[JohnR]

How original. Love the one you're with? It has nothing to do with this thread.

[JohnR]

You may have to make the effort to get some good treasures for them.

Thank you.

[JohnR]

I guess I'm not sure how my thread could be seen as against digital photography. I did say 20-30 years as an example of when "almost any camera would be enough to get good photographs," but apparently autofocus wasn't invented then in some people's minds.

No offence to anyone, really, but I don't see the examples posted as proving anything but my point. Here it is again: "Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?" And yes, as others have said, perhaps some learning is needed, so add to that some motivation and awareness to do so. Just saying, if you're in that situation, perhaps consider it? Thanks

[MtnHam]

Apple Has Changed the Camera Industry
The iPhone 7 Plus features longer exposures, better aperture, and the ability to shoot digital negatives. For traditional-camera manufacturers, this is terrible news.


This article in the latest New Yorker on the iPhone 7's camera ends with the statement: "You can see why the camera companies are doomed." A fascinating read!

I believe it is the truth- smart phones can take superb photos and will continue to get better.

You may not be able to read it without being a subscriber, but here is the link:
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/with-the-iphone-7-apple-changed-the-camera-industry-forever

[charmerci]

This article in the latest New Yorker on the iPhone 7's camera ends with the statement: "You can see why the camera companies are doomed." A fascinating read!

It's two tiny lenses and how great can the lens be if you're cranking out millions of them? Better cameras will be around for a while - despite this iPhone 7.

[MtnHam]

It's two tiny lenses and how great can the lens be if you're cranking out millions of them? Better cameras will be around for a while - despite this iPhone 7.

Good enough. Costly optics and high rez files are a necessity if you are making 30x40" prints, not important if you are only rarely making a snapshot sized print. Even the current iPhones are more than capable of producing a very decent 8x10. How many large prints have you have made lately? And, I might point out, Apple has 'cranked out' over a billion iPhones to date, and the market seems to have decided they are very desirable!

As a professional photographer (now retired) in the advertising industry for over 50 years, I know a bit about what I speak. A view camera and 4x5" transparency film were my tools, as my images frequently did go big. I have several high end digital and film cameras, but find my iPhone sufficient for a lot of shots. As previously quoted (from a famous photographer), "The best camera is the one you have with you!"

For many years, I have been of the opinion that the camera is relatively unimportant, it is the vision and skill of the photographer that makes great photos. Years ago (1969), I 'snapped' a great photo with a plastic $5 Mickey Mouse head camera which I just happened to have in my hand as I walked down the street in SF and encountered a 10 year old with the same. We looked at each other with surprise, and simultaneously snapped a photo. I wish I had a copy of his photo! Undoubtedly, our lenses were pure shit, but the photo was a keeper. I will someday have to search through my negatives and find it. I can only wish it were as accessible as my iPhone shots. If so, I would have posted it.

[Bob2]

"The best camera is the one you have with you!"

+1

[Guy 13]

I coud write a lot about camera, but I will make this post short and sweet.
It all started when I was 16 with a Kodak Instamatic 104



Then, slowly going to larger negatives with Nikon SRT101,
then many different brands of medium format (Mamiya, Bronica
and then I went big with Cambo and Toyo 4X5'' negatives.
Today, my search for bigger is better is over,
however, I still own a 35mm pont and shoot, a Nikon D200
and two (Medium format) Mamiya 645E.
My phone does not have a built in camera.
I always carry under the seat of my motorcycle my Olympus Infinity 35mm camera
for emergency or document unpredictable events.
My Nikon Coolpix 3300 is for posting pictures on the Internet
and my Nikon D200 I use when I need more resolution
and my Mamiya 645E (Film only) is when I want to shoot (Mainly) Black & White
for creative or artistic work.
If I had to scale down my arsenal of cameras, humm mmm
might keep my Nikon Coolpix 16Mpix that fit in a shirt pocket.
A phone camera. humm mmm dont think so, I use the smallest and least
expensive phone I could get.

Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.

By the way, I've got nothing against people that take all their pictures
with their phones, it their choice, however, if they want to enlarge a nice
picture that they love. well they will get what they pay for.

[drphoto]

Im certainly not knocking digital cameras. The modern pro level cameras kick the crap out of film. It's no contest. Not like the still ongoing debate of digital vs analog in sound playback.

I'm just saying once you lower the barrier to entry, the standards tend to decline. If you look at work from portrait studios from say 50 years ago, most of them were pretty great because you had to have professional photographers making the images.

On the other hand.....I think modern wedding photography has vastly improved with the advent of digital. Now you don't see the staged on camera flash crap of yesteryear. There are people shooting things that look like fashion magazine spreads. But as was pointed out, it's not so much the equipment, as the eye of the shooter. But digital allows one to shoot in very low light situations, preview setups, do post shoot enhancement etc.


For an example of the very best of this new style wedding work, check out Jerry Ghonis. Of course, he's at the top of the food chain. I think Jerry charges on the order of $10K to do a wedding. But a lot of people in down markets are doing things that are in the same vein.

[Guy 13]

Hi drphoto, that photographer Jerry Ghonis,
I went on his site and I admit: He's more than just good,
he's excellent, perfect pictures.
His pictures says more than just what you see.
No way you can do the same with a phone or even a bigger camera.
The guy behind the camera makes the difference and it's a BIG difference.
Thanks for the link.

Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.

[Johnny2Bad]

Translation?   Why are phone/point and shoot pix so crappy?

Easy. The crappy photos exist where the "photographer" has no photographic skill. This is the same situation as has existed since the original Kodak "Brownie" cameras of 100+ years ago.

A modern smartphone has far more imaging power than a $1000 dedicated still camera of 10 years ago. Yet every digital photo from 2006 and earlier is not "crap". How can this be? Some people know how to take a photograph. You can take an award-winning photo with a home-made pinhole camera, if you know photography.

The "crapy" cellphone photo is a result of the "crappy" photographer taking a snapshot. They're called "snapshots" for a reason, you know. There are also excellent ... museum quality, actually ... images taken with smartphone imaging arrays as well. We tend to call them digital images, but that's just marketing at work.

I still use my Nikon Coolpix 5000 and 5200 cameras (5 megapixel), which were top-line Nikon non-SLRs at the time and cost in the four figures when new about ten years ago. The 5200 has had an infrared imaging sensor modification installed. I also use my iPhone4 camera, and a Lunix digital camera. They all take outstanding images, if you know what you are doing.

The very first thing I bought with my first paycheck was a Nikon camera and lens. I've owned and used medium format film cameras and Mamiya Polaroid interchangeable lens cameras, excellent (and silent) rangefinder 35mm cameras, and 35mm Nikkor lenses like a 28mm f/2.0 and 80-200 f/2.8's. I've been a photography instructor for the City's Leisure Education department. I got out of film about five years ago once I decided the quality could be met with digital at prices I could afford.

I probably won't go back into (D)SLRs as the costs for lenses are in my opinion prohibitive ... I would want a setup that would cost into the five figures all said, and that just isn't in the cards. But certainly you don't need a DSLR to take excellent photos either, so I'm not heartbroken over it.

[PeteG]

I bought my first real camera in 79" and I'm still buying photography gear because I love it, not because I need it. A phone camera is good in a pinch but will never replace buying into to a whole system, just the new flash system from Canon/Nikon is crazy good.

I was working on a electrical problem so before unhooking the wires I pull out my phone take a photo of the wire diagram, nice picture. Family comes over and ask me to take a couple portrait shots for them, I don't pull my phone out.

Just like audio, sound from ear buds plugged in a phone is good enough for the majority so is photo's.

[SET Man]

Im certainly not knocking digital cameras. The modern pro level cameras kick the crap out of film. It's no contest. Not like the still ongoing debate of digital vs analog in sound playback.

......

Hey!

   Yup, a decent full frame cameras these days are pretty impressive and at 24mp+ they are out resolution 35mm film, especially at higher ISO. I'm amazed that I can actually shoot at ISO 3200 (no I don't use high ISO all the time, only when needed) with my mirrorless and still get a nice result from it, I just can't do that with color film of which ISO 800 is the highest for color film available these days and pushing it will make it worst.

   But! Somehow I still like to shoot with films today.... I do have 3 film cameras loaded with film right now, Rolleiflex 2.8C with Ilford Delta 3200, Minolta XD11 with Kodak Portra 160 and Kodak Brownie Model 2E with Kodak TMAX 100 of which I'll have to finish up those soon. 

I bought my first real camera in 79" and I'm still buying photography gear because I love it, not because I need it. A phone camera is good in a pinch but will never replace buying into to a whole system, just the new flash system from Canon/Nikon is crazy good.
....

   I know what you mean, I have the same problem. Actually just bought another vintage film camera two days ago... damn internet make it so easy to buy things now.   

Take care,
Buddy 

[SET Man]

... Here it is again: "Surely, a $1k for a half-decent camera/lens to capture photographs that will never ever be repeated is a small investment?" And yes, as others have said, perhaps some learning is needed, so add to that some motivation and awareness to do so. Just saying, if you're in that situation, perhaps consider it? Thanks

Hey!

    Here's how I see it. Yes, you can get a nice DSLR, mirrorless with a zoom or even hi-end P&S for $1K these days. But if you give someone that nice $1k camera/lens combo to someone who only take crappy photos with their phone, without artistically feel for good pics and have no intent or interested in learning to use the camera or basic photography know how than you will still get crappy photos from them but they will be sharper and higher res with better camera.

   Believe me, I've seen some horrible pictures from people with very very expensive camera/lens set and I also have seen from great pictures taken with inexpensive cameras and even from iPhones.

Take care,
Buddy 

[Guy 13]

Hey!

   Yup, a decent full frame cameras these days are pretty impressive and at 24mp+ they are out resolution 35mm film, especially at higher ISO. I'm amazed that I can actually shoot at ISO 3200 (no I don't use high ISO all the time, only when needed) with my mirrorless and still get a nice result from it, I just can't do that with color film of which ISO 800 is the highest for color film available these days and pushing it will make it worst.

   But! Somehow I still like to shoot with films today.... I do have 3 film cameras loaded with film right now, Rolleiflex 2.8C with Ilford Delta 3200, Minolta XD11 with Kodak Portra 160 and Kodak Brownie Model 2E with Kodak TMAX 100 of which I'll have to finish up those soon. 

   I know what you mean, I have the same problem. Actually just bought another vintage film camera two days ago... damn internet make it so easy to buy things now.   

Take care,
Buddy 

Hi SET Man,
talking about films,
I used in the past the Kodak T-Max 100 and the Kodak Vericolor VPS160
those two films where my favorite.
I also use Kodak VHC (Vericolor high contrast) film for flower, very high saturation
but I've only used  a few rolls because soon after it was discountinued.

Guy 13
Sorry, back to normal scheduling.

[Jon L]

4. Cheap/phone cameras do not offer raw file output. Adjustments to the image (white balance, for example) further degrade jpeg quality while with raw files there's no degradation.

I would generally agree with most of the points, but there ARE phones that capture RAW files, namely LG G4/G5 which feature the same 16 MP and bright f/1.8 aperture camera/lens, which is the main reason I went with the LG G4 for my phone.  I am generally quite happy with the photos it produces.  Its manual mode with manual white balance, etc, come in very handy when other phone cams struggle.  When there are issues due to extremely low ambient light, I can easily clean up the RAW/DNG files in post-processing. 

Sure, I would love to magically have my Canon 5D III full frame camera with the EF85 f/1.2 lens pop up, only when I need it when I am out.  But since carrying all that gear all the time when I am out for casual outing reduces the enjoyment, the BEST camera is the one you have on hand, so I sure am glad the better phone cams these days have come a long way..

[MtnHam]

deleted

[JohnR]

But if you give someone that nice $1k camera/lens combo to someone who only take crappy photos with their phone, without artistically feel for good pics and have no intent or interested in learning to use the camera or basic photography know how than you will still get crappy photos from them but they will be sharper and higher res with better camera.

I suppose I was assuming that someone might care about the photos. (Otherwise, why take them?) In your example, at least there is a better chance that the photos could be fixed (depending on the problem) - I suppose that's part of what drove me to post in the first place, that once the phone has worked its "magic", that's it, you can't do anything about it.

[charmerci]

Well, without a cheap phone camera I would have never have taken this cool photo on my way to work.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

I suppose I was assuming that someone might care about the photos. (Otherwise, why take them?) In your example, at least there is a better chance that the photos could be fixed (depending on the problem) - I suppose that's part of what drove me to post in the first place, that once the phone has worked its "magic", that's it, you can't do anything about it.

The in-camera "magic" performed on what would otherwise be a perfectly good photo is half the reason people have such bad results. Just say no to in-camera processing.

Now, the average Joe is as unlikely to know that as he is unlikely to avoid mp3s, but since presumably someone who reads this forum knows better, well, you know better.