Alex,
I'm going to say that IMO, you can NEVER, recreate a scene. Is the colour you see the same colour that I see? I doubt it, when people have a lens replaced in a single eye, it very rarely, if ever, 'sees' the same colour temperature as the other eye. If your a different height, you will have a different perspective. Is your vision perfect? The person standing next to you may not be so lucky and each will have different OOF areas, or different 'exposure'.

You say your picture taking is an art form.......... And so it is, but it should never be equated to reality as each persons reality is different.

It all art and should be treated as such.

My tuppence worth ;)

I think we need another thread on this as we are rather hi-jacking Al's thread. How about "why take photographs, what is valid?" Basically I am of the opinion that straight recording is fine as is artistic interpretation which shows other people a different reality,that is, the world as other people see it. I tend to fall into camp one as my gallery shows but I am intrigued and enjoy photographs from camp two. Back to Al's topic, I use both compact and DSLR, horses for courses. Light and fancy free when shooting casually or big distances are involved as I am not as young as I was or DSLR when shooting for a particular purpose and it is not too much effort. I recognise compromises are made with the compact but rather that than no photos as the effort "on spec" is just too much for me.

:D OK Mike..........Compact v. DSLR......... I used to use a compact (Canon S20), but wasn't that happy with the amount of time between pressing the button and getting the shot. Still believing I couldn't handle an SLR after a car accident, I then got a bridge cam (Canon Pro-1), but that was still too slow and at anything over iso 200, practically useless. So I picked up a Canon 30D in jessops one day and found that it wasn't the size of the camera, but rather the others had been too small.
So yes.......... I do need an SLR, the fact that I'm disabled as well means I don't/can't get that far, so its not really a problem trogging round town with a gripped SLR and a biggish lens, as I have to stop and rest quite often anyway.:)

'Do I need a dslr?'. It depends what I'm doing photography-wise really. In fact what I do most of - landscapes - is probably the one thing where a bridge camera might perform acceptably well. Most other subject areas - sport, wildlife (especially birds), even taking shots of the kids, need quicker response and a broader range of lens characteristics than any compact or bridge I've handled. This is leaving aside considerations of how the images are output, and for what purpose, which will fix such as pixel dimensions, how files are recorded (RAW or JPEG) etc.
So one the whole, yes I do need one, and tend to use the 1DsII for nearly everything (which is overkill most of the time, I know, but it is SO nice to use!), although the 400D comes out from time to time with a 'do-it-all' 28-300 on it when I cant/dont want to carry the monster around.

Putting aside image quality which is subjective to the user, the biggest difference to me between a compact and dslr is depth of field, the smaller sensor of a typical compact/bridge camera gives five times more DOF than a DSLR for a set aperture and makes it not as versatile for throwing background out of focus or selective focusing.

So f2.8 on a compact is the equivalent to using f16 on a dslr great for back to front sharpness but not so good for selective focusing at any distance other than close up/ macro photography, and is also the reason most compact camera aperture setting do not go above f8/f11.

Mind you that is now changing with Micro Four Thirds compact interchangable lens cameras with the bigger sensor.:)

As to the aristic argument there is no as seen, even the camera to a point interprates the scene in front of it and never accuratly compared to the human eye, so altering that image to how you saw the scene in your mind eye is just a extension of the cameras interpration in my view. :)

The thing with an SLR is that it gives you more control at the point of taking the shot which obviously helps to widen the possibility's of how you can interpret the subject and capture what you want. In that sense you cannot do without the DSLR but the compact still has its place and it is pretty surprising what you can do with one in the right circumstances.

What's the most important, the camera or the results?

A camera is just a tool, it is a question of having the right tool for the job.

Agree, the photograph is the purpose and the camera is the tool to obtain the result. The DSLR is usually the best tool, that is all.

It's an interesting question, and probably quite apt considering the initial reports of sales of the new Leica M9....It may be guff or atleast part generous/wishful reporting, but according to Leica retailers some report people with top spec DSLR's like D3 and 1D are trading them in for the latest Leica offering. It is common to also see newspaper and magazine photographers using high spec compacts like the G series Canons too. This perhaps suggests more than a couple of photographers out there are asking themselves this same question.
Personally, I do quite enjoy the versatility of an SLR system, and to be realisitically and brutally honest, quite often it is the using of the equipment and taking of the photograph that generates as much pleasure, as getting the result.