Originally Posted by JohnG
BUT, you can't think of a DSLR like a digicam. Want a HUGE improvement? Buy a 70-200 f4 for $560 and suddenly you've got telephoto images the LX3 can't come close to. Want to upgrade something about the digicam you have to buy a whole new digicam and you can buy 100 digicams and not get the IQ you'll get from putting that $560 lens on the 450. Want low light? A cheap $90 50mm 1.8 gives it to you. Want that option with a digicam? Sorry, can't do it. That's where people get into trouble - thinking of a DSLR as a digicam - it isn't. It's a system - you buy the components that meet your needs and don't buy the ones that don't. With digicams you're stuck with whatever they give you in the total package. But, sometimes people don't want to pay for the quality and that's perfectly OK. But, if I were to go out and buy a t1i with my current flashes and lenses I can say with 100% certainty I can produce better results in any situation than I could with any digicam - I just give up convenience. But the point is, that lens investment isn't thrown away because I change bodies. Now, if you invest in 3 different systems like you did, then you're throwing away your invesment in lenses unless you can sell them. It's why most photographers will advise people buying DSLRs to invest more in optics than in bodies. Qaulity optics can last you decades.
I agree with most of what you stated here. However, saying that you can guarantee 100% that you will get better results with a DSLR than with ANY P&S is simply not true. Some low end DSLRs are far from producing the IQ one expects from this system. Most kit lenses are mediocre and there are plenty of bad glass out there. One has to be very selective (and spend a lot of money) in order to build a line of lenses that will cover a range from 18mm to 500mm. And I mean a lot of money. I once had an Oly system and made the mistake of buying a Minolta 100-300mm lens. That was the biggest piece of junk I've ever bought. The lens produced a tremendous amount of PF and CA and unless it was stopped down to f8.0, images would look soft, contrast was poor, etc, etc, etc. I also had the Nikon D40 when it first came out. Horrible DR, blown highlights all over the place unless the exposure was knocked down by -0.7 or even -1.0, in which case everything turned dark. I can go on and on. IMO, most low end DSLRs are not much better than some high end P&S (and you loose convenience big time).