There are some very small SLR's that give very high performance these days, there are also mirrorless cameras with no optical "though the lens" viewfinder but with larger sensor's than compacts without being much bigger. The Canon 550D/600D and the Nikon D5100 are both around 500g without a lens and have the same sensor as the high end "crop" bodies like the 7D and the D7100 that are much heavier, the main thing you lose out on is lighter build quality and not fewer autofocus points. Any SLR will focus much faster than any compact or mirrorless though, espeically on moving subjects. The good thing about buying small is that its fairly(by SLR standards) cheap aswell which means you have alot more to spend on lenses that are really what give you image quality and versatility, they also remain top of the range far longer than bodies and hold there value much better. If your after an ultrawide for landscapes(not always the best but good for architecture and making more normal locations seem interesting) and something with a large appature for portraits with shallow depth of field you don't need a big heavy lens either, the Canon 10-22mm weighs 350g and a cheap prime like the Canon 50mm 1.8 weighs 130g. Another storm that just passed over with the 10-22mm.

Just to explain len measurements, the numbers you get on a compact camera are the equivalent view from 35mm film or a camera with a sensor the same size as that(like brspled's 5D mk2). Most more affordable SLR cameras use a sensor smaller than that so for something like a Canon 550D, 660D, 60D or 7D you have to multiple the number by 1.6 to get the 35mm equivalent field of view, with Nikon and Sony you need to multiple it by 1.5. So for example a Canon 10-22 lens on a 550D will be a 16-35mm lens in 35mm terms, with compacts the actual number would be tiny but because the sensor is so small you multiple that by around 6-7. Also you need to remember that these numbers have to be looked at in relation to each other, a the difference between a 20mm field of view and a 40mm view of view is the same as between a 200mm view of view and a 400mm field of view. That basically means the higher the number the less each mm counts, the difference between say 18mm and 20mm is very noticble but between 198mm and 200mm isnt. However what doesnt change with different sensor sizes is the depth of field, that is the area of the picture thats in focus at a certain appature(the higher the appature "F number" the larger the depth of field but the less the light so the longer the shutter speed). The higher the real focal lenght the smaller the depth of field, so a compact with a lens thats actually say at 24mm(but 140mm in terms of field of view) will still have a deeper depth of field than a 35mm lens on a 5D mk2. That makes it sound like compacts have a big advanatge(and they do in terms of being less fiddley) but SLR's have the advanatge of both being able to use a thinner depth of field for artistic purposes(the classic portait shot with the background blured to put the focus on the subject and make them seem sharper for example, or that flower I posted with the background totally gone) and of superior ISO. ISO is how sensitive the sensor is so the higher it is the higher the appature you can have for deeper depth of field without having to have long shutter speeds. The larger and newer the sensor generally the better the high ISO performance is, thats not just in terms of the ISO number the manifacturer gives but how good the pictures taken will actually look, a compact can have ISO 6400 but the pics will look aweful covered in grain and red/pink digital nose.

I'd say it really depends on the kits of pics you want to take, the amount you want to spend and the size of camera your comfortable using.

I'd say the best option at first might be to stick with a compact and buy a book on composition.... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/1905814046 A DSLR will open up areas like shallow focus work, ultra wide shots or extreme macro that arent possible on to the same degree on a small camera and are also more effective in extreme lighting comdictions but alot of the controls are more about dealing with problems the larger image sensor creates. Better to stick to a compact to start with IMHO so you don't need to worry about those areas and can focus more on improving your composition. The most basic composition advice is I'd say the rule of thirds, if your camera has a grid option that divides the back screen into thirds turn it on and look to position elements of the photograph roughly along the lines rather than merely central. I'm no compositional master but look at the last two pics I posted for example....

Canon 10-22mm ultra wide angle, at about 12-13mm if I remember correctly.

A Macro shot out in the garden this morning and a storm in the afternoon...

That Byrce Canyon pic is done from a JPEG doing nothing but desaturating the colour and then dropping the brightness a little and bumping up the contrast alot, you could probabley do it on any number of free programs. The big factor is the original pic, you need to be looking to take striking shots with a wide contrast range and then be much more daring with the editting than you would be with colour shots.

The vast majority of photographers at all levels shoot digital these days, indeed the main reason I see people still shooting film is that it saves on cost. Medium format digital cameras are still a minimum of £10,000 and you can buy film versions for a tiny fraction of that used if you want to make massive prints.

Yeah these days I don't think theres much reason to shoot specifically B&W, if you take pics in RAW you can just change the colour setting afterwards. I got lucky with that shot, the sun was just at the right angle to give a polarizer maximum effect and give it a dark sky at around midday. A few other B&W conversions I'v done recently if you interested, a couple more Swiss shots... ..and an older shot from Bryce Canyon with my IXUS compact from a couple of years ago... Helped alot by usign a grad filter... Lessened the light difference enough for the camera to keep the detail and then I boosted the briighness of the shadows a bit to level things out.

Shutter speed is a big factor, generally you either want it very fast(like that pic at 1/1000 of a sec) to freeze time or very slow using a tripod to blur the water alot and get a sense of movement like the pic below at 1/4 of a sec.

Sunrise this morning.....

You can do Macro "on the cheap" without a dedicated macro lens, you can buy extension tubes that fit between the lens and the camera or diopters that screw into the front element. It won't generally be as much magnication as a macro lens(which gives 1;1 with object appearing lifesize on the sensor) and you lose the ability to focus to infinity(beyond a certain distance depending on how powerful they are) but the results can still be very useful. The 50 1.8 is actually a very good lens to use extension tubes on as they reduce the amount of light so a large appature is important plus that lens uses a built in autofocus drive(rather than a screw motor from the camera as say the Ziess or old Minota designs use) so if you pay for good extension tubes that have electronic couplings you can still use autofocus.

I'm only going from the reviews I'v read since I'v stuck to only Canon lenses myself but it depends what you mean by "better". If you mean who produces overall the higher quality range of of lenses then I'd say Sigma is better than Tamron. However Tamron lenses are generally cheaper than Sigma and some of them like the 17-50 2.8(£270 last time I checked which is cheap for a constant 2.8 appature zoom, the Canon 17-55 2.8 with IS costs over £700) are both cheaper AND as good or better than Sigma. What I learnt pretty quickly was that there is no "best lens", they all have compromises and you have to pickout the one that best suits your shooting style(and budget ). A large appature(the lower the number the larger the appature) for example is good for taking pics of moving people in low light since it lets to keep a fast shutter speed aswell as having a narrow depth of field so the subject is isolated by casting the background a bit out of focus. If your taking landscape shots though you generally want to use a small appature for maximum depth of field so image stabalisation is more useful for the longer shutter speeds that creates.

Zeiss do a few of the more expensive lenses(mostly aimed at the full frame alpha system not that crop camera though) but most of them are either Sony in house designs, or rebranded versions of Tamron or old Minota lenses, Sony bought out the latter and used their lens mount for the new alpha system. All the 18-55 kit lenses are actually pretty sharp these days although the build quality/focusing isnt great(espeically hard to use filters like a polarizer of a grad since the front rotates) and the appature isnt that small. The 50mm 1.8 does look like good value for money aswell, the reviews I'v seen say its pretty sharp at 1.8. You can get Sony versions of most Tamron and Sigma lenses aswell, the Tamron 17-50 2.8(not the VC stabalised version) has a very good rep for sharpness and a large constant max appature at a relatively low price, plus you can use filters on it.

The main thing difference to other SLR style(it isnt one really) is that the Sony's viewfinder is electronic not real as you'll get from Canon, Nikon or Pentax. Whether thats a disadvanatge or an adbvanatge depends on personal prefference I spose but personally I like the option of both composing electronically on the back screen and normally though the veiwfinder. The biggest choice with any camera these days though is IMHO not the body itself(all the big makers produce quality ones) but the lenses your going to buy to go with it, Sony does offer a decent selection but not nearly as much depth as Canon or Nikon. Not too much of a problem is you don't want more specalized lenses but it does mean its harder to pick up stuff used, less of it around and prices are higher because demand outstrips supply.

A couple from sunset last night...

Just got back from a holiday in the eastern alps... First really exotic holiday using a DSLR, Canon 550D plus 10-22mm and 15-85mm lenses.

Looks like Scarlett Johansson to me.

A semi cover of In My Time of Dying.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk5kWNONJgQ&feature=related and just for Jahfin, their version of The Spades We Sell Soul....

A nice Acoustic Steely Dan ciover.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Js3GiNtns

Its not something I'v really thought about much but looking at it I do think Steely Dan have a real case to be considered the greatest US band ever, for me it would be between them and Talking Heads. Certain tracks have become radio stables but theres a good deal more that is just as good.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXg9pQ-1k0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx-Oq9GdN1E

I'm supprized you only enjoy those tracks, I could understand someone enjoying one phase of the bands career and not another but that selection is pretty wide. I'm less of a fan of Gaucho and The Royal Scam but besides them what really stuck out for me was the consistancey of Steely Dans output, each album was for me at least 50% material of the highest quality.

Forget that crap by Jack White the last bond song should have been.....

Just to show good jazz didnt die out after the 70's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajjATGPSIgU&feature=related