jolyonralph said:
midluk said:
While a camera without a tilting screen can take very low angle shots, you have to lie in the mud to do it (or aim blindly) and therefore rarely do it. A tilting screen allows you to get those shots easily.
You're forgetting one thing. With wireless support you can view and take shots using your cellphone. Yes, it's not as straightforward as using a tilty screen (especially with the iPhone which doesn't have NFC support and is more of a pain to connect than Android) but it's significantly more flexible.
The same argument then applies to the wireless connection (being a helpful feature which makes specific photos much easier).
But for situations where a tilting screen is sufficient (compared to wireless connection) I see it as far superior and much faster. Getting a quick spontaneous overhead shot of some event is almost impossible if you first have to pull out your phone, unlock it, connect it, aim and zoom with one hand (with big flash unit attached to camera for additional weight). On a tripod handling an additional phone is a little bit easier, but even then I prefer to have a free second hand to handle the dials and the camera working independently from my phone (e.g. camera not turning off when the screen on the phone is locked). Wireless might be a nice addition, but it is definitely not a full-fledged replacement for a tilting screen.
Talys said:
But still, privatebydesign's point holds: my 80D, 70D, t6s... even t2i... really are capable of taking better pictures than my skills permit. Most of what makes a photo great isn't being able to catch more frames or capture a little more gamut, or even less graininess. It's composition, lighting, understanding your subject, and knowing what you want as your finished product, and what you need to get there.
To take an example, the hobby part of photography for me is birding. To catch a good shot of a bird in flight, you can have 20 fps, a screen full of AF points and tons of DR and miss the bird entirely, get a bunch of grey blobs, or lose all of the definition in its whites, have awful water reflections... any number of things can go wrong.
Improving my photography throughout the years has been learning to know the signs of when a particular bird is about to take off or give me a good action shot, what kind of exposure is ideal, and even what time of day or what time of year at a particular location will give me the best results. When I should use a polarizer, when I absolutely need to crank shutter as oozed to the types of gliding that afford me higher ISO; when handheld works best, and when to use a gimbal.
The professional aspects of photography for me are products and dioramas. Studio lighting and composition have a pretty crazy steep learning curve, and the difference is awesome looking photos versus very amateurish output. I assure you, I could use a t2i and get beautiful shots. Whether displayed on the web or printed to a A4 glossy spread in a magazine, nobody would be able to tell what camera I used -- nor would they care. .
None of that really has anything to do with equipment, and none of the deficiencies of knowledge can really be solved by cool new gear.
This is of course all valid. I didn't doubt that a good camera is not a replacement for skill and experience, especially when it comes to composition, lighting or guessing what specific subjects (animals, people) will do.
If you know what you do, even a cheap camera is sufficient for good results, but it's usually not as much fun.
I just didn't like the apparent "Don't improve camera as long as you can still improve your skill in some area." consensus.