Importance of fps in macro?

My wife is thinking about getting the 1000D (XS) for her macro photography. It's just a hobby and she don't want to spend too much money on the camera. Our 350D is acting weird, so it's been over a year since she last did some macro photography. Her main concern with the 1000D is its low frame rate (around 1.5fps with RAW) — everything else is up to par with our previous camera that she's satisfied with — and she can't remember if she used a faster fps rate when she shot moving insects with the 350D.

So my main question is basically, how much does the fps actually matter in macro photography?

Going for the XSi instead is almost $300 more, and anything above that is out of reach.

Looking at http://www.dpreview.co​m …%2Ccanon_eos350​d&show=all, the 1000D slightly outperforms the 350D by a small margin (3.0FPS vs. 2.8FPS), and I don't think it underperforms the 350D in any respect, so you shouldn't miss anything if you switch.

If you ever find yourself shooting sports photography or something similar, high FPS is a huge benefit, but I have never found a real use for high FPS in macro, especially at high magnification. The only benefit that I can think of is perhaps the larger buffer to keep your camera from stalling when you're simply hammering off the shutter and praying that one shot is in focus; this was once a problem for me, but I've since calmed down a bit and am careful with my shots now.

Perhaps you might consider a used 30D or 40D if FPS is an issue? Where I am, a used 40D is not much more than a new 1000D, but the camera is a bit larger. On the other hand, you might find the additional features of the XXD series to be very useful.

Could be useful for insects in flight but I seldom shoot other than single shots.