On digital SLRs and compact cameras

When last summer I bought a Nikon D70, I only knew that I wanted a very good digital camera. Since all the reviews about the Nikon D70 were extremely positive, this was my final choice. But even after I bought it, I had some afterthoughts that maybe it would have been better to get an expensive (but similarly priced to a 'cheap' DSLR) point-and-shoot camera that has a fixed lens, like the Nikon 8700 or the Sony DSC-F828. With these, you get a lens with a wider range of zoom, without having to buy another expensive lens and then having ot change them all the time.

But since then I have been using the Nikon D70 quite often (not as often as I'd like to, but that's another story), and I am perfectly happy with it. Ken Rockwell explains very well here why it is a no-brainer whether to buy an expensive point-and-shoot camera or a 'cheap' DSLR for the same price. Even the latest and greatest point-and-shoot cameras do not have the speed necessary to capture moving subjects. Here is how Ken Rockwell sums it up:

"For a small snapshot camera get a $300 point-and-shoot. I have one, love it, and take it everywhere.If you want to spend a grand for serious digital photography forget the expensive p/s cameras and go straight to any DSLR. Since you can get a far superior DSLR for what you used to have to pay for just a p/s as of 2004 I see no need for the expensive p/s digital cameras. The reason we still have expensive p/s cameras today is because camera companies still have two sets of development and marketing teams, one for each class of camera, so there are still people at these companies pushing the expensive p/s cameras even though the DSLRs made by the same company are better for the same price. Other companies, like Sony, don't make any real DSLRs and of course they will promote their p/s cameras. Don't waste $1,000 on a point and shoot unless you really want to trade off ease of use, speed and image quality for a little size and weight."