• SLR bodies are usually bulkier than the average point-and-shoot
  
  So? Well, this means that you're hauling around some seriously space-consuming and serioulsy expensive hardware around with you whenever you expect to take a few good shots.
  
  So? Well, I don't know about you, but I've heard the old adage of "a good photographer lives with his / her camera". I've proven that over time as well, since most of my interesting shots have been thanks to the fact that I've had a camera within arm's reach. Daily life can be very funny and very photogenic to the keen eye.
  
  Ergo, a camera that poses somewhat of an obstacle to being gracefully / discreetly carried around would seem to cramp my style.
  
• SLR lenses are better than those in point-and-shoot cameras by ages and then some
  
  True, but there's a BIG caveat. DSLR / SLR cameras are / were sold in a modular fashion. One buys the "camera body" for a good chunk of change, and then spends another hefty chunk of change in buying oneself the required lenses in order to "properly use" the aforementioned camera body.
  
  Translated, one better go digital if one's thinking SLR - since you've probably already broken your bank with the basic body and a couple of lenses, and adding in film and film processing costs don't really sound like very pocketbook-warming thoughts.
  
  Translated, you're adding to the bulk of the already-bulky camera body when you're hauling your stuff around. Translated, everything is bulky and everything's expensive. Translated, you're going to probably blow through another stack of green in getting the right soft cases and protective gear for everything you buy.
  
  Translated, forget spontaneity. Getting everything out and assembling it while that hummingbird hovers is a distant possibility.
  
  Oh, and back to the lenses. The average point-and-shoot camera gets the user about "4X" worth of optical zoom. The above-average point-and-shoot can go as high as "12X". Meaning, unless you're going to take pictures of volcanoes and/or persist in taking pictures of the celebrites even after they've passed their 500-feet restraining order against you; I wonder if one really needs any more zoom than that.
  
  Macro mode for super close-ups? Point-and-shoot cameras are getting better at that, too. I've done some neat macros with a 2 megapixel camera. Its all about composition, unless you're a scientist doing thing with antibodies. And in that case, consider a microscope.
  
  
  
• SLR viewfinder panels don't allow a "live view" of the shot you're composing. Meaning, one has to use the eyepiece (a.k.a "the optical viewfinder" for all you DSLR-afficianados). Is this a problem? Well..
  
• Computer screens and years of sitting hunched over them make for really bad eyes. Translated, corrective eyewear is increasingly common. Contact lenses work well with camera eyepieces, but glasses don't. To counter this problem, most high-end point-and-shoot cameras allow for a "diopter adjustment" of the eyepiece so that the user can use the eyepiece without his / her glasses on. While that's a great feature, it sorta locks the user of the camera to that photographer alone, since a diopter-adjusted eyepiece makes for a dizzy feeling for anyone with perfect vision or vision that doesn't require the same exact value of diopter adjustment.
  
  Is this really a problem? "Everyone wears contact lenses. How many people wear glasses anymore, really?". In addition, "How many times would more than one person really be using that camera?".
  
  All fair points. Read on.
  
  
• With point-and-shoot cameras setting the standard with the "rest of the crowd", live-view viewfinder panels (little LCD screens in the back of the camera that show the shot you're about to capture) are getting so standard-issue that its almost hard to imagine a camera without one.
  
  Therefore, when faced with an expensive piece of camera hardware that does not do this somewhat "basic" function of live-view, it ain't a very comforting feeling.
  
  
• Finally, I don't know about you - but I'm getting a lot more germophobic than before. If I'm using someone else's camera, the thought of pressing my face up against the back of the camera body that I know was pressing up against another face in the not-too-distant past isn't really an appealing though.
  
  
  Yes, I was saving the best for last. Bite me.
  

If I were to ring the virtual cash register, my guess is that I would be over the $1,000 mound in a matter of minutes after an SLR purchase. The body, the lens(es), the protective gear, the filters, the cleaning gear et al would and could easily set me back that much if I wanted to do it right.

And if I'm sinking in that much into a camera, I'd better have reason to do it right.

I liken the SLR / DSLR / point-and-shoot discussion / debate to the one between gearheads discussing automatic transmission over manual transmission. Here's a few oft-heard phrases:

• "Manual transmission give you more control over what your car is doing"
• "Manual transmission gives you better gas mileage"
• "No pro would ever be caught dead with an automatic transmission"
• "A clutch is one of the most important parts of a car"

And transpose these against:

• "SLRs give you total control over your shot"
• "SLRs save you money because the prints you take are exactly what you want"
• "No self-respecting photographer uses a point-and-shoot"
• "A manual focus ring is critical to a camera"

See where I'm going with this? The truth is:

• The number of cars on the road today is about ten times (at least) more than when those manual transmission phrases were born. Ergo, there's hardly a place that'll let you truly experience the pleasure of shifting into higher gears like they show you in the movies, unless you've got a private racetrack or have rented one (in which case, we're not really talking "practical" here anymore)
  
• A manual transmission requires a human user to change gears at the right time. Changing gears at the right time, based on several factors, leads to better gas mileage. An automatic transmission uses a few slices of a computer's brain to achieve the same results. Ergo, it can do what it does without being harrassed by traffic, emotion and/or circumstance. Still think that the gas mileage claim holds up?
  
• Pros ARE using automatic transmissions today. In fact, the Formula One pack is seriously considering some super-cool super-tuned automatic transmissions in order to let their drivers focus on driving instead of tapping their paddle shifters about a thousand times during every race. Its the basic concept of evolution. Let a mechanical mind do the mechanical task. Let the human mind do the creative work.
  
• Given that the auto industry makes a gazillion cars without a clutch, I would wonder about the merit of that "clutch is the most important part of a car" claim. I can see how it is important, but I wouldn't call it the most important. In my opinion, its the brake. But I'm just the nut behind the wheel who wouldn't know a lugnut from a donut.

And for cameras:

• With cameraphones and digital cameras, I have perceived a significant shift in the mindset of the average photographer. The focus, pun intended, is on "what" and "when", rather than "why" and "how". The audience seems to love the candid more than the somewhat-canned "pro" shots because candids are snippets of real life. The "pro" shots seem staged, and often are.
  
• Cameraphones have changed the entire landscape. Everyone's clicking pictures, like, all the time. Someone whipping out a bazooka to shoot the exact same picture as someone else with a razor-thin phone would make one seem kinda foolish; 'cause, in the end, the average time spend by someone viewing a picture is measured in seconds.
  
  Its like typos in advertising. Slick ads with everything right in the right place make for great visuals and great impressions. But bad ads with fuzzy print and grammatical
  / funny errors make the Tonight show with Jay Leno and/or a multitude of moblogs all over the world. At the end of the day, which one would you remember the next day?
  
  
• Do SLRs really save you money? Its like buying an expensive car because you think its going to be with you for a really long time and thus save you money "in the long run" because you'll arrive at your destination(s) in a comfortable, safe way that also makes a somewhat public statement about your social stature - all of which are intangibles that apparently add up to tangible benefits down the line.
  
  (Yeah, I know -
  another car / camera comparison. I don't know whee that's coming from!)
  
  But, that expensive car needs expensive gas, expensive tires, expensive parts and tends to burn a deeper hole in your pocket for maintenance and overall upkeep than a reasonably-priced car that doesn't come with all the bells and whistles. Ergo, if one isn't William Gates the third, what presents a better alternative for the aforementioned "long run"?
  
  
  With everyone and his sibling toting around some semblance of a digital imaging device on their person at almost all times, it could be very tempting to use a digital SLR in a manner equivalent to a "regular" digital camera - at which point it becomes susceptible to all those elements of daily life that one often describes as "rough use".
  
  In addition,
  composing an image on a reasonably-large live-view viewfinder and capturing it without fiddling with ISO settings, histogram curves and manual focusing would probably make for a lot more "fun" memory, thereby translating into a great picture. Because pictures are, after all, memories captured for posterity.
  
  I wouldn't worry too much about the "cheaper prints" argument. In my somewhat-knowledgeable opinion about the LCD screen price curve, it won't be long before wallets really do have LCD screens replacing the "look at my kid's pictures" mini-folder and ditto for cars, planes and kitchen sinks. Thus, while selling the ability to make a paper print may be a great way to relieve the baby boomer generation of their retirement dollars, it isn't something that I would worry too much about or invest too much in.

All in all, I think the point-and-shoot market is getting to be a fun place to be. They're catching up to the merit points of the DSLR segment without enforcing monumental expenditure levels on the average consumer / "prosumer". The SLR to DSLR jump is certainly commendable, and I'm sure the world will benefit from the change, but for those of us who prefer to capture our lives and its moments without worrying about thousands of dollars in equipment and "the best exposure" for a particular shot, I'd suggest the obvious..

Life is short.