Phillip U

Lives in United States IL, United States
Joined on Aug 5, 2002

Comments

Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9
In reply to:

junk1: what a fool, as if you can see through a window...did he pass a similar law for DSLRs and cell phone cameras? If some "anxious/paranoid" type person declares she/he was frightened, we get into trouble? Hopefully this law has such a huge hole that it's unenforceable.

@bwana4swahili, I believe @alvinlu's point is that the operator could be a mile away from the drone, not that a privacy-infringing photo could be taken from a mile away.

I like drones and the features they provide to us photographers but they also create possibilities for devious operators such as peeping toms that could give drones a bad name so having laws in place that outlaw certain use while also protecting legitimate users without infringing on their ability to use them are okay in my book.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2018 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

cshyde: Before smart phones with decent cameras the soccer moms all carried their little cameras to take pictures of the kids. The smart phone ended that cycle. I go to a lot of events where parents are watching their children participate and almost a hundred percent are pulling out their phones and taking pictures with them. The pics will end up on Facebook or other social media because that is the trend today. It is a little sad for those of us who have a deep interest in photography and the process of taking a meaningful image. To the average parent or teenager it doesn't matter. Your phone is your camera and the fleeting image of your child's accomplishments will make the rounds of the family then be forgotten or lost when the phone breaks or is lost or stolen. Many people don't know that you can actually transfer the pictures off of the phone to somewhere more permanent.

While I agree with your assessment of smartphones replacing compact cameras as clearly backed up by the charts above, I disagree with your cynicism regarding the permanence and quality of images being taken.

I believe that the number of people interested in taking a truly quality image hasn't fallen. Rather, the ability for them to do this has been extended to the ubiquitous smartphone. And for those who want even more control, the options have never been better.

Additionally, people know they can take the pictures off the phone but they don't need to. Online backups and auto uploads have replaced this former need. Google and Apple have done a pretty good job of including these capabilities in their respective platforms. Facebook et al have enhanced this even more by recirculating old favorite images as time goes by.

From my perspective, photography has never been more capable, shareable and approachable than ever before.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
On article Check out the first images from the iPhone 5S (71 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phillip U: Image quality is fair as expected. The amount of space dedicated for the camera in an iPhone is so small it's a marvel it can even take photos. Most of the work seems to be done in the CPU and software rather than by using high quality optics and sensors. That's a shame considering how popular iPhones are.

Apple and Samsung are truly in a position to blow away the competition by including high quality camera parts but they both seem to be only including "good enough" technology in their flagship phones. Sure Samsung has been experimenting with their Galaxy cameras, but even they know that the average user isn't going to lug something that large around as a phone.

Why aren't we seeing folded-optics zoom lenses with OIS in a fairly compact device? Or how about much bigger sensors? 8MP is fine for me, but look at the noise on these tiny sensors! Even Sony's new flagship Xperia Z1 has such obvious softness and noise at low ISO. These limitations are what make us avid photographers carry a second camera. I wish I could get away with just my iPhone. And I've tried. But I always end up disappointed and wishing I had brought my SLR or even my wife's point and shoot. Don't get me wrong, I'm no pixel peeper, but these limitations show up on my prints and my shared photos because I'm forced to crop due to lack of telephoto and the tiny sensors have poor dynamic range with blown highlights or featureless shadows.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 15:10 UTC
On article Check out the first images from the iPhone 5S (71 comments in total)

Image quality is fair as expected. The amount of space dedicated for the camera in an iPhone is so small it's a marvel it can even take photos. Most of the work seems to be done in the CPU and software rather than by using high quality optics and sensors. That's a shame considering how popular iPhones are.

Apple and Samsung are truly in a position to blow away the competition by including high quality camera parts but they both seem to be only including "good enough" technology in their flagship phones. Sure Samsung has been experimenting with their Galaxy cameras, but even they know that the average user isn't going to lug something that large around as a phone.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 15:10 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article Check out the first images from the iPhone 5S (71 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Latest and greatest of Nokia, doesn't impress much with very slow shot to shot times.
What I don't like is Apple being conservative with the camera hardware and other parts, which I think they are saving for the next iPhone soon.

@Vladik - I think perhaps you have fallen for the iPhone rumormongers who all claimed to know that there would be a new, low-cost iPhone. At no point did Apple ever allude to that actually being the case.

In fact, quite the opposite occurred. Apple execs have been quoted as saying that they were essentially uninterested in producing a device that catered to budget markets. Phil Schiller earlier this year said "Despite the popularity of cheap smartphones, this will never be the future of Apple’s products. In fact, although Apple’s market share of smartphones is just about 20 percent, we own the 75 percent of the profit."

So don't blame Apple. They're not interested in selling a budget item. They're solidly in the luxury market and that's where they're staying.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 14:39 UTC

Smartcameras, naturally. But how long until that is unnecessary? I already feel foolish saying digital camera. Even DSLR seems old already.

For the dedicated consumer camera category to survive, wireless connectivity is a must. I find it so inconvenient now that my point and shoots and SLR cannot immediately send a photo for someone to review. But my iPhone takes photos that can't match my SLR's quality. And unless the laws of optics change, I can't imagine they ever will.

So, wireless connectivity is a new must for me. At least something that can be tethered to my phone so I can send something off. Once a means of "pairing" devices becomes truly ubiquitous (NFC, bluetooth, etc.) and I can just push a button on my phone or camera to send my pics somewhere, I will be happy.

Having other photography related apps that can be added sounds interesting if they're truly innovative and experience changing. But playing Angry Birds on my camera is of absolutely no interest to me.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 19:10 UTC as 83rd comment
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9