Technology or Photography?
It would seem that some think if your camera does not have the latest tech, its obsolete and worthless and can't be used for photography anymore. Like your customers are going to ask what you shoot with and laugh and run away if you don't have the latest craze in camera tech. Or the newest sensor, or the most mega pixels available, or the whatever is currently being bandied about on the net and across forums. Seems people are all about the tech and less about the results.
The latest craze is "in-body stabilization" (available for years in low priced point and shoot cameras) and a companion technology called Pixel Shift. New marketing from Sony. Sony now has the greatest camera ever (for the next few weeks until the next greatest camera ever is debuted). Both features involve moving the sensor to compensate for camera movement and promote sharpness, a certain movement negates another. I really don't want my sensor moving around but thats me. I know how to hold a camera and if I can't hold it steady, I know how to work a tripod. I don't deny the new Sony A7??? is a great camera but it lacks other things that I deem a whole lot more important. I really don't care if the internet blogs, forums and reviewers think my camera is too old to be useful anymore. I use my cameras professionally as a means to make money. They don't. I have yet to find a blogger, or forum troll expounding on how obsolete everything is as compared to whatever the newest thing is, that makes a dime off their photography. Those that write and photograph professionally tend to talk about how to make great photographs. Oh, yeah, sure I have my favorite features and I have talked about why I went with Fuji from Nikon in past posts. My reasons, for those that missed it was more how one company blends given technology into their own recipe, it was for the lens quality, the color rendering out of camera, and the resulting image quality derived from using a camera with a sensor matched to the lenses offered. Very different. And a company that truly understands color. Not a gimmick in there. I only bought the GFX because I wanted the larger sensor for benefits beyond mega pixels. I went medium format Fuji for the same reasons as stated above - glass, color, and very pleasing IQ. I'm sitting here wondering if any of my cameras have any new cool tech and can't really come up with anything thats not fairly prevalent across the industry.
I have many friends and professional peers shooting cameras that are generations old. Or several levels removed from the latest "Pro" camera. Yet, they still produce quality images. I know of a commercial photographer still shooting with Nikon D300's! Jeez, thats only like 12MP (and 2006-ish) if memory serves, but his customers don't know it. Or don't care, since his work is what he was hired for. I have some Canon friends shooting their 5D MkII's without worry that their sensor places around 30th (my guess) on the DXOMark scale of sensor ratings. They don't know that their camera/sensor combo lacks dynamic range, or low light capability as compared to other sensors rated higher. They just keep taking stellar photos, keep kicking butt and making some coin while not worrying about it. People, those DXOMark ratings are based off lab bench measurements of an electronic device. A charge is applied to the chip and measurements taken. These are loosely correlated to performance and ratings are established but the difference is so small from 50th to number 1, people with eyes cannot tell much of a difference, at least not people buying images and photography services.
It may sound like it but I'm not tech "averse". I grew up around technology and spent a major portion of my adult life working in very technical fields. I understand chip design, circuits, firmware and their applications to consumers through software services running on large mainframe computers. I admit, I excelled in that realm. I was very successful using the scales most use to determine success. I made money, managed people and had toys. It was fun for awhile. But until I left that world, and tried my hand at doing something I had wanted to do since my teens, that is work as a photographer, I never had really found myself. Now, I'm no where near as successful in my photography career as I was in my technical career, not based on the same success scales, but using my own new scale, I'm way out in front. Even with my outdated equipment, barely 1.5 years old, and without using the latest and greatest equipment. I gave up using the (proclaimed) best lights in the business for cheaper ones that work. I don't use gimmicks and I leave marketing hype in the trash but I make use of what I have available, as one should. I don't need all the tech at my finger tips. I took photos without auto focus (gasp!) before it existed. I shot with cameras that had no light meter and to this day I don't pay it a lot of mind unless I'm doing some cool shoot where knowing my exact exposure matters. Generally, my exposure values mentioned come from the EXIF data. Not anything before pressing the button. I do try and use the best glass I can because thats where a great picture starts. The smiles I get or my sounds of excitement my customers, or friends, utter when they see the finished picture is the end. In between there is color, composition, lighting, and other things. Most of them not really all that technical.
Take pictures people, don't let gadgets and gimmicks define your work. You should be doing that with your eyes, brain and talent. No shifting pixels or stabilizing sensor is going to do the creative side for you. Lest we forget that many of the great pictures we admire and drool over were created with film and early digital media when camera technology wasn't a thing. Remember, when it comes to defining what a pro camera is, its whatever camera someone shooting professionally is using. Not what people on a blog, forum or an engineer in a lab thinks.