I agree with David and am sure a lot of readers are struggling with this
issue.

As a veteran of a bunch of film SLR's over the years I did come to
appreciate their flexibility, focusing capabilities, etc. But having
switched over to digital my basic thinking has started to change because
of the inherent flexibility that CAN be available in very small
packages. When I put a wide-angle teleconverter on my Oly 5060 I am
dipping down around 18mm thanks to a lens I can put in my shirt pocket.
Ditto for the reach of a small Oly teleconverter that gives me superb
reach of another kind. In a pinch I can take this 'system' out for a
day in a very small bag or most sports jackets. In the old camera case
that I used to haul around my SRL and lenses I can put this system, an
external flash, a backup Oly 560, a subnote computer, an MP3 player, an
auxiliary battery for my computer and a bunch of batteries and chargers
for the cameras. All this photography for less than the price of a
digital SLR body, even if I throw in a good imaging program. And,
having all this in one relatively small space makes it a lot easier if
one is a heavy traveler, as am I, and one wants to concentrate on
subjects, rather than equipment. Of course, I'll probably bite the
bullet eventually (I do have some wonderful lenses left over from SLR
days...hmmm), but it probably won't be for sheer practicality or any
respect for my aching back. I took a couple of foreign trips this year
and because of all the hoofing around just took my little 560. When I
got home I compared results with earlier trips with SLRs. I think the
digicam won going away....I took more risks, more candids, and if I
didn't have quite the wide angle capability I wanted a little editing at
home sure made it look that way. Oh, and many of the photos were
beautiful and would print up to and above 8x10.

David J Taylor wrote:
http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com/ says:

"If you want a top-of-the-line camera with TONS of features, awesome
lenses, amazing resolution, super-sharp sensors, and no compromises made,
AND if you don't want to learn how to use an SLR... then one of these
super-expensive cameras is for you. But your money WOULD be better spent
on an SLR, which is why the Canon Digital Rebel did sneak into this
guide."


I guess you have to read the whole Web page (or at least the introduction)
to put this quote in its proper context, and indeed the whole page looks
interesting and well written (although I've only skipped through it
myself).

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though. Whilst SLRs
do have capabilities that are different to non-SLRs, I don't think that
choosing a lighter, more compact camera that doesn't require an expensive
bag-full of lenses and accessories to make it work to its fullest extent,
is a worse way to spend your money. I would suspect that it takes just as
much effort to learn how to use a top-range non-SLR as it would to learn
how to use an SLR - after all many of the items you need to learn are the
same.

Just my opinion, of course! Thanks, BNM, for the write-up.

Cheers,
David