Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
8 megapixel camera for the iPad
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian
Apr 12, 2013, 9:07:13 PM4/12/13
to
If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera. I've seen many people use their
iPads as a camera but you could get much better results if the camera was a
least 8 megapixels. Maybe Apple are holding back and using a 8 megapixel
camera in a future iPad to give people a reason to upgrade to a newer iPad.
The best use I've seen for using the iPad as a camera was when someone on
stage wanted a photo of the audience. The large screen helped in getting a
good view of everyones faces before taking the photo.
I own a iPad 2 which has no camera options so I'm wondering if some useful
camera options were added to recent iPad's
--
Regards Brian
the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera. I've seen many people use their
iPads as a camera but you could get much better results if the camera was a
least 8 megapixels. Maybe Apple are holding back and using a 8 megapixel
camera in a future iPad to give people a reason to upgrade to a newer iPad.
The best use I've seen for using the iPad as a camera was when someone on
stage wanted a photo of the audience. The large screen helped in getting a
good view of everyones faces before taking the photo.
I own a iPad 2 which has no camera options so I'm wondering if some useful
camera options were added to recent iPad's
--
Regards Brian
Davoud
Apr 12, 2013, 9:21:06 PM4/12/13
to
professional-grade photographs that I made with two-to-four-megapixel
cameras don't ask for their money back! I still make superb
photomacrographs with an older 6MP Nikon D100--in addition to my newer
23MP pro DSLR.
As for wondering about iPad camera options, why not go to apple.com and
get the information first-hand?
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Message has been deleted
Gerry
Apr 12, 2013, 11:19:14 PM4/12/13
to
In article <slrnkmhfbb....@mgb.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <2009085798387507440....@free.teranews.com>
He has a camera, just not any options to change it.
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <2009085798387507440....@free.teranews.com>
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > I own a iPad 2 which has no camera options so I'm wondering if some useful
> > camera options were added to recent iPad's
>
> The iPad 2 has a camera, you must have an iPad 1.
>
> > I own a iPad 2 which has no camera options so I'm wondering if some useful
> > camera options were added to recent iPad's
>
He has a camera, just not any options to change it.
Alan Browne
Apr 13, 2013, 1:14:59 PM4/13/13
to
On 2013.04.12 21:21 , Davoud wrote:
> I sure hope that the publications that licensed and printed the
> professional-grade photographs that I made with two-to-four-megapixel
> cameras don't ask for their money back! I still make superb
> photomacrographs with an older 6MP Nikon D100
On the other hand the sensor area of your Sony 6 Mpix sensor is 25 times
> I sure hope that the publications that licensed and printed the
> professional-grade photographs that I made with two-to-four-megapixel
> cameras don't ask for their money back! I still make superb
> photomacrographs with an older 6MP Nikon D100
larger than the image sensor in an iPhone or iPad. The lower noise per
pixel makes a huge difference in image quality.
Add to that the larger aperture available on most good lenses and the
possibilities flourish no matter what kind of photography you're up to.
IOW pixel counts are for the ill-informed.
--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald
Jeffrey Kaplan
Apr 13, 2013, 4:21:27 PM4/13/13
to
Previously on comp.mobile.ipad, Brian said:
> If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
> the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera. I've seen many people use their
> iPads as a camera but you could get much better results if the camera was a
> least 8 megapixels. Maybe Apple are holding back and using a 8 megapixel
> camera in a future iPad to give people a reason to upgrade to a newer iPad.
Personaly, I don't care. Not because I don't use the camera on my iPad
> If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
> the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera. I've seen many people use their
> iPads as a camera but you could get much better results if the camera was a
> least 8 megapixels. Maybe Apple are holding back and using a 8 megapixel
> camera in a future iPad to give people a reason to upgrade to a newer iPad.
(I don't) but because the pixel count is not everything.
Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that it's the QUALITY
of the pixels that count, not the number of them. My iPhone 5 has an 8
megapixel camera sensor, and it takes worse pictures than a 2 megepixel
Sony Cybershot I had ten years ago.
Why, do you ask?
Because the pixels on the Cybershot are BETTER. The sensor itself was
larger, which means the pixels were larger. This in turn means that
each pixel was able to capture better quality light, light that was fed
by a better quality lens. A lens that was larger (wider) allowing more
light in, and of better optical quality for brighter light and less
distortion, refraction and artifacting.
I like to do as little post-processing of my photos as possible. Even
when my subject is reasonably well lit, the only place the iPhone photo
looks good (to me) is on the iPhone itself. Import it to my iPad or
computer, and I see the artifacting due to too small a sensor, too
short and narrow a lens, all leading to poor quality photos when viewed
"full size".
And it is for this reason that I still hang onto my pocket sized
point-and-shoot as a secondary camera, after my 10 megapixel DSLR.
> I own a iPad 2 which has no camera options so I'm wondering if some useful
> camera options were added to recent iPad's
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Tips for Evil Geniuses: 10. I will always have an open airplane
ticket to New Zealand on hand in case my current project escapes my
laboratory, starts mutating beyond control, or starts talking back to
me in a belligerent fashion.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Apr 13, 2013, 5:43:01 PM4/13/13
to
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:14:59 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2013.04.12 21:21 , Davoud wrote:
>> I sure hope that the publications that licensed and printed the
>> professional-grade photographs that I made with two-to-four-megapixel
>> cameras don't ask for their money back! I still make superb
>> photomacrographs with an older 6MP Nikon D100
>
>On the other hand the sensor area of your Sony 6 Mpix sensor is 25 times
>larger than the image sensor in an iPhone or iPad. The lower noise per
>pixel makes a huge difference in image quality.
>
>Add to that the larger aperture available on most good lenses and the
>possibilities flourish no matter what kind of photography you're up to.
>
>IOW pixel counts are for the ill-informed.
Well, they USED to coincide with better quality optics and the sensors
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2013.04.12 21:21 , Davoud wrote:
>> I sure hope that the publications that licensed and printed the
>> professional-grade photographs that I made with two-to-four-megapixel
>> cameras don't ask for their money back! I still make superb
>> photomacrographs with an older 6MP Nikon D100
>
>On the other hand the sensor area of your Sony 6 Mpix sensor is 25 times
>larger than the image sensor in an iPhone or iPad. The lower noise per
>pixel makes a huge difference in image quality.
>
>Add to that the larger aperture available on most good lenses and the
>possibilities flourish no matter what kind of photography you're up to.
>
>IOW pixel counts are for the ill-informed.
themselves, as well as the processing elements. Now, it appears to be a
selling point race in the pad/tablet market.
Nothing will ever beat a good, real, dedicated camera with clean low
light capable optics incorporated. My low priced Olympus macro cameras
are a great device for the money. I'll spend thousands on a camera some
other time.
nospam
Apr 13, 2013, 5:47:34 PM4/13/13
to
In article <grejm8d95b1au1blg...@gordol.org>, Jeffrey
> Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that it's the QUALITY
> of the pixels that count, not the number of them.
anyone who knows anything about photography knows that numerous factors
matter.
> My iPhone 5 has an 8
> megapixel camera sensor, and it takes worse pictures than a 2 megepixel
> Sony Cybershot I had ten years ago.
that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it
isn't that far off from some slrs.
> Why, do you ask?
>
> Because the pixels on the Cybershot are BETTER.
the pixels were bigger, but that does not always mean better.
those old sensors were fairly noisy.
sensors have come a long way since the days of 2 mp sensors. the sensor
in the iphone 5 is backside illuminated, which reduces noise.
in other words, not only do you get more pixels but you get lower noise
too.
> The sensor itself was
> larger, which means the pixels were larger. This in turn means that
> each pixel was able to capture better quality light, light that was fed
> by a better quality lens.
the pixels were larger but not necessarily lower noise (which is what
matters).
> A lens that was larger (wider) allowing more
> light in, and of better optical quality for brighter light and less
> distortion, refraction and artifacting.
the lens on the iphone 5 is f/2.4 which is faster than anything on a
cybershot (f/2.8 from what i can find on dpreview) and even many slr
kit lenses (typically f/4-5.6). that means the iphone lens lets in more
light than a cybershot.
distortion depends on the lens, but the iphone has very little because
it's a fixed focal length lens. the cybershots had zoom lenses which
tend to have more distortion. refraction is how lenses work. without
that, there won't be a lens. i don't know what you mean about
artifacting from a lens.
> I like to do as little post-processing of my photos as possible. Even
> when my subject is reasonably well lit, the only place the iPhone photo
> looks good (to me) is on the iPhone itself. Import it to my iPad or
> computer, and I see the artifacting due to too small a sensor, too
> short and narrow a lens, all leading to poor quality photos when viewed
> "full size".
then something must be wrong. the output of an iphone 5 is *very* good.
it's true you don't have a choice of lens on an iphone, but many 'real
cameras' don't either, with a fixed focal length lenses too (no zoom).
> And it is for this reason that I still hang onto my pocket sized
> point-and-shoot as a secondary camera, after my 10 megapixel DSLR.
you aren't still using the cybershot, are you?
Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
> > If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
> > the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera. I've seen many people use their
> > iPads as a camera but you could get much better results if the camera was a
> > least 8 megapixels. Maybe Apple are holding back and using a 8 megapixel
> > camera in a future iPad to give people a reason to upgrade to a newer iPad.
>
> Personaly, I don't care. Not because I don't use the camera on my iPad
> (I don't) but because the pixel count is not everything.
that's correct. pixel count is not everything.
> > If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
> > the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera. I've seen many people use their
> > iPads as a camera but you could get much better results if the camera was a
> > least 8 megapixels. Maybe Apple are holding back and using a 8 megapixel
> > camera in a future iPad to give people a reason to upgrade to a newer iPad.
>
> Personaly, I don't care. Not because I don't use the camera on my iPad
> (I don't) but because the pixel count is not everything.
> Anyone who knows anything about photography knows that it's the QUALITY
> of the pixels that count, not the number of them.
matter.
> My iPhone 5 has an 8
> megapixel camera sensor, and it takes worse pictures than a 2 megepixel
> Sony Cybershot I had ten years ago.
isn't that far off from some slrs.
> Why, do you ask?
>
> Because the pixels on the Cybershot are BETTER.
those old sensors were fairly noisy.
sensors have come a long way since the days of 2 mp sensors. the sensor
in the iphone 5 is backside illuminated, which reduces noise.
in other words, not only do you get more pixels but you get lower noise
too.
> The sensor itself was
> larger, which means the pixels were larger. This in turn means that
> each pixel was able to capture better quality light, light that was fed
> by a better quality lens.
matters).
> A lens that was larger (wider) allowing more
> light in, and of better optical quality for brighter light and less
> distortion, refraction and artifacting.
cybershot (f/2.8 from what i can find on dpreview) and even many slr
kit lenses (typically f/4-5.6). that means the iphone lens lets in more
light than a cybershot.
distortion depends on the lens, but the iphone has very little because
it's a fixed focal length lens. the cybershots had zoom lenses which
tend to have more distortion. refraction is how lenses work. without
that, there won't be a lens. i don't know what you mean about
artifacting from a lens.
> I like to do as little post-processing of my photos as possible. Even
> when my subject is reasonably well lit, the only place the iPhone photo
> looks good (to me) is on the iPhone itself. Import it to my iPad or
> computer, and I see the artifacting due to too small a sensor, too
> short and narrow a lens, all leading to poor quality photos when viewed
> "full size".
it's true you don't have a choice of lens on an iphone, but many 'real
cameras' don't either, with a fixed focal length lenses too (no zoom).
> And it is for this reason that I still hang onto my pocket sized
> point-and-shoot as a secondary camera, after my 10 megapixel DSLR.
Alan Browne
Apr 13, 2013, 6:13:10 PM4/13/13
to
On 2013.04.13 17:47 , nospam wrote:
> that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it
> isn't that far off from some slrs.
It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
> that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it
> isn't that far off from some slrs.
has its lenscap off.
nospam
Apr 13, 2013, 6:17:14 PM4/13/13
to
In article <lrqdnarxdKjrRfTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
=> > that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good
<http://www.vancouverphotobooths.net/can-your-iphone-5-replace-your-dslr-
iphone-5-camera-vs-nikon-d90-vs-nikon-d5100/>
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
=> > that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good
and it
> > isn't that far off from some slrs.
>
> It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
> has its lenscap off.
it can easily hold several candles.
> > isn't that far off from some slrs.
>
> It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
> has its lenscap off.
<http://www.vancouverphotobooths.net/can-your-iphone-5-replace-your-dslr-
iphone-5-camera-vs-nikon-d90-vs-nikon-d5100/>
Erilar
Apr 13, 2013, 6:45:05 PM4/13/13
to
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Erilar
Apr 13, 2013, 6:45:06 PM4/13/13
to
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
> the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera.
I can't see why someone would want a camera this large! Besides, I prefer
> If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
> the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera.
a camera with more options that I can stick in a much smaller pocket! 8-)
Alan Browne
Apr 13, 2013, 6:48:55 PM4/13/13
to
surprise.
Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
Under poor conditions that make an iPhone camera look like shit, a DSLR
looks spectacular when used correctly.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9486142&size=lg
(6 Mpix, handheld, end of day, clouds, rain).
No stinkin iPhone will do that. I was caught in the woods without a
camera and came upon a wee snake.
But due to the low light, all the problems of the iPhone came out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
Alan Browne
Apr 13, 2013, 7:01:15 PM4/13/13
to
On 2013.04.13 18:17 , nospam wrote:
with an iPhone:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15849774&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15849275&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9960955&size=lg
(a little too much grain, I admit).
nospam
Apr 13, 2013, 8:00:35 PM4/13/13
to
In article <7MOdnRiQD5RKffTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
optimal conditions.
> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
slrs.
> Under poor conditions that make an iPhone camera look like shit, a DSLR
> looks spectacular when used correctly.
an slr is obviously more flexible and can handle more situations than
an iphone, but the iphone is no slouch. it's certainly not as bad as
people are making it out to be.
and let's not forget that a top of the line slr can easily sail past
$10,000 with a lens (some slrs are $8000 for *just* the body, no lens).
comparing $10,000 of camera to an iphone is just stupid. obviously the
iphone can't compete with that.
slrs are also big and bulky, which means people don't normally carry
them everywhere they go. i certainly don't and i doubt you do either.
an iphone camera will do better than anything left at home. as the
saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.
a better comparison is with a compact p&s that is easy to carry and
fits in a pants pocket, just as the iphone does. for that, an iphone is
very competitive. there's a good reason why cellphone cameras have
impacted the compact p&s market. consumers are finding cellphone
cameras to be just fine.
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
> surprise.
all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
> surprise.
optimal conditions.
> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
slrs.
> Under poor conditions that make an iPhone camera look like shit, a DSLR
> looks spectacular when used correctly.
an iphone, but the iphone is no slouch. it's certainly not as bad as
people are making it out to be.
and let's not forget that a top of the line slr can easily sail past
$10,000 with a lens (some slrs are $8000 for *just* the body, no lens).
comparing $10,000 of camera to an iphone is just stupid. obviously the
iphone can't compete with that.
slrs are also big and bulky, which means people don't normally carry
them everywhere they go. i certainly don't and i doubt you do either.
an iphone camera will do better than anything left at home. as the
saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.
a better comparison is with a compact p&s that is easy to carry and
fits in a pants pocket, just as the iphone does. for that, an iphone is
very competitive. there's a good reason why cellphone cameras have
impacted the compact p&s market. consumers are finding cellphone
cameras to be just fine.
Alan Browne
Apr 13, 2013, 10:02:47 PM4/13/13
to
On 2013.04.13 20:00 , nospam wrote:
> In article <7MOdnRiQD5RKffTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
>> surprise.
>
> all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
> optimal conditions.
>
>> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
>
> worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
> slrs.
Except the limitation envelope of a DSLR is many, many times larger than
> In article <7MOdnRiQD5RKffTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
>> surprise.
>
> all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
> optimal conditions.
>
>> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
>
> worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
> slrs.
the tiny sensor and lens combo on an iPhone.
You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
that far off from some slrs."
The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 2:07:43 AM4/14/13
to
In article <2fudnQR1Q_zak_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
however, most photos are taken in situations that are well within the
iphone's envelope, so either camera would work,
also note that an slr is many, many times larger, heavier and in some
cases, an order of magnitude more expensive than an iphone. that means
it's not even an option for a significant number of people.
> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
> that far off from some slrs."
that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
millions of photos posted online prove it.
> The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
in some ways it is and in some it isn't. pick the best tool for the
job, which is not always an slr.
the fact is that much of the time, the quality from an iphone is more
than good enough. not everyone is shooting gallery photos.
ducati filmed a commercial using an iphone 4, something that would have
been difficult or even impossible with an slr:
<http://www.intomobile.com/2010/06/29/ducati-shoots-entire-motorcycle-co
mmercial-with-iphone-4/>
The commercial was made by recording The Pikes Peak International
Hill Climb, which is a race that is normally very difficult to
capture with regular video and film equipment.
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
> >> surprise.
> >
> > all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
> > optimal conditions.
> >
> >> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
> >
> > worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
> > slrs.
>
> Except the limitation envelope of a DSLR is many, many times larger than
> the tiny sensor and lens combo on an iPhone.
nobody said otherwise.
> >> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
> >> surprise.
> >
> > all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
> > optimal conditions.
> >
> >> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
> >
> > worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
> > slrs.
>
> Except the limitation envelope of a DSLR is many, many times larger than
> the tiny sensor and lens combo on an iPhone.
however, most photos are taken in situations that are well within the
iphone's envelope, so either camera would work,
also note that an slr is many, many times larger, heavier and in some
cases, an order of magnitude more expensive than an iphone. that means
it's not even an option for a significant number of people.
> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
> that far off from some slrs."
millions of photos posted online prove it.
> The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
job, which is not always an slr.
the fact is that much of the time, the quality from an iphone is more
than good enough. not everyone is shooting gallery photos.
ducati filmed a commercial using an iphone 4, something that would have
been difficult or even impossible with an slr:
<http://www.intomobile.com/2010/06/29/ducati-shoots-entire-motorcycle-co
mmercial-with-iphone-4/>
The commercial was made by recording The Pikes Peak International
Hill Climb, which is a race that is normally very difficult to
capture with regular video and film equipment.
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 4:59:21 AM4/14/13
to
camera without options.
The camera lens has a lot to do with picture quality. I like the quality of
the lens on Sony cameras.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:03:49 AM4/14/13
to
Reading QR code from a book
Reading bar codes.
As a quick easy way to send someone a photo such as showing someone
something I have made or brought.
Photographing things around home to create a inventory. Some iPad inventory
apps allow photos.
Adding people head shots to my list of contacts.
--
Regards Brian
Message has been deleted
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:17:44 AM4/14/13
to
taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera on the
iPads.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:17:45 AM4/14/13
to
close to the subject shots.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:43:24 AM4/14/13
to
Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
>> the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera.
>
> I can't see why someone would want a camera this large! Besides, I prefer
> a camera with more options that I can stick in a much smaller pocket! 8-)
>
>
Having a big screen to clearly see everything before taking the shot is one
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> If mobile phones have 8 megapixel cameras then I can't see any reason why
>> the iPad can't have a 8 megapixel camera.
>
> I can't see why someone would want a camera this large! Besides, I prefer
> a camera with more options that I can stick in a much smaller pocket! 8-)
>
>
reason.
I use the iPad to check and answer my e-mail and there can be situations
where I want to attach a photo to my e-mail of something near by that I
want to take a photo of.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:43:28 AM4/14/13
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.04.13 20:00 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <7MOdnRiQD5RKffTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
>>> surprise.
>>
>> all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
>> optimal conditions.
>>
>>> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
>>
>> worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
>> slrs.
>
> Except the limitation envelope of a DSLR is many, many times larger than
> the tiny sensor and lens combo on an iPhone.
>
> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
> that far off from some slrs."
>
> The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
If you have ever in a situation where you wish you had a camera to take a
> On 2013.04.13 20:00 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <7MOdnRiQD5RKffTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
>>> surprise.
>>
>> all cameras do their best in optimal conditions. that's why it's called
>> optimal conditions.
>>
>>> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
>>
>> worse, but not necessarily shit. every camera has limitations, even
>> slrs.
>
> Except the limitation envelope of a DSLR is many, many times larger than
> the tiny sensor and lens combo on an iPhone.
>
> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
> that far off from some slrs."
>
> The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
great shot that will never be repeated then you may agree with his
statement.
Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
camera. There have been some great earthquake shots taken on mobile phones
during the Christchurch earthquake.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:43:32 AM4/14/13
to
does not offer so compact p&s cameras will be popular for a while.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 14, 2013, 5:43:35 AM4/14/13
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.04.13 18:17 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <lrqdnarxdKjrRfTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> => > that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good
>> and it
>>>> isn't that far off from some slrs.
>>>
>>> It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
>>> has its lenscap off.
>>
>> it can easily hold several candles.
>>
>> <http://www.vancouverphotobooths.net/can-your-iphone-5-replace-your-dslr-
>> iphone-5-camera-vs-nikon-d90-vs-nikon-d5100/>
>
> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
> surprise.
>
> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
>
> Under poor conditions that make an iPhone camera look like shit, a DSLR
> looks spectacular when used correctly.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id”86142&size=lg
> On 2013.04.13 18:17 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <lrqdnarxdKjrRfTM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> => > that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good
>> and it
>>>> isn't that far off from some slrs.
>>>
>>> It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
>>> has its lenscap off.
>>
>> it can easily hold several candles.
>>
>> <http://www.vancouverphotobooths.net/can-your-iphone-5-replace-your-dslr-
>> iphone-5-camera-vs-nikon-d90-vs-nikon-d5100/>
>
> Under optimal conditions an iPhone camera will produce its best - no
> surprise.
>
> Under poor conditions, an iPhone camera looks like shit.
>
> Under poor conditions that make an iPhone camera look like shit, a DSLR
> looks spectacular when used correctly.
>
> (6 Mpix, handheld, end of day, clouds, rain).
>
> No stinkin iPhone will do that. I was caught in the woods without a
> camera and came upon a wee snake.
>
> But due to the low light, all the problems of the iPhone came out:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
>
> Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
>
> My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
>
But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo. I can
>
> No stinkin iPhone will do that. I was caught in the woods without a
> camera and came upon a wee snake.
>
> But due to the low light, all the problems of the iPhone came out:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
>
> Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
>
> My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
>
clearly see the snake. If you loaded it into a photo editing program then
you should be able to improve on the photo.
--
Regards Brian
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Apr 14, 2013, 5:59:15 AM4/14/13
to
David Taylor
Apr 14, 2013, 6:30:47 AM4/14/13
to
On 13/04/2013 23:13, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.04.13 17:47 , nospam wrote:
>
>> that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it
>> isn't that far off from some slrs.
>
> It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
> has its lenscap off.
OK, not DSLR standard, but, the output, even from indoor shots, /is/
> On 2013.04.13 17:47 , nospam wrote:
>
>> that's very unlikely. the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it
>> isn't that far off from some slrs.
>
> It can't hold a candle to even the worst 5 - 10 MPix DSLR that works and
> has its lenscap off.
adequate for many purposes - e.g. Twitter posts. I may need to "zoom
with my feet, of course".
https://twitter.com/gm8arv/status/321583354770251776/photo/1
I find myself using the big and bulky DSLR less and less these days,
finding a "bridge" camera quite adequate for my needs /most/ of the
time, but I'm not making large prints. Most of my work is displayed on
2-3 Mpix monitors. The extended zoom of the bridge camera (810 mm
equivalent) can get detail I would need a much bulkier, heavier, and
more expensive lens were I using my DSLR.
Your needs are different, of course.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
David Taylor
Apr 14, 2013, 6:38:26 AM4/14/13
to
On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
> with an iPhone:
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
> with an iPhone:
I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
[The macro shots would likely require a specialised lens with the DSLR,
of course, but it would be interesting to see what an iPhone/iPad could do.]
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 10:51:51 AM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 02:07 , nospam wrote:
> In article <2fudnQR1Q_zak_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
>> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
>> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
>> that far off from some slrs."
>
> that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
Where it fell apart is when you added "...and it isn't that far off from
> In article <2fudnQR1Q_zak_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
>> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
>> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
>> that far off from some slrs."
>
> that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
some slrs."
That is total BS and as usual you will defend your nonsense to the hilt
by searching around for useful nuggets on the web.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 11:11:46 AM4/14/13
to
This is not a new concept. Probably dates ca. 1900.
I'm an "amateur" photographer. I take a measure of pleasure in making
good, occasionally really good, photos. I often wonder if I should take
a photo with my iphone and decide it's not worth it. The result will be
noisy, or soft or otherwise not appealing. Snapshots of a moment are
one thing. Photographs are another.
I've taken photos with my iPhone 4 that are adequate to the conditions:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13479112-lg.jpg
But I've also taken photos that are pretty much impossible with an iPhone:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15849774-lg.jpg
(no way to shoot available light, close up in a dark forest with
an iPhone).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6249647-lg.jpg
(using selective DOF to avoid making clear images of Amish participants
at a charity auction. No iphone can do this (never mind the fine
detail in the man's hair on the left 6 Mpix camera)).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13405393-lg.jpg
(no way to get this razor thin DOF with an iPhone)
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11879784
(exposed evening background with fill flash for the subjects.
no way in hell you will get this with an iphone's little LED "flash" -
you'd get very unevenly lit subjects instead.)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9961018-lg.jpg
(iphone: faggedabboudit).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7478991-lg.jpg
(iphone: yeah, good luck with that...)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6046438-lg.jpg
(iphone: no way).
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046198&size=lg
(iphone: forget it. (this was film, actually)).
So I won't let a1a2 (aka nospam) make ridiculous declarations that an
iPhone 5 camera isn't far off from some slrs without telling it like it is.
I suppose anyone can make a DSLR look bad, but there are very hard
limits on how good you can make an image with an iPhone camera.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 11:22:24 AM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 05:43 , Brian wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> But due to the low light, all the problems of the iPhone came out:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
>>
>> Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
>>
>> My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
>>
>
> But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo.
I can't count the number of photos I didn't bother taking because all I
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
>>
>> Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
>>
>> My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
>>
>
> But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo.
had was the iPhone. Just because you can take a photo that shows a
subject does not mean the photos will be at all pleasing or useful
(that, by the way applies to any camera).
Had I had my FF and tripod with me (and I often do on that very same
trail), the photo would have been more of this quality:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15849275-lg.jpg or
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15849774&size=lg
And those photos were taken no more than 100 metres from the garter
snake, though not on the same days.
> I can
> clearly see the snake. If you loaded it into a photo editing program then
> you should be able to improve on the photo.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9qhd929pm8fe32/GarterSnake_20120923_0001.JPG
Do your best.
I'm not a photoshop cowboy. I improve the photos within a narrow range
of keeping the photo original. eg: I crop it (as I did with that
photo), I'll try to tame highlights and lift shadow areas, I'll unsharp
mask the photo to improve edge sharpness and so on.
Just because you can "clearly see the snake" does not make it a good, or
even adequate photo.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 11:25:23 AM4/14/13
to
just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 11:33:23 AM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
>> with an iPhone:
>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
>
> I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
I have an iPhone application called "ProCamera" (which I would
> On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
>> with an iPhone:
>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
>
> I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
recommend, I don't recall the price offhand, but less than $10 I think)
and it does allow a little more finesse with exposure zone selection,
AWB/WB calibration and selected focus plane as well as some other modes.
On the iPhone 5 it allows ISO boosting (which I presume increases noise
considerably).
But on a shot like that above, even if one used the app you suggest, the
iPhone is simply not up to the dynamic range while keeping the noise in
check. The dark areas of the images would have shown very "speckly"
with brown/orange flecks all over. Here there are speckles, but they
are small and not unpleasant.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 11:54:22 AM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 11:37 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <v9ydnV-HTa8tVPfM...@giganews.com>,
> computer), if it isn't any good, I'll trash it.
Higher ISO setting and likely a larger aperture so less DOF (where I
need more (closeup of a snake or such) and a risk of more noise in the
deep shadows. For a 100mm lens I'd hope to have 1/200 s against shake.
OTOH, my camera has an anti-shake feature that reliably gets me about
2 stops advantage. So 1/50 would be adequate if I didn't drink too much
coffee that morning. Even so, I'd go for as fast a shutter speed as I
could manage in the conditions when shooting handheld.
My FF is pretty low noise up to 800 ISO and tolerably low noise to 1600
as long as I don't print over 15x10 inches.
When I walk in the woods with my camera it is always mounted on the
tripod - setting up takes 10's of seconds for most shots.
> In article <v9ydnV-HTa8tVPfM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo.
>>
>> I can't count the number of photos I didn't bother taking because all I
>> had was the iPhone.
>
> I'll take it anyway, and after I look at it on a big screen (e.g., my
>
>>> But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo.
>>
>> I can't count the number of photos I didn't bother taking because all I
>> had was the iPhone.
>
> computer), if it isn't any good, I'll trash it.
>
>> Had I had my FF and tripod with me (and I often do on that very same
>> trail), the photo would have been more of this quality:
>
> What if you had the FF, but not the tripod?
>> Had I had my FF and tripod with me (and I often do on that very same
>> trail), the photo would have been more of this quality:
>
Higher ISO setting and likely a larger aperture so less DOF (where I
need more (closeup of a snake or such) and a risk of more noise in the
deep shadows. For a 100mm lens I'd hope to have 1/200 s against shake.
OTOH, my camera has an anti-shake feature that reliably gets me about
2 stops advantage. So 1/50 would be adequate if I didn't drink too much
coffee that morning. Even so, I'd go for as fast a shutter speed as I
could manage in the conditions when shooting handheld.
My FF is pretty low noise up to 800 ISO and tolerably low noise to 1600
as long as I don't print over 15x10 inches.
When I walk in the woods with my camera it is always mounted on the
tripod - setting up takes 10's of seconds for most shots.
Message has been deleted
David Taylor
Apr 14, 2013, 12:02:47 PM4/14/13
to
On 14/04/2013 16:25, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.04.14 06:30 , David Taylor wrote:
[]
> On 2013.04.14 06:30 , David Taylor wrote:
>> Your needs are different, of course.
>
> Not especially. I do use my iPhone camera for a lot of photographs, I
> just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
I go along with that, Alan, whether I use my DSLR or my bridge camera.
>
> Not especially. I do use my iPhone camera for a lot of photographs, I
> just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
David Taylor
Apr 14, 2013, 12:05:51 PM4/14/13
to
On 14/04/2013 16:33, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
>> On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
>>> with an iPhone:
>>
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
>>
>> I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
>
> I have an iPhone application called "ProCamera" (which I would
> recommend, I don't recall the price offhand, but less than $10 I think)
> and it does allow a little more finesse with exposure zone selection,
> AWB/WB calibration and selected focus plane as well as some other modes.
> On the iPhone 5 it allows ISO boosting (which I presume increases noise
> considerably).
>
> But on a shot like that above, even if one used the app you suggest, the
> iPhone is simply not up to the dynamic range while keeping the noise in
> check. The dark areas of the images would have shown very "speckly"
> with brown/orange flecks all over. Here there are speckles, but they
> are small and not unpleasant.
The program I mentioned averages many shots to reduce noise. I've
> On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
>> On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
>>> with an iPhone:
>>
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
>>
>> I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
>
> I have an iPhone application called "ProCamera" (which I would
> recommend, I don't recall the price offhand, but less than $10 I think)
> and it does allow a little more finesse with exposure zone selection,
> AWB/WB calibration and selected focus plane as well as some other modes.
> On the iPhone 5 it allows ISO boosting (which I presume increases noise
> considerably).
>
> But on a shot like that above, even if one used the app you suggest, the
> iPhone is simply not up to the dynamic range while keeping the noise in
> check. The dark areas of the images would have shown very "speckly"
> with brown/orange flecks all over. Here there are speckles, but they
> are small and not unpleasant.
hardly played with it yet, and I suspect that it really needs the
iPad/iPhone to be tripod mounted. As it is (was?) free, it's worth a try.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 12:07:58 PM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 11:53 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1101119434387623671....@free.teranews.com>,
> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
Wow!
> In article <1101119434387623671....@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
>> photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
>> on the iPads.
>
> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
>
>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
>> photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
>> on the iPads.
>
> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
Wow!
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:11:26 PM4/14/13
to
In article <michelle-EE4E8E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
> > photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
> > on the iPads.
>
> > I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
> > photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
> > on the iPads.
>
> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
i like the first one.
> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:14:49 PM4/14/13
to
In article <michelle-A5F040...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Takes no more time than to tap the Home button and slide up the camera icon
> on the iPhone. And depending on how/where you store the iPhone, it can be
> faster.
that sounds like you leave your slr in auto-everything mode with a kit
lens. that defeats most of the advantages of having an slr.
nevertheless, a lot of people do exactly that, which is why i said an
iphone isn't that far off some slrs.
however, some people take it *off* automatic, which means they will be
checking to be sure the iso, white balance, autofocus mode, etc. are
set the way they want, and not how they were the last time the camera
was used. the slr could also be in a carrying case, or the lens
currently attached might not be the one the photographer wants to use.
that all takes time.
it's not necessarily instant, like you claim.
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
> > shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
> > camera.
>
> There's not all that much to set up. Turn it on, remove the lens cap.
> > Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
> > shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
> > camera.
>
> Takes no more time than to tap the Home button and slide up the camera icon
> on the iPhone. And depending on how/where you store the iPhone, it can be
> faster.
that sounds like you leave your slr in auto-everything mode with a kit
lens. that defeats most of the advantages of having an slr.
nevertheless, a lot of people do exactly that, which is why i said an
iphone isn't that far off some slrs.
however, some people take it *off* automatic, which means they will be
checking to be sure the iso, white balance, autofocus mode, etc. are
set the way they want, and not how they were the last time the camera
was used. the slr could also be in a carrying case, or the lens
currently attached might not be the one the photographer wants to use.
that all takes time.
it's not necessarily instant, like you claim.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 12:17:32 PM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 12:02 , David Taylor wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 16:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2013.04.14 06:30 , David Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> Your needs are different, of course.
>>
>> Not especially. I do use my iPhone camera for a lot of photographs, I
>> just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
>
> I go along with that, Alan, whether I use my DSLR or my bridge camera.
There are a lot of good "bridge" cameras as you call them and all of
> On 14/04/2013 16:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2013.04.14 06:30 , David Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> Your needs are different, of course.
>>
>> Not especially. I do use my iPhone camera for a lot of photographs, I
>> just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
>
> I go along with that, Alan, whether I use my DSLR or my bridge camera.
them far superior to an iPhone camera and not discernibly bad compared
to a basic DSLR + kit lens. One old pro I know bought several such
cameras after he retired. You could not really tell the difference
between his old "work" and his new "fun" but then he had the thing that
is more important than equipment: an eye for a good image.
I just haven't reached the point where I'm unwilling to bring my full
kit anywhere.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:06 PM4/14/13
to
In article <v9ydnV6HTa_-V_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> I just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
most people don't 'do photography'.
an iphone is more than adequate and substituting an slr isn't going to
improve things for a typical person.
for photo enthusiasts, pro photographers, etc., it's a different story.
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > I find myself using the big and bulky DSLR less and less these days,
> > finding a "bridge" camera quite adequate for my needs /most/ of the
> > time, but I'm not making large prints. Most of my work is displayed on
> > 2-3 Mpix monitors. The extended zoom of the bridge camera (810 mm
> > equivalent) can get detail I would need a much bulkier, heavier, and
> > more expensive lens were I using my DSLR.
> >
> > Your needs are different, of course.
>
> Not especially. I do use my iPhone camera for a lot of photographs,
even though you go on and on how pitiful it is?
> > I find myself using the big and bulky DSLR less and less these days,
> > finding a "bridge" camera quite adequate for my needs /most/ of the
> > time, but I'm not making large prints. Most of my work is displayed on
> > 2-3 Mpix monitors. The extended zoom of the bridge camera (810 mm
> > equivalent) can get detail I would need a much bulkier, heavier, and
> > more expensive lens were I using my DSLR.
> >
> > Your needs are different, of course.
>
> Not especially. I do use my iPhone camera for a lot of photographs,
> I just don't use it when I'm "doing photography".
an iphone is more than adequate and substituting an slr isn't going to
improve things for a typical person.
for photo enthusiasts, pro photographers, etc., it's a different story.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:07 PM4/14/13
to
In article <m-KdnbemsOSuWvfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
they're not typical photos people take.
there are also photos that would be pretty much impossible with an slr.
pick the best tool for the job.
> So I won't let a1a2 (aka nospam) make ridiculous declarations that an
> iPhone 5 camera isn't far off from some slrs without telling it like it is.
it's not ridiculous. an slr does not magically make for a better photo.
what really matters is the person behind the camera.
for normal photos, an iphone works just fine, which you proved with
your first photo. if you used an slr for that photo, it wouldn't be
significantly different.
> I suppose anyone can make a DSLR look bad, but there are very hard
> limits on how good you can make an image with an iPhone camera.
there are limits to everything. most people don't push the limits of an
slr. some don't even push the limits of an iphone.
not everyone is shooting closeups of insects or a football player on
the other side of the field.
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> I've taken photos with my iPhone 4 that are adequate to the conditions:
> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13479112-lg.jpg
>
> But I've also taken photos that are pretty much impossible with an iPhone:
all of those are cherry picked to show the limitations of an iphone.
> I've taken photos with my iPhone 4 that are adequate to the conditions:
> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13479112-lg.jpg
>
> But I've also taken photos that are pretty much impossible with an iPhone:
they're not typical photos people take.
there are also photos that would be pretty much impossible with an slr.
pick the best tool for the job.
> So I won't let a1a2 (aka nospam) make ridiculous declarations that an
> iPhone 5 camera isn't far off from some slrs without telling it like it is.
what really matters is the person behind the camera.
for normal photos, an iphone works just fine, which you proved with
your first photo. if you used an slr for that photo, it wouldn't be
significantly different.
> I suppose anyone can make a DSLR look bad, but there are very hard
> limits on how good you can make an image with an iPhone camera.
slr. some don't even push the limits of an iphone.
not everyone is shooting closeups of insects or a football player on
the other side of the field.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:09 PM4/14/13
to
In article <bemdnRAl0oMVX_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> That is total BS and as usual you will defend your nonsense to the hilt
> by searching around for useful nuggets on the web.
it's not bs.
i'm not talking about extreme situations like shooting a hockey game or
a theatrical performance where the advantages of an slr is useful.
i'm talking about ordinary everyday photos, where having an slr won't
make much of a difference.
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
> >> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
> >> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
> >> that far off from some slrs."
> >
> > that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
>
> Where it fell apart is when you added "...and it isn't that far off from
> some slrs."
and it isn't.
> >> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
> >> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
> >> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
> >> that far off from some slrs."
> >
> > that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
>
> Where it fell apart is when you added "...and it isn't that far off from
> some slrs."
> That is total BS and as usual you will defend your nonsense to the hilt
> by searching around for useful nuggets on the web.
i'm not talking about extreme situations like shooting a hockey game or
a theatrical performance where the advantages of an slr is useful.
i'm talking about ordinary everyday photos, where having an slr won't
make much of a difference.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:10 PM4/14/13
to
In article
<779977909387624427.0...@free.teranews.com>, Brian
smartphones.
the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
4th and 5th place are slrs.
<http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
<779977909387624427.0...@free.teranews.com>, Brian
<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Compact p&s cameras offer a lot of features such as zooming that the iPhone
> does not offer so compact p&s cameras will be popular for a while.
true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> Compact p&s cameras offer a lot of features such as zooming that the iPhone
> does not offer so compact p&s cameras will be popular for a while.
smartphones.
the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
4th and 5th place are slrs.
<http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:11 PM4/14/13
to
In article
<1685439823387623381....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Out of interest can you take macro shots with the iPhone, that is extreme
> close to the subject shots.
yes you can.
if you want to go closer than what the iphone's closest focusing
distance is, then you would need to get an accessory lens for it.
an iphone is not the best choice for macro but it might be sufficient.
<1685439823387623381....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Out of interest can you take macro shots with the iPhone, that is extreme
> close to the subject shots.
yes you can.
if you want to go closer than what the iphone's closest focusing
distance is, then you would need to get an accessory lens for it.
an iphone is not the best choice for macro but it might be sufficient.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:12 PM4/14/13
to
<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any photos
> taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera on the
> iPads.
the current ipad has a much better camera than what was on the ipad 2.
> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any photos
> taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera on the
> iPads.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:17 PM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 12:05 , David Taylor wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 16:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
>>>> with an iPhone:
>>>
>>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
>>>
>>> I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
>>
>> I have an iPhone application called "ProCamera" (which I would
>> recommend, I don't recall the price offhand, but less than $10 I think)
>> and it does allow a little more finesse with exposure zone selection,
>> AWB/WB calibration and selected focus plane as well as some other modes.
>> On the iPhone 5 it allows ISO boosting (which I presume increases noise
>> considerably).
>>
>> But on a shot like that above, even if one used the app you suggest, the
>> iPhone is simply not up to the dynamic range while keeping the noise in
>> check. The dark areas of the images would have shown very "speckly"
>> with brown/orange flecks all over. Here there are speckles, but they
>> are small and not unpleasant.
>
> The program I mentioned averages many shots to reduce noise.
That would hardly have worked for the photo above.
> On 14/04/2013 16:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2013 00:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> And just forget, under any circumstances, getting these
>>>> with an iPhone:
>>>
>>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10560876&size=lg
>>>
>>> I take it you haven't tried the Slow Shutter application?
>>
>> I have an iPhone application called "ProCamera" (which I would
>> recommend, I don't recall the price offhand, but less than $10 I think)
>> and it does allow a little more finesse with exposure zone selection,
>> AWB/WB calibration and selected focus plane as well as some other modes.
>> On the iPhone 5 it allows ISO boosting (which I presume increases noise
>> considerably).
>>
>> But on a shot like that above, even if one used the app you suggest, the
>> iPhone is simply not up to the dynamic range while keeping the noise in
>> check. The dark areas of the images would have shown very "speckly"
>> with brown/orange flecks all over. Here there are speckles, but they
>> are small and not unpleasant.
>
> The program I mentioned averages many shots to reduce noise.
> I've
> hardly played with it yet, and I suspect that it really needs the
> iPad/iPhone to be tripod mounted. As it is (was?) free, it's worth a try.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 12:23:11 PM4/14/13
to
In article <AfydncNvELyYSvfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<http://www.studioneat.com/products/glif>
<http://www.garyfongestore.com/iphone-tripod-mount-452.html>
<http://www.adorama.com/alc/0013996/article/Top-Tripod-Adapters-for-the-
iPhone>
there are also accessory lenses and filters for iphones. it's not as
crappy as you think it is.
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > I've
> > hardly played with it yet, and I suspect that it really needs the
> > iPad/iPhone to be tripod mounted. As it is (was?) free, it's worth a try.
>
> Surely. How do you tripod mount an iphone?
with a tripod attachment. there are numerous ones:
> > I've
> > hardly played with it yet, and I suspect that it really needs the
> > iPad/iPhone to be tripod mounted. As it is (was?) free, it's worth a try.
>
> Surely. How do you tripod mount an iphone?
<http://www.studioneat.com/products/glif>
<http://www.garyfongestore.com/iphone-tripod-mount-452.html>
<http://www.adorama.com/alc/0013996/article/Top-Tripod-Adapters-for-the-
iPhone>
there are also accessory lenses and filters for iphones. it's not as
crappy as you think it is.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 12:32:08 PM4/14/13
to
what was said and what was replied all possible states of right and
wrong exist at the same time allowing you to cherry pick to make any
part of an argument as firm as needed while increasingly uncertain
elsewhere. eg: The more one part of an argument gets fuzzy, the firmer
you are for the other part, and vice-versa.
a1 a2 >= t/2
Where a1 and a2 are two parts of an argument and t is the truth.
It is revealing, that over the course of your discourses, you always
exceed half-truths per the uncertainty equation above, but rarely reach
full truths no matter how wildly you manipulate a1 and a2.
Erilar
Apr 14, 2013, 4:59:36 PM4/14/13
to
.
>
> There are a lot of good "bridge" cameras as you call them and all of
> them far superior to an iPhone camera and not discernibly bad compared
> to a basic DSLR + kit lens. One old pro I know bought several such
> cameras after he retired. You could not really tell the difference
> between his old "work" and his new "fun" but then he had the thing that
> is more important than equipment: an eye for a good image.
I prefer having a few options, even if I'm not up to carrying a "full kit"
>
> There are a lot of good "bridge" cameras as you call them and all of
> them far superior to an iPhone camera and not discernibly bad compared
> to a basic DSLR + kit lens. One old pro I know bought several such
> cameras after he retired. You could not really tell the difference
> between his old "work" and his new "fun" but then he had the thing that
> is more important than equipment: an eye for a good image.
any more, but i've had a LOT of practice 8-)
>
> I just haven't reached the point where I'm unwilling to bring my full
> kit anywhere.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
> I just haven't reached the point where I'm unwilling to bring my full
> kit anywhere.
--
Erilar
Apr 14, 2013, 4:59:37 PM4/14/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
.
>
> an slr is obviously more flexible and can handle more situations than
> an iphone, but the iphone is no slouch. it's certainly not as bad as
> people are making it out to be.
An iPhone that's of no use at home(they don't work except when next to the
door in my house) is not exactly worth the price 8-)
>
> and let's not forget that a top of the line slr can easily sail past
> $10,000 with a lens (some slrs are $8000 for *just* the body, no lens).
> comparing $10,000 of camera to an iphone is just stupid. obviously the
> iphone can't compete with that.
Ah ,but the things you can do with one of those...sigh
>
> slrs are also big and bulky, which means people don't normally carry
> them everywhere they go. i certainly don't and i doubt you do either.
> an iphone camera will do better than anything left at home. as the
> saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.
That's why I carry a small camera and my old slr gathers dust nowadays. My
daughter is a couple decades younger and just bought a lovely new digital
slr, however. Marvelous camera! But more than I can carry around easily
any more.And she DOES also have a smart phone.
>
> a better comparison is with a compact p&s that is easy to carry and
> fits in a pants pocket, just as the iphone does. for that, an iphone is
> very competitive. there's a good reason why cellphone cameras have
> impacted the compact p&s market. consumers are finding cellphone
> cameras to be just fine.
They're less picky than I am and can probably also use them at home 8-)
.
>
> an slr is obviously more flexible and can handle more situations than
> an iphone, but the iphone is no slouch. it's certainly not as bad as
> people are making it out to be.
An iPhone that's of no use at home(they don't work except when next to the
door in my house) is not exactly worth the price 8-)
>
> and let's not forget that a top of the line slr can easily sail past
> $10,000 with a lens (some slrs are $8000 for *just* the body, no lens).
> comparing $10,000 of camera to an iphone is just stupid. obviously the
> iphone can't compete with that.
Ah ,but the things you can do with one of those...sigh
>
> slrs are also big and bulky, which means people don't normally carry
> them everywhere they go. i certainly don't and i doubt you do either.
> an iphone camera will do better than anything left at home. as the
> saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.
That's why I carry a small camera and my old slr gathers dust nowadays. My
daughter is a couple decades younger and just bought a lovely new digital
slr, however. Marvelous camera! But more than I can carry around easily
any more.And she DOES also have a smart phone.
>
> a better comparison is with a compact p&s that is easy to carry and
> fits in a pants pocket, just as the iphone does. for that, an iphone is
> very competitive. there's a good reason why cellphone cameras have
> impacted the compact p&s market. consumers are finding cellphone
> cameras to be just fine.
They're less picky than I am and can probably also use them at home 8-)
Davoud
Apr 14, 2013, 6:43:08 PM4/14/13
to
Alan Browne:
> > The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
Brian:
> If you have ever in a situation where you wish you had a camera to take a
> great shot that will never be repeated then you may agree with his
> statement.
You may get an acceptable and even marketable photo with your iThingie
if it's the only photo of a once-in-a-century event, and the iThingie
is the first and last resort, and if the acceptable quality standards
are sufficiently low. Look at the smartphone videos that TV news buys
from trouble spots and natural disasters. One blast and the camera goes
on. The camera is jerking around and within seconds pointing at the sky
or ground. Good enough for FAUX or CNN my standards because without the
voiceover one wouldn't know what the video was intended to show, and
elucidation is my definition of the purpose of a news photo or video.
> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
> camera. There have been some great earthquake shots taken on mobile phones
> during the Christchurch earthquake.
If I'm standing next to you with my 5D Mark III, I guarantee you that I
will get more and better photos than you will with your iThingie or
your point-and-shoot. Busy setting it up? Hardly. The reason I paid $4k
for it is that it is easier to use than lesser cameras, including the
one on the iPhone, in addition to producing incomparably better photos
and HD videos.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> > The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
Brian:
> If you have ever in a situation where you wish you had a camera to take a
> great shot that will never be repeated then you may agree with his
> statement.
You may get an acceptable and even marketable photo with your iThingie
if it's the only photo of a once-in-a-century event, and the iThingie
is the first and last resort, and if the acceptable quality standards
are sufficiently low. Look at the smartphone videos that TV news buys
from trouble spots and natural disasters. One blast and the camera goes
on. The camera is jerking around and within seconds pointing at the sky
or ground. Good enough for FAUX or CNN my standards because without the
voiceover one wouldn't know what the video was intended to show, and
elucidation is my definition of the purpose of a news photo or video.
> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
> during the Christchurch earthquake.
If I'm standing next to you with my 5D Mark III, I guarantee you that I
will get more and better photos than you will with your iThingie or
your point-and-shoot. Busy setting it up? Hardly. The reason I paid $4k
for it is that it is easier to use than lesser cameras, including the
one on the iPhone, in addition to producing incomparably better photos
and HD videos.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 7:53:01 PM4/14/13
to
In article <140420131843083651%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
> If I'm standing next to you with my 5D Mark III, I guarantee you that I
> will get more and better photos than you will with your iThingie or
> your point-and-shoot.
a fancier camera does not mean better photos.
what matters most is the photographer.
what also matters is using the best tool for the job and knowing how to
use it. sometimes it's an slr and sometimes it isn't.
> Busy setting it up? Hardly. The reason I paid $4k
> for it is that it is easier to use than lesser cameras, including the
> one on the iPhone, in addition to producing incomparably better photos
> and HD videos.
that must be why it comes with 400 page user manual, because it's so
easy to use.
wrote:
> If I'm standing next to you with my 5D Mark III, I guarantee you that I
> will get more and better photos than you will with your iThingie or
> your point-and-shoot.
what matters most is the photographer.
what also matters is using the best tool for the job and knowing how to
use it. sometimes it's an slr and sometimes it isn't.
> Busy setting it up? Hardly. The reason I paid $4k
> for it is that it is easier to use than lesser cameras, including the
> one on the iPhone, in addition to producing incomparably better photos
> and HD videos.
easy to use.
bj
Apr 14, 2013, 8:30:17 PM4/14/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> what matters most is the photographer.
>
I was wondering how long it would be before someone said that.
>
> what matters most is the photographer.
>
:-)
bj
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 9:19:33 PM4/14/13
to
In article <michelle-455A95...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> I wasn't rushed, so I had more time for composition.
i'd say you were rushed.
> Also, large screen
> makes composing much easier.
if only your computer had such a screen.
> I do like the color of the water and sky in the iPhone picture much better;
> however, I don't know whether that's due to the device or the atmospheric
> conditions.
what colour? all i saw was black and white.
i'd say you were rushed.
> Also, large screen
> makes composing much easier.
if only your computer had such a screen.
> I do like the color of the water and sky in the iPhone picture much better;
> however, I don't know whether that's due to the device or the atmospheric
> conditions.
what colour? all i saw was black and white.
nospam
Apr 14, 2013, 9:19:34 PM4/14/13
to
In article <michelle-815A9B...@news.eternal-september.org>,
carefully reread your post in its entirety.
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
> > > new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
> >
> > Wow!
>
> How so?
> > > Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
> > > new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
> >
> > Wow!
>
carefully reread your post in its entirety.
Alan Browne
Apr 14, 2013, 9:22:48 PM4/14/13
to
On 2013.04.14 20:57 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <Gredna-PrtHDSffM...@giganews.com>,
The je ne sais quoi of the tones and colors. The contrasts that seem
domineering but really support the subject by drawing the eye to the
delicious void defined by the curves. Essentially erotic and very
memorable.
They are now on my rotating screensaver list.
> In article <Gredna-PrtHDSffM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
>>> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
>>
>> Wow!
>
> How so?
>
>>> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
>>> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
>>
>> Wow!
>
The je ne sais quoi of the tones and colors. The contrasts that seem
domineering but really support the subject by drawing the eye to the
delicious void defined by the curves. Essentially erotic and very
memorable.
They are now on my rotating screensaver list.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Todd Allcock
Apr 15, 2013, 12:32:35 AM4/15/13
to
At 14 Apr 2013 12:19:10 -0400 nospam wrote:
> true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> smartphones.
>
> the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
>
> 4th and 5th place are slrs.
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
>
> people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
Or, it might be Flickr is used by two types of people- those who use it
> true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> smartphones.
>
> the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
>
> 4th and 5th place are slrs.
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
>
> people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
that upload later.
I'll wager the iPhone is the most popular camera for Instagram too! ;)
Maybe if you ask what cameras are used most often by those having actual
prints made, you'd find a different answer...
nospam
Apr 15, 2013, 1:17:17 AM4/15/13
to
In article <michelle-807DA0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> You must be colour blind.
nope. i am not colour blind.
nope. i am not colour blind.
nospam
Apr 15, 2013, 2:30:14 AM4/15/13
to
In article <kkg1g8$15p$1...@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
> I'll wager the iPhone is the most popular camera for Instagram too! ;)
only slightly. android went from 0 (when instagram was only on iphone)
to almost half just 1 year later. give it a few more months.
> Maybe if you ask what cameras are used most often by those having actual
> prints made, you'd find a different answer...
the most common size print is 4x6, and you don't need an slr for that.
pretty much anything will make a decent 4x6, and even an 8x10 for that
matter.
most people don't print anymore anyway. they upload to facebook,
flickr, etc.
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> > smartphones.
> >
> > the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
> >
> > 4th and 5th place are slrs.
> >
> > <http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
> >
> > people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
>
> Or, it might be Flickr is used by two types of people- those who use it
> directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
> that upload later.
it's not a perfect sample, but that doesn't mean iphones aren't popular.
> > true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> > smartphones.
> >
> > the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
> >
> > 4th and 5th place are slrs.
> >
> > <http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
> >
> > people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
>
> Or, it might be Flickr is used by two types of people- those who use it
> directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
> that upload later.
> I'll wager the iPhone is the most popular camera for Instagram too! ;)
to almost half just 1 year later. give it a few more months.
> Maybe if you ask what cameras are used most often by those having actual
> prints made, you'd find a different answer...
pretty much anything will make a decent 4x6, and even an 8x10 for that
matter.
most people don't print anymore anyway. they upload to facebook,
flickr, etc.
Neil Ellwood
Apr 15, 2013, 4:35:40 AM4/15/13
to
--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
Apr 15, 2013, 4:57:36 AM4/15/13
to
channel.
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:09:52 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <michelle-A5F040...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Takes no more time than to tap the Home button and slide up the camera icon
>> on the iPhone. And depending on how/where you store the iPhone, it can be
>> faster.
>
> that sounds like you leave your slr in auto-everything mode with a kit
> lens. that defeats most of the advantages of having an slr.
>
> nevertheless, a lot of people do exactly that, which is why i said an
> iphone isn't that far off some slrs.
>
> however, some people take it *off* automatic, which means they will be
> checking to be sure the iso, white balance, autofocus mode, etc. are
> set the way they want, and not how they were the last time the camera
> was used. the slr could also be in a carrying case, or the lens
> currently attached might not be the one the photographer wants to use.
> that all takes time.
>
> it's not necessarily instant, like you claim.
I tend to have my bridge camera set to auto and to wide zoom setting as I
might suddenly want to take a photo. But other times I like to experiment
using the manual setting.
When it comes to a scene with plenty of lighting then its more up to the
skill of the photographer. Some say that if they had an expensive SLR
camera then they could take great photos which in not true. I know of a
famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
zoom lens and just manual settings.
--
Regards Brian
> In article <michelle-A5F040...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>>> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
>>> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
>>> camera.
>>
>> There's not all that much to set up. Turn it on, remove the lens cap.
>
>>> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
>>> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
>>> camera.
>>
>> Takes no more time than to tap the Home button and slide up the camera icon
>> on the iPhone. And depending on how/where you store the iPhone, it can be
>> faster.
>
> that sounds like you leave your slr in auto-everything mode with a kit
> lens. that defeats most of the advantages of having an slr.
>
> nevertheless, a lot of people do exactly that, which is why i said an
> iphone isn't that far off some slrs.
>
> however, some people take it *off* automatic, which means they will be
> checking to be sure the iso, white balance, autofocus mode, etc. are
> set the way they want, and not how they were the last time the camera
> was used. the slr could also be in a carrying case, or the lens
> currently attached might not be the one the photographer wants to use.
> that all takes time.
>
> it's not necessarily instant, like you claim.
I tend to have my bridge camera set to auto and to wide zoom setting as I
might suddenly want to take a photo. But other times I like to experiment
using the manual setting.
When it comes to a scene with plenty of lighting then its more up to the
skill of the photographer. Some say that if they had an expensive SLR
camera then they could take great photos which in not true. I know of a
famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
zoom lens and just manual settings.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:09:54 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <michelle-EE4E8E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
photos?
--
Regards Brian
> In article <michelle-EE4E8E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
>>> photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
>>> on the iPads.
>>
>
>>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
>>> photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
>>> on the iPads.
>>
>> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
>> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
>
>> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
>
> i like the first one.
How are people seeing these photos when there are no internet links to the
photos?
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:09:57 AM4/15/13
to
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <494090148387622628.5...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Please read all three words. I said "no camera options" which means its a
>> camera without options.
>
> It has options; maybe not the ones you want.
Just one option and that is to put a line grid on the screen as a guide.
It's hardly worth including it as an option.
--
Regards Brian
> In article <494090148387622628.5...@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Please read all three words. I said "no camera options" which means its a
>> camera without options.
>
> It has options; maybe not the ones you want.
Just one option and that is to put a line grid on the screen as a guide.
It's hardly worth including it as an option.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:09:59 AM4/15/13
to
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <1101119434387623671....@free.teranews.com>,
--
Regards Brian
> In article <1101119434387623671....@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
>> photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
>> on the iPads.
>
> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
I don't see any links o your photos.
>
>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any
>> photos taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera
>> on the iPads.
>
> Here are two photos, taken about ten months apart, of Hoover Dam from the
> new bypass bridge. The iPad photo is the earlier one.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:10:00 AM4/15/13
to
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <1082113729387624778....@free.teranews.com>,
and the best angle to photograph something. There are times when you need
to use the camera like a snapshot camera. If you have the wrong lens on the
camera or have it set to the wrong setting at the time then it takes time
to correct these things.
--
Regards Brian
> In article <1082113729387624778....@free.teranews.com>,
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
>> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
>> camera.
>
> There's not all that much to set up. Turn it on, remove the lens cap.
> Takes no more time than to tap the Home button and slide up the camera icon
> on the iPhone. And depending on how/where you store the iPhone, it can be
> faster.
Some serious photographers are busy trying to work out the correct exposure
>
>> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
>> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
>> camera.
>
> There's not all that much to set up. Turn it on, remove the lens cap.
> Takes no more time than to tap the Home button and slide up the camera icon
> on the iPhone. And depending on how/where you store the iPhone, it can be
> faster.
and the best angle to photograph something. There are times when you need
to use the camera like a snapshot camera. If you have the wrong lens on the
camera or have it set to the wrong setting at the time then it takes time
to correct these things.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:10:04 AM4/15/13
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.04.14 05:43 , Brian wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> But due to the low light, all the problems of the iPhone came out:
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
>>>
>>> Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
>>>
>>> My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
>>>
>>
>> But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo.
>
> I can't count the number of photos I didn't bother taking because all I
> had was the iPhone. Just because you can take a photo that shows a
> subject does not mean the photos will be at all pleasing or useful
> (that, by the way applies to any camera).
>
> Had I had my FF and tripod with me (and I often do on that very same
> trail), the photo would have been more of this quality:
>
> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15849275-lg.jpg or
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id 849774&size=lg
>
> And those photos were taken no more than 100 metres from the garter
> snake, though not on the same days.
>
>> I can
>> clearly see the snake. If you loaded it into a photo editing program then
>> you should be able to improve on the photo.
>
> Here's the original photo:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9qhd929pm8fe32/GarterSnake_20120923_0001.JPG
>
> Do your best.
>
> I'm not a photoshop cowboy. I improve the photos within a narrow range
> of keeping the photo original. eg: I crop it (as I did with that
> photo), I'll try to tame highlights and lift shadow areas, I'll unsharp
> mask the photo to improve edge sharpness and so on.
>
> Just because you can "clearly see the snake" does not make it a good, or
> even adequate photo.
>
We seem to be talking about two different things. I am referring to
movements that happen for a short time (within 30 seconds or less) where
you can take time with the subject you are photographing. If the subject
matter is interesting then people don't mind the quality of the photo. But
don't get me wrong I also enjoy great looking photos that have been
carefully photographed.
--
Regards Brian
> On 2013.04.14 05:43 , Brian wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> But due to the low light, all the problems of the iPhone came out:
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzcpql5mhf4xnq/GarterSnake_20120923_0001-SML-CROP.jpg
>>>
>>> Can't handle DR, purple fringing, bad colour rendition. SUZKZ.
>>>
>>> My 6 Mpix or FF would have nailed it to the wall.
>>>
>>
>> But having a photo is better than not being able to take a photo.
>
> I can't count the number of photos I didn't bother taking because all I
> had was the iPhone. Just because you can take a photo that shows a
> subject does not mean the photos will be at all pleasing or useful
> (that, by the way applies to any camera).
>
> Had I had my FF and tripod with me (and I often do on that very same
> trail), the photo would have been more of this quality:
>
> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15849275-lg.jpg or
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id 849774&size=lg
>
> And those photos were taken no more than 100 metres from the garter
> snake, though not on the same days.
>
>> I can
>> clearly see the snake. If you loaded it into a photo editing program then
>> you should be able to improve on the photo.
>
> Here's the original photo:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9qhd929pm8fe32/GarterSnake_20120923_0001.JPG
>
> Do your best.
>
> I'm not a photoshop cowboy. I improve the photos within a narrow range
> of keeping the photo original. eg: I crop it (as I did with that
> photo), I'll try to tame highlights and lift shadow areas, I'll unsharp
> mask the photo to improve edge sharpness and so on.
>
> Just because you can "clearly see the snake" does not make it a good, or
> even adequate photo.
>
We seem to be talking about two different things. I am referring to
movements that happen for a short time (within 30 seconds or less) where
you can take time with the subject you are photographing. If the subject
matter is interesting then people don't mind the quality of the photo. But
don't get me wrong I also enjoy great looking photos that have been
carefully photographed.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:29:36 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <1685439823387623381....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
> In article
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Out of interest can you take macro shots with the iPhone, that is extreme
>> close to the subject shots.
>
> yes you can.
>
> if you want to go closer than what the iphone's closest focusing
> distance is, then you would need to get an accessory lens for it.
>
> an iphone is not the best choice for macro but it might be sufficient.
One problem with using the iPhone as a camera is that when the battery goes
flat in your iPhone then you can't change the battery like you can with
dedicated camera. But for the occasional shot its not a problem.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:29:39 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> In article
> <1101119434387623671....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any photos
>> taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera on the
>> iPads.
>
> the current ipad has a much better camera than what was on the ipad 2.
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I know that this test was for the iPhone but It certainly beats any photos
>> taken with a iPad2. Which is why they need to improve the camera on the
>> iPads.
>
I think I'll wait a while before I upgrade to another iPad. It's very
likely that the camera will be even more improved.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:29:41 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> In article
> <1685439823387623381....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Out of interest can you take macro shots with the iPhone, that is extreme
>> close to the subject shots.
>
> yes you can.
>
> if you want to go closer than what the iphone's closest focusing
> distance is, then you would need to get an accessory lens for it.
>
> an iphone is not the best choice for macro but it might be sufficient.
I didn't know you could get accessory lens for the iPhone. That's an
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Out of interest can you take macro shots with the iPhone, that is extreme
>> close to the subject shots.
>
> yes you can.
>
> if you want to go closer than what the iphone's closest focusing
> distance is, then you would need to get an accessory lens for it.
>
> an iphone is not the best choice for macro but it might be sufficient.
improvement on some of the other smartphones.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:29:42 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <779977909387624427.0...@free.teranews.com>, Brian
> In article
> <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Compact p&s cameras offer a lot of features such as zooming that the iPhone
>> does not offer so compact p&s cameras will be popular for a while.
>
> true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> smartphones.
>
> the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
>
So its not so much the type of camera such as a smartphone in general but
> true, but sales of compacts are definitely taking a hit from
> smartphones.
>
> the *three* most popular cameras on flickr are iphones.
>
the brand of the smartphone.
> 4th and 5th place are slrs.
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/cameras>
>
> people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:29:45 AM4/15/13
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <m-KdnbemsOSuWvfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've taken photos with my iPhone 4 that are adequate to the conditions:
>> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13479112-lg.jpg
>>
>> But I've also taken photos that are pretty much impossible with an iPhone:
>
> all of those are cherry picked to show the limitations of an iphone.
> they're not typical photos people take.
>
> there are also photos that would be pretty much impossible with an slr.
> pick the best tool for the job.
>
>> So I won't let a1a2 (aka nospam) make ridiculous declarations that an
>> iPhone 5 camera isn't far off from some slrs without telling it like it is.
>
> it's not ridiculous. an slr does not magically make for a better photo.
> what really matters is the person behind the camera.
That's very true. You can have two photographers photographing the same
thing at the same time using the same type of camera yet one photographer
has more appealing photos than the other photographer.
>
--
Regards Brian
> In article <m-KdnbemsOSuWvfM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've taken photos with my iPhone 4 that are adequate to the conditions:
>> http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13479112-lg.jpg
>>
>> But I've also taken photos that are pretty much impossible with an iPhone:
>
> all of those are cherry picked to show the limitations of an iphone.
> they're not typical photos people take.
>
> there are also photos that would be pretty much impossible with an slr.
> pick the best tool for the job.
>
>> So I won't let a1a2 (aka nospam) make ridiculous declarations that an
>> iPhone 5 camera isn't far off from some slrs without telling it like it is.
>
> it's not ridiculous. an slr does not magically make for a better photo.
> what really matters is the person behind the camera.
That's very true. You can have two photographers photographing the same
thing at the same time using the same type of camera yet one photographer
has more appealing photos than the other photographer.
>
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:42:30 AM4/15/13
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.04.14 12:19 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <bemdnRAl0oMVX_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
>>>>> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
>>>>> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
>>>>> that far off from some slrs."
>>>>
>>>> that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
>>>
>>> Where it fell apart is when you added "...and it isn't that far off from
>>> some slrs."
>>
>> and it isn't.
>>
>>> That is total BS and as usual you will defend your nonsense to the hilt
>>> by searching around for useful nuggets on the web.
>>
>> it's not bs.
>>
>> i'm not talking about extreme situations like shooting a hockey game or
>> a theatrical performance where the advantages of an slr is useful.
>>
>> i'm talking about ordinary everyday photos, where having an slr won't
>> make much of a difference.
>
>
> You are right only in a quantum uncertainty sort of way where no matter
> what was said and what was replied all possible states of right and
> wrong exist at the same time allowing you to cherry pick to make any
> part of an argument as firm as needed while increasingly uncertain
> elsewhere. eg: The more one part of an argument gets fuzzy, the firmer
> you are for the other part, and vice-versa.
>
> a1 a2 >= t/2
>
> Where a1 and a2 are two parts of an argument and t is the truth.
>
> It is revealing, that over the course of your discourses, you always
> exceed half-truths per the uncertainty equation above, but rarely reach
> full truths no matter how wildly you manipulate a1 and a2.
>
Then again there is no wrong or right answer (truth) when someone gives an
option.
--
Regards Brian
> On 2013.04.14 12:19 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <bemdnRAl0oMVX_fM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You drag out the common nugget in your post that the camera you have
>>>>> with you is better than the one you don't, but that is no base for your
>>>>> prior claim: "the camera in the iphone 5 is *very* good and it isn't
>>>>> that far off from some slrs."
>>>>
>>>> that claim is correct. the iphone 5 camera is very good.
>>>
>>> Where it fell apart is when you added "...and it isn't that far off from
>>> some slrs."
>>
>> and it isn't.
>>
>>> That is total BS and as usual you will defend your nonsense to the hilt
>>> by searching around for useful nuggets on the web.
>>
>> it's not bs.
>>
>> i'm not talking about extreme situations like shooting a hockey game or
>> a theatrical performance where the advantages of an slr is useful.
>>
>> i'm talking about ordinary everyday photos, where having an slr won't
>> make much of a difference.
>
>
> You are right only in a quantum uncertainty sort of way where no matter
> what was said and what was replied all possible states of right and
> wrong exist at the same time allowing you to cherry pick to make any
> part of an argument as firm as needed while increasingly uncertain
> elsewhere. eg: The more one part of an argument gets fuzzy, the firmer
> you are for the other part, and vice-versa.
>
> a1 a2 >= t/2
>
> Where a1 and a2 are two parts of an argument and t is the truth.
>
> It is revealing, that over the course of your discourses, you always
> exceed half-truths per the uncertainty equation above, but rarely reach
> full truths no matter how wildly you manipulate a1 and a2.
>
Then again there is no wrong or right answer (truth) when someone gives an
option.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:52:11 AM4/15/13
to
Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
> Alan Browne:
>>> The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
>
> Brian:
>> If you have ever in a situation where you wish you had a camera to take a
>> great shot that will never be repeated then you may agree with his
>> statement.
>
> You may get an acceptable and even marketable photo with your iThingie
> if it's the only photo of a once-in-a-century event, and the iThingie
> is the first and last resort, and if the acceptable quality standards
> are sufficiently low. Look at the smartphone videos that TV news buys
> from trouble spots and natural disasters. One blast and the camera goes
> on. The camera is jerking around and within seconds pointing at the sky
> or ground. Good enough for FAUX or CNN my standards because without the
> voiceover one wouldn't know what the video was intended to show, and
> elucidation is my definition of the purpose of a news photo or video.
>> during the Christchurch earthquake.
>
> If I'm standing next to you with my 5D Mark III, I guarantee you that I
> will get more and better photos than you will with your iThingie or
> your point-and-shoot. Busy setting it up? Hardly. The reason I paid $4k
> for it is that it is easier to use than lesser cameras, including the
> one on the iPhone, in addition to producing incomparably better photos
> and HD videos.
But do you carry your 5D Mark III around with you all the time? These days
some of the best shots have been caught on simple smartphone cameras such
as earthquakes, etc. And those that don't have a smartphone say "I wish I
had my camera with me". One thing I like is that the quality of photos and
videos have improved on smartphones and simple compact cameras. They use to
have a low resolution of about 640 x 480.
--
Regards Brian
> Alan Browne:
>>> The fact is it is very far behind most basic DSLR with a common kit lens.
>
> Brian:
>> If you have ever in a situation where you wish you had a camera to take a
>> great shot that will never be repeated then you may agree with his
>> statement.
>
> You may get an acceptable and even marketable photo with your iThingie
> if it's the only photo of a once-in-a-century event, and the iThingie
> is the first and last resort, and if the acceptable quality standards
> are sufficiently low. Look at the smartphone videos that TV news buys
> from trouble spots and natural disasters. One blast and the camera goes
> on. The camera is jerking around and within seconds pointing at the sky
> or ground. Good enough for FAUX or CNN my standards because without the
> voiceover one wouldn't know what the video was intended to show, and
> elucidation is my definition of the purpose of a news photo or video.
>
>> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
>> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
>> camera. There have been some great earthquake shots taken on mobile phones
>> Imagine the situation of someone standing next to you grabbing some great
>> shots with his iPhone while you are busy setting up your expensive SLR
>> during the Christchurch earthquake.
>
> If I'm standing next to you with my 5D Mark III, I guarantee you that I
> will get more and better photos than you will with your iThingie or
> your point-and-shoot. Busy setting it up? Hardly. The reason I paid $4k
> for it is that it is easier to use than lesser cameras, including the
> one on the iPhone, in addition to producing incomparably better photos
> and HD videos.
But do you carry your 5D Mark III around with you all the time? These days
some of the best shots have been caught on simple smartphone cameras such
as earthquakes, etc. And those that don't have a smartphone say "I wish I
had my camera with me". One thing I like is that the quality of photos and
videos have improved on smartphones and simple compact cameras. They use to
have a low resolution of about 640 x 480.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 7:52:14 AM4/15/13
to
Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> .
>>
>> an slr is obviously more flexible and can handle more situations than
>> an iphone, but the iphone is no slouch. it's certainly not as bad as
>> people are making it out to be.
>
> An iPhone that's of no use at home(they don't work except when next to the
> door in my house) is not exactly worth the price 8-)
>>
>> and let's not forget that a top of the line slr can easily sail past
>> $10,000 with a lens (some slrs are $8000 for *just* the body, no lens).
>> comparing $10,000 of camera to an iphone is just stupid. obviously the
>> iphone can't compete with that.
>
> Ah ,but the things you can do with one of those...sigh
>>
>> slrs are also big and bulky, which means people don't normally carry
>> them everywhere they go. i certainly don't and i doubt you do either.
>> an iphone camera will do better than anything left at home. as the
>> saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.
>
> That's why I carry a small camera and my old slr gathers dust nowadays. My
> daughter is a couple decades younger and just bought a lovely new digital
> slr, however. Marvelous camera! But more than I can carry around easily
> any more.And she DOES also have a smart phone.
Smartphones come in useful with your main camera develops a fault.
>>
>> a better comparison is with a compact p&s that is easy to carry and
>> fits in a pants pocket, just as the iphone does. for that, an iphone is
>> very competitive. there's a good reason why cellphone cameras have
>> impacted the compact p&s market. consumers are finding cellphone
>> cameras to be just fine.
>
> They're less picky than I am and can probably also use them at home 8-)
>
>
--
Regards Brian
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> .
>>
>> an slr is obviously more flexible and can handle more situations than
>> an iphone, but the iphone is no slouch. it's certainly not as bad as
>> people are making it out to be.
>
> An iPhone that's of no use at home(they don't work except when next to the
> door in my house) is not exactly worth the price 8-)
>>
>> and let's not forget that a top of the line slr can easily sail past
>> $10,000 with a lens (some slrs are $8000 for *just* the body, no lens).
>> comparing $10,000 of camera to an iphone is just stupid. obviously the
>> iphone can't compete with that.
>
> Ah ,but the things you can do with one of those...sigh
>>
>> slrs are also big and bulky, which means people don't normally carry
>> them everywhere they go. i certainly don't and i doubt you do either.
>> an iphone camera will do better than anything left at home. as the
>> saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.
>
> That's why I carry a small camera and my old slr gathers dust nowadays. My
> daughter is a couple decades younger and just bought a lovely new digital
> slr, however. Marvelous camera! But more than I can carry around easily
> any more.And she DOES also have a smart phone.
Smartphones come in useful with your main camera develops a fault.
>>
>> a better comparison is with a compact p&s that is easy to carry and
>> fits in a pants pocket, just as the iphone does. for that, an iphone is
>> very competitive. there's a good reason why cellphone cameras have
>> impacted the compact p&s market. consumers are finding cellphone
>> cameras to be just fine.
>
> They're less picky than I am and can probably also use them at home 8-)
>
>
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 8:01:20 AM4/15/13
to
and most cameras can take photos in low lighting conditions without camera
shake when hand held. Having a flash helps.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Apr 15, 2013, 8:01:23 AM4/15/13
to
some photos is the only way. I wish everyone had a computer with an
internet connection.
--
Regards Brian
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Davoud
Apr 15, 2013, 2:13:57 PM4/15/13
to
Brian:
nature photographs. The camera, all the lenses I need, and my three
radio-controlled flashes fit neatly into two compact wheeled suitcases.
I am not a news or documentary photographer. I also carry an advanced
compact point-and-shoot that has the option of using full manual
control.
Broadly speaking, people experiencing an earthquake are more concerned
about saving their backsides than reaching for the iPhone. Most of the
video that I have seen from earthquakes (still photos don't depict the
action very well, only the aftermath) was made with surveillance
cameras. The iPhone video tends to be as I said--camera jerking around,
pointing at ground or sky, telling no story.
If you didn't notice, I agreed with you that an iPhone is better than
nothing when it's a one-time opportunity and when having some kind of
still or video record is of primary importance and the quality of the
imagery is secondary.
Someone finally pointed out that it's the quality of the photographer
that matters most. Where most people go wrong is in not practicing in
capturing still and, especially, video, with their iPhones--practice
makes perfect. And to all newbies reading this, whether you are using
an iPhone or a $60,000 RED Dragon, remember that the /subject/ moves
and the /camera/ does not.
I recall that some iPhone movies have won awards at film festivals,
including this recent Oscar winner, of which a few parts were made with
an iPhone.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> But do you carry your 5D Mark III around with you all the time? These days
> some of the best shots have been caught on simple smartphone cameras such
> as earthquakes, etc. And those that don't have a smartphone say "I wish I
> had my camera with me". One thing I like is that the quality of photos and
> videos have improved on smartphones and simple compact cameras. They use to
> have a low resolution of about 640 x 480.
I carry my 5D with me when it is my purpose to go someplace to make
> some of the best shots have been caught on simple smartphone cameras such
> as earthquakes, etc. And those that don't have a smartphone say "I wish I
> had my camera with me". One thing I like is that the quality of photos and
> videos have improved on smartphones and simple compact cameras. They use to
> have a low resolution of about 640 x 480.
nature photographs. The camera, all the lenses I need, and my three
radio-controlled flashes fit neatly into two compact wheeled suitcases.
I am not a news or documentary photographer. I also carry an advanced
compact point-and-shoot that has the option of using full manual
control.
Broadly speaking, people experiencing an earthquake are more concerned
about saving their backsides than reaching for the iPhone. Most of the
video that I have seen from earthquakes (still photos don't depict the
action very well, only the aftermath) was made with surveillance
cameras. The iPhone video tends to be as I said--camera jerking around,
pointing at ground or sky, telling no story.
If you didn't notice, I agreed with you that an iPhone is better than
nothing when it's a one-time opportunity and when having some kind of
still or video record is of primary importance and the quality of the
imagery is secondary.
Someone finally pointed out that it's the quality of the photographer
that matters most. Where most people go wrong is in not practicing in
capturing still and, especially, video, with their iPhones--practice
makes perfect. And to all newbies reading this, whether you are using
an iPhone or a $60,000 RED Dragon, remember that the /subject/ moves
and the /camera/ does not.
I recall that some iPhone movies have won awards at film festivals,
including this recent Oscar winner, of which a few parts were made with
an iPhone.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
nospam
Apr 15, 2013, 2:15:23 PM4/15/13
to
In article
<621211711387717973.2...@free.teranews.com>, Brian
for your 'real camera' then you're just as stuck when its battery goes
dead.
you can also get an external battery for the iphone, some of which
double as a case. or you can recharge an iphone in the car for a while.
<621211711387717973.2...@free.teranews.com>, Brian
<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> One problem with using the iPhone as a camera is that when the battery goes
> flat in your iPhone then you can't change the battery like you can with
> dedicated camera. But for the occasional shot its not a problem.
a dead battery affects all cameras. if you don't have a spare battery
> One problem with using the iPhone as a camera is that when the battery goes
> flat in your iPhone then you can't change the battery like you can with
> dedicated camera. But for the occasional shot its not a problem.
for your 'real camera' then you're just as stuck when its battery goes
dead.
you can also get an external battery for the iphone, some of which
double as a case. or you can recharge an iphone in the car for a while.
nospam
Apr 15, 2013, 2:15:24 PM4/15/13
to
In article
<1876929428387717646....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
you can even use slr lenses:
<http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/07/iphone-4-slr-mount-lets-you-shoot-5-
megapixel-photos-with-your/>
<1876929428387717646....@free.teranews.com>, Brian
<bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> I didn't know you could get accessory lens for the iPhone. That's an
> improvement on some of the other smartphones.
<http://mashable.com/2012/08/17/iphone-lenses/>
> I didn't know you could get accessory lens for the iPhone. That's an
> improvement on some of the other smartphones.
you can even use slr lenses:
<http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/07/iphone-4-slr-mount-lets-you-shoot-5-
megapixel-photos-with-your/>
Davoud
Apr 15, 2013, 2:29:35 PM4/15/13
to
nospam:
them are getting..."
Todd Allcock:
Flickr photos?
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749871750/in/photostream/lightbo
x/> and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749858040/in/photostream/lightbox
/>
For each photo, click "Close" at upper right to see a smaller version
with details. Seriously, nothing against the iPhone camera for its
purpose, but it can't cut it for my purposes.
> > people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
That could also read "...with the relatively low quality that most of
them are getting..."
Todd Allcock:
> Or, it might be Flickr is used by two types of people- those who use it
> directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
> that upload later.
Bingo. No hints. Did I use an iPhone or a professional DSLR for these
> directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
> that upload later.
Flickr photos?
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749871750/in/photostream/lightbo
x/> and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749858040/in/photostream/lightbox
/>
For each photo, click "Close" at upper right to see a smaller version
with details. Seriously, nothing against the iPhone camera for its
purpose, but it can't cut it for my purposes.
Davoud
Apr 15, 2013, 2:31:50 PM4/15/13
to
Brian:
> I know of a
> famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
> zoom lens and just manual settings.
That would be Ansel Adams.
> famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
> zoom lens and just manual settings.
nospam
Apr 15, 2013, 2:40:02 PM4/15/13
to
In article <150420131429352094%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
> > > people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
>
> That could also read "...with the relatively low quality that most of
> them are getting..."
says whom?
if they're happy with the quality, then what difference does it make?
> Todd Allcock:
> > Or, it might be Flickr is used by two types of people- those who use it
> > directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
> > that upload later.
>
> Bingo. No hints. Did I use an iPhone or a professional DSLR for these
> Flickr photos?
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749871750/in/photostream/lightbo
> x/> and
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749858040/in/photostream/lightbox
> />
>
> For each photo, click "Close" at upper right to see a smaller version
> with details. Seriously, nothing against the iPhone camera for its
> purpose, but it can't cut it for my purposes.
nobody said the iphone is suitable for everyone in all situations.
wrote:
> > > people are satisfied with the quality they're getting from iphones.
>
> That could also read "...with the relatively low quality that most of
> them are getting..."
if they're happy with the quality, then what difference does it make?
> Todd Allcock:
> > Or, it might be Flickr is used by two types of people- those who use it
> > directly from their phones, and more serious users with better equipment
> > that upload later.
>
> Bingo. No hints. Did I use an iPhone or a professional DSLR for these
> Flickr photos?
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749871750/in/photostream/lightbo
> x/> and
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/7749858040/in/photostream/lightbox
> />
>
> For each photo, click "Close" at upper right to see a smaller version
> with details. Seriously, nothing against the iPhone camera for its
> purpose, but it can't cut it for my purposes.
nospam
Apr 15, 2013, 2:42:30 PM4/15/13
to
In article <150420131431500171%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
> > I know of a
> > famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
> > zoom lens and just manual settings.
>
> That would be Ansel Adams.
ansel adams used 35mm and medium format cameras in addition to a large
format view camera.
wrote:
> > I know of a
> > famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
> > zoom lens and just manual settings.
>
> That would be Ansel Adams.
format view camera.
Warren Oates
Apr 15, 2013, 4:45:17 PM4/15/13
to
> Brian:
> > I know of a
> > famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
> > zoom lens and just manual settings.
>
> That would be Ansel Adams.
Cartier-Bresson wandered around with a Leica and a 50mm lens hidden in a
> > I know of a
> > famous photographer that took great photos with a simple camera with no
> > zoom lens and just manual settings.
>
> That would be Ansel Adams.
handkerchief.
Here's something interesting:
http://ishupatel.com/bresson.html
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner
Alan Browne
Apr 15, 2013, 5:11:37 PM4/15/13
to
On 2013.04.15 04:35 , Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:19:17 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 2013.04.14 12:05 , David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2013 16:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
>>> I've hardly played with it yet, and I suspect that it really needs the
>>> iPad/iPhone to be tripod mounted. As it is (was?) free, it's worth a
>>> try.
>>
>> Surely. How do you tripod mount an iphone?
>
> With a home made clamp?
Of course. There are probably some that can be bought as well.
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:19:17 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 2013.04.14 12:05 , David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2013 16:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2013.04.14 06:38 , David Taylor wrote:
>>> I've hardly played with it yet, and I suspect that it really needs the
>>> iPad/iPhone to be tripod mounted. As it is (was?) free, it's worth a
>>> try.
>>
>> Surely. How do you tripod mount an iphone?
>
> With a home made clamp?
I was really pointing out that an iPhone doesn't have a tripod socket.
--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages