>>2826120
>my body turns on so it's not outdated
Yeah, it's not like there are other functions of a camera body than it turning on...

An outdated focus system = lost shots.
Outdated metering system = incorrect exposures.
Outdated sensors and noise algorithms = grainy ugly shots, that can't be fixed in post without losing major detail since the camera lost too much before it ever made it to a computer.
Low resolution sensor = maybe picture looks fine at postcard size with you never doing any significant cropping. No way to circumvent this other than buying a better body.

Upgrading every single new camera is usually inefficient, but people who claim a 10 generation outdated piece of electronic hardware isn't deficient are just fucking delusional hipster faggots who are so talentless they don't care how bad their output is.

>>2826149

Beat me to it - one of the most retarded points.

I have the original Macintosh 128K from 1984. It can turn on, it's not outdated!! 100% Functional!

>>2826149
The point usually refers to the fact that it produced fantastic photos when it was new, and it produces the same photos now.

The D810 is a fantastic camera right now. In 10 years, there will be cameras that make it look like a rebel, but in reality, it will still be a fantastic camera.

>>2826149
Tbh for 99% of uses most pro cameras made in the last 8-6 years are perfectly fine. You don't need the lastest bestest thing, stuff like a Canon 5dII is still more than enough for most photographers, its only limit is the single center AF point.

Really people should invest in glass, full frame sensors haven't seen noticeable improvements in this timeframe unless you shoot all day at ISO 6400.

>be iso 100 guy
>sell a6000 just before a6300 gets released
>buy stoneage 1Ds MKII
>live happily ever after

iso 800 is supriisingly useable, no more fucked up sony menus, dat cheap and plenty used canon glass, dem comfy ergonomics with longer lenses and for portrait shooting

>>2826179
That's not true.

Early digital cameras produced shit photos.
And everybody at the time knew they were shit.

Nobody would use an early digital camera for prints/art, unless it was ironically or something.
But it was convenient, and good enough for the early internet.

Current generation digital is good, and will always be considered good.
Just like 35mm film is still considered good.

>>2826518
So you're implying that there was not a single high quality image from a 5D? Or a 20D? Or a Rebel Xt?

>>2826149
>An outdated focus system = lost shots.
I love the implication that everyone shoots sports and birds where a top notch AF system is needed...I mean you are aware that there are a ton of people who focus manually exclusively and modern glass that's made that's not even AF capable, right?
>Outdated metering system = incorrect exposures.
This is just fucking retarded. The only metering system that's "outdated" is selenium meters and that's because it's hard as fuck to power them/over time they start throwing wonky results and the last one was made ages ago.
>Outdated sensors and noise algorithms = grainy ugly shots, that can't be fixed in post without losing major detail since the camera lost too much before it ever made it to a computer.
So you come on here presenting your case like we should pay any measure of attention to you, but you refer to noise as grain. Yup, real expert here. Anyway, this doesn't come close to mattering in many shooting situations. Where it does matter, it matters, but that doesn't affect all or even most shooters.
>Low resolution sensor = maybe picture looks fine at postcard size with you never doing any significant cropping. No way to circumvent this other than buying a better body.
16mp is just fine for almost everyone.

>>2826176
>>2826149
But your Mac and your 5Dinosaur can still do what they were designed to do.
If your needs haven't changed, then your tools probably don't need to either.
It's the reason my Intl Drivers License photo was taken with a Polaroid camera just 6 months ago. It still worked, and did everything they needed it to.
If you're engaged in photography professionally, well then you might consider that not being able to deliver 36MP+ files puts you at a competitive disadvantage. In that case, then your 1 year old 5D3 might be obsolete, but that's not because it's a shitty camera, it's because your needs have changed.

Part.1

>11) Any Sentence Including “Microcontrast” or “3D Pop” or “Medium Format Look.”
I never understood microcontrast, it always sounds like pseudoscience to me. I do think there are pictures that look more 3 dimensional than others. I took one photo that looks very 3D to me. There are also lenses like the new Nikkor 58mm F1.4 that produce images that look very 3D. I don't think there is such a thing as "medium format look". I think some medium format shooters take really similar pictures (read cliché). I shoot medium format and all my pictures look like any other format. I don't think MF DOF looks any different either.

>10) I Prefer the Nikon Look
Cameras produce different looking images. Whether you can tell which is which doesn't mean they aren't different. Not to mention jpeg processing which varies wildly from camera to camera.

>9) OMG That Lens Has the Best Bokeh!
Fact: lenses render out of focus areas differently. Fact: Some people prefer one to the other.

>8) The “Legendary” Brand X 85mm Lens
Camera and lenses develop a reputation. Some cameras and lenses have a reputation for being terrible. Some get a reputation for being legendary.

>7) My Camera Is Outdated!
Cameras are mostly bought for specs not for practicality so specs get outdated. Just because a camera is useful doesn't mean there isn't one with better specs. A horse and carriage can take you to the store but it doesn't mean a car wont take you there faster and more comfortably.

>6) I’m Afraid My Gear Will Get Wet/Broken/Peed on.
This is the only one I agree with but it doesn't go far enough. Your camera can likely handle a light drizzle and being in your bag without an airbag. You don't know what your camera can handle until it breaks.

>>2826729
Part.2

>5) My Family Will Be So Happy I’m Bringing All This Gear on Our Vacation!
I live in NYC too and I never see tourists setting up their gear. I also see just as many girls as guys with pro cameras. I'm seeing a lot more people with mirrorless cameras which serve a better purpose as a tourist camera.

>4) F/4 Is the Sweet Spot of This Lens!
Lenses perform differently at different apertures. If you get something like an otus 55m or sigma art 50mm then they will likely perform well enough wide open but not all lenses can do that. Also there is diffraction. All this matters of course if you want to correct for aberrations. I know not everyone cares about such things but that is like saying nobody needs 10fps because you don't.

>3) I Just Downloaded the Lightroom/Photoshop/Capture One/Apple OS/X Update That Came Out Today!
While it's true you don't need download software day one you do need to test to see if it works on your system. By this rational you would never update because there is always a chance for software to stop being compatible with your system.

>2) I Hate When People Say “Your Pictures Are Great, You Must Have a Great Camera!”
Yes people need to stop whining about what other people say. This applies to this whole list.

>1) I Don’t Care About Gear!
In my opinion it's impossible to care about gear and photos at the same time. The more you obsess about gear the less you are obsessing about the quality of your photo. For hobbyist you just obsess about what makes you enjoy most. Not everyone is into photography for the same reason.

P.S. I know I fell for the click bait so please stop posting click bait articles from these shit blogs. Honestly I thought "Top X" articles would be dead by now. I'm disappointed.

>>2826729
I've always taken microcontrast to mean a high MTF for fine detail (40lp/mm) for example. Not anything to worry about for modern lenses and digital.