Photography is but one of my hobbies - perhaps the one I like the most. As it is, sometimes I have lots of time for it and for long times I don't. I still use the Fuji S5500 camera and it was a great camera to learn the real mechanics of photography as everything could be done manual. I took a couple of great shots with it. However, I found the ceiling of this model and it makes my life difficult with some type of photography as it is slow in many aspects - especially shutter lag. This year, my Dad bought the Fuji S9000 and it is a huge improvement. Shutter lag is zero and I really like the manual zoom. Aperture is worse than for the S5500 though. I used the S9000 as well, but now being much more experienced, I found the limits within a few occasions. Fuji however, likes to market this model to compete with an entry level DSLR - that is pushing it! This week, I had the chance to play with a Canon EOS 350 D and I must say, I was impressed. The entry level DSLR cameras seems to be a couple of levels ahead of the best fixed lens models. My Dad still have an old Pentax MX Super with a Vivitar Series-1 70-210mm f3.5 lens. There is a 2 x teleconverter, as well as two prime lenses, a 28mm Cosina f2.8 and 35mm Pentax. None of them are autofocus of course. If I buy myself a Pentax K100D, do you think with the above lenses I would at least do better than the best new fixed lens models in terms of lens quality? My gut feel says yes. (I know the lenses will have 1.5x factor on the new camera and will probably take it with the lens kits to get wide angle.) I am not concerned about the autofocus as the type of photography I like will not have that much benefit from it. If I am going for other lenses later, I will definitely look at Sigma for example. I don't make a living from it so I cannot justify paying for my camera goodies as much as for my car! So, is it worth the investment going for a DSLR body with the lenses I have?