I had (have, someplace) a big Nikon F film setup (couple of bodies, several lenses) that I retired when the world went digital. I used a series of pocket-sized and bridge cameras, including a couple of earlier Lumix models, but felt I wasn't getting enough bells and whistles, so I bought a Nikon DSLR and a couple of lenses including a Tamron 16-200 (or whatever) zoom, and schlepped it around the world a couple of times. I had the same result as people are mentioning. The bulk and weight, and having to stop and change lenses if I wanted optimal performance, became such a royal PITA that the damn thing stayed in my hotel room more than around my (aching) neck. It was near impossible to deploy for grab shots, and while it had a brainless/auto setting, I didn't like the performance, especially its poor autofocus which would search and search and search in low-light situations.
So I sidelined it a couple of years ago and went back to a Lumix (FZ-1000) bridge rig, and have been very happy with the decision. It has all the features of the DSLR (at least all that mattered to me) and weighs half as much. (It also cost less than half of a comparable DSLR.) It has a big sensor, a razor sharp lens, bang-bang autofocus, and a big enough ISO range that I don't need to worry about fiddling. I'm not printing billboards, so even some slight detail loss in high-ISO/low-light situations doesn't matter if I'm shrinking 4500 px width to 1200 to post things online or make 8 x 10 prints.
Just my view, anyway.