You don't need an SLR...

...if you don't know what SLR means.

Before eating some cookies this evening, I was reading a thread on digg about upgrading to a digital SLR from a little point and shoot type bugger. This thread naturally results in a troupe of geeks lollygagging on about Nikon versus Canon and blah de blah de blah which one has less noise at this or that ISO.

HOWEVER I want to emphasize a point which I sincerely believe is far more important than any particular electronic piece of speccery. If you do decide to pay $700 (or more like $1500 coz you have this nagging feeling the pictures won't be any good unless the lens costs more than the camera) you will:

1. Have to lug around something five times the size of a little point & shoot camera when you want to take pictures so you will be less likely to have it with you when there is something you really want to photograph.
   
2. Have to lug around something which is five times as valuable as a little point and shoot, so you will be less inclined to take it places where there will likely be something you really want to photograph.
3. PROBABLY NOT USE ANY SLR TYPE FEATURES AND TAKE EXACTLY THE SAME BLOODY PHOTOGRAPHS AS WITH A POINT AND SHOOT.

In order to take good pictures you need to have the damn camera there in the first place. You might get turned on thinking of yourself clambering over rocks and striding through dew-soaked meadow in a field jacket with a tripod on your back and a sack full of lenses, but chances are you aint gonna be doing that. You're going to be walking to work and suddenly notice how the light catches the branches of an autumn reddened tree. Or something equally romantic and spur of the moment.

And you WON'T have your fancy SLR with you.

Unless you are drop dead serious about photography, pay $200 for a nice compact model and spend the $1000 on a holiday. I guarantee you'll get better pictures from that than you would spending it all on a DSLR.