Are SLR's still worth investing in ?

[dtmateojr]

Competitive amongst other photographers. Merit or money.

#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.

#2 Street -- you may not earn anything here so it is all about merit amongst togs. Small is king here.

#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.

#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.

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.

[ricktas]

Imaging systems have improved a lot that it really boils down to personal preference.

I agree it is personal preference!

But as imaging systems have improved, the DSLR improvements have also been on that same ride/path. DSLR sensors have not stood still waiting for the others to catch-up, they improved right along with their smaller cousins. For the same MP count, a larger sensor will ALWAYS outperform a smaller one. The science of light comes into play.

Each to their own, but to say 99.9% of the time smaller cameras are all that you will ever need is for you personally, not necessarily for everyone. If I had to shoot a high worth wedding in a dimly lit church where I could not use flash (some churches forbid it) I would choose a DSLR over a compact every time, simply cause of the science of light and pixel-site size.

Your arguments might suit your needs, but there are a lot of people they do not, and to make claims like '99.9% of the time' that are not correct, is just devaluing your entire point of view.

[dtmateojr]

The 99.9% refers to camera owners that are not pros and will never need the requirements that you pointed out. It's a more realistic figure.

Even your "no flash" requirement is better handled by a smaller camera because at the same f-stop and AoV you have better DoF so your chances of getting something in focus is much much higher. In group shots focus is a critical requirement. Much more important than minute noise differences.

[MissionMan]

I think a comparison I can think of is 4x4's. Pro lenses are like adding 4x4 modifications to give it more capability, adding a winch, upgrading the tyres, suspension lifts. The vast majority of 4x4 owners will never reach the full capability of their vehicles off road. In fact, the vast majority of owners will probably never take their vehicles on anything more than a dirt road. The reality is, if they were looking for space, 4x4's aren't ideal because their road handling isn't as good as other vehicles. DSLR's are the same. The vast majority of owners could probably achieve what they currently do without the use of a DSLR. Much the same as 4x4's, it won't change the fact that people will continue to buy Landcruisers and Discoveries that are way beyond the reach of what they intend using it for, because the majority want the convenience in case they ever do that.

The users at Ausphotography probably fall into the 4x4 enthusiasts category. We have novice owners, intermediate and advanced owners. Some of us take our cameras on the equivalent of the rubicon trail, pushing the boundaries of what the camera is capable of and wanting more, but the majority are still using them on mild 4x4 routes that are probably beyond the boundary of a softroader, but still within the capability of the equipment. On the odd occasion, we decide to do something bad (like riding a 4x4 on soft sand without deflating the tyres) and that's why we are here, to show what we are doing and get feedback when we get it wrong.

Flawed analogy? Perhaps, but it's good to drag in cars at some point or another.

[Kym]

Hey Demo - We are given many options! (you may remember me from forums such as WP)

Compact cameras with small sensors don't have the same light gathering capabilities.
But that is a not a huge issue for happy snappers.

Lets face it, eliminate selfies, cat/pet photos, foodies and really badly composed/exposed landscapes with crooked horizons and you have eliminated 90% of 'modern' photography.
Maybe 50-60% of my photos could be done with a compact, but the rest need the features of my lenses/DSLR kit.
Esp. birding.
Lately I've been doing some indoor event work, and comparing my work to that of compact users -- enuf said.

[dtmateojr]

Not sure what you mean by compact cameras. A Fuji XT-1 is compact and can go head-to-head with just about any other camera out there in just about any situation you throw at it.

I'm not saying DSLRs can't. I'm saying that small cameras can.

[ricktas]

I'm not saying DSLRs can't. I'm saying that small cameras can.

I agree that small camera's can perform very well, but like for like (MP count) a small sensor is never going to perform equal to a large one.

[dtmateojr]

No it wont.

[I @ M]

To quote a very famous photographer whose name temporarily eludes me --- " There are none so blind as those who won't see"

[dtmateojr]

For most photographers, the difference between a small camera and a big camera is that one takes larger crappy shots. -- Me

[dtmateojr]

To quote a very famous photographer whose name temporarily eludes me --- " There are none so blind as those who won't see"

Was he the one who said, best wide angle lens is two steps back and look for the "aha!".

[MissionMan]

Depends on your definition of a photographer. Having a camera doesn't make you a photographer just like having a paintbrush doesn't make you an artist. -- Me as well

[dtmateojr]

That's why I downgraded. I honestly could not see any difference in the photos I take.

[I @ M]

Was he the one who said, best wide angle lens is two steps back and look for the "aha!".

No, definitely not because he is one who understood angle of view equivalence unlike some people.

[dtmateojr]

No, definitely not because he is one who understood angle of view equivalence unlike some people.

Must be different then. In that quote that you quoted the word "see" talks about photographic vision not pixel peeping.

[I @ M]

Must be different then. In that quote that you quoted the word "see" talks about photographic vision not pixel peeping.

It is very different, no pixel peeping needed or implied. One only needs a very basic understanding of photography to appreciate the differences.

Which part are you having problems with?

[dtmateojr]

It is very different, no pixel peeping needed or implied. One only needs a very basic understanding of photography to appreciate the differences.

Which part are you having problems with?

Your implied insult.

[I @ M]

Your implied insult.

No insult, implied or intended.
I was merely trying to help you with your understanding of the subject at hand.

[dtmateojr]

No insult, implied or intended.
I was merely trying to help you with your understanding of the subject at hand.

I don't think I needed help with equipment. I was actually here in response to the original post. If I needed help, it would be on how to take better photos. Please have a go: http://flickr.com/dtmateojr.

[I @ M]

I don't think I needed help with equipment. I was actually here in response to the original post. If I needed help, it would be on how to take better photos. Please have a go: http://flickr.com/dtmateojr.

Sorry, my humblest apologies for being confused. The original post was about whether "investing in SLRs was worthwhile". Your opinions tended towards a very negative view towards the SLR / DSLR and to a great degree towards the smaller format / mirror less bodies with ( IMHO ) a large dose of unhealthy, factually incorrect and unnecessary fanboism. The forum is a place for rational debate, you and I agree on points such as the fact that the smaller format bodies can produce great results with photography but at the same time I feel compelled to disagree with some of your assertions. Seemingly you take offence to that.
Sorry, I can't view your flikr page, I don't have an account there and it tells me that if I want to look at your pics i have to yahoo something or other ----