>>4222908>why does this matterbecause you should know what you're doing. trying to use general photography equipment like variable aperture zoom lenses with teleconverters for astrophotography will cost you thousands of dollars extra for sub-par results that would be bested by a telescope you found at goodwill and a phone adapter, or a $170 dedicated telescope camera.
likewise, going into the "actually crop sensors are better!" hole will cost you thousands of dollars and worse, hours of research and coping, for photos that look kind of like a samsung galaxy s23 ultra in good light.
if you really, really know what you're doing, you will arrive at the following conclusions
for memory making snapshits your phone or a small PNS is best. 1" sensors are not appreciably worse than micro four thirds, as in, both are kind of bad so who cares.
for every day photography, as a hobby, literally nothing holds up to 35mm film. i'm sorry but this is just how it is. it doesn't have the best resolution, but it has a unique look that people appreciate just as much, tangibility, and you know, you'll take better photos if you can't take as many of them. it sounds like bullshit but it is true. every now and then you could shoot 4x5 for the creative use of DOF, a view camera is a simple device.
for serious all around photography, high resolution full frame digital is unparalleled, at the perfect intersection between image quality (getting up there with large format film), versatility, and usability. it' a general purpose workhorse and if you must have just one camera it's either one of these or a film box.
for highly specialized photography, other sensor formats are undeniably superior in each area. supertelephoto and macro are well covered by micro four thirds, aps-c is THE standard for video, and medium format digital takes detail and scanning static subjects to the extreme at the cost of everything at else.
