Resdy to buy

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:20:23 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:09:50 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: "jim" wrote:
: I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to take
: the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon EOS
: Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I don't
: want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and their
: reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly appreciated.
:
:
: What makes you think you need a DSLR? What will you use it for that
: demands that you absolutely must have a DSLR?
:
: There is now a wide selection of P&S and superzoom cameras that offer
: very good image quality. They neatly avoid the hassle and expense of
: interchangeable lenses. They also avoid the hassle of expensive
: sensor cleaning because - except in extreme circumstances - dust just
: cannot get in.
:
: Entry-level DSLRs come with kit lenses that are optically mediocre.
: All the budget priced lenses for DSLRs are similarly mediocre. To get
: lenses of a quality that justifies having a DSLR, you are going to
: have to pay considerably more.
:
: So why not consider a top of the range zoom P&S, or a superzoom? You
: can probably find one that provides all the features and performance
: that you will ever need.

That's a bit patronizing, don't you think? What reason do we have to suppose
that Jim's reasons for upgrading to a DSLR aren't valid? He's told us that
he's already a digital camera user, and he's done enough homework to narrow
his search to a particular well-established brand. You're asking him to go
through the process again with us involved. Does everyone who asks a similar
question in this newsgroup have to do that? Are we so experienced and smart
that a decision made without our input should automatically be questioned?

Bob

Funny, all the DSLR TROLLS that jump into and hijack any thread about
someone wanting a high-quality superzoom or compact camera do exactly that.
Typing from experience are you? Got a mirror?

You've got about seven more years of people pushing compacts and superzoom
cameras in every thread about DSLRs before your ****ingly useless
DSLR-TROLLS' relentless behavior can be called even-up. That is of course,
if every last one of you moronic DSLR TROLLS stopped hijacking threads this
very day. You've still got a seven-year deficit of getting the very same
behavior paid in return until it could be remotely called "even". It just
depends on if you want to keep doing it and extending that seven-years from
every day you keep doing it, or just stop now and only have to deal with
seven more years of it. It's all up to you, the lousy thread-hijacking
DSLR-TROLLS.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:41:09 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 9/4/2010 3:40 PM, jim wrote:
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a
Canon EOS Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated.
Really I don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon
cameras and their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly
appreciated.



bull**** advice snipped

And all that "fine" advice coming from someone who has never even owned a
camera. Don't believe me? Do a search on this role-playing SMS psychotic.
Here's a sampling of the kinds of wild tales it invents for attention:

http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101

He also put up a website with stolen stock-photography to try to use it to
convince everyone the above was true, when he was outted for being just
another cyber-life psychotic.

http://nordicgroup.us/yellowstoneoldfaithful/

On 06/09/2010 07:41, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:08:54 +0200,
wrote:

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.



Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

You are talking about the Nikon 200-400 f/4... but given the kind of CA
one can find in the P&S lenses, standard kit lenses are good enough...
see for instance:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q1...5_CIMG0507.JPG


So, we have the kit 18-55 to which we add the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
which is a bit above $1000 à Amazon (and is 800mm equivalent on a Canon
body, for those suffering from Freudian zoom envy). Or the kit 18-55,
the Canon 55-250 IS for $230, and a Sigma 120-400 for $900 (or even the
more expensive Canon 100-400 L at $1600). But the 55-250 has very little
use in nature, it's better replaced by a 100mm macro lens ($500).

So:

Canon Rebel XSi+Lens $587
Canon 55-250 IS $230
Sigma 120-400 $900

Total............... $1717

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
pictures are always of far away objects.

We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

Yes, indeed, the weight & the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
here) lens.

--
Bertrand

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:09:39 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 06/09/2010 07:41, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:08:54 +0200,
wrote:

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.



Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

You are talking about the Nikon 200-400 f/4... but given the kind of CA
one can find in the P&S lenses, standard kit lenses are good enough...
see for instance:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q1...5_CIMG0507.JPG


So, we have the kit 18-55 to which we add the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
which is a bit above $1000 à Amazon (and is 800mm equivalent on a Canon
body, for those suffering from Freudian zoom envy). Or the kit 18-55,
the Canon 55-250 IS for $230, and a Sigma 120-400 for $900 (or even the
more expensive Canon 100-400 L at $1600). But the 55-250 has very little
use in nature, it's better replaced by a 100mm macro lens ($500).

So:

Canon Rebel XSi+Lens $587
Canon 55-250 IS $230
Sigma 120-400 $900

Total............... $1717

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
pictures are always of far away objects.

Proving you've never used even ONE of them. Everything you just typed is
pure bull****.


We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

Yes, indeed, the weight & the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
here) lens.

Do the math again. You forgot to price for equivalent aperture as well, you
stupid troll-****.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:09:39 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 06/09/2010 07:41, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:08:54 +0200,
wrote:

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.



Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

You are talking about the Nikon 200-400 f/4... but given the kind of CA
one can find in the P&S lenses, standard kit lenses are good enough...
see for instance:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q1...5_CIMG0507.JPG


So, we have the kit 18-55 to which we add the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
which is a bit above $1000 à Amazon (and is 800mm equivalent on a Canon
body, for those suffering from Freudian zoom envy). Or the kit 18-55,
the Canon 55-250 IS for $230, and a Sigma 120-400 for $900 (or even the
more expensive Canon 100-400 L at $1600). But the 55-250 has very little
use in nature, it's better replaced by a 100mm macro lens ($500).

So:

Canon Rebel XSi+Lens $587
Canon 55-250 IS $230
Sigma 120-400 $900

Total............... $1717

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
pictures are always of far away objects.

Proving you've never used even ONE of them. Everything you just typed is
pure bull****.


We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

Yes, indeed, the weight & the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
here) lens.

Do the math again. You forgot to price for equivalent aperture as well, you
stupid troll-****.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and don't forget, you have to have image-stabilization throughout that
whole zoom range as well. And don't forget to add in the 10lb. $259 tripod
you'll REQUIRE to use that DSLR with those 10lb hunks of glass for those
longer focal-lengths. That's 20 lbs. a person has to lug around. You trolls
always like to leave out the important details.

"Tim Conway" wrote in message
...

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:52:00 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:22:06 -0400, "Peter"

wrote:

"jim" wrote in message
...
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take
the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon
EOS
Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I
don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and
their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly
appreciated.


You certainly set out troll bait. However, if you can get to a brick
and
mortar store, pick the one you feel handles best for you. However, you
never
state what type of photography you plan to do. For general purpose,
what
you
propose wily be just fine. Even if you make a mistake, it's only money
and
correct it on the next upgrade.

Keeping in mind that any salesperson in any camera store has a
financially-biased conflict-of-interest that is too great to give you
the
best advice. If they can sell you a camera that will ensure that you
have
to be back to the store to buy another $6,000 worth of accessory
lenses,
sturdy and expensive tripod to be able to use any of the longer lenses,
sensor cleaning kit, strong pack to store it all in, etc.; or sell you
a
one-time-sale-only camera that you can carry in one roomy pocket with
equivalent image quality for $350; guess which camera they are going to
STRONGLY advise that you buy?



Troll point proven. Knew it couldn't resist.

Only proving that you've NEVER been in any camera store before. Or you'd
know that what I typed is the truth. Hell, you haven't even owned any
camera before, you're just another pretend-photographer TROLL parroting
what you read all the other pretend-photographers spew. Also proved.

I find it truly amazing how everyone is wrong and you are the only one who
stumbled on the truth. If superzooms outperformed DSLRs so consistently,
why don't the world's top photographers toss aside their expensive cameras
and take them up? hmmm.



That's because only it knows the truth. We are unworthy of seeing his proof.
Sheesh, you didn't know that?

--
Peter

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:09:50 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: "jim" wrote:
: I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take
: the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon
EOS
: Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I
don't
: want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and their
: reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly appreciated.
:
:
: What makes you think you need a DSLR? What will you use it for that
: demands that you absolutely must have a DSLR?
:
: There is now a wide selection of P&S and superzoom cameras that offer
: very good image quality. They neatly avoid the hassle and expense of
: interchangeable lenses. They also avoid the hassle of expensive
: sensor cleaning because - except in extreme circumstances - dust just
: cannot get in.
:
: Entry-level DSLRs come with kit lenses that are optically mediocre.
: All the budget priced lenses for DSLRs are similarly mediocre. To get
: lenses of a quality that justifies having a DSLR, you are going to
: have to pay considerably more.
:
: So why not consider a top of the range zoom P&S, or a superzoom? You
: can probably find one that provides all the features and performance
: that you will ever need.

That's a bit patronizing, don't you think? What reason do we have to
suppose
that Jim's reasons for upgrading to a DSLR aren't valid? He's told us that
he's already a digital camera user, and he's done enough homework to
narrow
his search to a particular well-established brand. You're asking him to go
through the process again with us involved. Does everyone who asks a
similar
question in this newsgroup have to do that? Are we so experienced and
smart
that a decision made without our input should automatically be questioned?


Only Brucie. (And maybe it.)

--
Peter

On 9/5/2010 1:09 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
On 05/09/2010 18:41, SMS wrote:
On 9/4/2010 3:40 PM, jim wrote:
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a
Canon EOS Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated.
Really I don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon
cameras and their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly
appreciated.

You might want to consider the T1i instead, the extra capability and
resolution is worth it.

You also need to decide which lenses to buy. I'd suggest the EF-s 10-22,
EF-S 18-200mm IS, and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, though to start just the
EF-S 18-200mm IS is sufficient.

The kit lens that comes with that camera is not great.

It's adequate... It's the IS version, much better than the previous
generation sold with the 300D/350D/400D and the 1000D. My only gripe
against it is that at 18mm its distortion isn't regular and is very
difficult to correct by software (mix of barrel and pincushion...) so
that doesn't make it the perfect lens for architecture.

And the 55-250 isn't that bad either for the price (but too short for
what most people would use a zoom for). I eventually sold mine and
replaced it with a 100mm f/2.8 macro (old version, sans IS, which is a
bargain those days) and a Sigma 120-400.


$684 Body
$589 EF-S 18-200mm IS
$765 EF-s 10-22

I wouldn't even talk about such a lens unless I know the OP is in the
kind of photography that requires it.

Yeah, the good thing is that you can build your system in stages as your
needs and finances change, and there's plenty of good used lenses out
there as well.

It's good to see D-SLR usage increasing so much as people finally
realize the limitations of P&S cameras. I was shocked yesterday when I
was on a bus in San Francisco (not a tourist bus line either). People
kept getting on at different stops carrying D-SLRs. I thought there
might have been an SF Giants game that night, but no, they were out of
town. Since when do local residents go around town carrying D-SLRs? Saw
a lot of BWLs out yesterday on our hike. Some good shots of the Golden
Gate that you could not get without a D-SLR.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:08:23 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 06/09/2010 12:07, LOL! wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:09:39 +0200,
wrote:

On 06/09/2010 07:41, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:08:54 +0200,
wrote:

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.



Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

You are talking about the Nikon 200-400 f/4... but given the kind of CA
one can find in the P&S lenses, standard kit lenses are good enough...
see for instance:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q1...5_CIMG0507.JPG


So, we have the kit 18-55 to which we add the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
which is a bit above $1000 à Amazon (and is 800mm equivalent on a Canon
body, for those suffering from Freudian zoom envy). Or the kit 18-55,
the Canon 55-250 IS for $230, and a Sigma 120-400 for $900 (or even the
more expensive Canon 100-400 L at $1600). But the 55-250 has very little
use in nature, it's better replaced by a 100mm macro lens ($500).

So:

Canon Rebel XSi+Lens $587
Canon 55-250 IS $230
Sigma 120-400 $900

Total............... $1717

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
pictures are always of far away objects.

Proving you've never used even ONE of them. Everything you just typed is
pure bull****.


We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

Yes, indeed, the weight& the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
here) lens.

Do the math again. You forgot to price for equivalent aperture as well, you
stupid troll-****.

Right, let's talk about the apertures. You should have done your
homework (in some cases, it's as simple as reading these off the camera
pictures in the test):

Canon SX20 IS 2.8-5.7
Casio EX-FH25 2.8-4.5
Fujifilm S2500HD 3.1-5.6
Fujifilm HS10 2.8-5.6
Kodak Z981 2.8-5.0
Nikon P100 2.8-5.0
Panasonic DMC-FZ35 2.8-4.4
Pentax X90 2.8-5.0
Samsung HZ25W 2.8-5.0

Many of these lens aren't faster than the zoom lens I take in account
for the DSLR. And none goes to f/4 or below at full bore, so that's at
best one aperture notch for them, while DSLRs have at least two more ISO
usable ISO notches for the same noise level.

We could also, to be completely even, try to find a P&S with equivalent
high-ISO noise levels as a DSLR but then poof! no P&S... I could also
add a $100 50mm f/1.8 lens to my bag and insist that your superzoom
should be at least as open (and sharp...) at its "standard" focal length.

But I found a really curious thing while searching the specs of the Fuji
2500HD. On its official page (at
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_s2500hd/specifications/index.html)
it is said:

Lens: Fujinon 18x optical zoom lens, F3.1 (Wide) - F5.6 (Telephoto)
Apertu Wide: F3.1 / F6.4, Telephoto: F5.6 / F11.0 with ND filter

Than means: when that camera says f/11, it is really something else:
(f/5.6? f/8?) with a grey filter to reduce the light. So trying to get
f/11 isn't going to give any more DOF. Could that be diffraction limited
optics? If this happens in that camera, does it happen under the cover
in the others with equivalent specs (focal length and photosite size)?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and don't forget, you have to have image-stabilization throughout that
whole zoom range as well. And don't forget to add in the 10lb. $259 tripod
you'll REQUIRE to use that DSLR with those 10lb hunks of glass for those
longer focal-lengths. That's 20 lbs. a person has to lug around. You trolls
always like to leave out the important details.

Di you homweork and you'll find that the three lenses in my table are
stabilized, including the Sigma 120-400 (which is usable hand-held).

He who LOLs last, LOLs best

Yes, and NONE of those lenses you picked out will give better performance
than any kit lens. The article at
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
proves that the inexpensive superzoom camera has 2-3 times more resolution
and less CA than that XSi and kit lens. You must equal or BETTER the image
quality throughout the whole range of the superzoom camera to justify that
cost. You've failed to do that. Now grab out that checkbook and be
prepared to write a check for $6,500 if you want to equal or (possibly,
barely) better the superzoom camera.

LOL!!!!!!!!

On 9/6/2010 2:09 AM, Ofnuts wrote:

And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
pictures are always of far away objects.

All true, but one of the biggest issues is the high-ISO performance.
Those with P&S cameras, including super-zooms, are consistently
disappointed with their indoor results. Unless you buy a P&S that can
also use an external flash like the G series, or a few other high end
models. Even then, by the time you start buying external flashes you
might as well get a D-SLR and get all the other advantages that you
can't get with a P&S, whether it's a "super-zoom" or not. And remember
than with a D-SLR you're able to get many indoor shots that would
_require_ an external flash on a P&S.

Yes, indeed, the weight & the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
here) lens.

Ironically, by the time you equip that super-zoom with all the necessary
accessories you're not saving much weight or bulk at all.

The best option is a D-SLR _and_ a small Canon P&S for times when you
don't want to carry the D-SLR. Install CHDK on the Canon P&S and you
gain some useful functionality, but it doesn't turn it into a D-SLR.