Advice on real SLR vs mega-zoom SLR-alike

[keef]

Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
$1000 (but in UK Sterling :) )

Size

* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
SLR-size for stability and not too fiddly

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
Probably 6 or above, like to have more for cropping flexibility

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
Ultrazoom would be good - feeling limited by current 3x zoom

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
7

Do you care for manual controls?
Yes as an option

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Most things - Landscapes, sports/kids, portraits

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
Probably not

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Indoor probably quite a bit, 50% of time

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Yes, motorcycling and kids sports

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
Nope

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Looked at
- Fuji s9600
- Panasonic/Lumix FZ50
- Samsung Pro 815
... and entry SLR (Canon 350, Nion D40, etc.)

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
Not need, but nice to have hotshoe (for ex-film SLR flash), Image stabilisation for longer zoom (maybe not needed if fast lens)


Basic Question here I think - to get even a long-ish zoom with an SLR means seems to mean buying a multi-lens kit or a longer lens separately and spending around twice as much (the Fuji is around £250 sterling but to get the basic SLR models with even a 200mm lens would be around £450+ sterling). I could push to get the SLR and lens but I'm not sure what tangible benefit I would really be getting.
How much lower quality are the images from the so-called super-zoom bridge models? The ones I am considering are very close to SLR in appearance and features (fast startup, manual zoom, optional manual focus via ring on lens, good manual options) with only difference seeming to be a cheap high-zoom lens, smaller sensor and EVF rather than real SLR optical.
Why doesn't someone produce a camera with SLR optics (optical viewfinder and a better CCD) but with one of the fixed cheaper long-zoom lenses to come somewhere in price between the two camps? I 'm sure many people with an SLR with a 28-300 lens wouldn't miss the ability to swap lenses, but many people with a super-zoom would like the better image quality. Am I missing something here?

Thanks for taking the time to read my waffling and thanks again if you have any advice!

[jcon]

Since you said you shoot indoors with low light 50% of the time, I would remove the Panasonic FZ50 from your list. Its pretty bad when light is low and you have to bump the ISO(look at Jeff Kellers review here).

Since you will be shooting sports and low lighting, I would strongly suggest a DSLR. I would consider something other than the Nikon D40. If you read up on it, youll notice it doesnt have an internal focusing motor, which will limit your lens selection greatly. Alternatives and better bodies to the D40 would be the D50, D70, D70s and the more expensive D80(might be over your budget). I would think the D50 would fit you perfectly.

I would suggest to look at the lenses you would need before you decide on the body. Both Nikon and Canon make great glass, so either brand will offer you good options there.

For your shooting needs, youll be very happy with DSLR.