I don't think that autofocus, zoom lense etc are bad per se (of course, I will also want convenient, quick manual focus with good focus screen etc), especially for casual, documentary, sport and other types of photography where one doesn't want or can't afford to carefully setup each shot. I spent my 'formative' photography days (highschool, more or less) using Exacta, essentially a totally machanical but very robust 35mm laboratory SLR made by the original Zeiss guys left on the Eastern side of the Wall. You could get all sorts of microscope, telescope, endoscope, whatever-scope adapters for it, but not a zoom lense , so I have grown to appreciate control over ease of use. I have never learned, for example, to control zoom using motor and buttons, but only mechanical ring. However, things change and one has to keep open mind.

I browsed a little around after reading your posts, trying to see whether I agree with your $2800 and up price range. As always, it depends. For example, one manufacturer (I forgot which) claimed that ease of use, sealed and so dust-free interior and added rigidity made possible by non-changeable zoom lens outwieght loss of versatility (or loss of quality if converters are used). Similarly, manufactuters of non-SLRs try to convince us that paralax is not so bad or that composition is better done on LCD. Anyway, if one just wants vacation photographs or something for web site, there is plenty of choice. If, however, the aim is to replace a traditional midrange 'photochemical' SLR, things are not so bright. For example, the best Canon camera bellow EOS-D30 (which you probably deem acceptable), PRO90 IS (at $1500) 'features' vignetting, perceptible chromatic aberration, noise at longer exposures and too long shutter lag, according to some dpreview.com users. Hm...

I think I will wait some more before plunging into digital photography