You might want to expand a little on what you want to be able to do with a camera. In my case, I'd pursue the digital SLR primarily for photographic controls (primarily for depth of field) that aren't buried in menus. Being able to use a more professional flash (the bounce flash example above is a good one) would also be a major plus. Interchangeable lenses is not as big a factor as I once would have thought.
Otherwise, you can buy an awful lot of camera for less money in the point-and-shoot group. I've been very pleased with both an Olympus and a Sony (which kind of acts like an SLR). Having the wide-angle out to 10x zoom has proven addictive.
For SLRs, I'm in the Nikon camp because that is what I shot (semi-professionally) in film cameras. Nikon has really stood by its customers over the years, never, for example, changing its lens mount. Nikon optics are considered tops in several fields in addition to cameras. Seems like I read a review recently that one of the Nikon SLRs had excellent low-light shooting capability although that will be affected by what lens is on the camera body. The more you pay for a lens, the more light you'll get through it, generally.
(That said, I'm not that impressed with Nikon consumer-grade point and shoots.)
Seems like someone, Consumer Reports?, recently did some reviews and said you couldn't rely on resolution alone to get clear photos. I.e. a camera that claims to give you a zillion mega pixels may not give as good a photograph as a lower pixel camera that is of better quality. Nor can you depend on the information from people who work in camera stores who perpetuate myths such as optical and digital zoom being equivalent. (Might have been Wall Street Journal or Popular Science. Sorry, I graze a lot in my reading.)
