functions while saving up for a better lens. But the guy helping me said something interesting. I told him I was coming from a Canon S2 IS, that I'm getting more and more interested in macro, but that I also need a lens that can be used all-around. He said that the S2 IS actually has a better (fixed) lens than the Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens that sells with the 350D. He suggested I get the 350D body with a Sigma lens. I'm sorry I can't remember the exact specs for that lens, but he said it would do well for macro, but could be used all-around, and would be a reasonably priced step up from what I had. So - those of you with experience - does that sound right, that the glass on my good P and S is superior to the Canon EF-S 18-55mm? If I'm going to go over to a DSLR, it doesn't make sense to go down in glass quality.