>>4432594>>4432596I use a $400 watch, not a big dollar watch, but a fair bit more expensive than a Casio. And no, it doesn't keep time any better. I got it because I wanted something nice, and I fully acknowledge it was a gratuitous purpose.
Again, my complaint isn't about having nice or expensive things. It's the idea that better gear -> better photography (which yes, many, many in this thread are trying to insist on. Look at all the shitting on DSLR's in the past few posts about how they're unserviceable. Earlier in the thread someone was literally arguing that better camera -> better pictures, and it's something I see come up a lot).
And yes, things move. It doesn't mean you can't recompose, it means you need to anticipate that movement and compensate through a variety of methods. It's a skill you learn in just a couple weeks of shooting with a DSLR.
(And I'm primarily a street photographer -- even on mirrorless cameras I use small, fixed AF areas and use focus and recompose techniques because cameras fucking suck at actually knowing intent -- the obvious thing to focus on isn't always what I actually want to focus on, and I don't have time to try to coerce the AF system to do what I want -- easier to point, recompose, point at other subject, recompose, to get various compositions and points of focus in a singular scene).
Do you really think non-center-framed compositions only became a thing with mirrorless cameras? They make it easier, yes, but it's hardly necessary.
The main niche where focus and recompose breaks down is in birds-in-flight or such. But even on mirrorless you still need to work to keep the bird framed, so DSLR or mirrorless you're going to end up cropping to fine tune composition regardless.
