- Messages
- 9,264
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed.but it is better to post on here, as you will get more valuable advice and opinions.
Agreed.but it is better to post on here, as you will get more valuable advice and opinions.
Just a small point but some smart phones can record raw files.In my opinion, comparing phones to proper cameras is like comparing bicycles to cars. Both are great tools, but they are different. As Tysonator said, how could you take a picture of a bird that is 100 metres away with a phone? Or the Milky Way? Or a portrait of the bride and groom with a nice creamy background that makes them stand out? Etc.
And also, the image quality of Raw files is sooo much better than that of doctored Jpeg images from smartphones. For post-processing, the difference is night and day.
Just a small point but some smart phones can record raw files.
FWIW I started a project using a iPhone5 later changing to a 12pro, the difference in JPG file quality was stunning, in fact too 'camera like' for a low light gritty project. You can have it too good.
But, phone cameras have two major disadvantages. Firstly, they do all the thinking for us and we have no control
- and it's the control that makes the difference.
And, secondly, they are the worst possible design for use as a camera, they're the wrong shape, it's hard to hold them properly
and, with no viewfinder, can be difficult to see the screen in bright light.
Yes, but Denholme Velvets went bust many years ago, they're building houses on their site now . . .Come now, the same problem as view cameras, you just need a bit of black cloth
Actually they seem to be still trading, maybe new site. I don’t know Denholme, only been a couple of times.Yes, but Denholme Velvets went bust many years ago, they're building houses on their site now . . .
I go there twice a month, clay shooting on the top of the moors behind their site.Actually they seem to be still trading, maybe new site. I don’t know Denholme, only been a couple of times.
Hi AndrewHi all. it's me yet again lol. Just out of couriosity I took a few pictures in the garden with my mobile phone, and when I compared them to images taken with my Finepix s4200 bridge camera, I really struggle to see any difference in image quality, this has now got me thinking whether I should just use my phone lol, I could sort of understand it, if it was a newish phone but it is a Samaung Galaxy S4 mini, that is around 10 years old. It has the same size sensor (1/2.3) but only 8 MP compared to cameras 14MP, so apart from the zoom and a few controls on the camera, am I just going to use the camera for learning on rather than trying to get a good image ( clear and good IQ).
While using a 'phone for a photo-shoot, what happens if someone calls you ? - can't exactly have someone else answer it for you
Just read the entire thread, ignore all the advice given so far
Get a proper camera, like the guy on the picture below.
View attachment 401848
He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.
Don't forget to throw your phone in the bin (unless it's one of them dumbphones with no camera).
If the camera does not have a detachable lens, it's not considered to be a camera at all.
He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.
Just read the entire thread, ignore all the advice given so far
Get a proper camera, like the guy on the picture below.
View attachment 401848
He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.
Don't forget to throw your phone in the bin (unless it's one of them dumbphones with no camera).
If the camera does not have a detachable lens, it's not considered to be a camera at all.
I think you missed the sarcasm.He gives me exactly the opposite impression
For some definition of quality!. I'd rather have the extra reach than the quality for fun pics.
In tests earlier this year, the quality of a 10+ year old 12MP M43 Panasonic was better the latest iphone.The quality of photos taken with smartphone can rival the quality of shots taken with a $5000 camera...but the $5000 camera makes it possible to shoot using techniques and under a wider range of circumstances that would be not possible or difficult with smartphone alone.
Indeed, a 12MPixel camera quality at ISO 100 can be difficult to visually discern from a 50MPixel camera at ISO 100, when the image is simply filling an 8X enlargement, because the advantages of the 50MPixel image are academic...unable for the human eye to discern! A similar comment could be made about a 12MPixel 4/3 format shot vs the smartphone shot of similar size...the human eye and brain cannot see a clear difference. Instrumentation is needed to quantify the 'advantage' of one over the other unless the photographic situation is especially demanding in some way and the 'advantage' becomes visible in some way. Can one see 'better quality' in one of this pair of shots?!In tests earlier this year, the quality of a 10+ year old 12MP M43 Panasonic was better the latest iphone.
It all depends on what you mean by quality and how you want to use that quality.
Exactly (well just about)Indeed, a 12MPixel camera quality at ISO 100 can be difficult to visually discern from a 50MPixel camera at ISO 100, when the image is simply filling an 8X enlargement, because the advantages of the 50MPixel image are academic...unable for the human eye to discern! A similar comment could be made about a 12MPixel 4/3 format shot vs the smartphone shot of similar size...the cannot see a clear difference. Instrumentation is need to quantify the advantage of one over the other unless the photographic situation is especially demanding in some way.
Just because you like the photos you take does not mean they can't be improved upon. My D700 takes a nicer photo with less noise at iso 6400 than my D90 at iso 3200, for example.Seem's to me there a thread on here somewhere about sensor sizes and I just don't get it. Sensor size should not make any difference at all to less than a pro or someone looking to sell photo's and then I suspect it still doesn't matter. Comparing a 1" sensor to a larger one is actually pretty meaningless to me. If you like the picture's your getting with the smaller sensor, what's the purpose for changing? It's a strange thing but here in this country I see that happening a lot. People using something that works well for them then they hear that this other product is better so they throw away the item they were using and happy with to get something they think for some reason is better! In that article it think it was the lens for an APS camera they compared to an FF camera with a bigger sensor. It made a point that a 50mm lens in an APS camera was equalivent to I think it was an 85mm lens in a FF camera. I need to know, so what? People using an APS camera should find something somewhere that they like even if it's with a different lens! I'm thinking there's a 35mm difference between the APS and the full FF so can't you simply drop 35mm from the APS 50mm and dupe the 50mm FF? And even if your gonna chase that dog, what real different is there if you like what your getting with the APS 50mm? I think with comparing those things the whole real value in the difference is it gives people something to talk about! APS is not Full Frame, don't compare them and life get's easier!
Wouldn't you have to define "improved on"?Just because you like the photos you take does not mean they can't be improved upon.
Improved upon is specific to each individual, but you can be sure that the majority of individuals have their own definition of the term.Wouldn't you have to define "improved on"?
I know that some people are very keen on matters such as sharpness and colour fidelity but my guess is that, however many people share such opinions, far more people have quite different opinions of what makes a "good" picture.
To take an example from the world of paint: would anyone seriously claim that Rembrandt is a "better" painter than Renoir (or vice versa)? The technical rendition is very different but both made paintings that are highly enjoyable.
And to you that is all that matters. And quite right too.Improved upon is specific to each individual, but you can be sure that the majority of individuals have their own definition of the term.
I did give some examples of how, to me, one of my cameras is an improvement over the other.
In my opinion, comparing phones to proper cameras is like comparing bicycles to cars. Both are great tools, but they are different. As Tysonator said, how could you take a picture of a bird that is 100 metres away with a phone? Or the Milky Way? Or a portrait of the bride and groom with a nice creamy background that makes them stand out? Etc.
And also, the image quality of Raw files is sooo much better than that of doctored Jpeg images from smartphones. For post-processing, the difference is night and day.
Absolutely this ....a friend of my got his BIPP fellowship award using nothing but an iPhone ...that sorts the men from the boys !Me neither.
There is, so far as I'm aware, no legal definition of "a photographer". In my book, anyone who records an image through a lens is "a photographer".
A camera caddy - now there's a good idea.I thought it was someones caddy at first lol.
Aren't they called Assistants?A camera caddy - now there's a good idea.
They carry all the heavy kit and just hand it to you before you take your shot.
Did just under a year of that.Aren't they called Assistants?
Takes a long time and puts a lot of effort into saying:
Thats the one mate. Thanks.