MC wrote:

Auto-focus first appeared on P&S film cameras. / dSLR owner's now can't
live without it.

Don't need but it's handy.

It's important to understand that when auto-focus was introduced, it
was an effort to expand the camera market (non-"fixed-focus") from
professionals and enthusiasts to the general public who had gotten used
to the convenience of the "fixed-focus" Instamatic cameras. The camera
makers than had the idea that they could also expand the market for SLRs
by adding auto-focus to those as well. It worked well and everyone
seemed to have one of those Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, or Minolta
film SLRs.

Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.

It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.

Again, not a necessity. In fact there is a certain satisfaction of hearing
the shutter and mirror after pressing the button and I prefer it to a
"silent" camera (or one with "toy like" sound effects).

Well if you're taking photographs in church, or at a performance, the
silent operation is nice, but many SLRs have electronic shutters that
can do this as well, and you don't lose the advantages of a mechanical
shutter.

Live Histograms / Many wish they could find a way to get this if it's not
already in their dSLR's much-wanted Live View feed.

Nope. Never found the need. A skilled photographer shouldn't need this
facility.

It's more useful on a P&S because of the severe limitations of the
sensor. It's not much use on a D-SLR. Certainly you'd never give up the
optical viewfinder in order to get a live histogram. I have CHDK on my
Canon P&S cameras, and I use the histogram on occasion, but part of the
reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!

Shutter-Speed Preview that exists in nearly all P&S cameras' EVF/LCD
displays. / They don't even know what this is, they're forever calling it
viewfinder-lag in their ignorant error, but many want it once they
understand what it's for and how to use it.

Why? I have all the info I need in the "real" viewfinder, instantly and
with no lag.

The lag of electronic viewfinders is a big problem, mentioned by all the
professional reviewers. An EVF is certainly better than no VF at all,
but it's a poor substitute for an OVF. Unfortunately, the expense of
adding an OVF, that works properly with zoom lenses, to a point and
shoot is so high that most manufacturers have dropped it.

Nope. Built in flash is just a toy. Serious photographers use a flash gun.

Actually higher end P&S digital cameras copied SLRs and added a flash
shoe because the convenience flash on the P&S is hopelessly weak. Some
of the D-SLRs have a usable convenience flash.

Must have? Don't think so. Waste of time and effort. If you need video you
buy the correct tools for the job.

It's useful when you don't want to carry around a separate video
recorder. It was an effort by the D-SLR manufacturers to move
down-market to attract less technically sophisticated P&S users.

The camera has to feel right. A bit of weight can aid steady shooting.

The higher end ultra-zoom P&S cameras are larger than some of the
smaller D-SLRs, yet you still get far inferior image quality with the
P&S. However it is true that you can't get a pocket D-SLR but you can
get a pocket P&S.

Long zoom lenses with wide aperture. / They wish for this all the time so
they don't have to change lenses so often, while always busy missing shots
and getting dust on the sensor, not finding out that all their images are
ruined until they get home. They'll never get the large apertures at long
zoom lengths that can be designed for P&S cameras. Envy doesn't even begin
to describe how this makes them feel and act.

Again, we are talking quality. Some of the best quality glass is only
available for use on SLR systems.

The P&S makers love to talk about telephoto range because the tiny
sensor and the resulting crop factor means that they're getting what is
essentially a large, mandatory, digital zoom. But in fact you can just
as easily crop a photo from a D-SLR, taken with a much shorter focal
length lens, and end up with a superior result because the lenses and
sensor are so much better on the D-SLR.

For wide-angle, the high crop factor P&S really sucks. You can find a
couple of higher-end P&S models with 28mm at the wide end, but to go to
true wide-angle you need to use a kludge of lens adapters of mediocre
quality.

What we're seeing now, with the huge increase in sales of digital SLRs
and the lagging sales of P&S digital cameras, is a repeat of what
happened back in the late 1970's to the 1990's. As the general public
realizes the huge advantages of the D-SLRs, the volumes go up and the
prices fall. There's even a greater incentive to move from a digital P&S
to a digital SLR than their was to move from a film P&S to a film SLR.
Back in the film days, everyone had access to the same sensors--you
bought them on rolls and chose the one that best suited your needs at
the time. AF on the film P&S was much faster than what's now on the
digital P&S cameras. So you have the two biggest issues with digital P&S
cameras, the poor low-light/high-ISO performance (due to the small
sensor and the resultant small pixels) and long AF time (due to the
contrast detect auto-focus, and the small sensor and the resultant small
pixels) driving D-SLR sales in a way that film P&S cameras could never
drive the sales of film D-SLRs.