Thanks. That pic was out of camera JPG, also sx30IS never supported RAW shooting (without using CHDK).
Yeah, that is what I meant. Have you tried to see what detail you can extract from the SX30IS Raw images using CHDK? Because I am sure that Matthias Besant shoots in Raw and post processes it to get it just right, rather than depending on standard picture style JPGs on his 550D. Even on my 600 with kit lens I am amazed at the amount of detail I can extract from an image when I use Raw rather than JPG though I am just playing around in DPP. This is why I suggested you do an apples to apples comparison against a DSLR, because you need to know whether a guy shooting the identical scene in JPG mode on his DSLR with a lens that doesn't cost as much as a car is going to make you drool at the level of detail compared to the SX30IS. Perhaps you can just search for SX30IS CHDK on Flickr to see if those images also take your breath away.
Your post makes sense, and I don't have any experience whatsoever in DSLRs. So just one straight forward question, is it possible to get DSLR quality details using bridge cameras?(read FZ200 or sx50hs). I would hate to regret my decision later!
The answer to this question depends on context, detail for what, and detail for how much. For instance, a photographer did a fashion shoot with an iPhone in 2010. If you study copyright disputes you find that low resolution images that we post on the web can easily be used for double spread magazine ads. Therefore, you need to ask yourself what 'DSLR quality details' amount to, when most people struggle to make out the difference when they don't know in advance what camera was used to take the pictures. As you can see from the write up in the link, the iPhone could be mistaken for a DSLR because of the amount of control the photographer had over the lighting, the way the model was made up, and many other factors that have nothing to do with the camera itself.
Coming to the question of detail for how much, here is a photo I took with my 600D from my balcony of a Kingfisher that stopped by my neighbour's garden (distance was about 8 metres):
Kingfisher - Full : Downscaled photo, just to show you how much the bird occupies in the frame at that distance with the 18-55mm lens at full zoom.
Kinfisher - Crop : This is a 100% crop from the full size image
The point here is, which gives more detail? The 100% crop from my 600D with its 3X kit lens, or an equally expensive Bridge camera with a 50X zoom lens (or even a much cheaper one with a 20X lens) which is zoomed all the way through? Will the far greater optical zoom on the Bridge beat the digital crop you get from the DSLR? I don't know the answer (never having tried this comparison myself) but this is the relevant question. You aren't Richie Rich, there is only so much you can afford, so within your financial capacity which will give you maximum bang for your buck? Back in the days when film cameras reigned supreme we didn't have these super zoom Bridge cameras or even medium zoom Compacts so the value proposition offered by DSLRs was obvious and compelling. Today the question is a lot more difficult to answer, and can be answered only by you taking into consideration the kind of photography you will actually end up doing.
Food for thought:
* DSLRs and their lenses are heavy, and a multi lens kit heavier still. Do you travel often by flight? Do you plan to hike long distances, particularly uphill, to get your shot?
* Places that charge for photography often charge more for DSLRs
* Some events, like motor races, limit the kind of camera you can bring based on length when lens is fully extended
* More and more places, like shopping malls, are banning DSLR photography
The best photographs I have taken (in terms of capturing the moment) are not from my 600D but from the good ol' 2.1 MP camera on my K750i, simply because it is always in my pocket. No one, absolutely no one, has ever looked at those photos and said, 'Oh, if only the lens had less chromatic aberration!' I am not denying that image quality matters, but beyond a certain point it matters only to guys like us who hang out on internet forums and pixel peep. We would criticise the Tank Man photo for being a bit soft and very grainy but the rest world, thankfully, sees it differently
Agree with the points you make, but I find the EVF to be very distracting and not suited for manual focus (Which is a big reason why I bought a DSLR in the first place). Secondly my Canon has a slider which indicates on a scale the exposure of the image at the current settings, never found the need to use live view to gauge it. These points are debatable, I realise, but I found it much more comfortable to use the regular OVF of the canon over the very techy sony EVF. Just my two cents. And also try shooting multiple images with decent panning while using an EVF
Exposure simulation is not actually limited to just exposure. You also get your picture styles, white balance settings, etc., in it. Just imagine you install Magic Langtern for your 600D and you can use its manual shooting assists from the viewfinder against your eye rather than from the panel at the back. I agree that today's EVFs have many constraints compared to OVFs but the future is going to belong to EVFs because of the many other features that they can support. I too prefer the OVF but I think its days are numbered.
Yeah for macros its good to have the back LCD, again in my case the 600D has got the DOF button (oddly, I have never used it ) and a nice flip LCD over the Sony's ALT 37.
One more thing. I just took out my camera. I see why I never used the DOF button, because the viewfinder itself shows me how the image is going to be. Then why do we need the DOF button?
While the optical viewfinder does allow you to look through the lens, depth of field is dependent on the aperture setting and the aperture stops down only when the photo is taken; the aperture is fully open even during autofocus. Therefore I very much doubt that you are seeing depth of field for the
selected aperture setting, let alone bokeh (not the same thing!) through the viewfinder. You will have to press the DOF button to get the aperture to stop down manually if you want to see its effect through the viewfinder.
I'll go crazy.. What would be the minimum lens required for say shooting something 50 meters away?
Thanks. That pic was out of camera JPG, also sx30IS never supported RAW shooting (without using CHDK).
) and a nice flip LCD over the Sony's ALT 37. 
Thanks again buddy.
