Which only holds true if you don't care much about the result.

I've seen people trying to take photos at an airshow using their phone camera. A small black dot in the centre of frame, rendered as an Impressionist oil smudge by post-processing. Was that worth even trying?

The best camera+lens combo is the one suited to the scene. Anything else isn't.

▲

amarshall 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The point is: who cares what the “best” camera is if one doesn’t have it with them to take a photo of the fleeting moment anyway?

▲

watwut 6 days ago | parent [-]

But if you snap that pic, but never use it for anything because it looks slightly weird ... then you as well might not have the camera.

	▲	bombcar 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I always take a few snaps at events like that - not to capture the picture, but to capture the moment in my “digital memory” - if I’m on the ball, I later get some of the “official photos” and add those; but the phone camera snaps remind me that I was there, which turns out to be surprisingly useful.
	▲	illiac786 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I feel it’s still better than nothing, hence the saying holds true for me. “Best” does not imply “good”.

▲

rafram 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really, because the scene you want to capture is there at that moment and probably wouldn’t be there anymore if you went back to the apartment/hotel/camera store and swapped out for a technically better kit. That’s what the “best camera” saying is about.