"Ron" wrote in message
...
I think this is a very good perspective and argument. Clearly, we all have
learning curve issues -- and priorities that drive purchasing decisions .

Interestingly, though I had very long lenses for my film SLR, etc. I found
myself only needing them on very rare occasions for the kind of
photography I do and want to have control over. And, I found that for
many places in life I wanted to go my trusty VW camper/van was a heck of a
lot more sensible, cost effective and efficient than the BMW's that
resided elsewhere in the family. Again, the important thing is to start
with the photography you do, the features that help you accomplish your
goals, and make measured decisions. I would never use an ad hominem
argument against DSLR's (and will probably own one), but I would urge that
many folks who are ready to plunk down big bucks (and they are very
expensive) not get taken in by too much of the hype out there.

What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a handful
of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by the digicams and
don't look back on a full SLR system. It would be fine if he keeps that for
himself. I have no doubt a digicam fits his need 99% of the time and
majority of the people too. It is likely that a digicam delivers a much high
quality pictures than his old SLR system if he used crappy lenses. As far as
hype of DSLR, it isn't. Being low noise and fast are enough reasons to go
DSLR if one is serious about photography. That said it has no substitute to
a person's artistic skill. They are really two very different animals.