Why will mobile device cameras probably never have the QOR of SLRs?

On Wed, 10 May 2017 21:34:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 8:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 22:16:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I think the writing is on the wall for lenses, although it will be a
good few years yet.

lenses aren't going away any time soon.

I'm glad we seem to be in agreement but remember Kodak's attitude to
digital photography.

Talk to some professionals. The need for interchangeable lenses has
diminished with cameras like the Fuji X100. It obviously isn't for
sports photographers than need the Canon BWLs (big white lenses) but
it's a fine alternative to lugging around an SLR and more lenses than
you're likely to need.

The comparison to Apple is rather amusing.
http://www.cultofmac.com/222236/fujifilm-x100-is-the-best-digital-camera-i-have-ever-used-review/

But it still uses a lens.

I am forecasting the day when the majority of cameras will not.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-05-11, Piet wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
newshound wrote:
Before 35 mm film became ubiquitous, "folding" cameras using 120 film
were widely used by the enthusiastic amateur. I suppose I could just
about visualise a similar arrangement in a mobile phone, allowing
something like an FF sensor together with a modern pancake lens.

Or a mobile phone with a 6x9cm sensor on the back, behind a 'dark
slide', along with a separate box containing a prime 10cm lens with a
silk bellows and a slide-holder (what used to be called 'a camera', in
fact).

Excellent idea: a mocam. 3D-print your own one.

-p

Could be quite interesting to see some movies shot through a camera
making full use of a rising front and swing back.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I think the writing is on the wall for lenses, although it will be a
good few years yet.

lenses aren't going away any time soon.

I'm glad we seem to be in agreement but remember Kodak's attitude to
digital photography.

kodak's attitude was that digital would replace film, and they were
exactly correct.

what they got wrong was how fast it was going to happen.

a lot of people make that same mistake about technology.

That's exactly what I was saying about lenses, or did you already
realise that?

lenses aren't going away any time soon.

In article om, JF
Mezei wrote:


lenses aren't going away any time soon.

The laws of physics limit the quality of an image going through a lens.

the laws of physics limit a lot of things.

Refraction etc. The wider the lens, the better the quality and more
details you can PHYSICALLY get to the sensor.

nope. the wider the aperture, the more light passes through it. quality
& amount of detail depend on *other* factors.

laws of physics limit what
quality you can get (assuming perfect lens quality) on a lens the size
of a smartphone.

the limiting factor is mainly the sensor.

In article om, JF
Mezei wrote:


nope. the wider the aperture, the more light passes through it. quality
& amount of detail depend on *other* factors.

I was talking at the wavelength level.

no you weren't.

Refraction limits how many
separate wavelengths can pass through a lens without interfering with
each other. We studied this in physiscs class way back when. Think of
photons traveling too close to each other and their energy is evened
out, yielding 2 photos of identical energy instead of 2 photons with
totally indepenent energy levels as they entered the lens.

you might want to review what you claim to have studied.

I don't know that this is at a scale that matters for iPhone size
lenses. But it does limit what a spy satellite can see on earth for
instance.

you're right, you don't know.

Also consider that the blending of pixel energy may result in a 23MP
sensor recording only 12MP worth of separate pixels because a number of
pixels get "blended" and register identical levels by the time they hit
the 23MP sensor.

pixel energy?

you're off your meds again.