With point and shoot digital camera's getting better and more sophisticated, I have been tempted by the idea that an SLR camera is unecessary, especially for everyday photography. Another factor against buying SLR's is cost, the D-SLR sold today are prohibitively expensive, with a basic kit starting at about $600, whereas you can get a good digital point and shoot (p&s) for less than half that amount. There is also the 'manual' option, either get a Nikon FM-10 or a Leica (if you have a lot more money) and you should be set.
I have been scanning a lot of my old film-negatives over the 10 days (thanks to Jeff, who generously lent me his scanner), and the one feature of all the old photos that stands out is how well exposed they are. Let me elaborate, when I take photos with our current digital p&s, the photos are very nice, the focus is sharp and you can see the features I was aiming for well, but thats about it. I see nothing of the mood in the room, there is often no depth to the photo. I often take photographs to try and capture the mood or the scene, the way something looks to your eyes, and that is hard to accomplish with a p&s. SLRs let in a lot more light onto the sensor (irrespective of whether the sensor is film or a chip), and that allows you to capture subtle lighting and shadows that together make a good or even a great pic.
I know I will be using my SLR a lot more, and saving up for that D-SLR, pity they get outdated so soon....
Anyway, thats my 2 cents on the topic.
