There is a difference between using taking artistic pictures under ideal, sometimes even controllable conditions, possibly with post-processing, and taking sharp, clear pictures that may push the limitations of the lens, in less-than-ideal, possibly low-light circumstances. If you go to camera company websites, you will find many excellent examples of photography done with their worst cameras. How? They had experts milking every drop out of the camera in an optimized situation, so the 100% point-and-shoot looks as good as the $3,000 SLR. But the base performance is not that.

@Eugene: I know the Canon S3. That size is pretty balky, though it does many of the things one could want -- macro as well as telephoto, many manual controls, AA batteries, you can sort of do long exposure. You can even get lenses. The manual focusing is terrible. There are other mega zooms like it, but at that size you're almost carrying a little SLR.

I guess weather spotters can take a picture of the coming tornado before they turn and run for shelter...

I'm not sure what macro would be good for except: "This is a close up of my mystery bug bite. Am I gong to die?"

No, guys, I'm not looking for an excuse to buy a camera "for survival." The next camera I want is a Contax G2. Being an amateur photographer, I just started thinking about what one might look for in a camera if one were to include one in the kit.