I have been a serious photography enthusiast for better than sixty years. Bought my first darkroom at twelve, got hold of my first "Real" camera at 15, and have been learning and working on photography ever since. As an adult, acquired the best equipment I could afford and continued to learn. I was a little slow going digital because I was pretty happy where I was, but made the switch and went all in. Continued on the learning path, and generally getting pretty decent results. For a very long time, I believed it was all about the photographer, Eye, Skills, abilities. Then I realized it sometimes is the photographer, but the camera and lens enable achievements / captures impossible otherwise. Think Bugs or Birds or Astro. I cheerfully use the various built in features of the cameras, on the other hand, most times I don't really need VR, I generally get the photo. The years of learning, practice, and experience will usually carry me through. I have some deletes, but except in the worst conditions, a small percentage.
I got an advert today for the newest pro super camera, I'll leave out the brand to avoid that swamp. From the intro piece it sounds as if the camera will do everything but trigger itself. The sample photos were stunningly good. The eye, of course, remains, but does someone acquiring one of these, and learning its capabilities, jump past decades of skill development and learning? I won't buy one, and have an old style background, so even if I did, could never know. What do you think?

If one wishes to show off our work it is inconvenient and perhaps pretentious to carry 100 8x10 prints. Having small size prints in a folder booklet is more realistic. One book could be "creative art" another "street photography" etc. Rather than print at home, take a USB drive to the drugstore and take advantage of the holiday specials. Thinking dpi and pixels is, while sophisticated, just is not the way the brain sees... we with pride are the only inch country in the world respecting the width of the British Kings thumb with [Miramar is inch, but converting to metric].

The oddity is getting a small quick to show your portfolio made low-cost drugstore specials, 7-10 Cent 4x6" holiday specials. 8x10" [4x5" at that ratio] commonly used, is not 4x6", Drugstore size. The machine auto crops, the 8x10, is reduced, the 10" dimension ratio down to 6" requires that the 8" be reduced to 4.8". Will that lost 0.2" be ok? Perhaps. The other choice is to add an inch to the 5" dimension by using a batch canvas enlargement using that blank 1" space for notes of where and when and cameras setting etc.

Cropping to "where you want it" is OK for a few prints, but one grows old when re-cropping 100 just-so print files to an acceptable 4x6 ratio, batch processing or no processing is more practical. Why is 4x6 used, it is an oddball ratio?

So, yes, Ronsipus, print size is a problem, if you wish you can print and cut the excess paper off so only the printed image is left and if you matt, then custom make your matt.
Indeed a dilemma that each person will solve with compromise and effort.

Except it’s not film. Oops.

Why does it matter? Because it’s a different recording medium. Film records light differently from
digital. Film has what is termed a “soft shoulder” exposure characteristic. It doesn’t blow out highlights instantly like digital. And you never heard of Moire patterns with film because of the random distribution of the crystal grains on film.

I’m not saying it’s better, but I am saying it’s different.

And yes it’s digitized on the back end for printing but just like with audio recording, the front end makes a big difference in the end result.

And one more thing. Are you under the impression that film cameras don’t have auto modes? Just like with digital M mode is a choice with an SLR.