All of which will not have optical zoom, a truly good lens system or room for a decent CCD sensor.
Really? You're sure about all these things? Because tech changes. Tech changes quickly.
True, but this is not tech, is physics. That changes as well, but a good lens needs a lot of glass, many elements in order to create a good lens. And it shows in the quality of the photo - not in the sense that it is a good picture or not! This is a vital difference; a good photo can be taken with a cell phone and a crap photo can be taken with a SLR. It's not the tool, that's just a tool, it's the artist at work that creates great work.
…it's not a great camera for people who enjoy photography.
That's a bit of a stretch to say, considering it's not something that can be said.
That indeed is the wrong thing to say. I've seen betetr photographs from people using a cellphone than people with a (D)SLR.
I wonder if it is feasible to put a mirror under a 45 degree angle behind the camera opening and make use of the full height of an iPhone for the lens glass. Because more glass the better, simply put.
I'm with you. I keep wondering when a phone is going to appear with such a lens. (I think the early Sony Cybershot T series had that. It allowed optical zoom even in a super thin case, because the zoom part was vertical.)
True, but this is not tech, is physics. That changes as well, but a good lens needs a lot of glass, many elements in order to create a good lens.
Sure, but Nokia is able to handle that with an 8x larger sensor. As designs change, larger surface area for sensors won't be an issue, and we could see bigger lenses on the back of the iPhone. The only thing they can't do right now is make it thin enough to fit (notice the Nokia is about twice as thick as an iPhone 5, and then the lens bulges out beyond that).
I trust Apple to be able to make a lens good enough, thin enough, and large enough to improve picture quality far into the future.
Sad sad day for Kodak, and the people and employees in the Rochester area. Once was a great company to work for. Great products and so generous to RIT. Don't know what else to say. Just too damn bad.
My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-40 that I bought in 1996. They were way ahead of the game. I am surprised they didn't use their strong photography brand and early digital lead to become a digital camera powerhouse.
Mine was a Kodak DC4800. I was able to knock many a fine picture with it (knowing its limitations -- 3.1 MP and not the best image processor) it was very simple to use. And the quality was good enough that I was able to learn to use iPhoto and Adobe Photoshop Elements to turn out some pretty good pictures. When I moved on to my Canon DC9 (I prefer something much smaller than a DSLR) I was able to pass on my Kodak DC4800 (with the lens kit) to my daughter who was in 3rd grade and she used it a sleep overs, field trips @ school, parties,etc… It lasted a pretty good while -- in fact it is still in use as the camera to take if we are going some place where the camera might take a beating because of environment or activity, or if we lost it it would not hurt. We all have iPhones and of course the best camera is always the one you have with you. The Kodak is far from top of the line by todays standards but it is a good simple camera and really good in its day (never had to have it serviced, same battery pack as it came with). BTW -- before I gave it to my daughter I kept over 2100 photos taken with it and I believe in 3--4 shots of very subject is better than one so I probably actually have taken 10,000+ actual pics considering more than80% were culled.
Mine was a Kodak DC4800. I was able to knock many a fine picture with it (knowing its limitations -- 3.1 MP and not the best image processor) it was very simple to use. And the quality was good enough that I was able to learn to use iPhoto and Adobe Photoshop Elements to turn out some pretty good pictures. When I moved on to my Canon DC9 (I prefer something much smaller than a DSLR) I was able to pass on my Kodak DC4800 (with the lens kit) to my daughter who was in 3rd grade and she used it a sleep overs, field trips @ school, parties,etc… It lasted a pretty good while -- in fact it is still in use as the camera to take if we are going some place where the camera might take a beating because of environment or activity, or if we lost it it would not hurt. We all have iPhones and of course the best camera is always the one you have with you. The Kodak is far from top of the line by todays standards but it is a good simple camera and really good in its day (never had to have it serviced, same battery pack as it came with). BTW -- before I gave it to my daughter I kept over 2100 photos taken with it and I believe in 3--4 shots of very subject is better than one so I probably actually have taken 10,000+ actual pics considering more than80% were culled.
Not a Kodak story but an early digital camera one ... My first was a Sony Pro Mavica MVC-7000, Zoom lens and playback machine, total around $10,000, mid 1990's I think. I bought it at the Mac World trade show in Boston right off the Sony stand. It had a gob smacking resolution of 640 x 480 pixels! Yeah!
I'm with you. I keep wondering when a phone is going to appear with such a lens. (I think the early Sony Cybershot T series had that. It allowed optical zoom even in a super thin case, because the zoom part was vertical.)
Kind of like this Kodak design:
Hmm, a Kodak design, the same company that Apple just bought a bunch of patents from.
Truly beautifully written with your use of adjectives. Hats off to you sir.
Thanks lol
... but written with feeling. I was summoned to Rochester by Kodak's board to be grilled about digital photography back in the day. Kodak OY in Norway were bundling my company's software with high end color scanners. Kodak OY were very keen to get as far into digital photography as possible and saw digital separation from analog source as a good step. Kodak HQ were not happy. They were seeing this as the thin end of a wedge they didn't want to acknowledge I felt and made it clear that film could not be replaced by digital at the high end and disapproved of the arrangement I had with Kodak OY. I actually had to have a face to face lecture on the limitations of digital versus film. "No ability to get into the shadow detail " ... rings in in my ears every time I work in RAW and HDR.
Comments
True, but this is not tech, is physics. That changes as well, but a good lens needs a lot of glass, many elements in order to create a good lens. And it shows in the quality of the photo - not in the sense that it is a good picture or not! This is a vital difference; a good photo can be taken with a cell phone and a crap photo can be taken with a SLR. It's not the tool, that's just a tool, it's the artist at work that creates great work.
That indeed is the wrong thing to say. I've seen betetr photographs from people using a cellphone than people with a (D)SLR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I wonder if it is feasible to put a mirror under a 45 degree angle behind the camera opening and make use of the full height of an iPhone for the lens glass. Because more glass the better, simply put.
I'm with you. I keep wondering when a phone is going to appear with such a lens. (I think the early Sony Cybershot T series had that. It allowed optical zoom even in a super thin case, because the zoom part was vertical.)
Kind of like this Kodak design:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
True, but this is not tech, is physics. That changes as well, but a good lens needs a lot of glass, many elements in order to create a good lens.
Sure, but Nokia is able to handle that with an 8x larger sensor. As designs change, larger surface area for sensors won't be an issue, and we could see bigger lenses on the back of the iPhone. The only thing they can't do right now is make it thin enough to fit (notice the Nokia is about twice as thick as an iPhone 5, and then the lens bulges out beyond that).
I trust Apple to be able to make a lens good enough, thin enough, and large enough to improve picture quality far into the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-40 that I bought in 1996. They were way ahead of the game. I am surprised they didn't use their strong photography brand and early digital lead to become a digital camera powerhouse.
Mine was a Kodak DC4800. I was able to knock many a fine picture with it (knowing its limitations -- 3.1 MP and not the best image processor) it was very simple to use. And the quality was good enough that I was able to learn to use iPhoto and Adobe Photoshop Elements to turn out some pretty good pictures. When I moved on to my Canon DC9 (I prefer something much smaller than a DSLR) I was able to pass on my Kodak DC4800 (with the lens kit) to my daughter who was in 3rd grade and she used it a sleep overs, field trips @ school, parties,etc… It lasted a pretty good while -- in fact it is still in use as the camera to take if we are going some place where the camera might take a beating because of environment or activity, or if we lost it it would not hurt. We all have iPhones and of course the best camera is always the one you have with you. The Kodak is far from top of the line by todays standards but it is a good simple camera and really good in its day (never had to have it serviced, same battery pack as it came with). BTW -- before I gave it to my daughter I kept over 2100 photos taken with it and I believe in 3--4 shots of very subject is better than one so I probably actually have taken 10,000+ actual pics considering more than80% were culled.
Not a Kodak story but an early digital camera one ... My first was a Sony Pro Mavica MVC-7000, Zoom lens and playback machine, total around $10,000, mid 1990's I think. I bought it at the Mac World trade show in Boston right off the Sony stand. It had a gob smacking resolution of 640 x 480 pixels! Yeah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
I'm with you. I keep wondering when a phone is going to appear with such a lens. (I think the early Sony Cybershot T series had that. It allowed optical zoom even in a super thin case, because the zoom part was vertical.)
Kind of like this Kodak design:
Hmm, a Kodak design, the same company that Apple just bought a bunch of patents from.
Could be interesting.
Thanks lol
... but written with feeling. I was summoned to Rochester by Kodak's board to be grilled about digital photography back in the day. Kodak OY in Norway were bundling my company's software with high end color scanners. Kodak OY were very keen to get as far into digital photography as possible and saw digital separation from analog source as a good step. Kodak HQ were not happy. They were seeing this as the thin end of a wedge they didn't want to acknowledge I felt and made it clear that film could not be replaced by digital at the high end and disapproved of the arrangement I had with Kodak OY. I actually had to have a face to face lecture on the limitations of digital versus film. "No ability to get into the shadow detail " ... rings in in my ears every time I work in RAW and HDR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
Hopefully it'll lead to a new apple camera.
My first digital camera was the Kodak Easyshare Z710. It had a
7 megapixels and a 10X Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon Optical Zoom Lens.
I took the camera to Alaska and took many beautiful pictures.
I wonder if the Kodak Easyshare Z5010 will be even better than my first Kodak?
I lost my z710 and now plan to replace it with the Kodak Easyshare Z5010. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks
My first digital camera was the Kodak Easyshare Z710. It had a
7 megapixels and a 10X Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon Optical Zoom Lens.
I took the camera to Alaska and took many beautiful pictures.
I wonder if the Kodak Easyshare Z5010 will be even better than my first Kodak?
I lost my z710 and now plan to replace it with the Kodak Easyshare Z5010. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks
Kodak Digital Camera
Originally Posted by shini21
I lost my z710 and now plan to replace it with the Kodak Easyshare Z5010. Does anyone have any suggestions?
I suggest you buy from a company that still exists, but that's me.
My father swears by Nikon and my mother by Canon. Of course, they got into the game with film, so it makes for some interesting discussions.