There's nothing special about a DSLR that would make it inherently "better" (whatever that means) than a DMC-FZ200 for this. Long equivalent focal lengths and large depth of field under bright conditions are the forte of tiny sensors like that in the Lumix. Definitely playing to its strengths here.

But that camera has a lot of strengths, and a tiny price tag too! I'm quite impressed. But I would have to handle one to know for sure.

The strengths of a DSLR are control over depth of field, instantaneous operation of all controls, and low noise in very low light. Pretty much the opposite of the Lumix.

For the sample composition above, a DSLR might have a chance to better isolate the clock tower from its background (by having lower depth of field), subconsciously drawing the eye/brain to the subject without the distraction of the background. But with lower odds of getting a nice sharp rendition of the subject itself. Not to mention having to sacrifice even more pixels ("digital zoom") to isolate the feature of interest.

Cheers