FortMental wrote:... you could get full-sensor resolution and performance in a P&S sized body.
In what model? For climbing and outdoor use, I consider true 'P&S' cameras to be small - not just 'non-DSLR' cams like bridge cameras. The 4/3 cams are not that small and the Pana you show in the hand only has the non-zoom pancake lens, so that is not a useful comparison to most good P&S cams. With a more versatile lens it is considerably bulkier, not remotely comparable even to a big P&S like an LX5 or G12. The only remotely full-size sensor in a remotely P&S body seems to be the Sigma DP2 and that had enough reported problems that it does not seem worth it. The G2, G10 and all those cams are really nice and no doubt give great images, but personally I think they're still too big to take climbing. Hiking? Well that's a whole different story. Or not. Whatever. Delicate snowflakes etc
There is simply no comparing a large-sensor image to a P&S sized image. It's as simple as that. Even when looking at images on a computer screen, the difference in the level of detail is astounding.
I don't think it's as simple as that*. Enlarged to print big there is a difference that is not visible on screen, sure, but on screen you'd have to be pixel-peeping to notice the difference in a lot of shots. I have folders of images with the same scenes taken at the same time with a Sony P200 and a Canon 350D and on screen there is no notable difference.
I don't use my 350D any more because it is far too big to take on anything that is remotely 'climbing'. I don't know many climbers that do actually climb with a DSLR. I know several who get many magazine features using their LX3s and G10/11/12s.
* Translation: You are wrong, responsible for the slow but inexorable demise of SP and almost certainly mentioned in WikiLeaks as responsible for the deaths of many children.