So do I, the only camera I tested (*) with enough diopter adjustment for my eyes is... TADAAA!! My mirrorless Sony A7C.

(*) I did not test every possible camera/lens combination, there might be others with the same or even better diopter adjustment range.

My grandpa long time refused to upgrade his T model, because he didn't see any advantages of having a gas pedal...

He said things like "feet don't have the necessary touch"...

Same kind of argument.

Thermonuclear warhead anyone ...?

Makes sense... both devices work by aiming and shooting

And don't forget that AI is also a *very powerful art creation technique*.

For example, I've created a bunch of these today:

An interesting point of view... Alas, mine is exactly the opposite: we are reaching the Convergence stage in 40 ~ 60 years ... I'd sell my soul to have more time to see it happening!!

Common sense can easily emulated by AI...

AI works by solving a complex set of tensor equations.
The neurons in your brain can be described by tensor equations, which means that your brain also works by solving a complex set of tensor equations...

See where this is going?

I'm a long term Sony user, and maybe what I'm saying was already mentioned...

1) While systems is always a PITA and an expensive move, if you have the available funds for that, it is always fun to have new toys.

2) The A9 is was and still is an amazing camera for sports with ridiculously fast FPS and all imaginable bells and whistles.

3) It is significantly cheaper than the latest and greatest. I just checked and costs exactly one half of the A9 III at Amazon. Yes, It doesn't have global shutter, but that will cost you $ 3k more.

So for the question "is it still worth buying?", short answer is: look at your ride. If you drive a Lambo... then no, go for the A9III, else the A9 is an excellent camera for a reasonable cost.

The IDEA behind the OP was to ADVICE PEOPLE on what an ACTUAL NEWSPAPER DID.

According to you, if I hadn't pasted the image, only the link to the reference, would you have objected ??

Is it really so difficult to comply with the First Amendment ?

Just don't read anything which subject contains the "AI" term.

Of course it's a cartoon. It¡s a political cartoon in the political section of the newspaper. You should follow the link attached to see the context.

The post was not about the quality of the image, which I already defined as crude, but about how the tech is appearing in mainstream media and displacing graphic artists. I've already found many other examples in other media.

I asked a friend of mine who does graphic design for advertising agencies, and he told me that such a crude political cartoon should take about one or two hours to make, and then another hour after revision by the editor.

The editor would call in and tell him "Hi dude, draw me a political cartoon in which two guys take a bag of dirty money in front of two dumb politicians and the congress building in the background"

Guess what, probably the one who wrote the actual political article, typed that very words into a text-to-image generator, and got 10 or 20 examples, from which he choose that one and pasted it right away.

So... no more cartoonist, hasta la vista.

Besides... The newspaper's editor wasn't fooled. He knowingly ordered the AI job, because he got what he wanted in a couple of minutes for a fraction of the regular cost.

If the house would be burning... Would you like the fact to be hidden from you?

Did you attempted to actually read the post before chocking at the AI abomination?

I wasn't posting an AI image, but sharing the fact that a newspaper with 15 MILLION READERS, already use the tech.