>>4495752Nothing I said was pessimistic. I was saying take photos for yourself and not worry about the pedantic specs of the camera, which is exactly what you described on the bottom there.
>only people who have ever seen those photos are my friends and family>But that's fine. I have some cool memories in those photos and use them around the house.>>4495754Shit tier psychoanalysis, try better.
I am, ironically, a fairly normal person. Healthy, long term relationship, own my own house (well the bank does), nice stable career.
If I was so obsessed with wisely spending money I don't think I'd be talking about how I use a 1930s film camera that works out to $3 per photo for travel.
Obsessing over how you spend money sounds like exactly what I was criticising, which is worrying about the performance implications of a fucking f/2 vs f/2.5 lens and therefore which camera is "worth da money".
