>>4236046>D610>high endk3k, that is entry level FF
>large printsIt's certainly possible to make large prints that look good without some insane camera, but I think in your case you're talking about copying rather than photography. If you're trying to get a 1:1 copy of some artwork, looking good is less than enough. You need enough resolution to see the texture of the canvas and brush strokes. It's not the same standard as photography and in fact a digital camera is probably a subpar tool for the job, there must be some sort of technique (unknown to me) that is basically an equivalent to a contact print. Maybe some oversized flatbed-like scanner with no bed that you can put on top of a painting or something of the sort.
For most actual photography, the camera matters very little. Specially for the skill level of most people doing it. As in, it's not the gear making or breaking the pictures. Then there's the whole disgust high end gear paired with a low skill photographer can instill on others. You know, the "I have a 1D" effect. Shit photos are sadder if you know a high end camera was used to make them because it is a waste. And sometimes that high end gear is part of the reason the end product looks like shit, specially in movies. People blow their budgets renting RED cameras and the sets look like shit, are lit like shit, the acting is shit from being in a rush to save remt money and ends up poorly dubbed. Guess what? The end product is shit. Had the budget been managed by someone with skills, the product would be better even in the areas clueless people demand high end cameras for: image quality. The same is true with stills, you see people with high end gear shooting with unmodified available light that doesn't happen to have the required qualities, or even worse, with flashes they don't know how to use. Gearfags with crop medium format cameras and huge flashes making complete garbage and getting completely upstaged by FF shooters who know what they're doing.
