Is this the future?
J. Clarke
interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
MJK
> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
> --John
John McWilliams
> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
>
> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
I liked this comment:
Bottomline: It's cheap cheerful and does what it says. If you want
quality photos, go spend a few hundred on a proper digital camera. If
you want a toy for your iPhone that looks quite ridiculous, get one of
these.
--
john mcwilliams
HEMI-Powered
du jour ...
Point well taken. Couple of observations. People are pretty heavily
into instant gratification these days and seem far more interesting
in snap shot photos than quality, hence they generally don't
habitate these hallowed halls. Second, in the continuun between
absolute nubes and Nobel Laureate professional photographers, I
would hazard a guess that damn few of them can even upload their
pictures to their PC, much less name them or post-process them. Few
also have any clue how nor any desire to E-mail pictures to friends
analogous to old fashioned snail mailing of drugstore prints. I use
my just-30 daughter as the quintessial example of what people DO
want to do, which is stick their memory thingy into a kiosk at
Walmart, Meijer, Costco or such and just run off a batch of prints.
P.S. Honda just announced robotic assisted legs theoretically to
help those less fortunate to get around. Who is to say what is or
is not a useful invention. I cite as proof this quote:
"Everything that can be invented has been invented" - U. S. Patent
Commissioner, Charles H. Duell, 1899
I wonder what Mr. Duell would think of the new Chinese better
mousetrap.
Have a great day!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Most people with power would like to use it wisely, if someone
believable would tell them how", Robert Townsend in the book "Up
The Organization"
Galen MacNamera
>People are pretty heavily
>into instant gratification these days and seem far more interesting
>in snap shot photos than quality, hence they generally don't
>habitate these hallowed halls. Second, in the continuun between
>absolute nubes and Nobel Laureate professional photographers,
Odd that you should mention this. I was recently reading an older (yr. 2000)
special-issue of "Scientific American" devoted to meteorology. In there were
some very interesting photos of this last decade's discovery of "sprites",
"elfs", "blue-jets", and other rare electrical discharges that appear above
storm systems in the upper atmosphere.
Many of the photos of these phenomena that are published in that issue must have
a resolution of nothing more than 320x240, if that. The individual pixels in the
printed images easily visible. Anyone that wanted to could count them. They're
probably more like 240x120 pixels in resolution. It appears as if it was the
only way to obtain those images of such rare, brief, and low-luminance
phenomena.
Huh. How about that. Nobel-Laureates publishing images of that low quality and
using those images for doing their Nobel-Prize worthy research.
Those silly amateurs.
Repeat after me:
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
You people really are amazingly stupid, you know that don't you? This only
proves something I've always known since I was born. Stupid people are too
stupid to realize just how stupid they really are.
HEMI-Powered
du jour ...
>>People are pretty heavily
>>into instant gratification these days and seem far more
>>interesting in snap shot photos than quality, hence they
>>generally don't habitate these hallowed halls. Second, in the
>>continuun between absolute nubes and Nobel Laureate
>>professional photographers,
>
> Odd that you should mention this. I was recently reading an
> older (yr. 2000) special-issue of "Scientific American"
> devoted to meteorology. In there were some very interesting
> photos of this last decade's discovery of "sprites", "elfs",
> "blue-jets", and other rare electrical discharges that appear
> above storm systems in the upper atmosphere.
I certainly believe you but have no knowledge of these phenomena.
> Many of the photos of these phenomena that are published in
> that issue must have a resolution of nothing more than
> 320x240, if that. The individual pixels in the printed images
> easily visible. Anyone that wanted to could count them.
> They're probably more like 240x120 pixels in resolution. It
> appears as if it was the only way to obtain those images of
> such rare, brief, and low-luminance phenomena.
>
> Huh. How about that. Nobel-Laureates publishing images of that
> low quality and using those images for doing their Nobel-Prize
> worthy research.
>
> Those silly amateurs.
>
> Repeat after me:
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
I think this is the same as my "reality trumps all other cards in
the game of life" belief.
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> CONTENT WILL TRUMP QUALITY *_EVERY_* TIME.
>
> You people really are amazingly stupid, you know that don't
> you? This only proves something I've always known since I was
> born. Stupid people are too stupid to realize just how stupid
> they really are.
>
Who you calling stupid?
--
HP, aka Jerry
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking
real money" - Attributed to Sen. Everett Dirksen
Ron Hunter
> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
>
> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
>
>
cell phone, but it would look pretty funny, as does the iPiece your link
points to.
whisky-dave
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kuGdnfFNpq8EdofU...@comcast.com...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
>> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
>>
>> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
>
> I liked this comment:
>
> Bottomline: It's cheap cheerful and does what it says. If you want quality
> photos, go spend a few hundred on a proper digital camera.
Ah, but they didnt; say whether it should be a P&S or a DSLR :-)
But I'm guessing they'll be a troll along to tell us that camera phones
are better and more versatile than either a P&S or DSLR but won;t have any
pictures to back it up. :-D
kenny_corrin
wrote:
The only thing that we do know is that you think your chosen camera is going to
make you into a "pro". A real pro would never look down their noses on any kind
of camera. In their hands they can take an award-winning photo with a
camera-phone if they wanted to. No proof is needed. As explained with the
Scientific American article even a 240x180 pixel resolution is good enough for
REAL pros.
What we can also deduce is that you are a photographer-wannabee troll. Asking
for photos as proof online, only leads to people like you then yelling "fake".
There's no winning against a troll's argument. That's why they are trolls.
whisky-dave
"kenny_corrin" <kco...@removetoreply.net> wrote in message
news:kmjoh4te7rbbfjkst...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:14:25 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisk...@final.front.ear>
> wrote:
>
>>Ah, but they didnt; say whether it should be a P&S or a DSLR :-)
>>
>>But I'm guessing they'll be a troll along to tell us that camera phones
>>are better and more versatile than either a P&S or DSLR but won;t have any
>>pictures to back it up. :-D
>>
>
> The only thing that we do know is that you think your chosen camera is
> going to
> make you into a "pro".
The only thing that makes one a pro is being paid for using yuor camera.
> A real pro would never look down their noses on any kind
> of camera.
They would if it wasn't good enough for the task in hand.
> In their hands they can take an award-winning photo with a
> camera-phone if they wanted to.
And people that can't sing can make $millions in record deals.
>No proof is needed. As explained with the
> Scientific American article even a 240x180 pixel resolution is good enough
> for
> REAL pros.
Yep, if you're selling a picture of the first UFO ever verified.
>
> What we can also deduce is that you are a photographer-wannabee troll.
Doesn't seem like you can deduce much at all really.
>Asking
> for photos as proof online, only leads to people like you then yelling
> "fake".
If they are fake then why not yell fake ?
> There's no winning against a troll's argument. That's why they are trolls.
And if real pros could make as much money out of a 0.3MP camera
they wouldn't really need to buy anything else would they.