Photography

Glad you got the camera back. You just do not know who you are dealing with nowadays. As I have got older I have become more cynical. It’s a shame as there are some good people out there.

Returning to the mobile vs camera thing, my wife photographs birds usually the other side of a lake where I don’t think a phone would be of much use though I haven’t tried any of the telephoto gizmos. She also does funghi and we have a bookcase of mushroom pictures, we haven’t found the phone quite so good for that either. Currently she uses a £300 bridge camera a Panasonic Lumix fz82 with a 20 - 1200 lens which is a lot easier and lighter with no swapping of lenses required we tried that with a Canon and got very fed up with lugging the kit about. A few years back my daughter in law brought her full frame Canon along with her grey 400 lens (I think the grey ones are a bit better and a lot pricier than the black ones) and taking pictures of birds on a very distant tree, by the time you’d zoomed in on the computer there really was no difference in quality, they were both fuzzy but the Canon cost a great deal more. I believe to get that amount of zoom (1200) Bridge cameras use the same size sensor as a phone so perhaps a phone is as good as good as a camera.

SurreyAlan A few years back my daughter in law brought her full frame Canon along with her grey 400 lens (I think the grey ones are a bit better and a lot pricier than the black ones) and taking pictures of birds on a very distant tree, by the time you’d zoomed in on the computer there really was no difference in quality, they were both fuzzy but the Canon cost a great deal more. I believe to get that amount of zoom (1200) Bridge cameras use the same size sensor as a phone so perhaps a phone is as good as good as a camera.

In my opinion, those are two of the most obvious areas where “proper” cameras are going to wn out over mobile phone camera functionality in every situation bar one, that being portability and convenience. It comes at a price though.

As for “grey” lenses …. yes. Those SLR lenses come in what could be categorised as ‘consumer/prosumer’, and ‘professional’, but the ‘pro’ class would certainly include serious enthusiasts if they have the funds to afford them. Canon’s high-end lenses have an “L” designation. Most, but not all, L lenses are in white/grey, and I’m not aware of any non-L lenses other than in black. But there are some L lenses, especially the physically smaller examples, that aren’t white, so being white isn’t definitive as to whether it’s L or not. I have or have had two L lenses that aren’t.

Both “macro” photography (like the mushrooms) and high magnification telephoto (or zoom) work certainly come with their own challenges. In the case of macro, it’s often either getting enough light on the subject (enter specialist flashguns, etc) or, getting enough of the subject matter in focus (enter huge fun with “focus stacking”). In the case of the long range stuff, it’ll again be light (hence expensive, or VERY expensive, lenses with very large maximum aperture (smaller f-number), and that then brings up issues of both solid support for camera and lens because handheld is often no practical) and/or image stabilisation.

You mentioned “1200”. Canon used to have a 1200mm telephoto, though I think it’s deleted/superceded now. Some years ago, courtesy of a Canon UK product manager, I managed to have a play with one. That thing was collossal, a real beast. It must have been getting on for 3.5 feet long for a start, and weighed so much I used not one but two tripods supporting the lens, with the camera just hanging off the end. I certainly didn’t want the tripod, and you NEEDED tripods, overbalancing. At that time (maybe 20 years ago) that lens was :-

• built only to order, not manufactured for stock,
• priced, I was told, according to the Yen ecxhange rate when ordering, and
• in the realm of UK £80,000.

Yeah, £80k, 20-ish years ago. Dropping it would not have gone down well’ It’s the kind of thing used by the BBC Wildlife unit, and for National Geographic magazine, for ultra long ranges. That, obviously, is taking things to the extreme, but the very cheapest of those L lenses are around £500 mark, and you can top £2k pretty easily, wth many being significantly above that.

As might be obvious, I’m pretty keen on my photography, but while a little of my photo work has been commercial, I’m most certainly not a professioal photgrapher. More of a keen amateur that happened to get paid work sometimes. And while I would certainly maintain that that kind of equipment knocks mobile phone cameras into a cocked hat 100% of the time for image quality, IF your needs are demanding enough, many mobile phones are certainly astonishingly good at most things, and for most people most of the time, every bit good enough. And I use my phone camra a fair bit, not least because it’s the one I almost certainly have with me.

I’ve also known a few pro photographers use phones in SOME situations. For a start, trying to shoot “candid” or “street” photography with a ruddy great SLR with a dirty great white lens on it? Well, let’s just say you stand out a mile. Click away with a good phone, though, and barely anybody will notice let alone give a hoot.

IMHO, it’s horses for courses.

Many years ago I was into photography in a big way. There was something we often used to say. The very best cameras in the world, is the one you have with you. Even the professionals used to carry a Trip or XA2 around as a spare

Mobile phones today take astonishing photos and video considering their size, lens and sensor, with awesome battery capacity for these functions. I changed to a mobile phone for my review photos and videos many years ago, because it was just so much easier and simpler to do it and transfer the images and videos.

DavecUK I changed to a mobile phone for my review photos and videos many years ago, because it was just so much easier and simpler to do it and transfer the images and videos.

I suspect a lot depends on what you’re aiming for. A pretty high proportion of so many, ummm… reviews is as much or more about entertainment than information/education. And in that environment, production values are more important. If people go to the review for information/education, and that is where yours truly excel, then (IMHO of course) the mobile phone is quite simply good enough. What am I REALLY looking for, and/or care about? Professional lighting, HDR colour, 4k ….. or rock solid actual content.

With some reviews, even for me, probably entertainment, but when I’m after actual meat and potatoes, i don’t really care about the colour of the candles on the table. 😀

Has your moile phone ever detracted from the standard of the info? Not in my opinion.

More broadly, can I remember ever cutting a video I was watching short because vid quality isn’t top draw? Nope. I have dumped a few, and I don’t mean yours, for lousy sound. For anyone setting up a studio, my suggestion for a limited budget would be get the sound right before spending a fortune on fancy camera gear or lenses. A mobile phone will do a perfectly acceptable job. A tad below perfect image quality is fine, but lousy sound …. that can be a deal-killer or me.

I’ve got a mate who is a photographer, started doing freelance work in the late 80’s taking photos at gigs and selling them to music magazines. He went on to work for several reasonably well known bands, touring with them as their photographer. He does other stuff too, he’s got a graphic design business so takes product photos, some motor sport stuff. I’ve been out with him at shoots. A lot said here about the advantages of one camera or another - very little written about the skill of the shooter.

My experience is even when sharing equipment - the difference in our shots is frankly unbelievable - and more than a little disheartening! I’ve been interested in photography for the same length of time as him and have a good understanding of the equipment and have read loads trying to get better at composition. But for the same reasons that I can’t paint like Van Gogh even with good canvas and paint, or play guitar like Jeff Beck even with a good amp and guitar, my photos are average even with a 1D and L glass.

I’ve got a decent consumer Canon DSLR and a case full of lenses and flashes but they stay in the cupboard most of the time. I can get similar results with my phone because I’m the weakest link!

THe Jeff Beck / Van Gogh (though I’d go maybe Monet/Manet, etc personally (not a fan of vanG)) is very valid. A Stradivariusis is not going to turn me into a Bach, Brahms or Paganini (unfortunately). More like it’d turn me into a good emulation of a pee’d off castrated cat. If anyone gets too near me with a violin, they’re going to be wishing to upgrade to someone murdering a set of bagpipes as a cultural upgrade.

By the same logic, an F1 car would turn me into a disaster waitung to happen, not a Lewis Hamilton redux.

The better the tools, the better the ‘artist’ needs to be to get anywhere near the best out of them.

The X-Pro2 turned up. Love the form factor and looking forward to getting out and about with it.

Couple of pics straight out the camera using the film sims.

Yeah the beard and tattoos come free with all white Linea Minis!

Discovered a lens company called ‘7Artisans’… manual focus, 35mm 1.2 made in the Far East for around £120…

It’s amazing! Fun to use and loads of character to the images. Not a ‘pixel perfect’ lens and lots of flaws but I’m really impressed.

Ernie1 made in the Far East

Aren’t all lenses made in the Far East? 🤣

I have been using a Sony A6400 for years. I was into photography in a big way. Had all the fast sigma primes (16mm, 30mm, 56mm f1.4’s), the 70-350 G, 85mm f1.8 but in the end I really need all those lenses and carrying it around was breaking my back.

Kind of lost the passion for it so sold all the lens and bought the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 for all around use (27-75mm FF equivalent). Kind of wish I kept the 16mm f1.4 as bokeh is tremendous and pin sharp especially indoors where wide open keeps the ISO down without additional lighting.