Those are great pics Dylan...but (like some of the pics I posted) they're fairly "extreme" examples.

I don't want to sound as if I'm beating the drum too loudly for non-DSLRs (because I may be about to "convert" and buy a DSLR!)...but I think "versatility" in a camera means many things to many people—there is no universal standard.

For example, people often point to the versatility of being able to switch lenses on a DSLR. This is fine if you're a dedicated photographer on a dedicated photography "mission." I'm a long-distance motorcycle rider...and space is at a premium on my motorcycle. So the last thing I want is to be lugging around extra lenses. I'm far happier with a single lens that encompasses a very wide range—even if it's not as sharp at either end of that range. The Canon SX10 has an 18-560mm equivalent...which is AWESOME for my needs.

I also love to get shots in situations where it would be difficult to compose the shot on a DSLR because it doesn't have the flip-out LCD—for example, getting a shot of a stream by holding the camera a centimeter above the surface of the water. The would be a tough shot to get with a DSLR, but with a flip-out LCD, it's a snap. (Likewise with holding the camer high overhead for a shot.)

I suppose my point is that people in general (myself included) have a tendency to want to rank everything on some sort of universal "scale of goodness"...and that's simply not a wise approach where photography is concerned (in my opinion).

If someone asked me what the "best" camera for them would be, I would *not* automatically say "A DSLR, of course!" I'd say "What do you want to use the camera for, and will you ever need to print an image?" If they say "I want to take photos while rock climbing, and all my pics will end up on the web" I'd *never* recommend a DSLR.

Scott