Interesting to me because I’ve always assumed a certain, historic best approach to equipment. However, because technology has advanced so far, perhaps it is completely wrong. First, my photographic situation:
1. Amateur; I have another full-time job.
2. Main interest in landscape / nature photography (not much bird or mammal; mostly static subjects).
3. Yearly budget averages about $10k USD for photography-related equipment. Sounds like a lot at first, but think about it: Computers, software, storage, printers, camera, lenses…
4. Travel a lot, usually for business. This takes me to interesting places so I often bring a camera, but have very little time to dedicate (usually ½ day).
5. At informal family events I’m the default photographer (not weddings – no way!)
My guess is that many of us here either fit into my situation - or are pros. Given the above, I’ve assumed the following approach was best:
• Use a DSLR system for my “serious” photography and for travel if I’m headed somewhere of interest.
• Have a simple P&S for events, gatherings and snapshots. This is usually carried in my wife’s purse because it also serves as ‘her’ camera.
I’m willing to bet that most of us who are resource-limited take this approach. But what if it is wrong? Perhaps I should save up, sell all those DSLR cameras and lenses and buy a Phase One system with only two lenses (or something like it). Most of my photos could have been taken with one wide angle and one medium telephoto anyway. Then get a good P&S for travel and everything else that is done off-tripod.
Or, would an M9 do everything? Well, I wouldn't keep it in my wife's purse, that's for sure.
The historic argument against this was that technology is changing so fast that I would not be able to upgrade high-end equipment fast enough because of my budget constraints. But now, perhaps the marginal quality benefits of upgrades are low enough that the required upgrade frequency is long.
??
Dave