lapsedmodernist | Sep. 11th, 2005

OK, so I understand the structural difference between SLR and point-and-shoot film cameras, that with an SLR you see an actual image formed by the lens of what you are shooting in the viewfinder, whereas with a P&S you only see an approximation, through the "window" in the camera body. Is that also the only difference between a digital SLR and a digital point-and-shoot? I always assumed that digital cameras were priced based on maximum resolution, but brownsing the B&H site I just realized that I could, in theory, get an 8 megapixel P&S Canon for $500, whereas an SLR Canon with the same capacity is $800. The other major difference between SLR and P&S film cameras is that by and large point-and-shoots are automatic, and and I like cameras with manual settings for interesting creative photography (and thus I am very happy with my 35MM Canon Rebel SLR). But that does not appear to be the case with digital cameras. The Canon I was looking at has 21 shooting modes and in general seems like a high-performance camera on the professional, rather than consumer end of the scale. So if I want to upgrade from my 3.5 Nikon coolpix to an 8 megapixel camera, does it make any sense for me to save up for an SLR capable of such high performance, or would I be just as well off getting the high-end P&S?

[ON EDIT]: okay,

theophile has convinced me not to consider the point-and-shoot. Thank you all for your input.