In my experience, equivalent megapixel digicam image quality is marginally inferior to a DSLR.  However their usability in the field is far inferior.

I've had two Nikon digicams  and a Canon.  (Coolpix 950 and a 990, Canon S50)  All could be coaxed to take good pictures under good conditions, but under difficult conditions they pale next to my current D70.

Shutter lag, image noise, lens inflexibility and tiny buttons were the digicams' downfalls.  The DSLR is a flexible, compentent tool, well worth the investment if good photography is your goal.  

If you want to make informal family snapshots, the digicams work fine.  Their tiny size and portability are valuable assets.  

Image quality is a matter of opinion, sometimes.  With all of my digicams, I made regular photographic contributions to a major Canadian magazine, including full-page spreads.   The D70 just makes it that much easier.

Peter

There are 2 kinds of digital cameras: DSLRs, and everything else, commonly called "digicams".

DSLRs have significant advantages in the areas of image quality (including resolution, noise, and high-ISO usability), flexibility (primarily due to their interchangeable lens design), much faster AF, and much shorter shutter response time.

Digicams are smaller, lighter and more compact. And that's it. Every other advantage belongs to the DSLRs.

True enough. Digicams are becoming more capable with time, but DSLRs are advancing in quality and performance at a similar pace, so the gap between them isn't shrinking all that much. The Fuji looks impressive for a digicam; if someone made a similar model with RAW capability and a constant-aperture f/2-2.8 lens, I'd probably get one for times when a 1Ds is on the intrusive and bulky side, like family candids and suchlike.

Which is greatly offset by the crummy resolution and sluggish refresh of most viewfinder LCDs, plus their near-total uselessness in direct sunlight.

Hi!

I'm wondering about this every time I read reviews of compact digital cameras (meaning all the non-DSLR, all-in-one type, not just the pocket type; is there a better term for this?). Which "compact" digital cameras compare best to digital DSLRs in terms of technical capabilities (with average AUTO settings with no speed tuning - in terms of operation timings, shutter speed, cycle times, etc.; not image quality)? Do any even match them?

Thanks!

Peter, thanks for answering.
Hm, I think I need to clear up my "compact digital camera" term a bit. I mean every camera that isn't a D-SLR, meaning also the so-called "hybrids" or "prosumer" cameras.
And this is out of sheer curiosity, not for purchase advice.  :)

You forgot less expensive.    :)

The guy who runs this site seems to think that some digitals compare quite well to dSLRs when both are shot within the 'ability range' of the digital (low ISO settings).  

Check his review of the Canon Pro1 vs. the 1D MkII.  And actually print out the crops at 300 ppi and look at them.  (The printed image samples will be about 2" on the long side.)

Read what he says about printing vs. viewing at greatly enlarged sizes.

Usable high ISO seems to be a disappearing difference.  Fuji has knocked this one to its knees.  

Ricoh has made great inroads into to shutter speeds.

dSLRs are more capable.  They will extend the range in which you can shoot.  If you choose a 'digicam' you will have to pass on some percentage of shots that you might be able to take with a dSLR.

However the cost and/or weight of a dSLR might not make them the best solution for everyone.  Some of us would rather pass on a small percentage of potential shots in order to avoid carrying several pounds of gear when we travel.

The ability to compose with the camera off your face is a huge advantage of non-dSLR cameras.

I found using digital cameras (I went through three ending up with the Powershot G5) a big big change from 35mm. Using a DSLR seemed more natural to me. I never got used to composing on the screen on the back of the camera, it just seems wierd. Switching back and forth from DSLR to digital camera is interesting, you forget about excessive shutter lag, slower focus etc. Ultimately DSLR costs more so is, I hope, better camera. However for many purposes the cheaper digital cameras were and are more than adequate (e.g. event pictures for website).

Horses for courses, as they say. My Powershot Pro1 is a quite capable little package. There are digicams, and then there are digicams; as there are DSLRs, and then there are DSLRs.

I like the flexibility of the Pro1, well built, small, excellent lens, very nice for landscapes and travel. If I use it with the same approach and workflow as for my "serious" camera (1V), results are not limited by the camera, but by myself.

So yes, these "serious" digicams are very capable and useful photographic tools, and have their place. I am still waiting for the digital equivalent of a Leica CM, or Ricoh GR1V, or Rollei AFM35, though.