Considering the entry level DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are available for less, why would anyone buy one of these?

Get your entry levely DSLR, buy a 400mm lens for it and then compare the price(*). They are also a lot easier to carry about than theDSLR/big lens combination.

(*)The poor mans Nikon 80-400mm runs at 1100+ and the 200-400mm 5000+

No so. OK I agree you can maybe buy a Nikon/Canon body with an 18-55mm kit for cheaper. But to match the Sony's optical and digital zoom range you'd have to spend another £1000+ on clunky and fragile SLR lenses that you'd have to cart around in a clunky padded camera bag.

The only reason I can see that you'd go for an entry level SLR over this is if you wanted better aperture and depth of field control as I think you'd also be hard pressed to distinguish between the two in picture quality.

Taking pics of el plods... that can land you in the can..

You could get a 300mm full frame and use it on a c size sensor... hey presto ~500mm and the basic ones wont set you back more than £200..

...the rootkits they included on CDs a while ago... the DRM restricted crap they peddle...

Picture quality is truly terrible for this price point - the superzoom is only really usable with a tripod and timer, almost any entry-level DSLR is a better purchase. I own an H9 which rarely sees the light of day for the same reaons. Some of the smaller compacts from Sony are worth a look, but nothing to see here, all the bulk and fuss of a DSLR but without the reward.

Get over it.

I honestly do not believe that you have used a DSLR if think that there is no difference in image quality.

I brought a bridge camera to save money on lenses, and for ease of carrying a few years back. The image quality was on par with the shots in this review, and even a bridge camera is cluncky to carry around.

Within a year I was that fed up of the artifacts in the images, even on 100 ISO, that I swapped for a second hand mid range DSLR. Yes I have spent far more money on professional quality lenses etc - but even friends that have the standard lenses (and have spent not that much more than these cost, and have a nice upgrade path for the future) produce shots with quality way in excess of the sample shots here.

If you want snap shots of your holidays then fine (but if that's the case why not get a cheaper compact that produces similar image quality), if you want something to produce nice phtographs with get a real camera - you won't regret it in the long term.

Have you ever used the HX1? Well I have and the image quality is brilliant for its price range.

Sweep panorama is brilliantly simple to use and produce ready to use panaromic images without the need of clunky stitching programs. Twilight is even more brilliant as it produces blur-less, flash-free and almost noise-free images in low-light situation comparable to my £700 DSLR.

Read the review by Steve Huff and you will see what the fuss is all about.

You bought a bridge camera for the wrong reason. These and the better compact cameras are for people who do have real cameras but also like to have a second camera to carry with them 24/7.

And before spouting forth about the quality of something you bought a few years back take a look at this site. You can make direct comparisons of a wide range of cameras.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Yes there are differences but nothing that would justify carrying a full backpack of gear on the off chance of finding a not to be missed shot, nor in most cases such a great difference that it would jump out at you if you weren't looking for it.

Nope I have not used the HX1. I was going from the sample shots in the review - which on my 20D would require 3200 ISO to compare to.