While the best camera is the one you actually have with you, which is usually a cell phone or iPod, (as opposed to the bigger, better, nicer one that you left at home, in the hotel, in the car, in the backpack, etc.,) neither will ever replace the functionality of a dedicated camera. Cell phones take great pictures . . . for cell phones.
If you want anything more than the crappiest of snapshots to post on FB, a dedicated camera (even a point and shoot) is a must. If you actually want to produce quality photographic images that you would consider printing, hanging on a wall, passing down to your family, or using for presentation purposes, you want a decent sized hunk of quality glass, in front of a large sensor, and all sitting on a tripod to capture that image. For pity sake, even an iPhone or iPod image is ten times better if taken from a tripod (I know "nobody" does that, which really means "only people who know their elbow from a tea kettle" do it.)
I have an old Mamiya SLR still laying around. Not that I've used it in years. The cost of such a camera wasn't that bad (I got all of mine used) but the cost of the film was totally out of control. This especially the case when taking 6x7 pics. I still have a number of slides and negatives which highlights the other problem with medium format, all your support tools costs big money. I'd like to scan some of those pics but it is a cost I'm not willing to bear right now.
Sadly my interest in photography kinda slipped away as digital came on board.
The ease and immediacy of digital has actually revived my interest in analog photography. Large format photography has for me become the imaging equivalent of the slow food movement. When you really want to enjoy something great, get out the LF camera and tripod. Digital is great, cheap, cool, etc. and I'll never turn my nose up at it. But the incredible quality of a big lens, with movements, and projecting it onto a large format film? even $20,000 of digital equipment can't do what it can.
The reason most people are not aware of this is because 1.) they don't care, and 2.) they so rarely see quality photographs on large silver prints.
Yup, it's a little expensive, but most of the good things in life are ? quality cars, golfing a links course, a gourmet dinner, etc.
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
PCWorld has rated one of the smartphone cameras as outstanding. With zero shutter lag, F2.2 lens, 8 mega-pixels and 1080P video, the camera on the myTouch4G (T-Mobile) "is on a par with $200-to-$300 stand-alone point-and-shoot cameras" and has the "best touch interface he's seen on a camera".
I agree with others here that the lack of a zoom is the biggest omission, and for now probably a necessary one. But it's not impossible to get great pics on a camera phone, along with features like burst and macro mode normally found on standalone's. I suspect that in the not-too-distant future, that camera on your smartphone will be more than good enough for most shooting situations.
PCWorld has rated one of the smartphone cameras as outstanding. With zero shutter lag, F2.2 lens, 8 mega-pixels and 1080P video, the camera on the myTouch4G (T-Mobile) "is on a par with $200-to-$300 stand-alone point-and-shoot cameras" and has the "best touch interface he's seen on a camera".
That's nice, but of course the camera phone can't stand up to a good $200-300 point and shoot. It's a physical impossibility.
Although the reviewer might take exception with me, PCWorld is not where I would go to get information on camera quality comparisons (let's just say I don't go to my plumber for an opinion on my digestive system.) In any case, of course it's true that it's good enough for most people in most situations (just as instamatics and analog and digital point and shoots have been for the lat 50 years.)
That's nice, but of course the camera phone can't stand up to a good $200-300 point and shoot. It's a physical impossibility.
Although the reviewer might take exception with me, PCWorld is not where I would go to get information on camera quality comparisons (let's just say I don't go to my plumber for an opinion on my digestive system.) In any case, of course it's true that it's good enough for most people in most situations (just as instamatics and analog and digital point and shoots have been for the lat 50 years.)
At least the quoted comments were from their camera editor. The articles author acknowledged that "his"camera knowledge is pretty basic, so I went to our cameras beat editor, Tim Moynihan, to decipher some of these specs and features for me."
Meh. I cannot wait for the Tricorder to finally arrive. Then we'll be able to do everything with just one device. Until then all this stuff is just cave art.
A camera is a tool, it takes a picture to send information.
It doesn't matter if the pic is grainy or murky... if it conveys how much your brother is getting wasted... then it performs the service of him getting grounded by mommy, and the school suspending him when you post it on Facebook.
Hence a phone camera is good enough for the job.
Dedicated cameras will become like fax machines, a small market for the handful of people (compared to everyone else) that need to take pictures of a bird resting on a tree miles away. Or for the goofy fisheye lens stuff you see at concerts, sports photography, etc.
And the even smaller market for photophiles, similar to the vinyl market for audiophiles, expensive and rare.
What is disturbing is the sense of maniacal glee at this change. Since what it really results in:
the reliance of our historical data being stored digitally... archaeologists will have a field day. And yet another massive loss of jobs as the camera industry collapses and the cellphone industry does not offer nearly as many jobs.
But hey... you can laugh at the anguish of those stuck up photophiles who are hanging onto the past... after all the future of shanty towns awaits... and let us stomp our boots on the faces of those who cling to the past as we embrace our brave new world.
I'm one of those pigheaded old farts who believes you use a phone to make phone calls, a camera to take pictures, a gaming system to play games ?
Skip
Same here. I will also go so far as to say that I like and prefer devices that are not real small. Even my teenage kids have mentioned that some things like the newest iPods are getting too small for ease of use.
A camera is a tool, it takes a picture to send information.
It doesn't matter if the pic is grainy or murky... if it conveys how much your brother is getting wasted... then it performs the service of him getting grounded by mommy, and the school suspending him when you post it on Facebook.
Hence a phone camera is good enough for the job.
Dedicated cameras will become like fax machines, a small market for the handful of people (compared to everyone else) that need to take pictures of a bird resting on a tree miles away. Or for the goofy fisheye lens stuff you see at concerts, sports photography, etc.
And the even smaller market for photophiles, similar to the vinyl market for audiophiles, expensive and rare.
What is disturbing is the sense of maniacal glee at this change. Since what it really results in:
the reliance of our historical data being stored digitally... archaeologists will have a field day. And yet another massive loss of jobs as the camera industry collapses and the cellphone industry does not offer nearly as many jobs.
But hey... you can laugh at the anguish of those stuck up photophiles who are hanging onto the past... after all the future of shanty towns awaits... and let us stomp our boots on the faces of those who cling to the past as we embrace our brave new world.
That's odd. About two thirds of the way through that post it appears the relatively devil-may-care person typing was clubbed in the head and forcibly replaced by his much grimmer, apocalyptic minded roommate.
The iPhone 4 camera is good enough that I very rarely bother to haul out my Nikon DSLR anymore.
Seconded.
The only thing it need to be improved is "instant on". I don't care about megapixel, though better optic and better chip are always welcomed but instant on is crucial. Instant on like we have in DSLR. Instant on like we push the home button and the phone turns on right away. C'mon Apple, dedicated button doesn't mean you tab it and the camera will open instantly. How many times I want to capture something but the lag had killed the moment. Kill this flaw, Apple. This will set iPhone further apart from all other smartphones out there.
The iPhone 4 camera is good enough that I very rarely bother to haul out my Nikon DSLR anymore.
That's great for you.
But obviously, if that's the case, you were badly mislead into buying more camera than you needed when you got the Nikon in the first place. The iPhone, which is one of the best camera phones out there, is far outclassed by any of even the cheapest DSLR cameras.
BTW although the camera in my iPod touch is crap and useless for stills, even in bright light, it does take surprisingly good video.
I just bought a second four year-old 6MP, no A/S Fuji F31fd on eBay for $310, just in case my first one goes kaput, and I don't regret it one bit. I've still never seen a single point and shoot that takes better pictures for what I regularly shoot (indoors, poor lighting). And the iPhone takes horrid pics except under optimal conditions.
I don't care if others can settle for rubbish. At least I'm happy.
And of course we're seeing a change it what it means to capture images, analogous to what happened with iPods and listening to music.
When you always have a camera on your person (and always have a way to immediately share it), "photography" changes from being a series of considered compositions for which you might want the best possible quality to more of a kind of ongoing image diary activity. Nobody cares if all those endless "here's my boyfriend in his new stupid shirt" pictures on Facebook are composed or lit or anything, because that's not what they're for.
It's not bad photography, it's good sharing, more akin to visual talking than what we've previously considered camera "for."
Doesn't mean that there won't still be beautiful picture taken by people who set out to do that, but I don't think you can compare the ubiquitous upload stream to traditional photography, since they serve distinctly different purposes.
The only thing it need to be improved is "instant on".
They could perhaps have an action like pressing both volume buttons together jumps right into the camera. This way you just tap both and then the plus to take a picture.
Of course if the next iPhone has a dedicated shutter button, it will be much easier.
They could perhaps have an action like pressing both volume buttons together jumps right into the camera. This way you just tap both and then the plus to take a picture.
Of course if the next iPhone has a dedicated shutter button, it will be much easier.
I don't know how the myTouch achieves instant on. Perhaps it has a real shutter button? Maybe someone here knows.
Comments
You mean point and shoots, right?
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
Dur, really?
If you want anything more than the crappiest of snapshots to post on FB, a dedicated camera (even a point and shoot) is a must. If you actually want to produce quality photographic images that you would consider printing, hanging on a wall, passing down to your family, or using for presentation purposes, you want a decent sized hunk of quality glass, in front of a large sensor, and all sitting on a tripod to capture that image. For pity sake, even an iPhone or iPod image is ten times better if taken from a tripod (I know "nobody" does that, which really means "only people who know their elbow from a tea kettle" do it.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=iPhon...fe=images&tbs=
Dur, really?
I have an old Mamiya SLR still laying around. Not that I've used it in years. The cost of such a camera wasn't that bad (I got all of mine used) but the cost of the film was totally out of control. This especially the case when taking 6x7 pics. I still have a number of slides and negatives which highlights the other problem with medium format, all your support tools costs big money. I'd like to scan some of those pics but it is a cost I'm not willing to bear right now.
Sadly my interest in photography kinda slipped away as digital came on board.
The ease and immediacy of digital has actually revived my interest in analog photography. Large format photography has for me become the imaging equivalent of the slow food movement. When you really want to enjoy something great, get out the LF camera and tripod. Digital is great, cheap, cool, etc. and I'll never turn my nose up at it. But the incredible quality of a big lens, with movements, and projecting it onto a large format film? even $20,000 of digital equipment can't do what it can.
The reason most people are not aware of this is because 1.) they don't care, and 2.) they so rarely see quality photographs on large silver prints.
Yup, it's a little expensive, but most of the good things in life are ? quality cars, golfing a links course, a gourmet dinner, etc.
You mean point and shoots, right?
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
PCWorld has rated one of the smartphone cameras as outstanding. With zero shutter lag, F2.2 lens, 8 mega-pixels and 1080P video, the camera on the myTouch4G (T-Mobile) "is on a par with $200-to-$300 stand-alone point-and-shoot cameras" and has the "best touch interface he's seen on a camera".
http://www.pcworld.com/article/23587...mera_ever.html
I agree with others here that the lack of a zoom is the biggest omission, and for now probably a necessary one. But it's not impossible to get great pics on a camera phone, along with features like burst and macro mode normally found on standalone's. I suspect that in the not-too-distant future, that camera on your smartphone will be more than good enough for most shooting situations.
PCWorld has rated one of the smartphone cameras as outstanding. With zero shutter lag, F2.2 lens, 8 mega-pixels and 1080P video, the camera on the myTouch4G (T-Mobile) "is on a par with $200-to-$300 stand-alone point-and-shoot cameras" and has the "best touch interface he's seen on a camera".
That's nice, but of course the camera phone can't stand up to a good $200-300 point and shoot. It's a physical impossibility.
Although the reviewer might take exception with me, PCWorld is not where I would go to get information on camera quality comparisons (let's just say I don't go to my plumber for an opinion on my digestive system.) In any case, of course it's true that it's good enough for most people in most situations (just as instamatics and analog and digital point and shoots have been for the lat 50 years.)
That's nice, but of course the camera phone can't stand up to a good $200-300 point and shoot. It's a physical impossibility.
Although the reviewer might take exception with me, PCWorld is not where I would go to get information on camera quality comparisons (let's just say I don't go to my plumber for an opinion on my digestive system.) In any case, of course it's true that it's good enough for most people in most situations (just as instamatics and analog and digital point and shoots have been for the lat 50 years.)
At least the quoted comments were from their camera editor. The articles author acknowledged that "his"camera knowledge is pretty basic, so I went to our cameras beat editor, Tim Moynihan, to decipher some of these specs and features for me."
boss? WTF?
Get your slang on like a boss.
It doesn't matter if the pic is grainy or murky... if it conveys how much your brother is getting wasted... then it performs the service of him getting grounded by mommy, and the school suspending him when you post it on Facebook.
Hence a phone camera is good enough for the job.
Dedicated cameras will become like fax machines, a small market for the handful of people (compared to everyone else) that need to take pictures of a bird resting on a tree miles away. Or for the goofy fisheye lens stuff you see at concerts, sports photography, etc.
And the even smaller market for photophiles, similar to the vinyl market for audiophiles, expensive and rare.
What is disturbing is the sense of maniacal glee at this change. Since what it really results in:
the reliance of our historical data being stored digitally... archaeologists will have a field day. And yet another massive loss of jobs as the camera industry collapses and the cellphone industry does not offer nearly as many jobs.
But hey... you can laugh at the anguish of those stuck up photophiles who are hanging onto the past... after all the future of shanty towns awaits... and let us stomp our boots on the faces of those who cling to the past as we embrace our brave new world.
I'm one of those pigheaded old farts who believes you use a phone to make phone calls, a camera to take pictures, a gaming system to play games ?
Skip
Same here. I will also go so far as to say that I like and prefer devices that are not real small. Even my teenage kids have mentioned that some things like the newest iPods are getting too small for ease of use.
A camera is a tool, it takes a picture to send information.
It doesn't matter if the pic is grainy or murky... if it conveys how much your brother is getting wasted... then it performs the service of him getting grounded by mommy, and the school suspending him when you post it on Facebook.
Hence a phone camera is good enough for the job.
Dedicated cameras will become like fax machines, a small market for the handful of people (compared to everyone else) that need to take pictures of a bird resting on a tree miles away. Or for the goofy fisheye lens stuff you see at concerts, sports photography, etc.
And the even smaller market for photophiles, similar to the vinyl market for audiophiles, expensive and rare.
What is disturbing is the sense of maniacal glee at this change. Since what it really results in:
the reliance of our historical data being stored digitally... archaeologists will have a field day. And yet another massive loss of jobs as the camera industry collapses and the cellphone industry does not offer nearly as many jobs.
But hey... you can laugh at the anguish of those stuck up photophiles who are hanging onto the past... after all the future of shanty towns awaits... and let us stomp our boots on the faces of those who cling to the past as we embrace our brave new world.
That's odd. About two thirds of the way through that post it appears the relatively devil-may-care person typing was clubbed in the head and forcibly replaced by his much grimmer, apocalyptic minded roommate.
The iPhone 4 camera is good enough that I very rarely bother to haul out my Nikon DSLR anymore.
Seconded.
The only thing it need to be improved is "instant on". I don't care about megapixel, though better optic and better chip are always welcomed but instant on is crucial. Instant on like we have in DSLR. Instant on like we push the home button and the phone turns on right away. C'mon Apple, dedicated button doesn't mean you tab it and the camera will open instantly. How many times I want to capture something but the lag had killed the moment. Kill this flaw, Apple. This will set iPhone further apart from all other smartphones out there.
The iPhone 4 camera is good enough that I very rarely bother to haul out my Nikon DSLR anymore.
That's great for you.
But obviously, if that's the case, you were badly mislead into buying more camera than you needed when you got the Nikon in the first place. The iPhone, which is one of the best camera phones out there, is far outclassed by any of even the cheapest DSLR cameras.
BTW although the camera in my iPod touch is crap and useless for stills, even in bright light, it does take surprisingly good video.
I don't care if others can settle for rubbish. At least I'm happy.
And of course we're seeing a change it what it means to capture images, analogous to what happened with iPods and listening to music.
When you always have a camera on your person (and always have a way to immediately share it), "photography" changes from being a series of considered compositions for which you might want the best possible quality to more of a kind of ongoing image diary activity. Nobody cares if all those endless "here's my boyfriend in his new stupid shirt" pictures on Facebook are composed or lit or anything, because that's not what they're for.
It's not bad photography, it's good sharing, more akin to visual talking than what we've previously considered camera "for."
Doesn't mean that there won't still be beautiful picture taken by people who set out to do that, but I don't think you can compare the ubiquitous upload stream to traditional photography, since they serve distinctly different purposes.
A very intelligent and well-observed post.
The only thing it need to be improved is "instant on".
They could perhaps have an action like pressing both volume buttons together jumps right into the camera. This way you just tap both and then the plus to take a picture.
Of course if the next iPhone has a dedicated shutter button, it will be much easier.
They could perhaps have an action like pressing both volume buttons together jumps right into the camera. This way you just tap both and then the plus to take a picture.
Of course if the next iPhone has a dedicated shutter button, it will be much easier.
I don't know how the myTouch achieves instant on. Perhaps it has a real shutter button? Maybe someone here knows.
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
Case settled.