Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why not just use a cell phone?  (Read 7841 times)
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2013, 06:20:38 PM »
ReplyReply

You can buy a new 8x10 camera at B&H.

Cheers,
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #61 on: February 03, 2013, 07:13:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I remember a very talented photographer doing fashion, who had a set of shots done with a Polaroid Swinger. Client liked the look but not the format, so our nameless friend copied them over to some larger trannies, client loved them Smiley

Ah well, I guess youth maketh us revolutionaries, age bringeth US senators Smiley

Edmund
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 07:17:01 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 03, 2013, 07:18:13 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Also very valid, but I think the point was that any camera is better than no camera and that it was fun to use. I use my iPhone to take pics at times, simply as I have it with me and by time I've fetched a proper camera even from say another part of the house, I would have missed the moment.
Other times I've used my pocket camera, rather than getting my backpack off and using my FF DSLR.
As much as I love my high quality cameras, I hate the weight and bulk. I'm still waiting for the digital equivalent of my old Olympus XA 35mm camera, albeit with a 24mm rather than 35mm lens for my street photography. Tiny camera with a razor sharp lens and 35mm film.


« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 07:23:08 PM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 12215


« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2013, 03:40:44 AM »
ReplyReply

It's the inevitable thing in photographic life: you do it for fun or you do it for business or, even, you do it because it seems a good idea at the time.

I've taken lots of pix with my Samsung Galaxy (even devoted much time and a slot to it on my website), and the better they eventually turn out to be the more I resent not having shot them with a real camera. But, at the same time, I realise that I simply won't be carrying a camera around with me unless there's a preconceived purpose. I never have.

So what's the solution? Don't take the pix or carry on regardles of ultimate disappointment at jpeg and format?

But, I think things have reached a point where they might change. And price also becomes a consideration. My previous cellphones were small, inexpensive and handy devices that fitted seamlessly into my daily life. Not so the Samsung, and if these items get even larger, they will also become self-defeating because their real purpose will have been over-developed to the point of competing with other bits of gear more suited to purpose... another entry into the circle of rise and fall?

Rob C
Logged

opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2013, 03:58:45 AM »
ReplyReply

... and if these items get even larger, they will also become self-defeating because their real purpose will have been over-developed to the point of competing with other bits of gear more suited to purpose... another entry into the circle of rise and fall?

I very much agree with that first part, but it certainly isn't the fall just yet. It seems more like it's so new they are still trying to find the optimal functionality vs form-factor.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2013, 07:57:20 AM »
ReplyReply

My previous cellphones were small, inexpensive and handy devices that fitted seamlessly into my daily life. Not so the Samsung, and if these items get even larger, they will also become self-defeating because their real purpose will have been over-developed to the point of competing with other bits of gear more suited to purpose... another entry into the circle of rise and fall?

Rob C

Or one can say that a camera now needs a screen and electronics, but a compact will cost $200, an iPhone sells for $800 but people can afford it on a carrier plan, so in fact the cellphone has a much better screen and electronics and a good touch interface and is connected, and is aready a better camera  except it ... has a minimalistic lens/sensor.

So a cellphone or tablet with a real lens/sensor mounted on it should be much better than any compact.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2013, 02:24:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

One of the newer things that leads me to shake my poor head nowadays is the sight of those lidless 'tablets', covered in fingerprints, left lying on bar tables in full sunlight, usually in the putative care of children under ten. Why would anyone opt to be encumbered with such a thing? I have seen people taking photographs! with these dreadful 'accesories'. I now have discovered why everybody under forty seems to carry a backpack, even if just going to the local little town to have no more than a coffee or pay a visit to the bank! It's just to carry all the fashionable junk that they are all pressured into buying. Amazing! We used to think life should be travelled light.

Well, a fifteen-hundred-euro brand-new M9 would be about right on my scale of values. With a 35mm lens included, of course. That's what value really means.

Rob C
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2013, 02:34:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Or one can say that a camera now needs a screen and electronics, but a compact will cost $200, an iPhone sells for $800 but people can afford it on a carrier plan, so in fact the cellphone has a much better screen and electronics and a good touch interface and is connected, and is aready a better camera  except it ... has a minimalistic lens/sensor.

So a cellphone or tablet with a real lens/sensor mounted on it should be much better than any compact.

Edmund

Samsung Galaxy phone.

Great screen, Android OS and a pretty good lens. Connected and all of that....







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

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #68 on: February 04, 2013, 02:51:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

the Samsung Galaxy is awesome ! I happened to try one recently for some days and watch the owner shoot amazing stuff with it (the camera software is way cool!)
The coolest feature even if nobody will believe it : itīs about the best WLan access point available. Super stable and fast, battery lasts very long.
And - Iīm sure there will be a version 2 that can also be used as a phone !
Itīs just logical. Samsung will do this.

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
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #69 on: February 04, 2013, 02:58:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Branding confusion? My Samsung Galaxy Ace is a cellphone and camera too. It doesn't look anything like the white 'camera' version of Samsung Galaxy posted here! It's flat!

Rob C
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2013, 03:21:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Branding confusion? My Samsung Galaxy Ace is a cellphone and camera too. It doesn't look anything like the white 'camera' version of Samsung Galaxy posted here! It's flat!

Rob C

This thing is amazing in the precision with which it lets you compose a shot.
Problem is the cr*ppy Samsungy postprocessing and what it does to skin textures etc.
Maybe the next one they will put a decent camera on it.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2013, 05:12:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

the Samsung Galaxy is awesome ! I happened to try one recently for some days and watch the owner shoot amazing stuff with it (the camera software is way cool!)
The coolest feature even if nobody will believe it : itīs about the best WLan access point available. Super stable and fast, battery lasts very long.
And - Iīm sure there will be a version 2 that can also be used as a phone !
Itīs just logical. Samsung will do this.

Regards
Stefan

The post processing on this camera are pretty cool too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYMXxTNbUc

Sample from flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redbuslondon/8176575192/sizes/l/in/photostream/
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 09:34:27 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2013, 05:42:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

That is the camera I was speaking of - yes the naming is totally confusing...... So
Samsung Galaxy Camera (with android and Zoom lens).
Ricardo Liberato is using one, we had used this for up to5 people as an access point in Dubai and also in Norwich - no problem !
Also image quality is really good Definitely a step further than phones normally. And the zoom really makes a difference.

I wish - Phase or Blad would do something like this with a decent MF CMOS. Could be double or triple the size.
I would love that. Maybe with a plugin slot for an iPhone.

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
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #73 on: February 04, 2013, 11:29:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Stefan,

I took a few trial shots with this thing but they didn't "look" so good -in fact they looked worse than my iPhone- so I never bought one.
Nothing like the Nokia PureView images you posted.
However the functionality, speed and fluidity, of the device was amazing, exactly what you would want to take pictures of your kids and send them to Facebook, or tell everybody about your wonderful trip abroad, minute by minute.

Edmund

Fred

That is the camera I was speaking of - yes the naming is totally confusing...... So
Samsung Galaxy Camera (with android and Zoom lens).
Ricardo Liberato is using one, we had used this for up to5 people as an access point in Dubai and also in Norwich - no problem !
Also image quality is really good Definitely a step further than phones normally. And the zoom really makes a difference.

I wish - Phase or Blad would do something like this with a decent MF CMOS. Could be double or triple the size.
I would love that. Maybe with a plugin slot for an iPhone.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6925


WWW
« Reply #74 on: February 04, 2013, 11:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Hasselblad is trying CMOS, it's called Lunar. They use exclusive materials and snake oil, they could perhaps also add a GSM module?

Best regards
Erik

Fred

That is the camera I was speaking of - yes the naming is totally confusing...... So
Samsung Galaxy Camera (with android and Zoom lens).
Ricardo Liberato is using one, we had used this for up to5 people as an access point in Dubai and also in Norwich - no problem !
Also image quality is really good Definitely a step further than phones normally. And the zoom really makes a difference.

I wish - Phase or Blad would do something like this with a decent MF CMOS. Could be double or triple the size.
I would love that. Maybe with a plugin slot for an iPhone.

Regards
Stefan
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2013, 02:16:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Stefan,

I took a few trial shots with this thing but they didn't "look" so good -in fact they looked worse than my iPhone- so I never bought one.
Nothing like the Nokia PureView images you posted.
However the functionality, speed and fluidity, of the device was amazing, exactly what you would want to take pictures of your kids and send them to Facebook, or tell everybody about your wonderful trip abroad, minute by minute.Edmund



Edmund, I love your sense of fun and suspended hysteria! It's made my morning.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #76 on: February 05, 2013, 03:31:32 AM »
ReplyReply


It depends where you look...

The dynamic range on the Nokia is not good at all and the highlights are very poor.



and the color tones are irregular. Some colors are saturated and some are dull. Fine detail like the feathers (or like hair)
are muddy.



Still impressive for a cell phone, but doesn't come close to the V1 either IMO.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #77 on: February 05, 2013, 03:48:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred

Below I compared the Nokia, the Pentax 645 (which is MF) and the D800 (FF 35). Interestingly, the Pentax comes first with a nicely textured image, the Nokia also preserves the texturing, while the D800 and 1V1 are completely losing the subtle curvy lines in the blue. Which could be due to edge sharpness, but then the text shouldn't be sharp, so I put it down to third-rate in-camera processing.

Of course, one can protest my choice from the scene, and the quality of the DP tests, but the very fact that we are actually need to debate and test whether a PHONE is as good or inferior to a D800 is frightening.

The D800 has an 85mm F1.8 stopped down to F11 in this test, we are talking about $4K of state of the art product. Good show, Pentax, Nikon -please try and do better!

Edmund


It depends where you look...

Still impressive for a cell phone, but doesn't come close to the V1 either IMO.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 03:59:45 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #78 on: February 05, 2013, 04:04:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a comparison of the Pentax and the Nokia Phone with both the D800 and D800E in the bottom row.
Whatever the issue with the Nikons is, it cannot be attributed to the AA filter as both models fare equally badly.

Sorry guys but the phone is in the class of the MF camera (!) the Nikons are just 35mm quality Smiley

Before I started this thread I had never looked at a Nokia image, and I would never have imagined that a phone can be mentioned in the same breath as an MF product or a high-end SLR with a top lens, in a studio comparison. I just wonder why none of us realized how good the phones are.

Edmund
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 04:11:17 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #79 on: February 05, 2013, 04:10:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a comparison of the Pentax and the Nokia Phone with both the D800 and D800E in the bottom row.
Whatever the issue with the Nikons is, it cannot be attributed to the AA filter as both models fare badly.

That's because they don't properly focus the camera/lens over at dpreview. Just move the rectangle to the center of the image where the needlepoint shows in front of a cross. Every camera pretty much has different depth of field showing there. Don't quite understand how one is supposed to compare the images there...
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad