A great example of the exception to the 'dead center' rule.
As usual, it's all about the GLASS!Greater pixel resolution does not a better picture make.That being said, the Lumina takes a decent picture for a phone, certainly some of the best looking phone photos that I've seen however, at full scale you can see why one pays as much for low price lenses for a DSLR as this entire phone costs...But still, I want one. The image is at least of decent quality and very often, I have my phone with me but not my SLR.
ThomasSwitzerland: To Provia_fan:
I have all major SLRs and still using them. All of them operating as the sunken Japanese brands like a Miranda. Cut from a block of metal. Leica is nothing against this. I am in IT with digital stuff. But, taking photos with those antique machines relieves the mind from those ugly “upgrade” industry moves. Thanks for your confessions, I am in a similar league.
Don't forget the ole 'film vs digital' argument and die hards like me still insist that there ie 'something' that film has that digital does not.At least for me it's almost intagible, sorta more like how we 'percieve' exsitstance in some sort of two dimensional way.A bit more artistic in my opinion. Probably because I used to develop and enalarge all my own work. Now, digital makes it too easy. Again the artistic thing, I can still beat any printer with the right enlarger set up. May be not in the crispness of the image or technical perfection. What you are creating with an enlarger is technical imperfection but, that's why it has that different feel. There is just something about the silver process, you can't get it with digital.And, if you like black and white, I think there is no contest. Black and white siver based prints are, in my opinion, superior in their there look compared to digital. They also last a lot longer, hundreds of years if preserved properly.
Gear is so seductive; it can almost be like the dark side...As the old saying goes "you can use any camera to take a good picture."But, sometimes you need a different perspective...
yabokkie: not big deal but I think this is a 1/3.2" sensor of near 16 mm2. not 1/3" as HTC call it.
a larger pixel sensor won't deliver better image quality but it does contribute to lower costs of the sensor itself, the processing chip and memory, as well as more tolerance to lower quality lens and harsh assembly.
It does however, improve low light performance and contrast.This is simply the nature of the bestie; more area in the pixel sensor itself equates to more photons for the sensor to sample, i.e. more photons means a larger sampling for the idividual pixel sensor.
When a company rises so fast that it thinks it can do no wrong, that's the time to get ready to short-sell...
A camera is a tool; not unlike an artists paint brush.
That being said, it's like anything else, either you know how to use it or you don't.And that my friend is the difference; between pros and ametures.
Good high contrast test
I think that's what F1.2 lenses are for...Give me a real SLR and a fast lens. I'll take quality over a gimmick anytime.
When I was a child my goal was to be a National Geographic photographer.
I didn't make it but; it gave inspiration and it improved my photography with each issue that I read.
Congratulations! Keep up the great work and thank you.
Can anyone say O-2?Adam Osbourn did and look what happened to his company...
Thinkman: The bigger problem is that pointing any lens at the sun can permanently damage the camera's imaging sensor. SO STOP POINTING YOUR CAMERAS AT THE SUN!
It's not an opinion. Leave a sensor pointing at the sun for any length of time and you run serious risk or ruining the sensor.The same thing can happen to your eyes.Also, do not point a laser, even low powered, into the sensor, or your eyes.
This is an 'electrifying' picture.