Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why not just use a cell phone?  (Read 11074 times)
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 656


« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2013, 02:36:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I have taken the liberty of making a crop from the largest size of Stefan's posted  image. It is frightening how sharp this is . As Stefan says, if this is a cellphone, and a P25 is a MFdb, then the phone beats the db.

 Huh Huh Huh

I had a look at the full resolution here. While the results are impressive for a phone, there are nowhere close to SLR quality. There is noise all over the sky, the mountains in the distance look like watercolor painting  and there is chromatic aberration on every flag pole.

I find the picture quite illustrative of the problems caused by reducing sensor size, actually.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at that phone.  Have a friend in Paris that shot it for a fashion spread.  With enough retouching it looked ok.

Not to knock anybody, but it's shitty phone, out of date operating system, shitty camera and for the effort of having to carry something so strange and lumpy you can buy a small Sony camera, a good I phone and actually have two workable devices.

I know, I know we always have a phone on us, not always a camera and I'm not a photojournalist, don't shoot hardly any street photographs, but if I'm serious about making a photograph I'll take a camera, if I'm serious about using a smart phone for e-mail, text, web, phone and data bases I'll either use an Iphone or a Samsung.

Now someday we may have a phone that shoots movies like an Arriflex, stills like a IQ 180, but until then I'd carry two lumps in my pockets.  (yes I know the lump thing will open up a lot of replies).

IMO

BC
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2013, 04:00:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd think that there is an advantage to size. Bigger can be better. To a certain limit, size can be compensated by engineering. Like better lenses, higher sensor resolution. The Nokia phone is an example of this. On the other hand, I actually think that my RX100 can make image of at least the same quality. I may be wrong. It is probably not much larger than the Nokia phone, shoots raw and has a zoom. I shot a comparison of my RX-100 with my Alpha 900. Camera on RRS 3 series tripod, Arca 4D head, looked at bit funny. I would say that Alpha 900 probably had a small edge (at actual pixels). Just to point out, this was not a test. At least my RX-100 has bad sharpness off axis in the long end.

Anyway, a camera in the hand will make better images than any camera parked in the trunk of a car 500 m away, or sitting on bookshelf in Tokio.

I think it's correct to say that small sensors are driving developments. Surveillance cameras -> cell phones -> P&S -> advanced P&S -> 4/3 and APS/C -> Full frame. Right now development stops at full frame.

Three interesting developments are:

- Shrinking design rules. Canon sensors are made with 0.5 micron rules, new CMOSIS sensor for Leica 0.018 micron rules (if I recall correctly). Shrinking rules reduce size of components not distributing the image, thus increasing fill factors.

- Shared pixels. Two or more pixels share some of the electronics. Increases fill factor.

- BackSide Illuminated sensors. Increases fill factor and works better large beam inclinations.

All these technologies are introduced and small sensors and migrates to larger sizes.

Best regards
Erik


I looked at that phone.  Have a friend in Paris that shot it for a fashion spread.  With enough retouching it looked ok.

Not to knock anybody, but it's shitty phone, out of date operating system, shitty camera and for the effort of having to carry something so strange and lumpy you can buy a small Sony camera, a good I phone and actually have two workable devices.

I know, I know we always have a phone on us, not always a camera and I'm not a photojournalist, don't shoot hardly any street photographs, but if I'm serious about making a photograph I'll take a camera, if I'm serious about using a smart phone for e-mail, text, web, phone and data bases I'll either use an Iphone or a Samsung.

Now someday we may have a phone that shoots movies like an Arriflex, stills like a IQ 180, but until then I'd carry two lumps in my pockets.  (yes I know the lump thing will open up a lot of replies).

IMO

BC
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4208



« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2013, 10:35:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at that phone.  Have a friend in Paris that shot it for a fashion spread.  With enough retouching it looked ok.

BC

Reminds me of what people used to say about 35mm.

Edmund
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2013, 10:44:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Speed Graphic rules! Doesn't it?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Graphic

Best regards
Erik

Reminds me of what people used to say about 35mm.

Edmund
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2439



WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2013, 09:42:24 PM »
ReplyReply


1st, the n808 does some things a dedicated pocket came can't - huge DOF even close up, and you can e-mail and text images straight from it, or upload them to facebook or flickr.  Try that with the Sony.  I never said it would be as good as a P25 or 5d2 but I am impressed.  It absolutely eats the iphone in low light for example.

2nd, I'm so over the iphone.  I'm done with it.  Even the nokia 808 has swype and a good map function. You can download the maps on the nokia so that you don't need to have good signal - you know when you are out of coverage trying to find a remote location what is the iphone going to do for you? 

3rd the n808 gets better reception than the iphone and has better sound quality.   It's a better phone in so many ways except for the symbian OS.  But in fact I found most of everything I used on my iPhone.   

I got mine for a bit over $500 on amazon and i don't have to pay any contract fee's so its actually quite a bit cheaper than the iphone was monthly.

Not defending it, cause I also purchased a Samsung Note 2 at the same time.  I tried all three and decided to keep both the nokia and the note. I like the big screen of the note for reading news and stuff and it also has swype that works.   I do not miss my iphone for anything.



Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2013, 12:29:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Done some more N808 stuff the last days in London.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartblei/8441098271/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartblei/8441888414/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartblei/8442029374/sizes/o/in/photostream/

It is fun. For me thatīs enough. A freedom of not having to think "now I will do something serious" and carry equipment.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2013, 12:39:05 PM »
ReplyReply

35mm
Polariod
Holga
Disk
APS (you remember it was a film format first)
16mm
Minox
compact digital
m4/3
and now cell phones

When do we actually start talking about something new in photography?
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2013, 12:45:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Done some more N808 stuff the last days in London.
It is fun. For me thatīs enough. A freedom of not having to think "now I will do something serious" and carry equipment.
Well said. Fun is something that is all too often forgotten when people start pixel peeping.
[My bolding]
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2013, 12:51:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Cell phones are becoming quite amazing, but the main problem I have with them from a photography point of view is the lack of dynamic range.

No pixel peeping needed to see the drawback of low dynamic range.... all you need is a white and a black dog in California sunshine Wink
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4208



« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2013, 01:23:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Done some more N808 stuff the last days in London.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartblei/8441098271/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartblei/8441888414/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hartblei/8442029374/sizes/o/in/photostream/

It is fun. For me thatīs enough. A freedom of not having to think "now I will do something serious" and carry equipment.

Regards
Stefan

The first of Stefan's images would make a more saleable A3 print than most of the pictures I have shot in my life, technically as well as artistically. And if you look at the photo magazines of the 60s and 70s you see a lot of printed stuff that was not up to this technical quality and still first rate artistically.

Attached is my own image shot through the Leica S area at Photokina. My feeling from what I'm seeing these days is that if Apple wanted to make a $1200 camera instead of a $800 iPhone (!), the resulting combination of software and hardware would outstrip just about everything out there if not in quality, at least in practical applicability. People here forget that the cheap compact cameras which they affect to despise cost much less than iPhone or iPad, before subsidy.

Edmund
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 01:25:40 PM by eronald » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2013, 01:29:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Cell phones are becoming quite amazing, but the main problem I have with them from a photography point of view is the lack of dynamic range.

No pixel peeping needed to see the drawback of low dynamic range.... all you need is a white and a black dog in California sunshine Wink


Shucks, Fred, just get a black and white one instead: problem solved!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2013, 02:05:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Well said. Fun is something that is all too often forgotten when people start pixel peeping.
[My bolding]

Stefan's photographs are pretty.  Only he knows if a different camera would have changed anything and really, it's only up to him to judge.

My point is until a cell phone reaches the use of something like a RX100 I don't see the point, other than a lot of people just won't carry a camera.

We're all different, but I've never taken a cell phone image in my life where I didn't wish I had a better camera in my hands.

IMO

BC

Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2013, 02:23:07 PM »
ReplyReply

BC -
the frightening part is that even if you compare the Nokia to a D800 it can hold up pretty well.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nokia_pureview808&masterSample=2012-07-20-0457&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nokia_pureview808&slot0Sample=2012-07-20-0457&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nokia_pureview808&slot1Sample=2012-07-26-0596&slot2Camera=nikon_d800&slot2Sample=dsc_8318&slot3Camera=nikon_v1&slot3Sample=dsc_0304&x=0.001756440281030445&y=0.004189944134078212

even if the samples on DPreview are not actually shot very precisely and they probably did only use the standard camera app and res(I use Camera Pro and the full 41,5 Mpix the sample is 36 Mpix) you can use photoshop to make a better matched image and then it really gets crazy. Of course the Nikon has a much better overall noise dynamic range and color clarity, but once you scale both down 50% the distance will diminish visually a lot. And this "thing" is always there. A DSLR is probably not. I have now found that even if I wait for something, or have slight piece of spare time passing by somewhere, I can start taking images for 5 or 10 minutes just use what I actually see. THAT is the biggest change.
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2013, 02:25:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I think that cell phones are there when it happens. We see a lot of footage from cell phones and it will come more. The Nokia phone has a larger sensor than cell phone cameras usually have. Cell phones have also new technology, like BSI (Back Side Illumination). I presume cell phones will get better, but there is always an advantage to size which you cannot compensate with technology alone. For instance, I'm pretty sure that an IQ180 has more detail than any APS-C or full frame. I'm also certain that the IQ180 has smoother medium grays than any full frame or APS-C, at base ISO. Those advantages come from size and cannot be compensated by technology. Rendition of shadow detail is another area where great progress has been made on CMOS sensors, with CCDs being on a much slower development curve.

The other issue is being good enough. Cell phones are perhaps good enough. I'm pretty sure that a decent cell phone today can make better images than a Leica with Tri-X 20 years ago. A Leica with Technical Pan is another thing. I'm pretty sure a Leica with Technical Pan would make images of higher quality than a Hasselblad with Tri-X, but Leicas were probably seldom used with Technical Pan. Many of the most well known images were made with Leicas and Tri-X.

Demands also change, todays cameras have clean images at perhaps 6400ISO, unheard of in film days.

Times are changing, and difficult to foresee the future is.

Best regards
Erik


Stefan's photographs are pretty.  Only he knows if a different camera would have changed anything and really, it's only up to him to judge.

My point is until a cell phone reaches the use of something like a RX100 I don't see the point, other than a lot of people just won't carry a camera.

We're all different, but I've never taken a cell phone image in my life where I didn't wish I had a better camera in my hands.

IMO

BC


« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 02:45:15 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2013, 02:29:01 PM »
ReplyReply

BC -
the frightening part is that even if you compare the Nokia to a D800 it can hold up pretty well.

That's what we have been saying all that time. Compared to a MFDB the D800 really is no better than a cellphone.

 Cool Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 03, 2013, 02:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Relax - nobody says the Nokia does better stuff than the IQ180 or a Credo 80.
I hope so - do have an IQ180 for the next time to work with.   Smiley
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2013, 02:41:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Stefan,

I get it, but don't get it in a way.

I don't do walk around photography, but see some nice things sometimes.  Yesterday was shooting some background plates of the sky and sun going down with my Leica M8 and the 24mm I rarely take off.

I turned around to leave and saw the most beautiful view of downtown.  I tried to make it work but with the 24 (or 35mm if you factor in the crop), it just didn't work, not close.

Had I owned that little Sony I could have shot something pretty, though don't know what I would have done with it.

Anyway, I'm not an apple fanatic but I have about a trillion of their devices and I'm kind of stuck in their system, so any other phone would just be a camera to me, not a phone so I might as well carry a small camera.

IMO

BC
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2013, 02:56:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Phone cameras are small, because cell phones are small, but it would very easy to build a cell phone into an RX100. It has a microphone, a loudspeaker and also an LCD. So it just need a GSM-module and an internal antenna.

Still, an RX-100 is no D800 killer. It is an RX-100, no more but also not less.

I don't really see cell cameras replacing high end photo gear, but who knows what the future brings.

Best regards
Erik

Stefan,

I get it, but don't get it in a way.

I don't do walk around photography, but see some nice things sometimes.  Yesterday was shooting some background plates of the sky and sun going down with my Leica M8 and the 24mm I rarely take off.

I turned around to leave and saw the most beautiful view of downtown.  I tried to make it work but with the 24 (or 35mm if you factor in the crop), it just didn't work, not close.

Had I owned that little Sony I could have shot something pretty, though don't know what I would have done with it.

Anyway, I'm not an apple fanatic but I have about a trillion of their devices and I'm kind of stuck in their system, so any other phone would just be a camera to me, not a phone so I might as well carry a small camera.

IMO

BC
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2013, 05:59:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Technology always has the answer. It has been over 75 years since you could buy an 8x10 view camera new.

And here lies the paradox. It doesn't matter if you look at the high-end or low-end, there are captivating images being made. Image quality adds "flavor" to the image, but good imagery is not defined by technical criteria. Pick up a copy of the World History of Photography. Technology is making leaps and bounds, but the quality of the images are always high.

So we return to the same old discussion when someone finds good images made by what someone thinks as "inferior" equipment. The issue is not in the object, but the perception of that object. We like looking at interesting things and that has nothing to do with resolution or DR.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad