For significantly more money, a [link|http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/maxxum5d.html|Konica Minolta 5D] can give much better results. It has built-in anti-shake, so all lenses are stabilized; anti-shake typically lets you use a shutter speed 2-3 stops lower than without it. If you want 10x zoom, you can get either 18-200mm (27-300mm 35mm equiv) or 28-300mm zooms. For very low light, you can use primes (e.g. 50mm f1.7) or shorter zooms (e.g. 28-75 f2.8)

The bigger sensor has several advantages, including much better quality, especially at higher ISO's. For example, compare at full resolution (if Firefox scales, have it show at 100%):
[link|http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/s2is/samples/IMG_0044.JPG|Canon S2IS ISO 100]
[link|http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/s2is/samples/IMG_0048.JPG|Canon S2IS ISO 400]
[link|http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/maxxum5d/samples/PICT0015_iso100.JPG|KM 5D ISO 100]
[link|http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/maxxum5d/samples/PICT0017_iso400.JPG|KM 5D ISO 400]
[link|http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/maxxum5d/samples/PICT0020_iso3200.JPG|KM 5D ISO 3200]
IMHO the 5D at 3200 is better than the S2 at 400. The 5D (and big brother 7D) are the best cameras for existing light photography.

The larger sensor also gives less depth of field for a given aperture (which can be good, e.g. when doing classic portraits) or bad (if you're trying to get everything in focus). It's harder to make faster lenses for a larger sensor (e.g. f2.8 constant aperture zooms can be large and expensive), and typically D-SLR's (or Sony DSC-1) are significantly bigger than digicams.

In the end, photography is still mostly about light and composition, but I've enjoyed my D-SLR a lot more than my digicam.

Tony

First, to D-SLR or not. Lighting and composition are more important than the camera, but a good camera can help. D-SLR's have much fewer limitations (all can handle external flashes with bounce, many can do wireless flash, lots of different lenses including tilt and shift, high frame rates, etc), but they're bigger (although some of the digicams are about as big as the entry level D-SLRs) and more expensive (starting about $600 body only).

One plus is being able to buy used lenses; that's helping me.

It seems that all the D-SLR's, including entry level, are pretty good, but some are better for certain styles.

For example, for existing light (which I love to do), the Konica Minolta 5D and 7D are the best, due to built-in anti-shake and good high ISO performance. Canon and Nikon are next because you can get stabilized lenses for them and they have good high ISO performance. Olympus is not, because their cameras aren't good over ISO 400.

For sports, Canon is probably best because their cameras have excellent autofocus performance (better than K-M), lots of affordable USM lenses (silent ultrasonic motors in the lenses), and high frame rates (20D is 5 frames per second, K-M 7D is 3).

Other considerations include viewfinders, camera controls, build quality, etc. The K-M 7D was the obvious choice for me because it had anti-shake, the most physical interface (more dials and knobs than any other D-SLR), big LCD, excellent viewfinder, and cost the same as a Canon 350D with one stabilized lens.

It's nice to have two camera, a big, capable one for special occasions, and a small compact one to bring everywhere. In the near future, camera phones might be good enough to replace the compact camera.

Tony