Of course :ROTFL:
No no... but I'm getting a feeling that many photographers, like most other people in consumerism societies, are increasingly buying into new technology without really investigating if there is real progress included in the upgrade. When it comes to mirrorless cameras, we keep hearing about the improvements for each new camera released. What is rarely discussed is "Improvement compared to what?" and "How will this improve the photos I take?".
While the X-T3 is undoubtedly an improvement compared to the X-T2, and that's fine, it's clearly not an improvement compared to a D500 when it comes to sports/action photography, which the recent dpr comparison points out. However, since mirrorless cameras have long since been crowned the king and queen of camera science by many photographers and even more so by the marketing hype, many don't see the very valid comparison with older style technology. While that may be good for the camera industry, it's a waste of money for many photographers who buy into the hype without gaining anything and in some cases actually losing.
Fuji is the grand master of this. Placing their products in the hands of cool, clever photographers like Zack Arias and Jonas Rask actually leaves the impression that their photos are good (and that Mr. Arias is a rebel) because they use Fuji. Nothing could be further from the truth of course. Both of them would make fantastic images with an old D70, and Zack Arias would easily convince any newcomer to photography that his clients don't care one bit if he uses the 6MP Nikon or the latest Phase One.
It's excellent marketing though, and the cameras are good... all of them. Still, in my view, for stills, there's only one do-it-all, and that's a DSLR, the D850
