If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
In message , at 07:46:54 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked: Rubbish for what purpose? If it's "look, here is Mt St Helens erupting, viewed from 30K feet", it's a good holiday snap. the point was about what sort of camera you might use in a plane. As you are shooting through a lump of distorting not very clean glass it makes little difference what camera you use. "rubbish" referred to technical quality, obviously many technically poor shots with sloping horizons and no foreground are of value to the people who took them, but not to photo editors or amateur enthusiasts. The main drawback of a camera phone on a plane (apart from being banned at the moment) is a lack of mechanical zoom. You can often (enough) get a good view of something worth taking, but it's normally a long way away. You can fix the horizons and perspective easily in photoshop, and the foreground of an aerial photo is somewhat moot. I wouldn't expect a photo-editor to be interested (unless it was a picture of a UFO or a mid-air near-miss etc) but as an "amateur enthusiast" it seems to me that lower quality pictures snatched from a hard-to-find angle are just as legitimate as faux-professional static photo shoots. -- Roland Perry |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
"erilar" wrote in message ... In article , "Mike....." wrote: Following up to Roland Perry I upgraded to another $1000 2MP 1600*1200 SLR-style digital camera. Imagine my surprise a couple of years later when my phone came with a "free" 2MP 1632*1224 camera built in. Not so good in low light, though. people get hung up on megapixels, thats only the "film". Have a look at the lens on an SLR and the lens on a phone and guess which one gets better shots! People do tend to forget about the lens in these megapixel days, don't they? 8-) Tell me about it. I'm looking for a new camera at the moment. Right now my researches tell me a 7 meg camera with a decent lens produces better results than a 12 meg one with a rubbish lens. But they (Kodak) don't do the nice lens with the big CCD for reasons people don't seem to want to talk about... -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
In message , at 07:49:09 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked: Following up to Roland Perry people get hung up on megapixels, thats only the "film". Have a look at the lens on an SLR and the lens on a phone and guess which one gets better shots! I've agreed that the smaller lens is not so good in poor light (no flash either). A lens isnt just about low light, there is distortion and poor resolution and focus to consider As for other aspects, if all you want is a 1MP wallpaper or a postcard sized print, the better camera phones can give adequate results. The other disadvantage is the shutter lag, so it helps if the subject isn't moving! I'm talking about the technical aspects of delivering quality in photos, its for the buyer to decide if thats something they want. Technical "quality" is one thing, but it's a fact of life that everyone doesn't wander around with a $5k SLR round their neck, and plenty of photo-opportunities are perfectly legitimate when exploited with cheaper and less technically perfect cameras. -- Roland Perry |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
In message , at 08:07:52 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked: better[1], I might carry it [2] around. [1] I did try this idea once, but the pictures were *worse*. [2] And the inevitable battery charger. if its got the same tiny lens it will probably not perform any better, it needs a focusing system, a decent sized lens, a metering system and reasonable megapixels to outperform the phone. (The next thing after that is manual control) So the pragmatic thing, if one doesn't want all the "baggage" of a serious camera is to use a phone. -- Roland Perry |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
Following up to Roland Perry
but as an "amateur enthusiast" it seems to me that lower quality pictures snatched from a hard-to-find angle are just as legitimate as faux-professional static photo shoots. they are "legitimate", whatever that means, but don't most amateur photographers look to get quality results? Post the results from a phone on a peer review site and they wont get a good response from amateur enthusiasts. -- "Mike....."(not "Mike") remove clothing to email |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
Following up to Roland Perry
Technical "quality" is one thing, yes and thats what i was talking about. but it's a fact of life that everyone doesn't wander around with a $5k SLR round their neck, you dont need to spend anything like that to get acceptable quality, you can probably beg a film SLR nowadays! But it will be bigger than a phone. and plenty of photo-opportunities are perfectly legitimate when exploited with cheaper and less technically perfect cameras. no doubt, my point was that phone shots are low quality -- "Mike....."(not "Mike") remove clothing to email |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
Following up to Roland Perry
if its got the same tiny lens it will probably not perform any better, it needs a focusing system, a decent sized lens, a metering system and reasonable megapixels to outperform the phone. (The next thing after that is manual control) So the pragmatic thing, if one doesn't want all the "baggage" of a serious camera is to use a phone. I'm not saying do otherwise. I'm saying the pic through a window wont be a great shot and phones take poor quality pics. -- "Mike....."(not "Mike") remove clothing to email |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
In message , at 10:12:10 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked: Following up to Roland Perry but as an "amateur enthusiast" it seems to me that lower quality pictures snatched from a hard-to-find angle are just as legitimate as faux-professional static photo shoots. they are "legitimate", whatever that means, but don't most amateur photographers look to get quality results? To me "good quality" is just as much the opportunity and subject matter, as having something that's more than 600dpi. Post the results from a phone on a peer review site and they wont get a good response from amateur enthusiasts. Sounds like those sorts of amateurs are techno-snobs. I posted such a picture here earlier (Barra Beach) is it really *that* bad quality I'd be ashamed to show my mother? -- Roland Perry |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
In message , at 10:15:45 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked: But it will be bigger than a phone. Which is the point. This is a travel group, travelling with lots of clutter isn't always a good idea. my point was that phone shots are low quality Lower quality (than some ideal that is subject to considerable annual inflation), but still acceptable. -- Roland Perry |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Time to stop flying?
In message , at 10:18:10
on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked: I'm saying the pic through a window wont be a great shot and phones take poor quality pics. And I disagree on both counts. -- Roland Perry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air lines flying non-stop/direct between two airports | Rowen[_2_] | Air travel | 0 | August 16th, 2007 01:28 AM |
PRESS RELEASE: CONTINENTAL TO STOP FLYING IN RAIN | [email protected] | Air travel | 8 | April 20th, 2007 09:20 AM |
Flying Time SYD-AUK | A Mate | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | May 24th, 2005 11:24 AM |
So Cal Fires Ground Stop if flying to Southern California | Linsifer | Cruises | 5 | October 28th, 2003 01:05 AM |
Ground Stop if flying to Southern California | Mike Cordelli | Cruises | 6 | October 27th, 2003 09:10 PM |