>>4323743I approve of the based God Ken, and I believe that with the wisdom of experience, most others would too.
His controversial claims are based on some general truths:
>photos are made by the photographer, not the camera>image content is more important than image "quality">almost all cameras are perfectly capable of "general photography">almost all enthusiast-level digital cameras, even old ones, have capabilities that exceed the requirements for even professional quality output in technical genres, let alone for normal photos of normal things used in normal waysSo when realistically every camera is good enough, should you continue to recommend products (or techniques) that deliver arbitrary improvements to field-irrelevant metrics? Or should you recommend those that make practically useful results easier to achieve with smaller, lighter, more ergonomic, more affordable equipment? Technicians and professionals might make different choices as a result of their different priorities, but they'll probably still end up with a web-sized jpeg at the end, which the lay observer would rarely distinguish from a quality perspective (style/taste notwithstanding). A theoretically useful advantage one system may have, which comes at the expense of handling or workflow, and that results in a marginal or imaginary benefit in a final output even when fully realised, probably doesn't deserve a recommendation, right?
>sony eye af so good, but skin tones all fucked up>sigma lenses so sharp, but they're fucking enormous, not even that cheap, have ganked featureset on the camera, and can be bricked with a firmware change whenever the oem chooses>chinese manufacturing give marginal reductions in price for tangible reductions in quality, while materially supporting a political enemy 