>>3791435>Lens sharpnessDepends on the intended "end product".
If I wanna take a colourful picture of a flower to use for like a postcard or a greetings card, then no, sharpness matters not.
If I wanna take a detailed photo of a bird to put onto a digital screen, then yeah... sharpness matters a lot.
>1/focal lengthI've been ignoring this mostly thanks to IBIS. And if you add OIS to that mix, then that rule is probably long dead.
>>3791448>wide anglesLandscapes can vary wildly, is what I'll say. I often use a mix of wide angle and telephoto for landscapes, either because what I want to photograph can either be a distant forest, or mountain, or maybe it's a distant lake.
Or maybe I'm at a lakeside or a shoreside and want to convey the scale of the place in an image.
>>3791539>FujifilmFuji make cameras that are nice to use. I don't own one though. They are overpriced for what they are.
>>3791556>RAWOh, it can make photos better. The problem is still that you have to take a good photo in the first place.
If you're taking bad photos in raw, then post-processing won't make it good. You can't polish a turd.
But, not shooting in raw limits your post-processing options like fixing the white balance and salvaging shadows and the like.
>>3791605>FilmIt's better than most phones these days, which is probably why this myth exists. At least... colour film can give you nicer colours than most phones can.
Where the argument starts to fall apart comes from the fact that modern DSLRs and MILCs can take better quality images, and post-processing can bring in the colours you want very easily. Also, most film cameras are old beasts with lenses with none of the sharpness or contrast of modern lenses. The exceptions would be using new M-Mount lenses on film cameras with that mount, or new F-Mount lenses on the likes of the Nikon F4.
