Well, I'm adding to the conversation here rather than wanting to directly rebut the Reddit post, which is best done on Reddit anyway. The original poster has w

Well, I'm adding to the conversation here rather than wanting to directly rebut the Reddit post, which is best done on Reddit anyway. The original poster has written - at length - about a very small attribute, detail, which is not entirely the responsibility of the sensor but they equate this to image quality. Detail isn't some universal hallmark of image quality and nor is dynamic range, and I don't think I want to be dragged into arguing anything at the level of the Reddit poster because it's all wrong, it's all apples and oranges and I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that leads them to write that post. Cameras are an external translator of all the electromagnetic waves going on around us, a little like human senses, producing snapshots of what we think is reality. Different people's senses translate things slightly differently, because they are differently sensitive to emotion, or sound, or smell, and camera hardware varies along similar lines, but perhaps to colour and light. These differences are cast aside in the post/rant, not explored, a very one-dimensional train of thought with accompanying potshots at supposed camera snobs and various insults at other commenters. On the point about who cares what camera you're using anyway, it's true to some extent, but sometimes I may be interested in some technical detail that relates to an aspect of a photograph. I keep a lens around because it renders hair in a magical way that no other lens I use does. Gear sometimes has a visual attribute that is quite interesting.