Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III

On 2014-10-12 05:33:03 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-10-12 04:05:18 +0000, philoÂ* said:

On 10/11/2014 08:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:


Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you have
already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of your shows, that
shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which camera he used, it would be
nice to know the model and that should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.


I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...

Floyd can be a PITA at times, especially when he does whatever he can
to establish his expertise with all things in arcane technology. Other
than that he has a personally established knowledge of all things, and
quite often can provide some useful advise & information. Sometimes he
can give that advise and information without belittling those on the
receiving end.

I just did a quick google search and see some pretty decent point and
shoot cameras in the less than $100 range.

If that is what one can afford and produces images you are satisfied
with, there is a place for those cameras.

The whole point I was making was that one needs an eye for photography
for the photo to be any good and if one has that eye...the photos from
a decent but lower end camera will be better than those someone gets
with an expensive camera who does not know how to use it.

That happens every day. I am sure that there are individuals who spend
$5-10K on equipment and when they produce nothing view-worthy they give
up the hobby.

Anyway here is one image the guy took...No processing was done other
than greatly lowering the resolution for posting on the web

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...07725285_o.jpg


If

you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

Then the other guy's work must have been awful. That shot is to my eye
(just an opinion) a reasonable snap shot. It just doesn't rise to the
level of photographic fine art.

Personally I would have done something quite different with it,
starting with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow
on the ice don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an
interesting image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg

....or you can crop a slightly different way to get something such as this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...Philo-2C2.jpg?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

philoÂ* wrote:
On 10/11/2014 08:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you have
already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of your shows, that
shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which camera he used, it would be
nice to know the model and that should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.


I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...
I just did a quick google search and see some pretty
decent point and shoot cameras in the less than $100
range.

The whole point I was making was that one needs an eye
for photography for the photo to be any good and if one
has that eye...the photos from a decent but lower end
camera will be better than those someone gets with an
expensive camera who does not know how to use it.

Anyway here is one image the guy took...No processing
was done other than greatly lowering the resolution for
posting on the web

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...07725285_o.jpg

If you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

The horizon isn't even straight. It has exactly zero
value as a photograph.

But notice how he stripped the Exif data so that we
can't see if it was taken with a $90 camera or with a
$400 camera.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


Anyway here is one image the guy took...No processing
was done other than greatly lowering the resolution for
posting on the web

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n.../1557423_77952
9745407730_1707725285_o.jpg

If you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

The horizon isn't even straight.

which is trivial to fix, should he want to do that.

It has exactly zero
value as a photograph.

maybe to you, but you don't speak for everyone and you're not the final
arbiter of what makes for a valuable photo anyway.

But notice how he stripped the Exif data so that we
can't see if it was taken with a $90 camera or with a
$400 camera.

why does that matter?

and it's facebook that strips the exif.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

When I am questioned by well-meaning people, I explain
that the 2 most important factors in my taking good
pictures are my eyeballs and my shutter- button finger.

Neither of which have any value if you use the wrong
tool.

both have tremendous value regardless of tool.

knowing how to use the tools you have is what matters.

And if your tool is a Leggo camera, your pictures won't
exactly be masterpieces.

they might be.

a masterpiece does not need to be made with expensive equipment.

ansel adams would still take masterpieces no matter what camera he
used.

Strange though, ain't it... he never used anything less than
the best cameras available.

strange how buying the best cameras isn't what made him a good
photographer.

and he didn't always use the best (i.e., large format) either. he knew
what the equipment he used could do and how to best get everything out
of it.

it might not be as sharp if he used an instamatic versus a large
format camera but it would still be way better than anything most
people could ever do.

Then why did he *always* opt for the expensive camera that
gave him the sharper images?

he didn't lug the view camera everywhere and he's just one person
anyway. plenty of people take fantastic photos with p&s or smartphones
and this is something that will increase.

as the saying goes, the best camera is the you have with you.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Only very exceptional individuals differ from the norm.

That follows, by definition.

Exactly. And trying to define a norm by citing exceptions
is never productive.

yet that's what you do.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 03:10:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Only very exceptional individuals differ from the norm.

That follows, by definition.

Exactly. And trying to define a norm by citing exceptions
is never productive.

yet that's what you do.

Naah. They are edge cases.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 03:10:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

When I am questioned by well-meaning people, I explain
that the 2 most important factors in my taking good
pictures are my eyeballs and my shutter- button finger.

Neither of which have any value if you use the wrong
tool.

both have tremendous value regardless of tool.

knowing how to use the tools you have is what matters.

And if your tool is a Leggo camera, your pictures won't
exactly be masterpieces.

they might be.

a masterpiece does not need to be made with expensive equipment.

ansel adams would still take masterpieces no matter what camera he
used.

Strange though, ain't it... he never used anything less than
the best cameras available.

strange how buying the best cameras isn't what made him a good
photographer.

and he didn't always use the best (i.e., large format) either.

That's your definition of 'best', not Ansel Adam's.

he knew
what the equipment he used could do and how to best get everything out
of it.

it might not be as sharp if he used an instamatic versus a large
format camera but it would still be way better than anything most
people could ever do.

Then why did he *always* opt for the expensive camera that
gave him the sharper images?

he didn't lug the view camera everywhere ...

Who said the view camera was the expensive camera? Except for the
lense they aree generally quite chep for wat they do.

... and he's just one person
anyway. plenty of people take fantastic photos with p&s or smartphones
and this is something that will increase.

as the saying goes, the best camera is the you have with you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Floyd L. Davidson says...
And while there may indeed be plenty of mediocre folks
with expensive equipment and software, there is little
question that for most people better tools do help them
1) get better pictures, and/or 2) learn more about
photography on their way to becoming more than just
another mediocre photographer.

My brother bought himself a Nikon D700 and he doesn't know how to use
it. The idea was to use it for portrait photography (nice shallow DOF
with the big sensor). In practice he's ended up with lots of F25
portraits.
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

On 10/12/2014 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:



snip

you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

Then the other guy's work must have been awful.

Now you are getting the idea...indeed they were...however he now seems
to be getting better...just took him a very long time. I don't have any
to post but they were just very poor snapshots.


That shot is to my eye
(just an opinion) a reasonable snap shot. It just doesn't rise to the
level of photographic fine art.

Personally I would have done something quite different with it, starting
with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow on the ice
don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an interesting
image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg




Normally when I process a shot I do not crop so I left the photo uncropped.

The way /you/ cropped it was nice but since this was a locally taken photo
I wanted the viewers to get some recognizable visual clues allowing them
to know it was right here in Milwaukee.


Here is one more of his images (again not cropped)

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...01263360_o.jpg

On 10/12/2014 12:55 AM, Savageduck wrote:



I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...

Floyd can be a PITA at times, especially when he does whatever he can
to establish his expertise with all things in arcane technology. Other
than that he has a personally established knowledge of all things, and
quite often can provide some useful advise & information. Sometimes
he can give that advise and information without belittling those on
the receiving end.


Yep, I have no time for people who just shoot their mouth off and cannot
back it up with anything other than swearing.

Were he in a 7th grade debate team he'd have been disqualified right
out. ...and possibly moved into the realm of political candidates.

I just did a quick google search and see some pretty decent point and
shoot cameras in the less than $100 range.




Suppose I should have given the result I got after about a ten second
search:

Sony DSCW800 20 MP $80 at Best Buy


I have no idea if it's any good, saw no user comments on dp review
but I just posted that as an example