With all of the great "bridge" cameras that are now available, why would anyone think of purchasing a digital single lens reflex camera with the increased expense of camera, lenses and other "hardware" to make the whole system function in the world of the typical "snap shooter"?
I believe that most of the folks taking up digital photography are better served by the latest generation of advanced "compact" or "bridge" cameras.
Ease of use is one point to consider. Entry level DSLR's are very user friendly. But, you are still required to purchase the right lens for the right job and you may not have the right lens with you when the job presents itself. Every time that you change a lens on a DSLR you are inviting dust to enter the camera body. Even with the latest generation of DSLR's this dust can cause havoc, even if the camera is equipped with some form of sensor cleaning system.
A bridge or compact camera will not provide the level of image quality that a good DSLR/lens combination is capable of. The DSLR, due to its larger sensor size is capable of producing photos with much shallower depth of field and at higher ISO due to larger photo sensors on a larger chip.
I own both "bridge" cameras and DSLR's. If I was limited to a "one camera/one lens" situation, I may well choose a "bridge" camera over a DSLR. For most of my photography I could most likely get by with a good "bridge" camera. For some of my photos, I would never be with out one of my "system" cameras.
Both type of cameras have their advantages and disadvantage but I believe that most folks moving up from a "pocket camera" will be well served by a good "bridge camera" as opposed to a DSLR.