My existing camera is 5 years old now and has a dodgy battery compartment so I'm looking at a replacement. When it comes to photography, I'm very much the novice, as is my wife, but we are both looking towards getting into some 'proper' photography and are looking at an entry-level DSLR. I've read a few reviews but I'm still undecided. Budget is a big issue; I think my limit really is £350. I seem to be alternating between the two camera's mentioned - the D3000 and 1000D. The Nikon seems to fit the bill well and is generally well respected; it's clearly not as good as its more upmarket siblings, and a lot of people say to spend the extra for a D5000 but it's too much at this moment. It lacks a live view mode, but does have image stabilisation (IS) and it is easy to use. Most people say it has typical Nikon quality, yet the odd person says its the worst Nikon ever made! The Canon is also generally well respected and although it doesn't have the bells and whistles of its bigger siblings it is apparently worthy of the Canon EOS name. It's slightly more expensive with a non-IS lens (£370), an the IS lens would make it about £450 which is too steep for me. However, it does have Live View... apart from the odd scenario where it would be essential, I could happily survive without it, though it would be useful for previewing. The wife would probably use all the time - she seems to prefer the screens to the viewfinder. I don't imagine I'll be buying any additional lenses of any other gadgets in the short term, so the features of the base camera are of primary concern. What do our resident DSLR experts think? Anyone got any experience of either of these? Any other alternatives in this bracket that I should consider?