wrote:
i shoot my artwork, and send off the hi-res images to printers for
magazine ads and invites. so this is what i noticed.....

for my needs,,,right now,,,,dslr's are a pain in the @ss.

i need at least 8mp for a 300dpi print quality 8x10. i don't for a
second believe a 6mp dslr is as good as an 8mp advanced p&s. the image
quality might be better, but an 8x10 print is an 8x10 print, and with
300dpi that means at least an 8mp camera.
With entry level DSLR's at 8MP (eg Canon 350D), this is a moot point
anyway, but even if entry level DSLR's were still at 6MP, it's the
quality of the pixels that counts. 6 million good pixels beat 8 million
average pixels. There may be a handful of situations where an 8 p&s will
beat a 6 dslr, but only very few.

the dslr has a better more subtle value/color range, but a p&s gives me
what i want.
that's fine. but p&s is quite limited in the dynamic range and colour
accuracy. it's good enough for some needs, not good enough for a lot of
needs.

because i focus in on artwork, i prefer the manual focus on my lumix
fz30. with the dslr's i pretty much would have to depend on their auto
focus, unless i change the screen.
Firstly, AF in a DSLR is significantly better than in a P&S. It is far
faster, and far more accurate. On manual focus, the focussing screens in
DSLR's are a long way short of the focus screens of older 35mm cameras.
They are duller, lack microprisms etc. But, despite those limitations, I
haven't seen a P&S that comes close to a DSLR for manual focus. Despite
the DSLR viewscreens being quite ordinary, they are still a zillion
times better than anything using an EVF. If manual focussing ability was
the only criteria, and I had to choose between an olympus e500 (the
worst viewscreen I've seen in an SLR) and something like a Pana FZ30,
I'd take the Olympus any day.

if you have to ask about a noticeable quality difference in images,
then an advanced p&s is all you need.
that's a bit simplistic. in daylight on full auto, there may not be any
significant difference. Move to low light, or try to be a little more
artistic with a blurred background on a portrait, and you need a DSLR.

the only advantage i can think of is if you buy into a dslr system, you
can use the lenses and just buy better bodies in the future, but buying
into a system = more money to spend.
It only costs more if you let it. For many people, a basic kit in the
form of a body, kit standard zoom, and kit telephoto zoom, is all they
ever need. Such a combination will still blow away anything in the P&S
category for image quality. But if my photography desires change and I
now want a 24mm wide angle, or a true macro, or a flash with a GN 50, by
buying into an SLR, you can add that extra feature simply by buying the
appropriate lens/accessory. Find that you regularly go to shoot kids
plays where the room lighting is a bit dark? easy, go buy a 50/1.4 or
85/1.4. You don't have that option with a p&s.

the lumix uses a leitz, the sony(dsc-r1) uses a zeiss,,,and the cameras
look cool.
of course looks is the most important part of a camera. BTW, panasonic
don't use a leica lens, and sony don't use a zeiss lens. panasonic use a
panasonic manufactured lens and sony use a sony manufactured lens. These
lenses are manufactured according to designs from leica and zeiss. Can't
tell you if they are manufactured to the same tolerance that leica and
zeiss would normally use.

check out steve's digicams and image resource for great comparative
sample images.
and you will find the scales tip heavily toward DSLR's.