thanks for your input. Commin sense says for double the price - you should be getting a much better camera but never having had an SLR, I
don;t know what I am missing I guess
The big difference is the quality of optics and sensor performance in Low light that is simply not available on the P&S. But as you mentioned you pay for that quality, and often DSLRs are not permitted at shows, while you can almost always get a P&S in to shows.
Short article/podcast on sensor size.
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/what-sensor-size-means-why-it-matters/A decent overview of sensor size..
http://gizmodo.com/383170/giz-explains-digital-camera-image-sensorsIf you want to nerd out...
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/The bottom line is larger sensors perform better. There has actually been a trend on large sensors to actually scale back the megapixel race in favor of improving the performance of the megapixels that are there. The chief drawbacks to large sensors is the cost, both of the sensor and the lens for the larger sensor. The larger the chip the more expensive it become to manufacture, this is partly why DSLRs cost more that P&S cameras and why full frame (Canon 5d/Nikon D700) and Medium format digital (Hasselblad etc) bodies are so much more expensive. In addition to the sensor manufacturing costs, larger sensors also require larger optics to allow light to strike all of their larger surface area. This means larger, more difficult to grind hunks of glass and once again higher costs.
this is why there is no perfect camera, they are all a compromise between cost, image quality and size/portability.
Just as an example....
What I consider a "good" P&S shot.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7

Comprable Venue but taken with a DSLR...
Nikon D300/Nikon 70-200.2.8 VR I
