>>4368709Sure, it'll have hella great specs.
Your uninspired photos of suburban parks, 10 millionth photo of unoriginal blue jay, and creep shots of girls 2 blocks away, are still going to be unappreciated by anyone else that doesn't have a Sony camera.
I am a photography student. About 60% men, 40% women. Half the men have a Sony A7IV. None of the women do.
I have a 5 year old mirrorless that was considered a shitty unusable camera when it was released. Another dude has a D5500. We consistently produce the most pleasing, aesthetic photos in the class.
Every time, the Snoy bros try accusing our images of being shit, "but look, there's way too much noise!" or "it's only 24mp, you can't see the details!" which gets them the picrel look from all the girls in the class.
All they fucking do is take pictures of boring ass shit and mashing the shutter button and relying heavily on cropping. Every one of them except for one, who actually makes part-time-job wages on Youtube and is there to improve his cine. They think their photos are good because they've got razor sharp focus and are taken at f/1.4 at low ISO's. That's it, that's what they really think constitute a good picture. Yet they're constantly failing assignments because they miss the point of the assignment, usually because their composition is non-existent when the assignment is about composition, they rely on cropping (when the assignment specifically tells us not to), they refuse to shoot at anything but f/1.4 even when the assignment is explicitly about playing with depth of field, etc.
Then they accuse the professor and everyone else of "not getting it," "not knowing shit about photography" (because of noise, aperture selection, not being perfectly sharp at 400% zoom, etc.), and other bullshit that basically denigrates any interest in photography other than technical supremacy.
They're pretty much high-functioning autists.
