Nice pictures, Dirk!
I recently bought a "super-zoom point-and-shoot bridge camera," a Nikon P-520 ($400), to add to my big, clumsy DSLR (a Pentax K-10). In the past couple of days I've gotten some good, graphic demonstrations of why I want both.
A couple of days ago I was walking out of the house, with my little Nikon over my shoulder, when I chanced to notice a beautiful, perfectly symmetrical spider web on the porch railing. The sun was hitting it just right. So I thought, "Aha, I'll take some pictures of it!" Failure. Due to the autofocus feature, the point-and-shoot refused to focus on the spider web, and focused instead on the plants several feet behind it. When I checked the monitor screen, the spider web (despite the enormous depth of field) was invisible. So I switched to manual focus. Due to the electronic viewfinder, I couldn't see the spider web well enough to focus on it.
Yesterday was my stepdaughter's wedding. I didn't want to get in the way of the professional wedding photographer, but my wife wanted me to take some candid shots before and after the ceremony. So I took the little Nikon with me again. It got some good pictures. It also got some blurry ones, some badly-composed ones, and some shots of people's butts and backs. Reason? The shutter lag of a second or so between the time you push the shutter button and the time the picture is shot. People kept moving around, and walking/dancing in front of me at the crucial instant.
If I'd had my DSLR on those occasions, I would have gotten some better pictures. The DSLR, of course, has an optical viewfinder and a manual focus override, and when you push the shutter button the shutter fires, with no discernible delay. I also would have been lugging around more than two pounds of camera, rather than a few ounces.
Both types have their ideal uses and not-so-ideal ones. I'm mighty glad to have both.
Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.