>>3198759I know your feeling.
But keep in mind 90% of the photos you see on /p/, and especially stuff posted on actual photography websites, has been heavily edited. Your camera is only a part of it, there's so much manipulation post-shot that it's really hard to tell a skilled photographer from a skilled editor. They're not always the same.
My suggestion would be: do everything in medium format and just develop without any major editing. That'll be the truest test of your skill as a photographer, because the film doesn't lie. Not that a sensor does either, but there's really no way to cheat with film when you're taking the actual shot.
The alternative is to get a high-end camera and spend over 9,000 hours in photoshop/lightroom/MSPaint/etc. editing your shit.
Personally, I've never really liked the concept of editing on a computer, it seems like cheating. I'm happy enough with most of my shots, but I could certainly make them better with editing. I'm just not that interested in fucking around with the photos after I've taken them, aside from maybe cropping.
It just encourages me to get better with the actual shooting if I know I can't just doctor it up afterwards.
>>3198757This seems like the key too. I only have an entry level DSLR, but my friend shoots similar stuff with a D7500 and prime lenses, and the shots are amazing. Of course he has shitloads of disposable income, but I'm comfortable putting around with my D3200 until I can justify/afford getting better gear.
