>>3818537>>3818535>>3818512>>3818508>>3818462>>3818540Before the thread maxes out, I just have to point this out as someone old enough to actually remember, but the idea of "disregard bodies, acquire lenses" has been around since the fucking FILM days, guys. Back then, the camera body LITERALLY didn't matter because the film, being the important component on which the image is recorded, is a consumable resource that you always have to be replacing.
This is NOT the case at all with digital camera bodies. If you think it is, that's only because you're looking at cameras that have depreciated significantly over time and you don't understand the value of what you are looking at. You might think that a 5D (classic) is a "nothing" camera body, something you can pick up on ebay for about the cost of a set of AirPod Pros, but when those cameras came out, they retailed for around $3,200 USD! (source:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/2)
Each digital camera has an entirely different sensor than the next, with different strengths, different capabilities and different deficiencies--and with the case of mirrorless cameras, the quality of the EVF and autofocus matter A LOT for the usability of the camera. Early mirrorless cameras took a step back from DSLRs of the time in terms of autofocus, but today, mirrorless camera AF significantly exceeds DSLRs in accuracy, in intelligence and in responsiveness. Obviously, you can't produce a photo without a lens, but for digital cameras, the body matters just as much and there are a lot of reasons why good digital bodies, in contrast to film bodies, cost significantly more than good lenses.
Can we PLEASE put this stupid, wrong idea of "disregard bodies, acquire glass" to rest already?
