This seems to be getting into the realm of a religious debate.
I disagree; I'm simply outlining the actual advantages SLR cameras have due to the fact that they're SLR cameras. SLR photography has properties very different from point and shoot photography -- we're not just looking at "some people prefer this vs that" kind of thing.
great photographer can take great pictures with a P.O.S. camera. A lousy photographer, it doesn't matter how good the camera is.
I actually thought something along these lines when I first got into photography. I'm certainly no expert, but I have worked with the point and shoot stuff (even with manual controls) and I saw the shortcomings of that equipment.
While a good photographer can apply a lot of his/her knowledge to taking great pictures with even a point and shoot camera, a lot of things can't be done nearly as well without the advantages of SLR photography. In fact, you need special lenses to do a lot of things very well at all (you'll be limited by focusing distances, amount of light, etc). The fact that at photographer is great doesn't make his lens any faster.
Want some analogies? Super-fast PC, best tool around. Poor reflexes == lousy gaming experience. Crap computer, great skills...
This is a fairly poor analogy and here is why: if you're using the same software you can do the same things with the slower computer -- except at a slower rate (although without high framerates in Quake3 you can't make some jumps =) The analogy would be more apt if you said something like, "a great graphic designer with MSPAINT could edit images just as well as he could with Photoshop CS." Of course, this isn't even close to true; while both of those tools can create and modify images, there is very little you can do with MSpaint that you can do with photoshop. It simply isn't possible.
SLRs are notorius for being at home while you are out on a hike or doing something fun because they are a hassle to carry, load, choose a lens (or take the whole bag), and select the film type.
True, SLRs do often get left at home. If you want something that can just take pictures while you're no a hike, it's a good idea to have a second camera. You don't need to have only one camera! To be fair, you're not comparing SLR vs prosumer here. You're comparing an SLR film camera to a consumer digicam. Most prosumer digital cameras are far too large to take hiking (a friend of mine has a G5 and takes a backpack -- the very same backpack he uses for his 300D and his lenses).
A lot of consumer and prosumer digital cameras have manual controls which is absolutely huge in allowing consumers to do a lot of things that used to be limited to SLR cameras (I believe -- it could be the case that some non-SLR films also had manual controls but I am unaware of many). This is a great thing for consumers because you can do a lot more with a
point and shoot camera. Unfortunately, there is still a lot you absolutely cannot do on those cameras.
I haven't learned enough to take advantage of a SLR or dSLR at this point, so until I do, I will stick with the less expensive route of prosumer.
The best way to learn it is to use one. Find a friend who has one and borrow it from time to time if he's a nice guy.
Just to be clear: when I say prosumer digital camera, I'm referring to nonSLR stuff. The 300D (which is an entree level dSLR) is considered prosumer or even amateur in the digital world.
