The title speaks on several levels, one having to do with the aging DSLRs to the right, the other the camera that took the photo.
If you don't recognize them (or can't read the markings on the body) you looking at an Olympus E-1 with a Zuiko Digital SWD 12-60mm zoom attached nestled next to an Olympus E-3 with a Zuiko Digital SWD 50-200mm zoom attached. I continue to use those two cameras and those lenses because they continue to provide quality photographs for my kind of photography. I could sell them and invest in the current standard bearers such as the Canon 7D, the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 or the Sony α77. All of those cameras use a larger APS-C sensor, and all of those cameras boast higher resolutions (18MP, 16MP, 16MP, and 24MP respectively) than the E-1's 5MP and the E-3's 10MP. Even the camera that was used to make the photograph, an Olympus E-P2 with a Panasonic 20mm lens, can only boast of its 12MP sensor.
I've seen remarkable work from all three of those cameras, and don't think I've not been tempted. But I've also seen remarkable work from all three of my Olympus cameras (remarkable work from all models using the 4/3rds sized sensor) which nicely counterbalances the competition. And I continue to get very pleasing and more than satisfactory results from all the cameras. Since purchasing my first Olympus DSLR, an E-300 in 2006, my technical competency with all these cameras has increased (albeit in fits and starts) so that I've never felt a strong need to replace them.
One day, if I should ever hit a technical wall with regards to photography, then I will indeed look to replace them. But that day has yet to come. If it does come it will be because a camera manufacturer has produced an affordable camera with such capabilities that it would be irrational not to buy one and use it (Lytro notwithstanding). The pricing of Canon's and Nikon's latest high-end cameras puts them well beyond my budget. They will certainly, in the right hands, produce such magnificent technical results they will put my meager efforts to shame, but the brutal truth is that I can produce no better photographs artistically with such cameras than I can with my current equipment.
The camera that took the photo was an Olympus E-P2 with a Panasonic 20mm, taken raw. Normally I'd fire up my notebook, attach my external USB 500GB drive, fire up Lightroom 4, import the raw photos, adjust to my taste in Lightroom 4, export the resultant JPEGs, then finally upload to Flickr. Lots of little steps just to get a photo and post it.
Today I decided to be lazy. I "post-processed" the raw image inside the E-P2 using Menu | Edit. Before I got to that point I adjusted the white balance manually to shade and adjusted the exposure -.7EV using live view to preview the camera settings. I then converted the raw image to JPEG within the E-P2 and posted it. I could have shortened that process even further by going straight to JPEG. Bottom line: even though I laud Lightroom 4's capabilities, the E-P2's internal JPEG engine with proper exposure is more than capable of producing surprisingly good JPEGs without heavy duty post processing.
I used to live exclusively with JPEG. Then I switched almost exclusively to Raw and post-processing in Lightroom. Now I'm beginning to shift back more towards a balance between the two. One reason is time. I don't have a lot any more to post-process every single image. The other is art vs technique. I'm more interested now in what I photograph, not so much how it's photographed, and along with that, how it's post processed. My personal tastes are slowly shifting again, adding renewed interest to the whole act and art of photography.