>>4268940Adams was both at once. Basically ALL good photographers are. He coined the term previsualization in relation to photography and had 35mm and medium format hand cameras to just take snapshits, impromptu portraits and other journalistic activities, but he also treated his large format work like serious art. What makes this special is doing both. No one good ever does just one.
>So do I have to buy a cheap shit camera and a really good camera if I want to be an artist then!?It depends on the demands of your printed work. With how far technology has come since the days when FF meant DSLR, I genuinely think you could do absolutely everything, from journalism to commissioned shit like weddings to cinema to trying to get into parisian galleries, with just something like a nikon ZF or sony a7cr/zve1 and a basic 2-3 lens kit, not necessarily the best ever lenses either, with one of those being a smaller travel lens. But would you want to? Cameras that are disposable, smaller, more versatile, and convenient albeit not as high quality do exist (and once you are making art with a good camera, that last part never matters ever).
And now, phones are ALMOST there. Almost. But not yet. I think a sony rx100 series or micro four thirds is way better at being a camera than the newest biggest iphone (which is worse at being a regular phone than an iphone SE/13 mini and is closer to a dedicated video phone/tiktok browser/video game console).