>>3511013> Scroll far enough and you realize you're just as likely to see great work on either one
No. Much, much higher rate of good photos on the A7 streams. Or on the 5DS (R) and so on.> Only photographers pixel peep
Not at all. Meme made up by people who somehow want to justify NOT doing well on gear.> FFS 8mp is enough to saturate a 4k display.
Shitty rebels with kit lenses only capture something like 7MP of image information in the *best* situations and without cropping, but it's also unevenly spread across the frame. The sides of the image are still 2MP or some shit.
Poor result from the start, and it just gets worse when you and your camera are not doing everything right in the perfect situation to shoot in.> No there's not.
Absolutely is. And just about anyone with any sense and ambition works with better cameras if they can.> If you were forced to watch a random feed with no labels you could never determine which brand, much less which camera, took each shot.
I sure as fuck can tell a nice high resolution large photo shot with a nice camera and lens from a crappy Rebel kit lens shot. Basically anyone can, it's not really harder than telling a random cropped kit lens shot from a proper macro shot on a macro subject.> If that's true then you're a pleb faggot for not shooting 100mp Fuji MF, 150mp Phase One, or 8x10 view cameras.
They actually don't have the AF and burst rates / speeds and an equal lens lineup and such of FF cameras, so I'd continue to use FF.
But yes, for some shots I'd actually be better off with these. And I'm doing worse than I would with that option also at hand. No need to pretend otherwise; it's purely a financial obstacle, I would use these cameras if they could be maintained on a small FF-like budget.