To me it seems like every feature Sony brings forth in their cameras seems to be replacing the skill or dedication that used to be needed to make a good photograph.
Can’t be arsed to time your shots? Don’t worry global shutter will basically let you shoot video. Don’t want to bother getting focus right? No worries, it’ll track the eye of a peregrine falcon mid flight.
I can’t help but think certain things are intrinsic to actually being a photographer and the over production of these cameras features takes away from the skills required to be good.
My 2 cents.
When it comes to creating images, I don’t like photography.
To me it seems like every feature manufacturers bring forth in their cameras seems to be replacing the skill or dedication that used to be needed to make a good painting.
Can’t be arsed to paint your landscapes? Don’t worry, cameras will basically let you make a picture of them exactly as they look in real life.
Don’t want to bother getting your colour palettes right? No worries, cameras will reproduce the pigmentation of a peregrine falcon mid-flight.
I can’t help but think certain things are intrinsic to actually being an image-maker and the over production of these cameras features takes away from the skills required to be a good painter.
My 2 cents.
Your condescension is misplaced and you’ve entirely missed the point of my original post, congratulations 👌🏼
It’s not condescension—it’s perspective. Which level of technology is the correct level? How much camera technology do you think we can justifiably use and still have skill? What level of skill is that? Why did you choose the acceptable level of technology you chose instead of something more or less recent?
Any technological improvements only help photographers with talent and vision achieve the images they want to achieve. All the Sony camera tech in the world won’t fix a bad photographer.