|
|
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
|
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
On 11/05/2018 05:50, android wrote:
http://www.canonrumors.com/well-here...r-canon-glass/ Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Back to the classic Bert Hardy "Box Brownie" demonstration, it is the photographer who takes the picture, not the camera! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
newshound:
Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Indeed, they do. Why would it pain you to say so? Do you dislike the notion that vast numbers of people around the world can have a high-quality, all-in-one still and video camera on the persons wherever they go? -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
On 5/15/2018 7:10 PM, Davoud wrote:
newshound: Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Indeed, they do. Why would it pain you to say so? Do you dislike the notion that vast numbers of people around the world can have a high-quality, all-in-one still and video camera on the persons wherever they go? Ah yes, quantity vs quality. Been seeing a lot of that in the music industry for some time now. Hmm, also seen with TV along the lines of 500 channels and nothing worth watching. [YMMV] -- == Later... Ron C cynic-in-training -- |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
On 16/05/2018 00:10, Davoud wrote:
newshound: Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Indeed, they do. Why would it pain you to say so? Do you dislike the notion that vast numbers of people around the world can have a high-quality, all-in-one still and video camera on the persons wherever they go? :-) Because I am an old fart, who sometimes used to manage to hand-hold at 1/8 second when using Kodachrome II at 25 ASA. Using a proper viewfinder first of all cuts off some extraneous light and lets you frame the image better (including getting the horizon horizontal) and helps you to hold the camera steady. I don't think I would ever buy a camera without a viewfinder, although I will admit to framing and focussing from the back screen when doing macro work. It's not exactly *dislike*, more a mild envy that for most of my life it required much more technique to get a decent picture on 35 mm! It is quite nice though to see just what resolution people could get on plate cameras 100 years ago or more, even if they needed half a second exposures in full sunlight. :-) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
newshound:
Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Davoud: Indeed, they do. Why would it pain you to say so? Do you dislike the notion that vast numbers of people around the world can have a high-quality, all-in-one still and video camera on the persons wherever they go? Ron C: Ah yes, quantity vs quality. Been seeing a lot of that in the music industry for some time now. Hmm, also seen with TV along the lines of 500 channels and nothing worth watching. [YMMV] Being a bit snooty, aren't we? My mileage has varied a great deal. It's not quantity vs quality; for hundreds of millions of people it's camera vs no camera. And an awful lot of those people are taking great pictures. These, e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...one-photos-of- 2017_us_5953d2aee4b05c37bb7b3e8f. And in video, the Oscar-winning movie shot in part on an iPhone https://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/oscar-searching-sugar-man-shot-iphone. So stow the smugness. It's still the photographer, not the camera. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
newshound:
It is quite nice though to see just what resolution people could get on plate cameras 100 years ago or more, even if they needed half a second exposures in full sunlight. Yeah, almost as good as a cheap DSLR these days, and with a lot less fighting the camera and the glass plates. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
On 5/16/2018 6:23 PM, Davoud wrote:
newshound: Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Davoud: Indeed, they do. Why would it pain you to say so? Do you dislike the notion that vast numbers of people around the world can have a high-quality, all-in-one still and video camera on the persons wherever they go? Ron C: Ah yes, quantity vs quality. Been seeing a lot of that in the music industry for some time now. Hmm, also seen with TV along the lines of 500 channels and nothing worth watching. [YMMV] Being a bit snooty, aren't we? My mileage has varied a great deal. It's not quantity vs quality; for hundreds of millions of people it's camera vs no camera. And an awful lot of those people are taking great pictures. These, e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...one-photos-of- 2017_us_5953d2aee4b05c37bb7b3e8f. And in video, the Oscar-winning movie shot in part on an iPhone https://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/oscar-searching-sugar-man-shot-iphone. So stow the smugness. It's still the photographer, not the camera. I was thinking more of the psycho-social impact where the experience is being supplanted by the need to document. I have no problem with great, or even spectacular photos are frequently captured on a phone. I do worry a bit about the seeming obsession to document life rather than live it in real time. -- Later... Ron C cynic-in-training -- |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
Ron C:
Ah yes, quantity vs quality. Been seeing a lot of that in the music industry for some time now. Hmm, also seen with TV along the lines of 500 channels and nothing worth watching. [YMMV] Davoud: Being a bit snooty, aren't we? My mileage has varied a great deal. It's not quantity vs quality; for hundreds of millions of people it's camera vs no camera. And an awful lot of those people are taking great pictures. These, e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...one-photos-of- 2017_us_5953d2aee4b05c37bb7b3e8f. And in video, the Oscar-winning movie shot in part on an iPhone https://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/oscar-searching-sugar-man-shot-iphone. So stow the smugness. It's still the photographer, not the camera. Ron C: I was thinking more of the psycho-social impact where the experience is being supplanted by the need to document. I have no problem with great, or even spectacular photos are frequently captured on a phone. I do worry a bit about the seeming obsession to document life rather than live it in real time. Do you really think that's an issue with the hundreds of millions of people around the world--especially the poor--whose lives have been enriched by smartphones and their cameras? I don't see it. I just see people living their lives pretty much as always. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Put your Canon Glass to Use With Your iPhone!
newshound:
Much as it pains me to say so, you have to admit that if you are only viewing on a good PC monitor or ordinary HD TV, phone sensors and processors do a pretty good job these days. Davoud: Indeed, they do. Why would it pain you to say so? Do you dislike the notion that vast numbers of people around the world can have a high-quality, all-in-one still and video camera on the persons wherever they go? newshound: It's not exactly *dislike*, more a mild envy that for most of my life it required much more technique to get a decent picture on 35 mm! Get over it. It sounds to me like you begrudge people the ability to make nice, meaningful photos easily with a smartphone. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com