|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 24, 2014 8:44:57 GMT
[Note to mod, "Strange ideas"?..move as appropriate, I cant think of anywhere this one "Fits"...]
My phone can take pictures just as well as my DSLR - which means my DSLR is an obsolete model. - and of course, my DSLR has better glass.
Can we get the add-ons, strap-ons (lenses) and the gear of the crud that certain i-phoney enthusiasts claim is just as good as a DSLR, and have the pixel count done to see who gets higher resolution.
An i-phoney, or a D5 Canon.... insert other units as appropriate.....
It must be taken that Optical zoom is better than digital zoom, because we can all do that digital zoom, and I have much better enlargement mathematics-grams on my PC than you get in any camera.
I take the original statement from TLW at face value, he believes that his DSLR has been overtaken by technology, and that now even a phone is better....
In that case, we must contain our research to MODERN units.
I insist that Macro work be done as part of the process, as photographing very small objects is a great topic for discussion on good photography sites.
I insist Zoom work be part of the test as well. I have a x200 and x400 lens as standard part of DSLR enthusiast kit.
I insist reduced light where flash is important be taken into consideration.
I also suggest that broadcast quality High Definition Video be taken into consideration, as many newer DSLR's have embraced the ability to out-smart TV camera's.
I also insist that those people who refuse to take part in real life and prefer to watch live events through a tiny whiney screen so they can replay the shaky footage as bragging rights, be taken to some sort of Gig, two nights running, and see if they notice how much they missed, when on the second night when we confiscate their damn phoney thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 24, 2014 9:25:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 24, 2014 9:36:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 24, 2014 9:43:24 GMT
All of them so far have been "Shrunk" to fit the board.
I could cheat, and inspect elements to see what EXIF data is available....
But thats on the other operating system (I am on lynux at the mo)
Any photograph that has been sent via Internet looses some clarity.
Proboards does not have the ability to store your photographs in anything but JPEG.
Not one of those is a direct comparison between DSLR and phone.
What we need here is a direct comparison, Tripod mount, (To reduce noise and need of anti-shake algorithms) of the exact same shot at the same time between the two compatible machines.
Then extend the zoom for a close up.....
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 24, 2014 9:46:43 GMT
By the way, a tip, if you want to try some Macro "Close up" work....
I use a zoom lens and stand further back..... with a SOLID tripod and remote shutter switch.
If you zoom in a good quality long lens you get exactly the same result as a close-up lens.
With half the trouble.
And a better depth of field.
Unless you want to set a limited depth of field that is?....
And remember the beauty of DSLR ... "Delete"......
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 24, 2014 10:01:32 GMT
By the way, a tip, if you want to try some Macro "Close up" work.... I use a zoom lens and stand further back..... with a SOLID tripod and remote shutter switch. If you zoom in a good quality long lens you get exactly the same result as a close-up lens. With half the trouble. And a better depth of field. Unless you want to set a limited depth of field that is?.... And remember the beauty of DSLR ... "Delete"...... when I was doing some pictures of jewelry for Mrs TLW to put on Ebay, I drove the camera directly from the computer. more or less, because it is also so old it is still a true DLR shutter sysem, so I had to aim through the optical viewfinder. the camera takes 3456X2304 the phone takes 3264X1840 but the camera images are about 4X the file size. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 24, 2014 12:49:17 GMT
Not that this isn't valid, but it automatically jumps into the realm of product testing, which is something they won't do on the show.
They do it on tested.com though, so maybe Norm or one of the other guys over there will pick this up? Maybe send them an e-mail and tell them that here's a chance for them to do some myth busting of their own?
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on May 29, 2014 19:21:15 GMT
It must be taken that Optical zoom is better than digital zoom, because we can all do that digital zoom, and I have much better enlargement mathematics-grams on my PC than you get in any camera. I insist Zoom work be part of the test as well. I have a x200 and x400 lens as standard part of DSLR enthusiast kit. Given that almost all phone lenses are very small aperture, fixed focus lenses, they can only zoom using digital techniques. That's the reason that the sensors on phone cameras have such high pixel densities - when the image is cropped to provide zoom they need to have enough pixels to still form a viewable image. The downside is that the high transistor densities that are required causes problems with electromagnetic interference (better known as 'noise'). I'm not too sure what you mean when you're talking about "x200 and x400" in reference to the SLR lenses. When talking about the focal range of a zoom lens you might say it was 200mm-400mm, in which case the lens might be referred to as a "2x zoom" (since the max focal length is twice the minimum). Even modern SLR super-zooms, which typically span wide-to-telephoto ranges, only have a range up to about "20x". Compact hybrid/bridge cameras can have superzooms up to around "50x" but that figure often includes digital zoom in addition to optical zoom. I insist that Macro work be done as part of the process, as photographing very small objects is a great topic for discussion on good photography sites. It depends on your definition of "macro" in this context. If you simply mean "close-up" then the phone has a chance. However, if you mean that the size of the subject on the sensor is life size or greater then the phone's going to fail. I insist reduced light where flash is important be taken into consideration. If you really want to differentiate between a DSLR and a phone, then low light without flash will be the real test. Phone cameras are poor in low-light thanks to the amount of digital noise their small sensors produce. Also the larger full-frame sensors in modern professional DSLRs have very high sensitivities (a Nikon D4S will go up to a staggering ISO 409,600) which will yield an image (if a grainy one) when the phone is just recording solid black. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 30, 2014 1:07:29 GMT
This is the sort of low light image I usually take with my phone... Attachment Deleted(yes, that is the inside of a wall) |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on May 30, 2014 6:32:24 GMT
This is the sort of low light image I usually take with my phone... What was the light source? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 30, 2014 13:47:03 GMT
This is the sort of low light image I usually take with my phone... What was the light source? the phone's flash. (LED) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 31, 2014 7:13:18 GMT
I think I remember its 4:1 as the minimum for Macro.
As in the result has to be 4x larger minimum to be called Macro.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on May 31, 2014 10:43:35 GMT
I think I remember its 4:1 as the minimum for Macro. As in the result has to be 4x larger minimum to be called Macro. In technical photography, the starting point for a lens to be considered a macro lenses is 1:1, i.e. the image on the sensor is life-sized. In fact, most dedicated macro lenses from the main professional lens manufacturers on the market will only get you a maximum of 1:1 without add-ons. You can improve on that with bellows and/or extension rings to get ratios of 2:1 and above (with some loss of light). Once you move much above 2:1, you're into the realm of photomicrography. That usually involves dedicated equipment, such as photographic adaptors for optical microscopes or purpose-made digital microscopes. In consumer photography, macro is a less well defined term and can apply to a finished image (print or screen) that is larger than life-sized. It can also be used to refer to any lens that has the ability to focus in a close-up mode. www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/lens/macro.shtmlwww.slrphotographyguide.com/blog/macro/macro-micro-closeup-difference.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on May 31, 2014 11:11:30 GMT
What was the light source? the phone's flash. (LED) Of course, if you're using flash (to introduce a burst of intense light), it's not really low-light photography anymore. I'd be interested to see the same shot without flash. Even the best of the current crop of mobile phone cameras only offers a highest ISO setting of 1600 (with most in the 400-800 range). So that's 8-9 stops slower than the best DSLRs. As an example, assume that you're shooting wide-open and the DSLR requires a shutter speed of 1/60 second (so you could just about get a sharp image hand-held with a 50mm lens). The phone camera in the same lighting conditions would require a 4 second exposure which, hand-held, would give a very blurry result. For any camera sensor, the longer the exposure time the greater the noise (since the electronic components heat up). So even if the phone is held on an fixed mounting to avoid camera shake, the result will still be worse due to the increased noise (longer exposure and smaller sensor). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 12:37:16 GMT
Of course, if you're using flash (to introduce a burst of intense light), it's not really low-light photography anymore. I'd be interested to see the same shot without flash. Even the best of the current crop of mobile phone cameras only offers a highest ISO setting of 1600 (with most in the 400-800 range). So that's 8-9 stops slower than the best DSLRs. As an example, assume that you're shooting wide-open and the DSLR requires a shutter speed of 1/60 second (so you could just about get a sharp image hand-held with a 50mm lens). The phone camera in the same lighting conditions would require a 4 second exposure which, hand-held, would give a very blurry result. For any camera sensor, the longer the exposure time the greater the noise (since the electronic components heat up). So even if the phone is held on an fixed mounting to avoid camera shake, the result will still be worse due to the increased noise (longer exposure and smaller sensor). that would look like this: Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 1, 2014 7:34:16 GMT
I think I remember its 4:1 as the minimum for Macro. As in the result has to be 4x larger minimum to be called Macro. In technical photography, the starting point for a lens to be considered a macro lenses is 1:1, i.e. the image on the sensor is life-sized. In fact, most dedicated macro lenses from the main professional lens manufacturers on the market will only get you a maximum of 1:1 without add-ons. You can improve on that with bellows and/or extension rings to get ratios of 2:1 and above (with some loss of light). Once you move much above 2:1, you're into the realm of photomicrography. That usually involves dedicated equipment, such as photographic adaptors for optical microscopes or purpose-made digital microscopes. In consumer photography, macro is a less well defined term and can apply to a finished image (print or screen) that is larger than life-sized. It can also be used to refer to any lens that has the ability to focus in a close-up mode. That more or less covers it...... to put it in a nut shell, if its larger-than-life, its Macro....?.... Where I got 4:1 from, I am not sure, but otherwise, you are spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 1, 2014 15:19:13 GMT
In technical photography, the starting point for a lens to be considered a macro lenses is 1:1, i.e. the image on the sensor is life-sized. In fact, most dedicated macro lenses from the main professional lens manufacturers on the market will only get you a maximum of 1:1 without add-ons. You can improve on that with bellows and/or extension rings to get ratios of 2:1 and above (with some loss of light). Once you move much above 2:1, you're into the realm of photomicrography. That usually involves dedicated equipment, such as photographic adaptors for optical microscopes or purpose-made digital microscopes. In consumer photography, macro is a less well defined term and can apply to a finished image (print or screen) that is larger than life-sized. It can also be used to refer to any lens that has the ability to focus in a close-up mode. That more or less covers it...... to put it in a nut shell, if its larger-than-life, its Macro....?.... Where I got 4:1 from, I am not sure, but otherwise, you are spot on. needless to say, I will be planning to take the DSLR to our #1 niece's graduation ceremony. the phone may be a newer sensor, but the camera has better glass. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jun 7, 2014 20:51:09 GMT
I have the lumia 1020, which as far as phone camera's go, is the top of what is available at this time.
It will beat a basic snapshot digital camera, and even do a decent job against a first/second gen. dslr.
I wouldn't put it up against a real decent new dslr though.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 11, 2014 14:28:15 GMT
#1 niece graduated last night. I have 4 pictures I will be resizing for upload when I have the time.
|
|
