>>4424496
>This pic makes me question if you really need all that stupid and expensive and heavy Canon gear to take good pics.
You don't. You don't need any of it. I ready something recently that opened up my eyes to just how far up their asses photographers are, especially ones that are obsessed with parroting their favorite social media influencer in hopes of recreating their work.
This is an anecdote relating to watches, but I'll be damned if it doesn't apply to cameras too.
>"Seiko is a luxury brand" is what a coworker told me seeing my seiko presage.
>I asked "why do you say that ?"
>She answered "well, Seikos are known to be expensive watches"
>To which I asked "How much is an expensive watch in your eyes?"
>"Anything that costs more than 150€"
Unless you're a war photographer or a photojournalist for NatGeo and need highly specific gear, or maybe work in a very high-end studio with a massive lighting setup, you absolutely do not need the best gear. You don't need a Sony A9III. You don't need a Hasselblad. And you most definitely do not need a fucking Leica.
I work at a film lab and I regularly see people come in with their M6s or 500CM and it is some of the most dogshit photography I've ever seen.
>>4424511
Tell that to an entire generation raised on consumerism-mentality thanks to social media.
