Why DSLR?

ever shoot STARRY SKIES where the stars DO NOT have the 'streak-trail' effect? (proof of limitation)

if one's P&S (or OLD dcam/film/digital/dSLR) could not create a CLEAN 'noiseless' image of the night skies with stars clearly speckling it brightly, in a single STILL, and no 'streaking-trails', THEN you know you've got a dSLR involved where it was done effortlessly... rather than a P&S near it's limits of iffy IQ...

if you only have ventured as far as the old 'long exposure' capture of starry skies, and achieved the old 'streaking-trailed' stars in the night sky, you simply haven't pushed far enough to achieve NON-STREAKING 'still' stars in the sky. basically, any star-trail-streak is a BLUR of that star moving across the sky, can you capture it without it moving (perceptively close to no-blur, 'almost' a dot).

at the moment, if we scrutinize a starry night sky still, there is still a slight blur (streak) which is proportional to the exposure time being long, and an ISO chosen where it isn't too noisy. one has to figure out the best compromise, if one wants 'less blur/no streak', then one risks opting for a higher ISO, to allow for a shorter exposure time. (pp notwithstanding, because anyone can 'layer' repeatedly, to make up for LIMITATIONS of the camera)

it has been a long wait for many who have sought 'super-short' exposures of moonlit/moonless starry skies where the image looks clean, detailed, noiseless, which many of the better dSLRs are capable of, but the P&S aren't even close.

maybe, someday, one can capture starry skies HANDHELD (stills... video!!!)!!! and have them look like we're looking at them in 'real life', not 'too dark'.