..as the title says.

But, but but... it's black, it's got a lumpy bit on top and a decent hand grip. It must be an SLR...

Sadly James is not alone at the Register in this level of ignorance.

Of course, it's probably an SLR as far as ill-informed law enforcement agencies are concerned, so he might have a point there.

For those of you not clued up, it is not an slr in any shape or form, it is a bridge camera, nothing special about a bridge camera that does video

There is nothing specific in this article to suggest one way or the other whether this camera is an SLR or not. Please remember that SLR means "Single Lens Reflex" not "it must have interchangeable lenses".

All the moniker SLR describes is the view you see in the viewfinder - if that view comes straight through the main lens, bounced off a mirror into the viewfinder then it is an SLR. If on the other hand the viewfinder uses a secondary lens or, as I suspect may be the case in this instance, an electronic viewfinder then it shouldn't be described as an SLR.

Whether or not the camera allows interchangeable lenses or not has nothing, NOTHING, to do with its SLRness.

You are *probably* correct in saying this camera isn't an SLR but you basing that decision on unsound assumptions.

Are those tech news written by ignorant teenagers?

As previously pointed out, whether it has interchangeable lenses is irrelevant to a camera's designation as an SLR or not. What the previous poster failed to identify was that there IS evidence in the article that confirms the SLR nature of the beast. The photo's.

At the rear it has a view finder AND an LCD.

At the front it clearly has only ONE lens. One. SINGular.

That lens MUST be providing the source for both the picture taking AND the viewfinder, hence, by the VERY DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE, this camera is indeed a SINGLE LENS Reflex device.

- Paris just because.

The "reflex" bit specifically refers to reflection (via the reflex mirror). Now, admittedly there's nothing in the article flatly denying there's a mirror in there, but you're seriously clutching at straws now.

"At the rear it has a view finder AND an LCD.

At the front it clearly has only ONE lens. One. SINGular."

Actually, you're wrong. The photos don't reveal anything - that camera actually has an EVF - and doesn't use mirrors to reflect the image seen in the viewfinder.

As stated, whether a camera is an SLR or not has nowt to do with an interchangable lens. However, as also stated at the top, THIS CAMERA IS NOT AN SLR.

It may have just the one lens and a viewfinder, but it isn't an SLR. The VERY DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE as usefully shouted by the previous poster misses the REFLEX part of the PHRASE.

There ain't no mirror in that camera.

One more thing - board?

This is NOT a DSLR. DLSR by its definition shall have optical viewfinder - this is what last bit (REFLEX) in DSLR means.

It is a SINGLE LENS camera, like almost all sold nowadays. Now pray tell, where is the REFLEX MIRROR? I do not see enough space for one, given lens characteristics and size (and price). The viewfinder is obviously electronic one - miniature LCD fed directly from the sensor, like in any other SLR-like, or hybrid, camera. Or its predecesor, FujiFilm FinePix S1000fd.

Mine is the one with Pentax K1000 in pocket.

The bad points of DSLRs (too big for your pocket, indiscreet, complex, expensive) with the bad points of compacts (tiny, noisy sensor (Sony's DSC-R1 excepted), fixed lens).

They're the camera equivalent of two wheel drive 4x4s with mud transfers and plastic bull bars.

They have flippin massive zooms in a casing that's relatively small - in comparison to a 400mm lens on an SLR.

They're a jack of all trades (master of none?), in that you don't need a second lens.

They're capable of taking decent enough pics in good lighting conditions - providing you're willing to work around the hideous shutter lag.

They're cheap, and the next step up from point-and-shoot compacts. And there used to be a fair few around - pre 8-megapixel-plus days - that produced images not filled with noise.

I'd rather use my digital SLR anyday, but the Fuji S5700 I won and once had was a helluva lot more convenient.

I used to have a Fuji S602, and was so disappointed in the shutter lag and noise reduction ruined images that it nearly ruined photography for me. I longed for the fast lens and instant shutter response of my £30 Praktica film SLR.

I bought a second-hand Canon D30 for less than half of what I paid for the S602 and suddenly photography was about photos again, not about working round the limitations of the pathetic sensor and compromised lens.

Totally get your point about the size versus lens size, but a DSLR (say a Nikon D40x) with a 28-80 lens (120mm telephoto end equivalent) will be smaller.

" two wheel drive 4x4s "

are they driven by 2 legged quadrupeds?

No, their hooves slip off the steering wheel.