Film vs. digital; cameras vs. phones - What is going on?

[Sonnar Brian]

I posted some images on another forum, on a discussion concerning modern sensors having higher resolution than the lenses used with them. I used the 1949 ZK Sonnar to show the lens at F4 had higher resolution than the M8. Used the same technique shown here: resized image + 100% crop of the center.

The comment I received:

"But if you look at the smooth surfaces, there's absolutely no noise. Very different from my noisy G2."

Not what I was expecting with someone looking at "straight out of the camera" Jpegs. Lossless compression selected for uploads.

Now- if you really want to compare performance of a camera and lens:

Plot it.

"Mod Hat": this thread's topic is displaying images on the Internet, and how the display of a compressed/decimated image is not a good indicator of absolute performance. I agree with that. It is not a film vs digital debate, but if it becomes one- new forum for that.

 

[gdi]

I am 90% "in" for the "Rally to Restore Sanity"! Couldn't have come at a better time... the chick that upset Mike Castle in DE said on O'Reilly in 2007, ""American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains..." I think she watched too many episodes of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPFSNu_QNs
at whatever asylum she was in...

I hope she wins!

I think she could be convinced to stand on the east shore of Guam, opposite Hank Johnson on the west, and thus prevent it tipping over. That balancing act would demonstrate true bipartisanship!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

It would be if you'd add an iPhone wide-open! 🙂

 

[Ducky]

I took this picture with my iphone.

 

[Steve_F]

I was helping my grandson build a model of a race car and the plastic body was white which was the same color that we were going to paint the car. He asked me why we couldn't just spray the plastic with clear coat since we were painting the car white anyway. "Because it would look like clear coated white plastic" was the best I could do.

Sometimes the most simple answers are the best because what you said was THE real answer
I'd have done the same.

Steve.😀

 

[bigeye]

..."What can I possibly learn about what gear produces the best quality by looking around the web?"... I'm beginning to think that avoiding digital because it can't produce great b&w imagery is no longer a valid excuse.

Simply, if all you want is web viewing, "image quality" isn't the factor. The level of IQ from most devices is fine for the web. I'd say functionality (camera control) would be the biggest differentiator ("manual digital" P&S camera anyone?) Anything else is pretty much an academic argument.

If you're printing, that is a different thing....

- Charlie

 

[tapesonthefloor]

This is all well and good, but a 35mm film camera-phone is what the word has been waiting for.
I may make my own. I have a Vivitar Ultra Wide film camera and old Nokia phone and some tape somewhere. 🙂

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

:lol:

you're lookin' kind of like Jemaine there, too.

 

[jsrockit]

Is it that one is perceived to be better than the other and so it must be emulated ? They are just different; what's the issue? I don't get it..

Yes, people hate change.

 

[ebino]

Check this out first, then ask yourself "What can I possibly learn about what gear produces the best quality by looking around the web?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/librarybook/4980362465/#/photos/librarybook/4980362465/lightbox/

(photo at this link was apparently taken with an iPhone)

I think this image is another great example of how web-based images cannot answer questions about what gear produces the 'best' images or whether digital or film produces the best b&w or color photographs. I'm beginning to think that avoiding digital because it can't produce great b&w imagery is no longer a valid excuse.

"So what!" you say. Well, I say... ya got a point there. But there it is.

P.S.: Who's planning to be at the "Rally to Restore Sanity 2010" in Washington, D.C., October 30? I'm in!

We all look at photos on our computer monitors. We also have the largest audience for our pictures through the computer monitors. We could make prints and books of our own, but it will have a very limited audience and sometimes no one else but our own next of kin.

I know this photographer, he'd been photographing for a long time now but never made his work available for others to see. He made some prints but never of his personal work. Finally last year he decided to make prints of some of his work and put them up for sale. Unfortunately except friends (including me) no one bought a single print from him. It was very sad to see him getting disappointed like that. He had high expectations from his work and his prints were decent and priced very reasonably.

So, in this age of computer monitors, its those flat screens which are the only medium to show your work. the best you can expect is people admiring your work online, and all you have to do is create imaginative work, with aesthetic appeal and superior content. Gear and all that nonsense does not mean anything. even you don't need advanced post-processing skills. All you have to be is an imaginative and resourceful photographer.

Had my photographer friend spent that money on a website and hired someone to do all that stuff for him, he would have received a much more positive and wider audience, who knows, he might even have sold more prints. But, he would have none of it. He still lived in 50s neverland of photography bliss.

Technology, you either move with it, or it bulldozes you.

 

[kshapero]

taken with Iphone 4

 

[ottluuk]

Well, I like what this guy is doing with his iPhone.

 

[antiquark]

The iPhone is nice, if you like an infinite depth of field. If you want selective focus, you need a larger sensor than an iPhone will give you.