I've been researching this subject for a while. I agree with everyone that says that Canon is a name to trust over Sony, but at the same time does that mean that the A350 should be overlooked? Although Sony is more of a newcomer to the camera game than Canon, they did purchase Minolta in 2005 along with all of Minolta's properties and their research and development. Also- Sony is a much bigger company than Canon, and I'm sure they've pumped a fair amount of money into their own R&D. From what I've gathered so far, the Sony is a great camera and good runner up to the Canon XSi, and it's only real problem (besides a little bit of a startup time lag) is that the stock lens is a P.O.S. (piece of sh*t). But at the same time- it accepts Minolta Lenses from the last 30 years, so finding good lenses for a good price should be a snap. It also has an extra 2 megapixels, but that's worthless without a good lens. So my questions are- (a) has anyone used both of these cameras? If so, please let me know what you thought. There are too many people trying to tell me whats up without having even picked up the Sony a350 (or the XSi for that matter). (b) Has anyone here used older Minolta lenses with a Sony Alpha body? If so, how'd that work out for you? Does autofocus work (I'm assuming it doesn't?) How do I know what the different focal length will look like on the Sony? (Like.... will a 5mm lens actually appear as a 70mm lens on the sony? a 200 like a 300? etc) As much as I think I should give the Sony a shot, I'm still leaning towards the Canon. I just don't want to spend my hard earned money one day and then hate myself for it the next. Thanks for all your help!