Met a 350d on a tripod today.

Bauerman,
I believe you, it's just that some of us prioritize those differently--again, because we shoot differently. For me, the LCD is at the top, and high ISO is more like #7. There are probably view camera users who think we're both nuts
There's still plenty reason to shoot on a compact--just depends on how you sort that list.

I say "compact", rather than P&S, because DSLRs are all P&S now too--I'd bet the vast majority of DSLR users leave their camera in P mode. And why not? It does a great job most of the time. Sure, it's semantics, but that's all that keeps us from sounding like driveling fools. Well, sometimes I still don't manage that, but you know what I mean.

I have been using SLR cameras since before they came out in 35mm.
I used a 1/4 plate TP ruby reflex with Glass plates. and was still useing SLR up to the time I went Digital.
Interchangeable lenses are useful. but any thing else can be found on p and S. cameras.
Unfortunately, as yet manufacturers have not chosen to put decent viewfinders on p&s, nor large enough sensors. though some have even faster start up times and focussing, than SLR's
The movable LCD are the finest feature on a G series, they also have all the normal professional features, and make excellent cameras for use on a tripod, and for Panoramas.

On wendnesday I get my new G6 up grading from a G3.
I shall still Keep my Film SLR for those occasions when its features and lenses matter. as indeed, I will keep my film scanner.
It is a case of horses for courses.

Terry

The swivel LCD screen on my G5 comes in very handy at times.
I would have had a tough time composing this shot of the underneath of a T-Bucket for sale.
This shot was fired with the camera within an inch from the asphalt.
-Bruce

I can't wrap my head around the LCD/ISO comparison. LCD is a specialized thing - ISO certainly must open many, many more doors than being able to compose a shot with the camera held away from your head. Maybe my values are old-fashioned sounding, but if you can put your camera there, 99% of the time you should be able to put your head there too. Have a sense of adventure. If you find yourself taking a large portion of your total camera output from such an angle that a swivel LCD is necessary, I'd have to assume that you're bending over backwards to find these kinds of shots. And that's were it kinda becomes a niche thing, a by-product of the general pandering of the industry to the "modern snap-shooter." Unless you only work in a studio type setting, I can't see how superior ISO performance doesn't save you more pictures almost every time you shoot. How can you possibly only ever feel the need to use your camera in lighting that cooperates with ISO 50 or 100?

I'm with you on that second point though. If you intend on keeping the dial set at "P," please do not waste your money on a DSLR.

Don't think of it as a specialized thing, think about it as the primary way you frame your shot. Would you consider a camera with twice the ISO range of your current camera if it had no optical viewfinder? If not, then you're close to understanding why I won't either. I think having a sense of adventure is precisely why I'm so attached to not having my camera tethered to my face. It doesn't take a contortionist to use a swiveling LCD in ways that would require plastic girl to shoot the same way with an optical viewfinder. There's enormous freedom in being able to position the camera anywhere within arm's reach, rather than head's reach. I don't know about you, but I can reach a lot of places with my hand that I can't with my head. No snide comments now. Seriously, it's just become natural to not think about scenes just in terms of where my head can be--or worse, where my head is. I really think eye-level shooting is a paradigm. If it works for you, that's fine, but consider that others have a different perspective--literally. Even if that's just shooting from the waist.
ISO: Sure, it's nice, but I only think of it as one more variable to aperture and shutter speed. I've already got two variables to play around with--the third just allows me to change one of the other two by a stop. I rarely find the need to bump up to 100, let alone 200 (which I find quite useable with post-NR). How is that possible? Partly the f2 lens, I imagine. Partly because I'm not remotely interested in photos of things indoors. Out of doors, I almost always have more light than I want, let alone need. High ISO would give me about 5 more minutes of shooting time at dawn and dusk--not worth it to me. But I can see how it would be indispensible to others (see below).

Regarding P mode, that's nearly the opposite of my point. I have no problem with someone using P mode on a camera that meets their needs. If that happens to be a DSLR, so what? Can a user only get their money's worth out of a DSLR if they expose manually? I don't see why... What about auto-focus? Jpeg instead of RAW? For that matter, what about automatic metering--if you don't use a hand-held light meter, should you not waste your money on a DSLR? Yes, I'm exaggerating, but where do you draw the line? Take a user who really does need high ISO to capture shots. Say a complete camera novice with a toddler just starting to walk. Would you steer them to a compact camera just because you know they'll leave it in Auto mode, not even P? Knowing they'll get fuzzy pictures with their child half out of the frame due to shutter lag? Heck no! Today, the right camera for that person is a DSLR. I have no question about that. I'm pushing for my best friend to get one for that exact reason.

Edit:
As a side note, Canon, make the ISO configurable from the same dial that controls aperture and shutter--don't bury it in a menu. Sheesh.

If you're literally going to buy a DSLR, take it out of the package and use it exactly as it, stuck right at "P" with the kit lens only, I say it's a waste of money, unless as you said you have a special circumstance like a young child.

Or what about just a family? Don't we take pictures of our families indoors?

Well, even on "P," it still takes pretty good images! Plus, maybe he'll really get into it and start learning to use it to it's fullest. Can't hurt! (unless, of course, you're starving the kids to pay for it!!)

What "P"? I have two coworkers who have 300d's. Neither of those cameras has ever had the kit lens off and they both shoot "A". Much as I try, neither wants to learn learn about photography. And that camera on A probably takes a little better picture than a P&S on A. They have just as much right to shoot on A as we do on Av. If Canon didn't want them to shoot that way, they wouldn't have put it on the dial.

Last July, I asked one of them if he wanted to come with me to shoot fireworks at the river. We got there early and got great spots. We were set up side by side. I helped him set up on M at 2 seconds. I was shooting away, not paying attention, and I could hear him grunting and griping. I finally looked over. He was going crazy hunched over his tripod, trying to figure out where the next shell was going to go off. Now I raced cars a lot of years and I can get kinda competetive. So I just kept on shooting. Finally, he picks the camera up and is holding it to his eye (with 2 second exposures). Needless to say, his keepers were about 4 of 200 and mine were about 60 of 150.

No real moral to the story, except that he would have been a lot better off with a flip out, swivel, LCD with a PREview.

dbump, we agree on most things, but here we split. My #1 is image quality. Over time, my #2 has become low light image quality. The LCD is close behind. When I realized I was not going to get all 3 in one camera, I decided to go over to the "dark side". (hangs his head in shame) Literally. Hopefully in a month or so I can report if we were right or not.

My mistake. I meant the full auto option, which is marked with a small rectangle on my camera. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure what "P" is.

Of course they have the "right" to buy a DSLR and never take it off of full auto, but unless that potential buyer is already financially situated such that dropping $1k+ on what they basically intend to use as a very large, obtrusive P&S isn't an issue, I would recommend that they invest in a high-end P&S instead. I'm not sure that I agree that a DSLR used solely on full auto with a kit lens is gonna take better pictures right off the bat than a nice P&S. I tried taking some shots with my XT on full auto just to see how the camera would react to different conditions, and let me tell you, I was not impressed whatsoever. I would not consider using this camera in anything but 100% ideal conditions unless it was at least in Av or Tv.

Maybe someone who's shot in full auto with both a DSLR and G/S series could enlighten me. Is one any better than the other? Am I alone in thinking that the full auto mode on my XT is wretched?

And I'd bet you'd find that your co-workers' "home" output would be similar. They're probably happy with their cameras and all that, but I bet if you browsed through their shots you'd just cringe over and over.

But really, this is all in agreement with my basic point, which is, if you're not going to invest yourself in learning to manipulate different aspects of exposure (You had to "set up" your buddy in M), 9 times out of 10 you're gonna be better off with a nice P&S. I consider an LCD something of a crutch in this sort of situation - what would be the problem with simply keeping your left eye open while the camera was held up to your face? Wink the right eye, you're surveying the scene. Wink the left eye, you jump right into your composition frame. Am I missing something here?

This sounds reasonable, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the switch once you've been able to use your new camera for a while.

Here we go off on another tangent. I'm going to start another thread.

don't start another thread, just bring it back.

the issue was a pivoting lcd vs optical/non pivoting lcd on a tripod. period. not compacts vs dslrs. it's not even about lcd vs optical. it's about the flexibility of having a pivoting lcd screen. sticking to the issue, yes the pivoting lcd is great. my first digi was the G5, which i owned for a few years, and one of the major selling points was the pivoting lcd screen--it was a great tool to have. from there i went to the sony t1 for portability, then to the 20d for versitility, speed, creativity and growth. and i'd just like to say that i would love it if my 20d had a pivoting screen--i think it'd be a great tool to have (when needed--i.e. low to the ground shots), but there is no way i'd ever give up my dslr just to have one.

you're already stating the limitations...i would imagine by sports you mean fast moving objects...wouldn't that also include running children, kids on bikes, dances...? just food for thought.

Actually, I was going to start a new thread to address the idea of non-photographers using dSLRs on Automatic. That's getting pretty far afield from the original topic. And since this is the G series forum, I will move it to the EOS board. Notice that we don't go on the EOS forum and talk about how we like our LCDs?

Would you post a link here to the new thread when you do start it, if you don't mind?

But on the other hand, you never open the EOS forum and see a thread about a G series camera. Yet, in the G series forum, here we are...

I used P mode all the time on my A80. I thought I would do the same when I got my 20D, but i find myself on Av mode 99% of the time. Once I get my 100-400L and start shooting wildlife, I'll probably be in Tv mode more. P mode on my 20D is too much like full auto for my liking.

My suspicion(sp) is that most 'experienced' DLSR users would use either Av or Tv mode the most, followed by M, depending on what they're shooting. If you ask me, if you can't understand how to use these modes and why you would use them, I dunno how you'll get the most out of your shots with a DSLR.