>>3368444>why do people think this?You're using a strawman argument; no one actually thinks that.
Reality is closer to
>Obsessing over gear and thinking that minute differences in technical image quality are of tantamount importance means you're bad at photography.I.e., something like this:
Healthy: "I'm excited about this new wide-angle lens I got"
Unhealthy: "Congratulations, you just bought a garbage paperweight. The Konicony 35mm f/2.6 has a resolution of 44 lp/mm at the corners but that piece of shit you bought only has a resolution of 43 lp/mm in the corners. If you're not going to do even the most BASIC RESEARCH before buying your gear, you should just kill yourself."
... Okay, I'm getting a little straw-manny as well.
But I've seen a lot of people here posting things like how micro four thirds is "unusable" or that Full Frame is "twice as good as APS-C", or even that a Canon full frame camera is worthless compared to a Sony full frame camera because DxOMark says the D850 has 14.8EV of dynamic range and the 5D4 has 13.6. These are claims you would only make if you (a) had not used these other types of cameras and (b) had not even looked at pictures taken with them other than 100% crops of test charts, because both of those claims are ridiculous. And if you're not TAKING pictures and you're not even LOOKING at pictures, you're probably pretty bad at photography.
