I'm not sure if the terms SLR/non-SLR are really still completely descriptive. It seems that the "consumer" boxes tend to have an electronic viewfinder; you focus and compose through the electronics. [Do they even have a mechanical shutter?] There are advantages and dis-advantages to this design, but one of the characteristics seems to be a lack of responsiveness. This is improving. For landscape not an issue. For nature, could be really dissapointing. "DSLR's" view through a more traditional mechanical mirror and prism, without introducing any electronics delay. There still is a slight lag between pushing the button and capturing the image, but this delay is much closer to what we are use to in film. [As with film SLR's, the viewfinder blanks out during the actual instant of exposure, and there is a rrsounding "clunk" of the mirror. That's why real purest street photographers still buy Leica rangefinders...] The "consumer" boxes have been very optimized for cost and size. So the lens, sensor noise/dynamic range, etc., are only as good as they need to be for the major market share. If you already have an investment in Nikon lenses, migrating to a Nikon seems rather natural. We could have a real heated discussion here about the merits of Nikon glass vs Canon. But if you already have big bucks invested, why switch? Controls, menus, and pushbuttons is an ongoing study in complexity. It seems they teach in Marketing 101 that a bigger feature list is always better than a smaller feature list. Since "DSLR's" are more intended for folks who need fast, consistant results, one would hope the controls would be more sensibly placed. One would hope...