RMM, I never implied that a bridge camera focused faster on auto than a DSLR, but rather that with the wide depth of field, you are more likely to get your main subject in focus if you don't have time to aim the camera properly or you make a mistake. this is especially true if you use the bridge camera on aperture priority and stop the lens down at least halfway, upping the iso to 400, if needed. You can argue this point from here to Yugoslavia, but you can't deny how cost-effective today's bridge cameras are. Even many DSLR/kit lens users choose to buy a bridge camera, rather than a bag of expensive, heavy lenses for their DSLR body

Another argument for buying a bridge camera over a DSLR. You can get your shot from a greater distance and with a less conspicuous device than with a DSLR. Even if the bouncer still gets in a "Roid" rage and trashes your equipment, better to lose a $400.00 bridge camera than a $4000.00 DSLR

I personally think there are many instances where a bridge camera is preferable to a DSLR. For one thing, the deep depth of field of bridge cameras might be advantageous for technical photography (product manuals, circuit boards, medical procedures, etc), where everything should be in focus, or in candid street photography, where one might not have time to focus exactly on the main subject. They are also cost effective and discreet tools for law enforcement/surveillance use or for papparazis shooting "spy" shots for supermarket tabloids. Needless to say, it hurts less in the wallet if Paris Hilton's body guard trashes a $400.00 bridge camera than a $4000.00 pro DSLR

Let's face it, they don't make things like they used to. Fifty years ago, Nikon had no idea about the future of photography. They, like other camera makers, assumed at film was forever and made their purely mechanical/optical instruments to last a lifetime, or nearly so. Moreover, plastics were still in their relative infancy and for the most part, were not suited as camera materials. By the 80s, electronics were rapidly integrated into film cameras, along with cheaper and lighter plastics. Even in the decade or so since digital hit the scene, the construction of cameras has changed. I recently picked up a 2MP digital camera of 8 years ago. While it was mostly made of plastic, it did have a more substantial feel then a new model and its switchgear felt solid. Compare even a Nikon D3100 SLR to a 5 year old D40. The D40 feels a lot more substantial. That combined with its 6MP sensor makes for a great paperweight. Needless to say, Canikon have realized that it doesn't pay to make things that become more obsolete before they break

Planepics, I didn't think that you or anyone else on the "Hog" would buy it either. Just having a little fun on the site and making a general commentary about over the top spending. Obviously selling your cameras to buy that tripod makes as much sense as my selling my sailboat, which I keep at a municipal marina, so I can afford to join a private yacht club. As to the subject of tripods, one size doesn't fit all. I just picked up an old 10 lb Husky tripod at a garage sale for $5.00. Great piece of equpment as long as you are not carrying it around all day. For that I have both a lightweight Targus tripod and monopod. When all is said and done, the best tripod is the one you have with you, and anything is better than nothing at all. As to that bicycle workstand, which I converted, it was just a winter project when it was too cold to sail, the leaves had fallen off the trees, but not cold enough to snow and take winter pictures

Just a few more thoughts about $4500.00 tripods and other over the top equipment; I don't begrudge the rich gadget freak with FU money from buying them. However, anyone who thinks owning this stuff will make them the next Ansel Adams is as delusional as the 40 year old "weekend warrior" who drops 10K on a custom made titanium bike, hoping the be the next Lance Armstrong, or the 85 year old widower, living on a fixed income in a 1 bedroom apartment, who splashes on AXE cologne, expecting to show up at the next American Legion bingo tournament with a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader on his arm

From the consumers' point of view, standardizing battery sizes makes a lot more sense; from the manufacturers' point of view, it makes a lot less money. If overpaying for batteries bugs you, my advice is to buy cameras that use generic AA cells, which include many of Pentax SLRs, as well as my own Kodak Z990 bridge camera and Canon SX130 travel zoom. If you are traveling to a remote, and/or undeveloped area, I would advise carrying at least one camera that uses them. They are available at almost any third world kiosk

If you are drooling so much over that $4500.00 tripod but lack the cash, I have one suggestion; Sell you cameras LOL

Having once been an active mountain biker until Arthritis took over, I still have a collection of bicycle tools. One of them is a collapsible work stand able to support up to a 60 lb tandem bike. I converted this to a tripod