Time to stop flying?

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
09:59:32 on Tue, 8 Apr 2008, erilar
remarked:
Somehow I can't imagine a camera phone offering quality comparable to
even the lowest-quality setting on my camera, but some people don't care.

Having spent several years taking photos with a $1000 range digital
camera that had a 1MP 1024*768 resolution (the same as my laptop
screen, ands as much as I really need) 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.

cameras in phones are horrible. Poor optics, noisy sensors.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In some conditions, yes. But a 2MP picture in daylight is perfectly
acceptable. He's a popular one I've posted to Panoramio, view at full
screen for best effect:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560957

You manually mapping?

There are cameras out now with GPS chips which will tag the coordinates
of where a pic was snapped.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:49:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
The FAA and FCC have jurisdiction only in the U.S.

Irrelevant to the OP, which related to Euro airspace, not US

In message , at
18:57:41 on Tue, 8 Apr 2008, poldy remarked:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560957

You manually mapping?

Yes.

There are cameras out now with GPS chips which will tag the coordinates
of where a pic was snapped.

So I understand, however most of my pictures are quite old.

There are also phones with GPS - a cameraphone with GPS and automatic
mapping would be quite interesting - I wonder if they would work out of
a plane window?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
18:53:16 on Tue, 8 Apr 2008, poldy remarked:

cameras in phones are horrible. Poor optics, noisy sensors.

Many of them are pretty bad, I agree. But if the alternative is carrying
a "proper" camera everywhere, putting it through airport security,
carrying it into business meetings and so on; then I'll continue to take
some "holiday snaps" on a cameraphone, rather than have no photographic
capability at all.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
18:52:30 on Tue, 8 Apr 2008, poldy remarked:
Why not use a regular camera?

I've already covered that a couple of times: it's yet another thing to
carry around. I've already got a phone, a laptop and power supply (with
various foreign plugs), 3G modem and other bits and pieces, plus all my
papers. Perhaps if there was an obvious camera I could buy that was
about $50, the size of a mobile phone (or smaller) and took pictures
that were noticeably 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.
--
Roland Perry

Following up to Roland Perry

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.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

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.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Roland Perry

cameras in phones are horrible. Poor optics, noisy sensors.

Many of them are pretty bad, I agree. But if the alternative is carrying
a "proper" camera everywhere, putting it through airport security,
carrying it into business meetings and so on; then I'll continue to take
some "holiday snaps" on a cameraphone, rather than have no photographic
capability at all.

ive used a phone to take snaps of interesting food in restros, OK for that
and less obtrusive.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

Following up to Roland Perry

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)
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email