>>4200277>Literally everything in this post is wrongOh really? Let's test your claims.
>lose a lot of dynamic range with puny pixelsPic related, I used to believe the same myrh as you.
>SL3 is the smallest DSLRSL3 dimensions: 4.8 x 3.66 x 2.76″ (122 x 93 x 70 mm)
SL1 dimensions: 4.6 x 3.6 x 2.7" (116.8 x 90.7 x 69.4mm)
>not worth touching except for poorfag cinemaPeople use it even on the 5D classic that has no video, enough said. Auto ETTR, extended bracketing features, intervalometer, you name it it's there.
>Mirrorless makes it cheap to adapt most stuffGo here:
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/micro-four-thirds-adapters?sort_by=price-ascending&filter.v.price.gte=0.00&filter.v.price.lte=329.95and here:
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/canon-eos-ef-ef-s-mount-adapter?sort_by=price-ascending&filter.v.price.gte=0.00&filter.v.price.lte=329.95>No equivalence sperging desired. Is it smaller? Yes. Can your camera get smaller? No. The body is twice the size.Any decent lens that isn't toy tier (pancake) will make the size differences disappear.
>You aren't even a photographer.You critiqued one of my photos earlier in this same thread.
So, the only wrong claim here was that my claims were wrong. Facts don't care about your feelings.
