Happy Phone Snappers

[Andy Kev.]

I went into a fairly serious photo printing place yesterday to get some jpegs of images printed. The lady blew the images up to the max and said that they were well inside the boundaries for enlargement. I innocently opined that I would be surprised if anybody turned up with unsuitable images. She said that every day people walked in with holiday snaps on their phones that they liked and wanted prints of and in the vast majority (her words) of cases, the images couldn't take any enlargement.

I was actually a little surprised at this because I had thought that the phone manufacturers had got this sorted. I'd come to this view because accessories for phone photography are now available and so assumed that the whole thing was sewn up. Not the case, apparently.

The obvious solution (and the view of the lady in the shop) is that if you are going anywhere where you think you might want to take some phots, go to the trouble of buying at least a half decent compact camera, learn the basics of using it and you might be in with a shout in terms of enlargements. Mind you, I suppose that always has been the case, even in the days when everybody went on their hols with some kind of film camera.

 

[RogerS]

You're speaking to an open door here. I've long been of the view that the cameras in mobile phones are hyped out of existence and that the actual picture quality is poor. Way, way too much digital processing resulting in unwanted artefacts.

 

[sunnybob]

I've given up using my canon 350 digital. Its completely outclassed by the mobile phones of everybody I know.
The only real use for the DSLR now is with the 300 mm zoom lens in good light on a non moving target.

But having said that, mobile phone cameras have the same settings as DSLR's. If the person is not aware, and just keeps snapping at minimum pixels so they can have 5000 selfies on their phones (I know one person with this many :shock: ), then yup, poor pics.

I have a 5 year old kindle fire that will take quality pictures under conditions my canon would have thrown a fit at if asked.
My wife has a motorola (something??) the full win 10 system, and a camera that is superb.

To misquote an old shooting saying, "its the nut behind the butt that gets the job done"

 

[AndyP]

Isn’t it more likely that many mobile phone users do not know how to use the camera settings to save i ages at the best possible quality. On my Samsung that means all my images are saved in HD and are about 5-6mb. Regular housekeeping ensures there is always enough storage, usually on the sd card.

 

[novocaine]

I carry my 60d everywhere normally. Last weekend I went to Whitby without it. I regretted it, but it was a worthy experiment to try.

My phone did an OK job, but I won't be doing it again anytime soon.

 

[Pete Maddex]

Give me a slr over a phone any day much more controllable, god knows how I change the apathy’s shutter speed and iso on am iPhone.

My sensor if 45.7 megapixels and the sensor is 35x24mm some phones claim more than that, just where do they put the sensor? Some one is being economic with the truth.

Pete

 

[RogerS]

Isn’t it more likely that many mobile phone users do not know how to use the camera settings to save i ages at the best possible quality. On my Samsung that means all my images are saved in HD and are about 5-6mb. Regular housekeeping ensures there is always enough storage, usually on the sd card.

Mine regularly stores files that are 9Mb plus. Picture quality is still dire.

 

[RogerS]

I carry my 60d everywhere normally. Last weekend I went to Whitby without it. I regretted it, but it was a worthy experiment to try.

My phone did an OK job, but I won't be doing it again anytime soon.

:text-goodpost:

 

[AndyP]

Took this on the mobile yesterday morning. How much different would it look with a digital SLR? It was a white overcast sky BTW.



Full size here, I hope

https://flic.kr/p/2nhAMDv

 

[RogerS]

What phone do you have, Andy?

 

[AndyP]

Samsung A20e just over a year old.

 

[RogerS]

Samsung A20e just over a year old.

So why is my Samsung A71 so c**p ?

 

[AndyP]

Are you suggesting that an SLR would not make a lot of difference to that image on the OP?

 

[RogerS]

Are you suggesting that an SLR would not make a lot of difference to that image on the OP?

To a purist possibly because it is very, very good. On a scale of 1 to 10 where your photo is a 9, then my phone struggles to achieve a 2. The Samsung before that was just as bad.

 

[novocaine]

Took this on the mobile yesterday morning. How much different would it look with a digital SLR? It was a white overcast sky BTW.



Full size here, I hope

https://flic.kr/p/2nhAMDv

It wouldn't make a sod of difference. But I wouldn't blow it up to a decent size of image either because it's really really really boring.

 

[AndyP]

The reason I asked earlier is that I would like to take a pictures of the wildlife we occasionally see while out and about around here. Deer specifically.
This is about as close as I can get, more usually they are a lot further away



Full size.
https://flic.kr/p/2nhCu5B

I would rather not lug around an SLR with long lens and I am not interested in taking competition quality photos but to get better closeup would be satisfying.

Are there any light weight, small, pocket size zoom (could be zoom only as I am concerned) cameras out there at happy snapper prices?

 

[novocaine]

Google the following phrase

"Mirrorless camera" .

Have fun. (Note xt-1 fujifilm is a better of a camera)

 

[sunnybob]

Samsung A20e just over a year old.

So why is my Samsung A71 so c**p ?

Peel off the protective sticky label over the lens.

 

[Chris152]

I've given up using my canon 350 digital. Its completely outclassed by the mobile phones of everybody I know.
The only real use for the DSLR now is with the 300 mm zoom lens in good light on a non moving target.

But having said that, mobile phone cameras have the same settings as DSLR's. If the person is not aware, and just keeps snapping at minimum pixels so they can have 5000 selfies on their phones (I know one person with this many :shock: ), then yup, poor pics.

I have a 5 year old kindle fire that will take quality pictures under conditions my canon would have thrown a fit at if asked.
My wife has a motorola (something??) the full win 10 system, and a camera that is superb.

To misquote an old shooting saying, "its the nut behind the butt that gets the job done"

Don't give up on the 350D, SB. It was my first digital camera and I kept using it when upgrading to newer ones, it all depends what kind of pic you're looking to make. The last photos I put in an exhibition (in Berlin several years ago) were shot on a 350 enlarged to A0 size and both sold, each for a comfortable four-figure sum. Before we say what can and can't be printed to what size, we need to be clear about what's important to the photo and how it's going to be viewed.

 

[Andy Kev.]

The reason I asked earlier is that I would like to take a pictures of the wildlife we occasionally see while out and about around here. Deer specifically.
This is about as close as I can get, more usually they are a lot further away



Full size.
https://flic.kr/p/2nhCu5B

I would rather not lug around an SLR with long lens and I am not interested in taking competition quality photos but to get better closeup would be satisfying.

Are there any light weight, small, pocket size zoom (could be zoom only as I am concerned) cameras out there at happy snapper prices?

As with all such things, it depends on how much you want to spend. Have you considered the Fuji X Pro 3 or if that is too dear, the predecessor model, the X Pro 2 (you might get a demo model for a good price). What would make a real difference for your wildlife stuff would be a carbon monopod. They weigh almost nothing and collapse down to a very convenient size. Then you would be in with a good shout of getting a clear image which would stand a bit of enlarging to get the subject to a decent size.

I was on a woodworking course and a pro photographer was on it too. He swore by the X Pro series and said they were a good alternative to spending lots of money.

 

[novocaine]

Our wedding photographer sold her 5d shorty after our wedding to buy into the x pro series. She said it was night and day in terms of portability and quality.

I'll always be a happy amateur as far as photography goes. I've had a few competition successes but for the most parr the images are for me and its more the process I enjoy than the end result

 

[AndyP]

The X-Pro is way out of my league.
The Panazonic DcFZ82 is more like it. Not sure how I can equate 60x zoom in terms of distance and size. :eusa-think:

https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-lum ... n/p3125372

 

[Andy Kev.]

Our wedding photographer sold her 5d shorty after our wedding to buy into the x pro series. She said it was night and day in terms of portability and quality.

I'll always be a happy amateur as far as photography goes. I've had a few competition successes but for the most parr the images are for me and its more the process I enjoy than the end result

Although I have no intention of getting one, I wouldn't say no to an x pro. They're the nearest thing I've seen to a digital version of a Contax G2 which in its own way was a quite perfect camera but Contax decided to stop making cameras.

 

[RogerS]

The X-Pro is way out of my league.
The Panazonic DcFZ82 is more like it. Not sure how I can equate 60x zoom in terms of distance and size. :eusa-think:

https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-lum ... n/p3125372

Cor....thanks, Andy. I have the DMC-FZ20 which has a 16x optical zoom. It is superb.

60x must be awesome.

So much so...I've just ordered one. Some retail therapy is exactly what I need.

 

[Cabinetman]

I know very little about photography but I’m looking to buy a zoom lens that clips onto my iPhone, small enough to keep in a pouch in my pocket for exactly that deer type shot, I’ve got as far as the reviews which seem favourable. Ian

 

[sunnybob]

I've given up using my canon 350 digital. Its completely outclassed by the mobile phones of everybody I know.
The only real use for the DSLR now is with the 300 mm zoom lens in good light on a non moving target.

But having said that, mobile phone cameras have the same settings as DSLR's. If the person is not aware, and just keeps snapping at minimum pixels so they can have 5000 selfies on their phones (I know one person with this many :shock: ), then yup, poor pics.

I have a 5 year old kindle fire that will take quality pictures under conditions my canon would have thrown a fit at if asked.
My wife has a motorola (something??) the full win 10 system, and a camera that is superb.

To misquote an old shooting saying, "its the nut behind the butt that gets the job done"

Don't give up on the 350D, SB. It was my first digital camera and I kept using it when upgrading to newer ones, it all depends what kind of pic you're looking to make. The last photos I put in an exhibition (in Berlin several years ago) were shot on a 350 enlarged to A0 size and both sold, each for a comfortable four-figure sum. Before we say what can and can't be printed to what size, we need to be clear about what's important to the photo and how it's going to be viewed.

Chris, the problem with the canon is that it is so labour intensive to get a very good picture. It excels at outdoor work, but struggles at close up and indoor party scenarios. I've used nikon and without a doubt their software beats canon for such conditions, but I dont own a nikon camera. if I want to take a picture of my latest box, it can take ages to get right because the canon "green zone" doesnt cope well. I'm not a patient person (mild ADD) and get annoyed very easily at having to constantly adjust all the parameters. The kindle (and the mobile phones I have used) will constantly give me exactly the picture I want in those circumstances and instantly.

My last 35 mm camera was a canon eos 10, with the bar code reader and booklet of all the different weird settings you might come across. I managed to work that fine.

 

[AndyP]

The X-Pro is way out of my league.
The Panazonic DcFZ82 is more like it. Not sure how I can equate 60x zoom in terms of distance and size. :eusa-think:

https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-lum ... n/p3125372

Cor....thanks, Andy. I have the DMC-FZ20 which has a 16x optical zoom. It is superb.

60x must be awesome.

So much so...I've just ordered one. Some retail therapy is exactly what I need.

Would it be terribly rude of me to wait for your review? I really have no idea what 60x zoom equates to. I searched high and low last night for an example of a before and after shot without sucess.

 

[AndyP]

I know very little about photography but I’m looking to buy a zoom lens that clips onto my iPhone, small enough to keep in a pouch in my pocket for exactly that deer type shot, I’ve got as far as the reviews which seem favourable. Ian

Ian, I too have had a look around at those. I have my phone in a protective flip case. I could not work out if those clip on lenses would clip over the case.
I’d be interested to see which ones you have looked at.

 

[RogerS]

The X-Pro is way out of my league.
The Panazonic DcFZ82 is more like it. Not sure how I can equate 60x zoom in terms of distance and size. :eusa-think:

https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-lum ... n/p3125372

Cor....thanks, Andy. I have the DMC-FZ20 which has a 16x optical zoom. It is superb.

60x must be awesome.

So much so...I've just ordered one. Some retail therapy is exactly what I need.

Would it be terribly rude of me to wait for your review? I really have no idea what 60x zoom equates to. I searched high and low last night for an example of a before and after shot without sucess.

I'm sorry, Andy but I bottled out.

 

[RogerS]

.....

Would it be terribly rude of me to wait for your review? I really have no idea what 60x zoom equates to. I searched high and low last night for an example of a before and after shot without sucess.

Grasshopper...you need to improve your Google skills

[youtubessl]xBHINWcKhU4[/youtubessl]

 

[Andy Kev.]

I know very little about photography but I’m looking to buy a zoom lens that clips onto my iPhone, small enough to keep in a pouch in my pocket for exactly that deer type shot, I’ve got as far as the reviews which seem favourable. Ian

That brings us back to the conversation I had with the lady in the developing shop (see 1st post in thread).

Imagine that you knew somebody who wasn't particularly interested in woodwork at all but he felt that he did need a plane occasionally to get a surface flat. He already has a pretty much junk No 4 which you've checked with a straight edge and could see that it needed a lot of work on the sole. He's heard of some sort of weird extension which can allegedly convert it into a Number 5. And to top it all, his ambition is to get some walnut perfectly flat so that he can make a nice jewellery box. (I'm trying to think of an analogy to photographing shy wildlife with a mobile phone.)

You'd break it to him as gently as you could that if he weren't prepared to get a No 5 from either Clifton, Veritas or Lie-Neilsen or at the very least watch the websites for a good second hand Record, he would be on a hiding to nothing.

I reckon that the absolute minimum you would need for that kind of wildlife shot is something that has a zoom with a long end equivalent to 300 mm on 35 mm used in combination with at least a monopod, if not a tripod. That would definitely put you in decent Record territory and with a bit of care you could get decent results.

The other thing you need to do is master your kit. Have a serious look at how the combination of aperture, ISO rating and focal length influence your picture taking. (You can't get stuck in with a plane without learning how to sharpen and adjust it.)

Phones and indeed most consumer cameras promise you perfect results from the off and they appear to deliver that if your subject is right in front of you and you enlarge to no more than the size of a fag packet. The only thing that I know which does everything for you without you having to get involved is a decent washing machine from one of the better manufacturers.

I fear that your combination of deer/mobile phone is probably a non-starter. I'm basing all this only on my personal experience of photography and I don't regard myself as being any good at it. I did however set myself the target of being able to competently govern the image that lands on the film/sensor and the above is written in the light of my struggles. I will of course bow to the knowledge of anybody who tells me that I'm wrong (I could well be). Good luck with it, in any event.

 

[RogerS]

I know very little about photography but I’m looking to buy a zoom lens that clips onto my iPhone, small enough to keep in a pouch in my pocket for exactly that deer type shot, I’ve got as far as the reviews which seem favourable. Ian

That brings us back to the conversation I had with the lady in the developing shop (see 1st post in thread).

Imagine that you knew somebody who wasn't particularly interested in woodwork at all but he felt that he did need a plane occasionally to get a surface flat. He already has a pretty much junk No 4 which you've checked with a straight edge and could see that it needed a lot of work on the sole. He's heard of some sort of weird extension which can allegedly convert it into a Number 5. And to top it all, his ambition is to get some walnut perfectly flat so that he can make a nice jewellery box. (I'm trying to think of an analogy to photographing shy wildlife with a mobile phone.)

You'd break it to him as gently as you could that if he weren't prepared to get a No 5 from either Clifton, Veritas or Lie-Neilsen or at the very least watch the websites for a good second hand Record, he would be on a hiding to nothing.

I reckon that the absolute minimum you would need for that kind of wildlife shot is something that has a zoom with a long end equivalent to 300 mm on 35 mm used in combination with at least a monopod, if not a tripod. That would definitely put you in decent Record territory and with a bit of care you could get decent results.

The other thing you need to do is master your kit. Have a serious look at how the combination of aperture, ISO rating and focal length influence your picture taking. (You can't get stuck in with a plane without learning how to sharpen and adjust it.)

Phones and indeed most consumer cameras promise you perfect results from the off and they appear to deliver that if your subject is right in front of you and you enlarge to no more than the size of a fag packet. The only thing that I know which does everything for you without you having to get involved is a decent washing machine from one of the better manufacturers.

I fear that your combination of deer/mobile phone is probably a non-starter. I'm basing all this only on my personal experience of photography and I don't regard myself as being any good at it. I did however set myself the target of being able to competently govern the image that lands on the film/sensor and the above is written in the light of my struggles. I will of course bow to the knowledge of anybody who tells me that I'm wrong (I could well be). Good luck with it, in any event.

:text-goodpost:

There is perhaps an even easier way to get that deer shot ? I seem to recall that if you dress yourself in orange, ensure that the background behind you are tree and greenery then you can creep much, much closer to the deer as they cannot differentiate between orange and green.

 

[AndyP]

.....

Would it be terribly rude of me to wait for your review? I really have no idea what 60x zoom equates to. I searched high and low last night for an example of a before and after shot without sucess.

Grasshopper...you need to improve your Google skills

[youtubessl]xBHINWcKhU4[/youtubessl]

Thankyou Master. I want one. Will discuss with the budgetary authority and purchasing department. Where do you think it fits in the Record, Clifton, Veritas, Lie Nielsen, Norris analogy

 

[RogerS]

Lie Neilsen, I reckon.

 

[novocaine]

Axminister own model. Will get you there but there will always be better, more expensive options.

 

[sunnybob]

Andyp, a 60 times lens will allow you to easily see a 9mm bullet hole at 300 yards. :lol:
I think you can guess how i know this :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Andy Kev.]

The X-Pro is way out of my league.
The Panazonic DcFZ82 is more like it. Not sure how I can equate 60x zoom in terms of distance and size. :eusa-think:

https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-lum ... n/p3125372

A little research shows that that zoom at max has an equivalent focal length of 1,200 mm. Wow! That's much longer than the average sports journalist uses at e.g. a football match.

You would definitely and without question need a tripod to make any sense out of using it at that focal length. I would also wonder what the image quality is like. However, if you've no intention of going down the photography rabbit hole, it sounds ideal.

One further thought though: 1,200 mm equivalent is seriously massive. I would try to find out if there is something similar which takes you to 300 - 400 mm equivalent but which has a better sensor/image quality. That would be a more practical camera IMO.

 

[novocaine]

1200mm through a 20mm lens. You will only be using that on bright days then.

 

[AndyP]

Axminister own model. Will get you there but there will always be better, more expensive options.

Thanks Dave, as with most things I’ll have to do a cost benefit analysis.

 

[AndyP]

The X-Pro is way out of my league.
The Panazonic DcFZ82 is more like it. Not sure how I can equate 60x zoom in terms of distance and size. :eusa-think:

https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-lum ... n/p3125372

A little research shows that that zoom at max has an equivalent focal length of 1,200 mm. Wow! That's much longer than the average sports journalist uses at e.g. a football match.

You would definitely and without question need a tripod to make any sense out of using it at that focal length. I would also wonder what the image quality is like. However, if you've no intention of going down the photography rabbit hole, it sounds ideal.

One further thought though: 1,200 mm equivalent is seriously massive. I would try to find out if there is something similar which takes you to 300 - 400 mm equivalent but which has a better sensor/image quality. That would be a more practical camera IMO.

Thanks Andy.
Therein lies the rub. I do not want to carry a tripod every time I take the mutt for a walk. I read, but understand little about the effectiveness of image stabilisation. Oh, if I could try before I buy.
I class myself as notch above a happy snapper but in the same way that my ears are not tuned to hifi standards my eyes are not up to competition photography.

Those clip on lenses for smartphone would seem to be in even more need of a tripod BTW.

:eusa-think: :eusa-think: