On the other hand the "best" camera is the one you have. The advantage in a
cell phone camera is that you've got it with you all the time...
-Curt
On Friday, August 9, 2019, 8:51:55 PM EDT, Peter Frederick via Mercedes
<mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:
I'm always amused by the notion that cell phone or iPad cameras are great.
They are not, really, although to do good snapshot photos.
The reason the "work" well is that the lens is a 7 element, multicoated PLASTIC
molding with an opening of f2. Plenty of light on the teeny tiny sensor with
itsy bitsy optical elements, plus a ton of post image processing that usually
boosts saturation and contrast.
Enlarge them very much and the quality drops off very quickly, and they cannot
be used to produce offset prints, the image goes to much when it's screened --
I have a buddy in charge of the printing department at the local university.
No go, even the new ones.
The difficulty is when comparisons are made between even a mid-range DSLR and
the phone camera. Without fail the reviewers use the "package" lens on the
DSLR with is barely good enough to call glorified junk. Optimized for long
zoom range, very small aperature (I've seen f4 to f6.3), would be unusable on a
film camera unless you were on a white sand beach in bright sunlight. Horrible
distortion, the small aperature causes low light sensitivity (one fourth of the
light per area of the phone camera) and typically far less post processing (or
none, if you have a decent camera.
A real comparison would be the f1.8 35mm "normal" lens on the DLSR, or better
the f2.8 Macro lens. Flat field, amazing corner sharpness stopped down a bit,
little or no distortion, all the things the fixed focal length fixed aperature
phone camera lens gives you, plus the far larger area for each pixel set on the
sensor.
Costs a bit more (a LOT more for the lenses, sadly), but if you are going to do
anything more than share pics on the phone, use a DSLR. You can even get one
today for about $1500 that gives you ALMOST the resolution of a 35mm anything
with a normal lens and Plus-X film if you have bright light. Otherwise it's
more like Tri-X
I will probably never be able to afford a digital camera with the resolution
and contrast I could easily get with an Olympus OM-1, the f 1.8 50mm normal
lens, and either Pan F or Agfapan 25...... And I won't mention Kodak Tech pan
or microfilm.
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
