The Instamatic of Today

Don't be afraid of using it. The smartphone that is. It just as good as
the old pocket instamatic... And you can Photoshop in "camera"!

Picture taken with a Xperia M4... Vanilla jpeg and Photoshop Express
pimped:

http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

The best camera is the one that you have with you!
--
teleportation kills

| Don't be afraid of using it. The smartphone that is.

The other day I watched as a friend tried to
attach his new system of multiple lenses to
the back of an iPhone. I wondered: Since it's
digital, is megapixels all that really matters?
Does it really make sense to invest in a telephoto
lens for an iPhone rather than to buy a good
camera? It seemed silly, but I don't know
enough to judge.

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Don't be afraid of using it. The smartphone that is.

The other day I watched as a friend tried to
attach his new system of multiple lenses to
the back of an iPhone. I wondered: Since it's
digital, is megapixels all that really matters?

megapixels is just one thing that matters, and at this point, there's
more than enough for most purposes because people don't print huge
images. they send them via text message or look at them on a computer.

low noise, colour accuracy and wide dynamic range are as important, if
not more important.

Does it really make sense to invest in a telephoto
lens for an iPhone rather than to buy a good
camera? It seemed silly, but I don't know
enough to judge.

for some people it might be, because they won't need to carry a second
camera. plus, iphone accessory lenses are small.

accessory lenses for compact p&s cameras were also common, back when
people used to use p&s cameras. now they use phones.

it's obviously not going to match the quality of an slr (nor would
anyone expect that), but it's less expensive, a lot more portable and
probably good enough.

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

lots of things do and it's not the same for everyone.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too, but those sensors are very
limiting. Anyway, I don't think you can go wrong with any name brand
camera these days, and 90% of buyers would never see any differences
among them.

On 2015-09-19 05:17:29 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various
places. People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I have become fond of my X-E2. The weight reduction from my D300S +
battery grip is remarkable, and the X-E2 has become my carry everywhere
camera. It is APS-C and produces images the equal (or better) to the
D300S. I can slip an extra lens into a pocket without any trouble.

....and for those moments I don't have a "real" camera with me, I have
my iPhone.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 19/09/2015 06:35, Savageduck wrote:
[]
I have become fond of my X-E2. The weight reduction from my D300S +
battery grip is remarkable, and the X-E2 has become my carry everywhere
camera. It is APS-C and produces images the equal (or better) to the
D300S. I can slip an extra lens into a pocket without any trouble.

...and for those moments I don't have a "real" camera with me, I have my
iPhone.

Same he Panasonic GX7 (micro-four-thirds) with 10:1 zoom compared to
Nikon D5200 & 10:1 zoom, extra lenses like the Olympus 9-18 mm zoom, and
9 mm fisheye are no size or weight at all. "Moments" can be caught on
the Moto G3 phone.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2015-09-19 06:09:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:35:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-19 05:17:29 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various
places. People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I have become fond of my X-E2. The weight reduction from my D300S +
battery grip is remarkable, and the X-E2 has become my carry everywhere
camera. It is APS-C and produces images the equal (or better) to the
D300S. I can slip an extra lens into a pocket without any trouble.

...and for those moments I don't have a "real" camera with me, I have
my iPhone.

I don't think you need to own a X-E2 to have a very suitable
substitute for a "real" camera. Many of the p&s, or compact, cameras
in the $100 to $150 range provide very good images in certain
situations.

Rich is the individual who brought "real" camera into the conversation,
hence the way I typed it.
I fully accept compacts as "real" cameras. My other lifeboat camera is
a Canon G-11 which has served me well, especially on that South Africa
trip when it was all I had for the last week there.

If you step up the price a little bit, and get one that has the
ability to shoot in RAW (as mine does), a compact camera can produce
excellent results in certain situations.

Yup!

Last night we went out to dinner to celebrate the birthday of one of
my grandsons. I took my compact into the restaurant and came away
with some snaps that are quite acceptable. My dslr would have been
overkill.

An appropriate time for a compact, the X-E2 is certainly small enough
for that task. It compares quite well with my G-11.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6qjeduiyrnsn9u/AABNbvuMPxc7pER1bNzPR6fAa?dl=0


The grandson, by the way, was taking iPhone snaps with his iPhone5 (or
5s, I'm not sure) on a selfie rod using a remote device. He turned it
to get the whole table of seven people. I saw them only in the phone,
but they looked pretty good.

The iPhone 5(S) has an acceptable camera, the iP6S is even better. Rich
might even deem it a "real" camera if he would get over his anti-Apple
issue.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-09-19 06:45:36 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:34:16 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Last night we went out to dinner to celebrate the birthday of one of
my grandsons. I took my compact into the restaurant and came away
with some snaps that are quite acceptable. My dslr would have been
overkill.

An appropriate time for a compact, the X-E2 is certainly small enough
for that task. It compares quite well with my G-11.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w6qjeduiyrnsn9u/AABNbvuMPxc7pER1bNzPR6fAa?dl=0


That's more kit than I would want to carry into a crowded restaurant.
And, I mean just the body and one lens. My compact slips into a shirt
pocket.

....but you see what I mean with the size comparison. These days unless
I have something specific in mind the X-E2 is the go to camera and the
D300S stays at home.

And, it's not like this is the only opportunity I have for family
photographs. One shot in the book of the grandson on his birthday is
all I wanted. I'll be photographing him and his brother tomorrow when
they play football, and Sunday when he's having a paintball gun party
with friends.

Be careful, you might become the designated target in a freefire zone.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Friday, 18 September 2015 14:08:39 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:13:55 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I'd be interested to see a discussion of that:
What, besides the basic light sensor, makes
the camera.

I'm in the camp that would say sensor size is the main thing now. With
the major brands, everything else is comparable, and more than
acceptable to most. We know that sensor size is going to determine the
quality of large prints, but what's most important to some of us is
low light image quality. At the same time, neither of those is
important to lots of people. I think the minimum is APS-C, but some of
the posters here who ain't exactly newbies, are happy with 4/3
cameras. The excuse for anything smaller is that at least you have it
with you, and it's perfectly valid, too

Or, it's laziness or fear of carrying a real camera into various places.
People are trend-driven and self-conscious.

I think that half frame is the minimum for a serious camera too. But for
those that are contended with jpegs you can go along way with with a
phone these days. And sometimes it might be all you got. I think mFT is
a halfway house that makes few happy. Bigger is better, but something is
better than nothing. I usually have the EOS-M with the 22mm in my bag.
--
teleportation kills

On 20/09/2015 05:33, android wrote:
[]
I think that half frame is the minimum for a serious camera too. But for
those that are contended with jpegs you can go along way with with a
phone these days. And sometimes it might be all you got. I think mFT is
a halfway house that makes few happy. Bigger is better, but something is
better than nothing. I usually have the EOS-M with the 22mm in my bag.

Have you used a recent mFT system at all? Do you have direct personal
experience over an extended period? If you did, you might have a
different opinion......

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu