Are SLR's still worth investing in ?

[freelancer]

Most of my gear is getting old and some of my lenses have been repaired only to fail a few months later. I have been holding back for quite some time partly because the outlets where I used to sell images have become very crafty on how they get images for free these days (competitions). The small amounts of work I have had through news story coverage and tourism have mainly come from compacts and gopro's, it seems that most magazines don't have the budget and by standing your ground with a fixed price now means you don't get a sale at all.

I joined a camera club so that my two keen young daughters can come along to learn from different guest speakers. At first my girls were sort of looked down at as they use compacts but now that my eldest GBP (a member on here) won highest point score for 2013 as well as image of the year using compacts now half the club seem to have the same camera as her. Two weeks ago she had an image on the front of Herald and also has the front cover of the quarterly Brink UTS paper, all taken with compacts. I hear people comparing cameras iq etc, so last night at camera club with a very highly ranked guest speaker my daughter entered an image of a herons head to see if it would be noticed that it was from a powershot compact. The picture did very well with comments on how you could see every detail in all the feathers etc and came second in the competition.

So if compacts are constantly improving and so easy to carry at all times as well as many being shock and waterproof is it really worth investing in expensive new gear.
Jon

http://i1170.photobucket.com/albums/r538/JonDP/IMG_6625_zpsca24210e.jpg (http://s1170.photobucket.com/user/JonDP/media/IMG_6625_zpsca24210e.jpg.html)

[MissionMan]

It all depends on what you want to do. Yes, compact cameras are getting better but so are digital SLR's. The reality is if you want high quality pictures, you will pay a price for glass, not the body. For example, the 32mm f/1.2 for the Nikon 1 Series is still $1000, because producing good glass costs money. That said, a good photographer will produce good photos with virtually any camera, but it doesn't mean he will use any camera because he is constrained by the limitations of the gear.

In short, a user could probably get away with something like a Nikon 1 series for sports, but a Pro Body with a 70-200 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8 is still going to be streets ahead of it in the right hands.

I believe that the compact interchangeable lens cameras like the EOS M and Nikon 1 Series do have a big target market. I think a DSLR is an overkill for people who simply want good image quality and the ability to change lenses. For these people, the compacts will work. In the past, if you wanted to get a good photo, you needed a DSLR, but these days you can do that with a compact; but, just because a compact gets good photos, doesn't mean the DSLR's haven't progressed as well. Focus speed, ISO Noise, etc are all progressing at a rapid rate.

[old dog]

at this stage, most certainly....although I just got the Fuji X-E1 (takes amazing pics too) for travelling o/s. Got tired of carrying the big one around.

[hoffy]

I have to admit I am at that same cross roads when it comes to my digital equipment. I have a 5 year old DSLR, that while it still takes more then adequate pictures, it is in reality getting to the end of its life span. This actually depresses me to a degree. I have film cameras in my collection that A) can be readily serviced (by the right technicians and B) will last a very long time. IMHO, 5 years out of a $1600 camera is simply too short of a lifespan.

Anyhow, mine is not to rant at the moment......

I do really wonder whether something like the Sony E-Mount range (& what ever Canon, Nikon, etc come up with that is similar) is where its at. Yes, I know that the EVF is not everyones cup of tea, but the compact form factor, the ability to put just about any lens on it, the fact that now you can get one with a full 35mm sensor, just seems too tempting for me.

[rackham]

Haha.. you might want to have a look in here then:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?128935-Fuji-seem-to-have-made-the-camera-that-Nikon-should-have-built

[Lance B]

Depends on what you're shooting. Yes, a relatively static bird in good light can easily be captured with a compact camera. However, when the light gets dim and there is fast movement, a good DSLR is still the way to go.

And most of these have been cropped somewhat as well.

D800E + 300mm f2.8 VRII @ ISO5600, 1/323sec, f4.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/155213506/original.jpg

D800E + 300mm f2.8 VRII @ ISO6400, 1/1250sec, f5.6.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/153556179/original.jpg

D7000 + 500mm f4 VR @ ISO3200, 1/160sec, f5.6

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/141556734/original.jpg

D800E + 500 f4 VR, ISO6400, 1/1000sec, f5.6.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/155204635/original.jpg

D800 + 300mm f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TCII, ISO6400, 1/250sec, f5.6.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/145657975/original.jpg

Still not bad at ISO12800!

D800E + 300mm f2.8 VRII ISO12800, 1/323sec, f5.6.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/155139672/original.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -


I have to admit I am at that same cross roads when it comes to my digital equipment. I have a 5 year old DSLR, that while it still takes more then adequate pictures, it is in reality getting to the end of its life span. This actually depresses me to a degree. I have film cameras in my collection that A) can be readily serviced (by the right technicians and B) will last a very long time. IMHO, 5 years out of a $1600 camera is simply too short of a lifespan.

Compared to film, a DSLR is CHEAP! Let's say you shoot 2000 photos a year, not that many shots in reality when you compare what we do now days with digital, that's 56 rolls of 36 shot film and at say $10.00 per roll to buy and develop, that's $560 per year, without printing which you would normally have to do as you have no other medium to display the results further adding to this cost. Yes, you could scan them nowadays, but that was not on offer in the film days. So, over your 5 years of shooting film, that equates to a $2,800 in film costs and you haven't even factored in the cost of the film camera. Now, your $1,600 DSLR looks cheap as you have saved $1,200 and you can still sell it for probably $500 making it even cheaper. :) The thing is, a DSLR allows you to take as many shots as you like for experimental or learning purposes, whereas film would cost you a bomb if you did the same. The fact is, you can learn so much with a DSLR, which you would be hard pressed doing with a film camera.

For me, I look at a DSLR "as the film" and an item I have to update every few years to keep up with current digital trends, which I can sell to someone who is not so into photography and just wants a decent camera. My D700 took about 14,000 images over 2 years of ownership which is 7,000 per year and it cost me about $3,000 and I sold it for about $1,200. So, in reality it cost me about $1,800 for 14,000 shots and if you use the example of film costs above, then using film would have cost me 389 rolls of 36 film @ $10 per roll (probably more these days) = $3,890!! I saved over $2,000!! My D800 took 20,000 shots in 8 months, the camera cost me $3,000 and I sold it for $2,000 well below it's true worth as I sold it to s good friend, I probably could have got about $2,500 if I really wanted. So, the camera cost me $1,000 for 20,000 shots which in film would have been 555 rolls @ $10= $5,550 so, I look at it that I saved $4,550!! :D

[freelancer]

Some great shots there Lance B, though you do have to be quite close with a 300 mm lens, compared to using a compact with 1200mm or more, now, from Nikon.

I used to own D series bodies with 2.8 lenses. I sold my 400 2.8 after 4yrs of just shooting birds and wildlife, but not making money from the lens. Even with a 2x converter, it didn't come close to what my daughter is getting with a compact (bird pics don't make money).
Jon

- - - Updated - - -

Some great shots there Lance B, though you do have to be quite close with a 300 mm lens, compared to using a compact with 1200mm or more, now, from Nikon.

I used to own D series bodies with 2.8 lenses. I sold my 400 2.8 after 4yrs of just shooting birds and wildlife, but not making money from the lens. Even with a 2x converter, it didn't come close to what my daughter is getting with a compact (bird pics don't make money).

I do know that an slr will produce a better image but with stock libraries selling images at 50c I dont think Im willing to invest top dollar anymore.
Jon

- - - Updated - - -

Some great shots there Lance B, though you do have to be quite close with a 300 mm lens, compared to using a compact with 1200mm or more, now, from Nikon.

I used to own D series bodies with 2.8 lenses. I sold my 400 2.8 after 4yrs of just shooting birds and wildlife, but not making money from the lens. Even with a 2x converter, it didn't come close to what my daughter is getting with a compact (bird pics don't make money).

I do know that an slr will produce a better image but with stock libraries selling images at 50c I dont think Im willing to invest top dollar anymore.
Jon

[MissionMan]

That's more of an issue with the market than the camera or lens.

[I @ M]

Errr, the term investment conjours up a view of a monetary return on the purchase price. A DSLR is no different to any other camera on the market, if the user can master it and produce saleable images, pay for the camera and lens system from the sale of images from the camera then it might turn a profit at the end of the financial year. If it doesn't, the camera is simply a depreciated asset that failed to pay it's way ( probably more due to owner ineptitude rather than technical inferiority ) and will soon join the business owner in the dole queue.

There will always be a gap between different equipment levels in the terms of proficiency of image capture but I reckon those days are rapidly drawing to a close.

Those who try to seek a living by using one form of technology and ignoring the rest are heading for dinosaur status faster than the titanic can shed deckchairs.

[Lance B]

Some great shots there Lance B, though you do have to be quite close with a 300 mm lens, compared to using a compact with 1200mm or more, now, from Nikon.

Thank you for your nice comment. However, I also have a 500mm and that seems to get most of what I want. I have never really found that I've been wanting in focal length all that much and even so, the D800E has plenty of res for cropping if required.


I used to own D series bodies with 2.8 lenses. I sold my 400 2.8 after 4yrs of just shooting birds and wildlife, but not making money from the lens. Even with a 2x converter, it didn't come close to what my daughter is getting with a compact (bird pics don't make money).

I do know that an slr will produce a better image but with stock libraries selling images at 50c I dont think Im willing to invest top dollar anymore.
Jon

I do photography as a hobby, not a business. The fact is, digital has devalued the whole photography game anyway so making money from it is a bit of a waste of time. Anyone with a half decent camera can get great images these days, not like it was in the film days when it required much patience and skill.

I would still say that the DSLR will more often than not get better results and be more versatile than a compact. As I say, when the light gets low and you need fast AF, nothing beats a DSLR. In good light a compact can be decent, but it is rare that you are in good light and all the photos you see from a compact are always those from exceptional shooting conditions. Also, a 1200mm lens needs decent shutter speeds anyway and if you need one that long then you need to get closer, IMO. At that focal length, even if you have VR, you need a stationary subject and if not then you need a minimum of 1/1200sec shutter speed and that means high ISO's or a very nice bright subject.

Anyway, I think your mind is already made up as there doesn't seem to be any convincing from me that will alter that.

[bricat]

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

[landyvlad]

As with everything in life, your choice of tool depends on what you need to do with it.

Depends on what you're shooting.



If you think that is expensive try 4 WDriving.
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.
Tell me about it.
Motorcycles can cost a bit too (trust me I know),
but its my pasttime of shooting which costs $$$
Shotguns and Rifles, quality optics, ammunition, clay targets, cleaning gear, reloading gear... $$$$$


But these arguments are given short shrift by my wife when I argue that comparatively photography is cheap. She has these crazy ideas of me saving money by giving up something else. Bah !


As to the original question I think that if photography is the core of your existence / your one main hobby / your over-riding interest then YES the money spent on a DSLR and good lenses IS worth it.

If you want a camera however thats more convenient to take on those other activities, or travelling, etc then the options are vast !

[virgal_tracy]

The old saying that "the best camera is the one that you have with you" still holds true. Both types of cameras have their place. As the OP was saying compacts are much easier to carry around so you are therefore more likely to have it in a pocket / purse / belt than carrying around a DSLR. There is nothing wrong with the image quality from a compact but it obviously has its limitations.

A dslr for low light or fast moving action is obviously more preferable. Have you tried taking action shots with a compact. Lateral movement becomes a lottery as to when the shutter will actually close and where in the frame the object will be.

There will always be a place for dslr's but I think the general public will move to higher end compacts (as will dslr users with the advent of the fuji, Nikon Df etc)

- - - Updated - - -

The old saying that "the best camera is the one that you have with you" still holds true. Both types of cameras have their place. As the OP was saying compacts are much easier to carry around so you are therefore more likely to have it in a pocket / purse / belt than carrying around a DSLR. There is nothing wrong with the image quality from a compact but it obviously has its limitations.

A dslr for low light or fast moving action is obviously more preferable. Have you tried taking action shots with a compact. Lateral movement becomes a lottery as to when the shutter will actually close and where in the frame the object will be.

There will always be a place for dslr's but I think the general public will move to higher end compacts (as will dslr users with the advent of the fuji, Nikon Df etc)

[dtmateojr]

I have transitioned from huge DSLRs to smaller cameras. I use mostly m43 now and got hold of a NEX6 kit lately. Being able to bring a camera everywhere is very important to be competitive.

[I @ M]

Being able to bring a camera everywhere is very important to be competitive.

Competitive to what exactly and for which genre of photography?

If someone is setting out to specialise in travel photography then a smaller kit can be a definite advantage but in about 99.9% of all other cases I can't see any advantages that smaller bodies / lenses offer.

Perhaps you could care to let us know what the competition is.

[dtmateojr]

stock photography, street, photojournalism

[dtmateojr]

it's not uncommon to hear wedding photographers ditching heavy equipment as well especially that they shoot all day.

[dtmateojr]

I should add that they are no slouch in planned landscape shots either
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8458/7991632215_b23b41288f_b_d.jpg

Or even casual snaps from a hotel window during a business trip. A small tripod and camera can fit in my laptop bag

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2807/9758461796_0d30fff65b_b_d.jpg

[I @ M]

I suppose I should have thought about the term competitive more ---

To me that term indicates a few things.

Competitive in the terms of camera sales, the competition between manufacturers.
Competitive in the terms of people earning money from the images they sell.

Your statement about "being able to bring a camera everywhere is very important to be competitive" does have some merit to it in some ways but amongst the genre that you have mentioned I feel that

#1 Stock photography, or at least those who make the big dollar amounts from it, is probably still being dominated by medium format bodies and expensive lighting sets in studios. If the stock photography market is still paying well these days, everything I hear is that it isn't except to the top end specialists, then the actual competition element is a race to the bottom of the price pile and I don't see that the smaller format cameras are any threat in the terms of competition at all.

#2 Street photography, yes, smaller format bodies can be very advantageous for concealment and lighter weights ( marginally ) and sales of those bodies probably account for a few less DSLR sales and that is very definitely a competitive area between manufacturers. Seemingly, Oly, Fuji and Sony are leading the charge with their smaller dimensioned bodies and seeing as none of those companies either have an enormous share of the DSLR market or even make DSLRs these days they aren't cannibalising their own sales and only affecting the canikax market.
Otherwise in terms of competition, the street genre seems to have little commercial value and the only competition between users of the varying camera formats would appear to be in terms of exhibition awards, views on flikr and facebook. I don't see any one body or format having much importance to the outcome of the photo in those scenarios.

#3 Photojournalism, my understanding is that the one important milestone in that genre occurred way back when the Leica bodies were made and became an instant sensation for photo journalists due to their size and weight being a helluva lot less than the bulky gear that they were carrying around at the time. Skip forwards a few decades and you see the evolution of the film SLRs and then the DSLRs into powerful working tools for that genre. Along with the progress in imaging power came bulk and weight and yes, the smaller bodies are probably exactly what every photojournalist would love to have now but the way I see things, especially amongst the mirrorless offerings the low light ability with focussing speed and accuracy isn't quite there yet and there don't seem to be flash systems in place to compete with the established brands / formats. Apart from that, photojournalists seem to be a dying breed and I don't expect to hear of massive sales to newspapers of smaller format cameras any time in the near future.

#4 Wedding photographers, I don't really look at what is happening around that genre but I feel from what I have seen is that there are many many fads going around in circles with both gear and "styles". As soon as one photographer gets ooohs and aaahs for his / her work with one particular camera, the rest of the brigade rush out to copy them and hope to cash in. Some become successful, some don't. I can't see the top of the town wedding photographers being too worried by any new camera stealing their work from them. They will probably continue using their medium format, DSLR, mirrorless bodies and I Phones to bring in the dollars.

Don't get me wrong, I love the advancement in technology that is happening with the cameras now being offered and there are certainly many images out their testifying to their strengths but I still don't see that owning those bodies makes any photographer more competitive overall. I believe that the best images come from those who know their present gear and have the "eye" for photography.

[ricktas]

I think competitive has used above is simply the wrong word choice. I suspect CAPABLE is more apt to describe what is being purported. Yes these cameras are very capable of performing admirably. However like for like, based on sensor size and physics/the properties of light, these smaller sensors are always going to be behind a larger sensored DSLR or Medium format back. Any study of physics and light electrons, along with the way sensors are manufactured shows that the smaller each pixel site, the less light it can 'catch'. So for any given sensor of say 24MP, a larger DSLR sensor is always going to be more capable than the smaller sensors of most of these cameras.

I do not begrudge that they can perform extremely well, in their own right. But comparing them to a larger sensor camera is not the way to justify owning one.

Capable yes, competitive (against larger sensored cameras) no! But I suspect the camera manufacturers did not introduce them to compete against DSLR, they were wanting to catch the point and shoot market with a better camera, for those that did not want a DSLR. The manufacturers did not want them to replace DSLR. Different markets, different cameras. Both do their jobs very well, but comparing them is a waste of time.

[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 ----

[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
:lol:

[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 :confused013(like, he HAS too, or something? :confused013).

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 :rolleyes:) .. 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! :eek:

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. :lol:

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 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?131878-The-value-of-publicity)!

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.