Well, DSLR Noob, what do you think as compared to a point and shoot? Have you had a p&S before you got your DSLR? Do you have a DSLR? What kind do you have? Ok now after all the wonderful questions I just asked, compare your photos.
1)Less noise and better tonal range, more control, more product expansion, and shallower depth of field possible.
2)One that I barely used because I hate AA battery cameras.
3)Yes
4) Canon EOS 20D
5) All I was saying is that you can't
just point a DSLR at anything and to quote you "make ugly things look good" as easily as you made it sound. Now you can Observe the "ugly" object, find it's best angle, cast light on it, adjust the settings as far as sharpness, saturation, and contrast (or shoot RAW) take the photo with a selected focus point, precise aperture for desired depth of field, cropped for best subject enhancement, and make something ugly, into somehting beautiful. My main point, DSL doesn't just = better photo. DSLR = more control. Which in th ehands of the photographer with the skill set, can equal a breath taking photo.
I will say, if you're shooting in auto mode (or any other non-"creative mode"), and you did on the P&S too, your photos will probably look much better without any input from you simply because of the camera being better, but true talent to talent full control, I know there are photographers that could put us to shame with a manual controllable P&S.
Cliffnotes: I know you probably already understand what I meant, but your post made it sound like a DSLR just makes any old schmoe's pics just look good with relatively little effort, and I am saying it's more than the camera.