Are SLR's still worth investing in ?

[freelancer]

If you think that is expensive try fishing or 4 WDriving. A rod and reel can cost $1200 to $2000. and not the real dear brands. And it is disheartening to see a rod and reel bounce out of the overhead, hit the deck and disappear into the wild blue yonder. Buying a winch, raising suspension, long range tank: $5000. So to me photography although not cheap, when compared to other things I do it is really just a drop in the ocean. Mind you I can't justify buying that 600 mm lens I want. (more to the point I can't prise the money from her indoors) And as LanceB said you can re-sell older gear to make your new purchase a little cheaper. Is it worth it? Hell yeah. JMHO cheers Brian

My big money lenses just didn't make money, nobody really wants to pay for nature shots taken with 400 2.8 lenses when so many people now give images away. I can honestly say I've made more money from a single gopro 2 in the last two years than any of my slr gear over the same period. Both footage and frames from the gopro have regularly appeared in the media which were purchased through stock libaries,
some footage I took was used to play a big part of the downturn of the super trawler (Magaris). Don't get me wrong I still prefer the quality you can get from slrs, but often, even if you are carrying the full kit by the time you check settings, swap lenses you've missed your chance. I'm sure I used to carry around 20kg of gear with two 1dmk2, 5d mk2, 400 2-8. 70-200 2.8, 24-70, 17-40, 100 macro etc etc etc (most now sold).
Jon

By the way I also fish out of Narooma and own my own boat and 4x4, I mainly target game species and deep-drop etc ($$$$$ ouch).

[arthurking83]

.....

#1 Stock photography -- I earned way more from the photos taken by my -- wait for it -- point and shoot cameras than all my DSLRs combined. Not kidding. Stock photography is more of quantity than quality from what I noticed.

Stuff investing money in something that's about to be relegated to outdated status .. just use your iPhone(you already have one .. so why waste money on something that'll become uselss in another month or so

#2 Street -- you may not earn anything here so it is all about merit amongst togs. Small is king here. [/QUOTE]
Once again, useless. street photography isn't about photography any longer. It's about 4K video now! only phones with 4K ability, and the ability to run 24/7/365 need apply. Pick the one frame that looks half decent and you're an urban legend before lunch.

#3 My favourite photojournalist is Steve McCurry. He shoots with a D700 although he's got a disability in his right hand and he is a righty. I thought that life would have been much easier for him if he had a small camera. Generally when you are running with the protesters or avoiding gun fire less weight is better.
Maybe Steve is smarter than you may think him to be. D700 + 14-24 .. makes a great self defence weapon! Light weight cameras need not apply.

#4 Those pro wedding togs that shifted into the Olympuses and Fujis are not the rule (yet) but there is certainly a trend going on here. Carrying around a 70-200/2.8 and 5D3 for 8 hours will hurt and they understand that. [/QUOTE]
See #1 .. cameras, 4K gopros, 4K wearable cameras, lot of them .. a really good software dev that can write the code to pluck out out any half decent looking frame from the billions captured, that will automatically apply the latest fad in CS actions .. and you're the wedding tog of the year!

The smallish cameras have to catch up in some areas like you said. AFC, flash systems, lens choice (although they are practically complete now), etc... But quality is certainly not an issue anymore. Imaging systems have improved a lot that it really boils down to personal preference. To counter your original statement, 99.9% of the time small cameras are all you will ever need.[/QUOTE]

is that 99.9% of the time is referring to the time that the camera is tucked neatly into a pocket, or being used?
it seems to be the major preoccupation with camera ownership nowadays .. the ability to store the camera into a pocket of some type. What happened to the hand?

Anyhow, I have nothing against small cameras as a concept. Phone cams have come a long way in the past few years and yet I still struggle to use it 99.9% of the time .. it's in my pocket.

[Mark L]

Just an enthusiast here, who has long and big fingers.
It's all about the ergonomics for me. DSLRs feel comfortable in my hands. The dials and buttons are a good size for me. If a much smaller camera can do the job I want, I don't care. I find it hard quickly adjusting anything. It's just to small. (yes, have played with my better half's Lumix.)

[dtmateojr]

Ergonomics is certainly a problem for some cameras. The Olympus cameras are not very comfortable except the E-M1. Even the GX7 is quite problematic for me. The grip is too close to the lens mount that my middle finger touches the lens. I guess that's a trade-off for being small.

[yotgln]

I love my DSLR...

I would carry it around even if it weighed twice as much.

[macmich]

slr 5000, defintly worth investing in

[arthurking83]

I love my DSLR...

I would carry it around even if it weighed twice as much.

Ditto!
The only time I don't take the camera with me is when I'm not feeling photographically minded. It's not very often, but it does happen every now and then.
Weight has nothing to do with it.
And size needs to be about ergonomics, not as small as possible

slr 5000, defintly worth investing in

[bitsnpieces]

Well, seeing as we're on the subject of whether DSLRs are still worth it or not, why don't we all just jump onto the Sony Cyber-shot DSC RX10 bandwagon? :P

It's pretty much a smaller DSLR camera with a fixed lens, a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T*24-200mm f2.8 lens, at easily half of the price most lenses of this range go at.
Now, would you rather buy a camera with quality lens together for a much cheaper price than a DSLR and lens separately at the cost of a limb?

Yes, DSLR just isn't worth it anymore when you can get almost just about an all-in-one quality camera at a very low cost that will just about do everything for you. Then couple with a compact point & shoot that does amazing macro photography (you have to admit, that is one advantage of P&S cameras, is their capability to do macro, and quite well for the everyday macro user).

Yes, only the pros will need all the fancy gears, but for the everyday person wanting to just get the best of everything? Bandwagon hopping anyone?

Now, I only say this because I'm in the market for a telephoto lens of constant aperture, and the RX10 was very tempting to me for the convenience, size, price, etc. But at the end of the day, I plan on going further than the everyday, thus DSLR is the path to go.
So at the end of the day, as many have stated, or least implied, it's all about you, and what your needs are. I don't think it's fair to try and compete this camera is better for this style of photography or whatnot. Both investments will have their pros and cons.

For example, street photography, amazing shots and such can be taken on any camera, but if you want to get more creative and technical, DSLR is it.

Well, there's my 2 cents I guess.

[arthurking83]

The pros are a smart lot 'yknow!

if you read all the hype on the net, they all seem to be migrating onto these smaller form/format cameras enmasse(can't be bothered with the squiggle/accent!).
Except maybe one that we did hear about(Steve McCurry) not going ... and the pro watchers are curious as to why he hasn't/doesn't (like, he HAS too, or something? ).

Anyhow .. what folks don't realise is that pros have been losing a lot of work to amateurs and startups ever since the cheap DSLR epoch began in earnest(about 8 or so years ago now).
So while all the pros are getting poor and jobless, selling their heavy pro dslr kit to maintain some sense of self respectability, all the once DSLR collecting nobodies migrating into the pros old jobs, had even more money for even heavier DSLR kits .. even the pro looking stuff.
So the pros only had enough spare change for whatever camera they could then afford.
Steve McC obviously was stuck in some remote village in upper-outer-and-over Afghanibezikistanigolian crevasse in some family's 2x2 yoghurt tub sleeping, when a D700 fell out of an overhead learjet, of the last nobody that forgot to secure the neckstrap properly whilst on his way to a bogus ebay bought Steve McCurry photowalk.(Steve obviously kept it).


So, taking into account all the circumstantial evidence, and outputting it all into a coherent explanation(which I'm always loathe to achieve), I've now theorized that their plan(these so called pros) is obviously to lull all the sheepish mugs, in their 'trance of admiration', to follow these chosen ones(the pros of course) into a Promised land of lightweight nanotechnology, milk and honey ... whence the collective mass(if you could call it that considering it's all lightweight) of microscopic photographic gear is surreptitiously dumped, and the pros all make a miraculous return back to Heavy Earth, as the Sons and Daughters of DSLR enlightenment(once again ) .. and possibly even migrate further north and into digital MF of affordable persuasion(I would), where praise for all their godly otherworld like creativity is melodiously praised in prayer from Blog to Pleb.

This theory is of course conditional on a few points:
1. the 'mugs' of converts/devotees that follow the Pros into this promised land area are maintained in this trance state at a steady rate of entrancement(lest the illusion be revealed)
2. the required mass(weight) of the milk and honey doesn't overburden the 'mass' with too heavy an encumbrance
3. That the enlightened Sons and Daughters can make a quite exit
4. That the block of vacant land around the corner(from me! not you) is still available at the time of this mass migration's beginning.
5. That milk and honey are acceptable sources for sustaining a community for an indefinite period, nor that it doesn't sound too religious or hippyish, or display any outward appearance of favour or advantage to a specific section of the community.
6. that the collective mass of the compact lightweight nanolithic photography gear doesn't get lost, stolen, moved, or used .. nor that it gets accidentally eaten with the milk and/or honey being confused for breakfast cereals.
7. that this collective mass of compact nanotechnologicallylightweight breakfast cereal and honey doesn't suddenly meld into an alternative omnipresent all mighty Wifi enabled and geo positionally self aware being to cause premature diversion of the collective 'mass'es hypnotic state away from the Sons and Daughters.
8. the batteries last at least an hour of continuous use.

Well, it could be a possible scenario, until it doesn't happen .. it is a probability

[bitsnpieces]

Dang, have you installed the plug-ins yet? Let's see if I understand...

The pros lure the new people into buying the compact stuff, cheaper quality, unable to deliver full performance, so the pros can eventually switch back and save their business from everyone trying to jump onto the pro stuff? Diabolical!

Well, they didn't fool me!

*It's alright a65, you're a pro camera, not a compact, it's alright...*

[MissionMan]

After this forum post I went out and did some research, looked at some comparisons articles and yes, mirrorless are getting better but the one consistency I noticed was almost every person was shifting from low/mid end DSLR's (not many full frames) or comparing the mirrorless to low/mid end. No one was shifting from 1D's or D4/D4's and very few from the compact full frame bodies like the D800 or 5D. There are not many photographers I know that choose to work with lower end cameras. Most I know work with a D800 level at minimum (if weight is an issue) or the pro body sized full frames when it isn't. Without being arrogant (because I am not saying I can do better), none of the photos using mirrorless in the articles taken by by self professed professionals seemed anything spectacular compared to the work I've seen from professionals using DSLR's. It is stuff I've seen before from aspiring amateurs with good artistic ability but didn't match the overall quality. A lot of the articles proclaiming "Mirrorless is the future, DSLR's are dead" didn't seem to offer professional grade photos I'm accustomed to seeing from really good professionals. And no one, even those who favour mirrorless, are saying that the mirrorless can compete with pro bodies like the 1D and Nikon 4's.

Now, you can argue about size and weight, but I still maintain that any professional who is on paid work should be using the best gear he/she can afford. A pro body clearly offers better focus tracking (I have yet to see any article that claims otherwise). The paid work being the key part so if you're some aspiring amateur, feel free to do what you want. They are paying for your knowledge and your gear. I wouldn't pay for a professional to pitch up with an iPhone no matter how good they were. My perspective on this is if they are providing a photo would could have been better if they had used the correct gear, then the onus on them is to use it or to be upfront about not using it, much the same as I would expect a person to be upfront if they sold themselves as a pro and pitched up with a entry level body and a 18-55 kit lens.

[bitsnpieces]

Much the same as I would expect a person to be upfront if they sold themselves as a pro and pitched up with a entry level body and a 18-55 kit lens.

Guess I don't stand much of a chance to play off as a pro to try and find work with the gear I have then, dang it.

Anyways, very true what you said MissionMan

[ricktas]

Agree Missionman, and yes a skilled photographer who knows their gear, knows its limitations and knows how to make the most of it, could very well get some superb photos with a smaller sensored camera, whether that be an iPhone, point and shoot, mirror-less or other. And there is not a thing wrong with that. The output quality can be right up there, but once you start comparing the output quality to a full framed or even APS-C sensored camera body, then there always be a quality difference.

[freelancer]

I still take the slr kit for paid jobs. But what has brought it all home for me, is now that my kids all use cameras, they often get pics that sell when my bulky kit is left at home. I personally know of quite a few now- unemployed photographers, because such a large amount of the media buyers now get their images from the general public for free, often from mobile phones.

The quality from those little sony stick-in-your pocket cameras is high enough for most print these days. People don't care how much experience or how much high end gear you have these days, they just want it as cheap as they can get it.

When I got the first images of humpback whales mating, I was asked by several high end US magazines for use of the images - none were willing to pay anything at all (just give you a credit).

Jon

[arthurking83]

...... because such a large amount of the media buyers now get their images from the general public for free, often from mobile phones.

Here's the point!
No matter the gear, no matter how you captured it, and no matter your experience level, the images themselves attract customers.

Your DSLR gear doesn't take images, YOU do. Of course that also goes for your mirrorless and phone cams ...
What a good DSLR kit does, is allow you to capture a higher quality image which can then be used for a wider variety of purposes, just as in the old days, landscape specialists didn't use 135 format film, they used at least MF and preferably large format for their work.

If your not getting sales now that you once used too, this isn't the fault of the gear, it's simply a pointer to what type of images sell.
If it's easier to get the types of images that are more popular with smaller format, more compact gear, then obviously this is the way forward.
You could just as easily capture the same images with your larger DSLR gear too tho.

Did you capture those images of mating humpbacks with DSLR or compact gear?
if you used a DSLR with a half decent lens then the quality of the resultant images may have been what attracted the magazines to the images. Greed is why they weren't willing to pay for them tho.
Had you captured the mating whales with a compact P&S at it's most far reaching optical and digital zoom levels(or a smart phone), do you think the images would have attracted these same magazines?

.... People don't care how much experience or how much high end gear you have these days, they just want it as cheap as they can get it ...

On the whole, this is probably true. But only up to a point.

See Steve's thread!

Every situation is going to present a unique story. For some it works, for others it doesn't. Some like to specialise in a certain genre, others chase sales from every corner of the spectrum.
What works for one individual, doesn't work for others.

All in all this has nothing to do with the value(or otherwise) of investment in a particular type of gear. Once you see it in this manner(that the type of gear you use will determine the sales you amount) .. you're on the downward slope.
Your ability to generate images, and more specifically the types of images that people will spend money on .... is where the notion of investment should be focused on.

[Mark L]

I still take the slr kit for paid jobs. But what has brought it all home for me, is now that my kids all use cameras, they often get pics that sell when my bulky kit is left at home. I personally know of quite a few now- unemployed photographers, because such a large amount of the media buyers now get their images from the general public for free, often from mobile phones.

The quality from those little sony stick-in-your pocket cameras is high enough for most print these days. People don't care how much experience or how much high end gear you have these days, they just want it as cheap as they can get it.

When I got the first images of humpback whales mating, I was asked by several high end US magazines for use of the images - none were willing to pay anything at all (just give you a credit).

Jon

That's all fair enough, though the thread is "Are SLR's still worth investing in ?"
A couple of thread tittles your post make me think of;
"Is it worth paying for a SLR if you want to try and sell photos?"
"Why do big companies not want to pay for photos?"

[bitsnpieces]

That's all fair enough, though the thread is "Are SLR's still worth investing in ?"
A couple of thread tittles your post make me think of;
"Is it worth paying for a SLR if you want to try and sell photos?"
"Why do big companies not want to pay for photos?"

It's a postception... We're getting deeper into the post...

I think, at the end of the day, to answer this question of whether SLR's are still worth investing in or not, is simply, depends on your market.

Too vague a question, but a good one nonetheless. For me, it's a yes - even if I can do what I do on a point & shoot, I find the SLR gives me more options which I slowly end up using more and more. I try to carry my SLR around with me as much as possible, though it is bulky, you just never know. I also have a new resolve to carry it around even more so now too.

I do however wish I still had my P&S for situations like when I'm in class (obviously I wouldn't be using it during class, but during breaks and such, it's small, quick to whip out, done) - or I could just bring the big guy and get attention, hopefully get some work/referrals through that...

[arthurking83]

Sometimes I think having a camera that is easily carried(eg. a smartphone, or compact) makes photography a bit too 'accessible'.

The moment presents itself, and because the camera is at hand, the instant reaction is to simply capture it .. not really thinking about whether the moment should have been captured.
Then of course the moment is instantly shared, again without any real thought as to whether the moment really should have been shared either.
The longer this situation continues, the more likely becomes the scenario that photography is presented without any thought as to why it was captured.
In the end, it just becomes noise. Noise that will probably get filtered out at some point in the future.

Not that easy access to photography is a bad thing, but with the benefit of hindsight now in looking back on these past few years, I can't see how photography has grown in any way with the proliferation of the easily captured and instantly shared photograph.
This proliferation has been of the most mundane and boring topics. Do we really need another selfie? Do we really need to see another POV of your dinner tonight?

What inevitably happens(as it has) .. is that the massive flood of product devalues this type of product to the point where good quality is no longer appreciated in the way it should be.
Because it's now seen to be easy to acquire, no one wants to pay for the effort it involves.
Entire sectors of employment are then lost.
This then goes full cycle and brings us back to the beginning of the OP's problem.

I say this because a few days ago, I was browsing facebook for the first time(most likely last too).
My sister has created a facebook page for her new venture and she wanted to show me.
About 2 hours(maybe a slight exaggeration) of trawling through this facebook page involved a friend of my sisters posting images of her cake decorating activities.
The cakes themselves looked quite good, but the photos were of the holiest of holy crapola quality! A monumental injustice not only to her cake making ability but also to photography.
In all honesty I'd rather have not seen the cakes, and preferred only a description that they tasted fantastic!

The way that photography is going, too much of a good thing will probably make it lose it's good thing status one day.
In the old days, published photos seemed to have some thought provoking message attached to them.
Nowadays, they only seem to instill a sense trying to claim their 15 minutes of fame, before it's been done to death and the next new fad takes hold.