>>4441243
define professional looking photos
maybe you should share one of your own if youre so opinionated about what a professional photo looks like

>muh camera muh full frame muh mp
dont care

>like it or not photography is about presentation and aesthetics not just composition and content.
whats your point?

>do better. literally all of your nature shots look like phone smears and have randomly slightly out of focus foregrounds. i have seen vastly better looking work from other people even with the x-t2.
pixel peeping on compressed jpegs is the literal gayest shit ever. If a tiny pine shrub's needles are slightly higher resolution is that going to make your understanding of place and scale in this photo any better? You talk about aesthetics and presentation like you know something about either. Show me some of your landscapes you think are "vastly" better looking


>>4441246
if i shot in a studio i would probably use manual settings.