"Wolf" schreef in bericht
...
: Max from Holland wrote:
:
: Very nice.
:
: What brand of cellphone?
:
: --
:
:
: Wolf
:
: "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

It`s a Sony of course. Check the exif data.

Max

Max from Holland wrote:

Very nice.

What brand of cellphone?

--


Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

Amazing quality Max & a great shot.
Cheers Wendy
"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

"Wendy7" schreef in bericht
...
: Amazing quality Max & a great shot.
: Cheers Wendy

Thanks, Wendy!

max

"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...


Some mobile phone cameras produce amazing results. We were recently hunting
with hawks in the Highlands and everyone (five of us) took lots of pictures
with good SLRs as well as digitals. The lighting conditions were perfect.
The best results were taken with a phone.

I wouldn't have believed it but they were all sent to me so I have the
evidence.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

Some mobile phone cameras produce amazing results. We were recently hunting
with hawks in the Highlands and everyone (five of us) took lots of pictures
with good SLRs as well as digitals. The lighting conditions were perfect.
The best results were taken with a phone.

I wouldn't have believed it but they were all sent to me so I have the
evidence.

Mary




That's because phone cameras have tiny lenses, which means a very small
f-stop, which means a very long depth of field (focussing zone.) The SLR
was I imagine set to telephoto ("zoom"), which results in a shallow
depth of field. It also has a larger ;ens, so even at normal settings it
has a shallow depth of field.

But the hawk moves...

So the phone camera will get an "in focus" image of the hawk even as it
moves out of the shallower focussing zone of the SLR camera. So "at
normal viewing resolutions" the picture will look sharp. Try the digital
zoom in your image viewer, and you will see the jaggies sooner in the
cellphone image. Or try full screen, which also shows up differences in
image resolution. Cheap point'n'shoot cameras also have small lenses, etc.

Bottom line: for snapshots and 4x6 prints, point'n'shoot and cellphone
cameras are very good indeed. They're also often good for closeups, if
they can focus close up at all. They're also much lighter. :-)

But if you want images you can print at 8x10 or larger, an SLR will win
hands down.

--


Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

"Wolf" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

Some mobile phone cameras produce amazing results. We were recently
hunting with hawks in the Highlands and everyone (five of us) took lots
of pictures with good SLRs as well as digitals. The lighting conditions
were perfect. The best results were taken with a phone.

I wouldn't have believed it but they were all sent to me so I have the
evidence.

Mary


That's because phone cameras have tiny lenses, which means a very small
f-stop, which means a very long depth of field (focussing zone.) The SLR
was I imagine set to telephoto ("zoom"), which results in a shallow depth
of field. It also has a larger ;ens, so even at normal settings it has a
shallow depth of field.

But the hawk moves...

So the phone camera will get an "in focus" image of the hawk even as it
moves out of the shallower focussing zone of the SLR camera. So "at normal
viewing resolutions" the picture will look sharp. Try the digital zoom in
your image viewer, and you will see the jaggies sooner in the cellphone
image. Or try full screen, which also shows up differences in image
resolution. Cheap point'n'shoot cameras also have small lenses, etc.

Bottom line: for snapshots and 4x6 prints, point'n'shoot and cellphone
cameras are very good indeed. They're also often good for closeups, if
they can focus close up at all. They're also much lighter. :-)

But if you want images you can print at 8x10 or larger, an SLR will win
hands down.

Several points, mainly THANK YOU :-)

I worked for a professional photographer for a few years and I've been
taking and processing pictures for fifty. But that was all before digital!
Even my old boss has given in and bought himself a very good digital camera
and is grudgingly admitting that the results are acceptable :-) My point is
that I do understand quite a lot about photography and cameras - but not
digital ones so I appreciate your input and shall save it - in the hope that
it will sink into my old brain and I can flaunt my new-found knowledge to my
oh-so-clever 'children'.

What I've noticed is that phones can take shots in very poor light with good
results. I've resisted getting a bells and whistles phone but I'm being
tempted ...

The other point is that I rarely print pictures now and have never printed
more than 5 x 8 for my personal use. The difficulty is choosing the best
from so many good ones - and all my contacts seem to have a pc.

But one of my very favourite pictures is a monochrome close-up of my husband
which I'd have been proud to have taken and printed. It's about 12 x 16 and
won the photographer a First Class prize in the UK Association of
Photographer's Something or Other. We don't know him, he took it when we
were at a show and then sent the print. I had it framed and it hangs in my
corner, it's superb!

Thanks again,

Mary

: Some mobile phone cameras produce amazing results. We were recently
hunting
: with hawks in the Highlands and everyone (five of us) took lots of
pictures
: with good SLRs as well as digitals. The lighting conditions were perfect.
: The best results were taken with a phone.
:
: I wouldn't have believed it but they were all sent to me so I have the
: evidence.
:
: Mary


LOL

The person with the cell phone must be the best photographer in that group
of people!

max

: That's because phone cameras have tiny lenses, which means a very small
: f-stop, which means a very long depth of field (focussing zone.) The SLR
: was I imagine set to telephoto ("zoom"), which results in a shallow
: depth of field. It also has a larger ;ens, so even at normal settings it
: has a shallow depth of field.
:
: But the hawk moves...
:
: So the phone camera will get an "in focus" image of the hawk even as it
: moves out of the shallower focussing zone of the SLR camera. So "at
: normal viewing resolutions" the picture will look sharp. Try the digital
: zoom in your image viewer, and you will see the jaggies sooner in the
: cellphone image. Or try full screen, which also shows up differences in
: image resolution. Cheap point'n'shoot cameras also have small lenses, etc.
:
: Bottom line: for snapshots and 4x6 prints, point'n'shoot and cellphone
: cameras are very good indeed. They're also often good for closeups, if
: they can focus close up at all. They're also much lighter. :-)
:
: But if you want images you can print at 8x10 or larger, an SLR will win
: hands down.
:
: --
:
:
: Wolf
:
: "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

If I shoot the same Magnolia with my Nikon, Sony or even with my old retired
Olympus DSLR ( E20) they will blow the cell phone away. If I took pictures
of a Eagle or Hawk, the same thing. I can`t believe no one took better
pictures with their expensive DSLR`s. However, the cell phone is a handy,
little camera. It makes OK pictures in daylight ( 3.2 mp!) Never use the
build in flash and stick to iso 80. It`s not always the camera, it `s the
person who holds it.

max

"Max from Holland" schreef in bericht
l.nl...
:
:
:

Hi Max, Would love to see some pics of these when they are in full bloom
please.
Cheers Wendy
Hou die blink kant boe!

"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

"Max from Holland" schreef in bericht
l.nl...
:
:
:

"Wendy7" schreef in bericht
...
: Hi Max, Would love to see some pics of these when they are in full bloom
: please.
: Cheers Wendy
: Hou die blink kant boe!

Ok, Wendy. With in a few days from now:-)

max

"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

.... It`s not always the camera, it `s the
person who holds it.

Indeed. That was the most valuable lesson I learned from my pro employer.

Mary

"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

: Some mobile phone cameras produce amazing results. We were recently
hunting
: with hawks in the Highlands and everyone (five of us) took lots of
pictures
: with good SLRs as well as digitals. The lighting conditions were
perfect.
: The best results were taken with a phone.
:
: I wouldn't have believed it but they were all sent to me so I have the
: evidence.
:
: Mary


LOL

The person with the cell phone must be the best photographer in that group
of people!

Well, not necessarily. He happened to be in the best position and didn't
have a heavy bird on his other arm at the time :-)

I admit that I rarely take good informal pics these days because I need a
tripod, my hands shake. I didn't carry a tripod up those boggy, icy, rocky,
very uneven hills with walls, ditches and other impediments. My walking days
are over :-(

Mary

max