I love coming to this site for my daily tech ingest. But this doesn't cut it. That camera is far from anything 'pro' or 'serious'. It's just an uptick in their bottom-of-the-line dslr. And that kit lens... far from decent. It's way slow, of poor, poor image quality, and of limited range -if you're the type to use a zoom.

What is this junk? Why not just publish a link to Canon's press release?

Stick to things you know nothing about and leave subjects about which you know a negative amount alone.

Foxy.

A completely pointless camera, as the far superior 450D is not only better, it's cheaper at <£500 and with a lens. Even the slightly older (but superior) 400D can be had for <£350 these days (with the same lens). 

Had they introduced the 1000D at £200-250, then it might look interesting. Otherwise, utterly pointless. Idiots.

Pretty sophisticated 7-point AF? Excuse me? This is Canon's knee-jerk reaction to the Nikon D40, D40X, D60 and the Sony A200. The Canon is a horrible little toy with a very sluggish shoot rate (1.5 FPS in RAW, and a 5-image RAW buffer is "Pro features"??? and JPEG is 3 FPS!!). It doesn't support high-speed CF media, has a paltry .81x viewfinder magnification, all-plastic body, and let;s not forget that it still uses Canon's very very slow liveview system. 

Steer away from this like the plague.

It's the 400D re-released with better image processing (Digic III vs. Digic II) and SD cards (vs compact flash), but with fewer focus points (7 vs 9). Oh, and a quid less.