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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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