Originally posted by Bob Loblaw
So with a digital camera, where you take the picture according to the image you see on the screen, there is no parallax error (I'm assuming). So is SLR worth it then?
Not all digital cameras are based on the same design - there are some that correct parallax error by using a SLR or other parallax-compensating design, and there are others that are based on a rangefinder design (thus introducing parallax). It's no surprise that many of the lower-priced compact digital cameras do not compensate for parallax. Be careful here, since there are some pretty expensive compact size digital cameras that may not incorporate parallax correction.
I'm not saying you can't take a great picture with a cheaper camera or one that doesn't compensate for parallax. Parallax error is really only apparent when you take close-ups; the closer the subject, the greater the error. If you plan on taking a lot of close-ups or want to do some macro photography, then a SLR-based design is highly recommended. On the other hand, if you take mostly pictures where your subject is beyond close-up range (eg. landscapes), then non-SLR cameras can perform just as well as SLR's. As an aside, there is a select clientele that still reveres old rangefinder technology, and high-end makers such as Leica and Hasselblad manufacture some pretty expensive shit to satisfy their esoteric needs.
Bottom line is, if you had a choice between SLR and non-SLR, all other things being equal, go with SLR.