>>4253097>the joy of inferior technology>number go up by 3>you only have to use this giant piece of shit from back when companies were actively trying to prevent people without press passes from buying their best cameras so no one would see a bad photo taken with oneAh yes, back before the only reason to buy an actual camera was "look better than phone photo".
In practicality small differences in the SMI have no application. The DXOmark pages you are parroting say that an SMI of 50 is "a moderate error" and they don't even consider the range between 75 and 85 to be meaningful enough to integrate into sensor rankings. Sorry.
>>4253104You are not special. You are part of the crowd. You do not have special DNA that makes you different from other people. You were not touched in the head by god, just alcohol. Material truths will worm their way through your delusions eventually. I can already smell it on you...
>Also, camera sales are down year on year. What more people are actually realizing is the camera they have with them (their phone) is more than adequate for most people, most of the time.You don't know it yet, but you're also more people. Before long you'll realize most "serious photographers" are full of shit and the only thing that makes professional photography professional is bokeh, IQ, and lots of strobes and modifiers and you need at least 2/3 before no one can tell it from their phone. Full frame is, sadly, the minimum needed for a professional camera otherwise your s23 ultra takes some nice pictures and if you don't have enough zoom buy a nikon coolpix p1000.
And you'll most likely realize this when you pause for a second when you realize you thought a video in 1080p was 4k, and the only way you can spot a real camera being used is bokeh kek.
