madjack wrote in post #16827585
I'm just going to concentrate on producing better photos instead of getting into the got to have the latest gadget.
When I start outperforming my equipment I might have a valid gripe against Canon, but until then I'll strive to make my stuff as good as the amazing pictures I see some of the photographers here produce.
The way I see it, I got a long way to go, so I'm going to be saving a lot of money.
The idea of photographer aptitude/talent being a bottleneck to improvements in sensor/lens technology is a bit myopic, at least for anyone beyond a clueless soccer mom who lives in in P mode. It's tiring how often these statements come up here, because that's just not how the world works.
In reality, the quality of any given image is a function of many things -- photographer aptitude, sensor tech, lens quality, and lighting conditions among them. Any photographer with an ounce of experience and knowledge is capable of taking advantage of improvements in the other variables on a regular basis, though perhaps not for every shot.
I just think most everyone here who uses phrases like "it's the photographer, not the camera," or "I'm not good enough to justify full-frame," are selling themselves short. Let's not kid ourselves: picking up a DSLR, choosing settings that are fairly close to optimal for the shot, and pressing the shutter button is not rocket science. Most of us are fairly good at it. Composition and seeking out good photos are more challenging prospects, but they have little to do with whether IQ improvements are beneficial to your photography.
All this is to say: Canon's lame sensor tech is probably holding many people back more than they realize, or are willing to admit to themselves after investing big bucks in the system.