>>3618659It's not about the image quality being "comparable", you spastic faggot, it's about the image quality of even the average cellphone now being greater than your needs.
Photography, contrary to your belief as a 16 year old vying to own his very first camera this time next year, is not really about ImAgE qUaLiTy, at least not in the way you use the term.
A cellphone is a perfectly adequate camera for most peoples needs, including the needs of most photographers. What it lacks is ergonomics, a viewfinder, and constant access to exposure settings.
Don't come and tell me you're an established portrait photographer who needs BoKeH and HiGh SpEeD SyNc, you'll just be larping.
You technician faggots seem convinced that without the greatest technology, photography is not possible, and that simply couldn't be further from the truth. Your object attachment to CaMeRaS doesn't change the fact that those objects are more luxury than necessity.
Do you even David Hume Kennerly, you fat piece of shit tidepodder?
