As to cameras..............

Cell phones have come a long way. Just a quick photo when out in the woods for example.

tN2VDvs.jpg


feOHxq7.jpg
 
I agree, a quality camera is worth its weight in gold.
My wife, however, has taken some wonderful photos with her cell phone. It causes me to use my own cell phone as a camera more, and use my real camera, less.

That said, my wifes cell phone takes far superior photos than my own cell phone. So yes, the cell phone cameras have drastically improved, but they haven't all improved.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
One good thing about a cell phone is that it’s generally with me and ready to shoot as soon as I fish it out of my pocket. I used to keep a 35 mm camera under my car seat but it was never as versatile or easy to carry as my iPhone. And if I’m in the mood the photos can be edited and sent easily to anybody.
 
Sorry, but no way a dollar plastic 1/4" lens in a phone camera can match real glass multicoated optics on a DSLR.

There's an old saying among photographers... "The BEST camera in the world is the one you have on you when you need it", and that is where the phone camera cannot be beat.
 
There was a time that I carried a heavy camera bag with my Pentax SLR, several additional lenses, flash unit, filters and multiple rolls of film of various types. That bag went with me almost everywhere I went other than when at work. But as the years went on I found I gravitated to smaller and smaller cameras that were easier to carry. I'm not sure when I stopped carrying a camera, and just relied upon the camera in my smart phone, but I'm certainly there now. My last Nikon film camera went to one of my granddaughters who for a few years was an avid photographer, and my most recent digital camera, which had a real telephoto lens yet was half the size of my old SLR's, sits somewhere with a dead battery in the back of my closet. My Iphone camera is pretty damn good, and its convenience is incredible since I never go anywhere without it. And I can't recall how long it has been since I actually printed a photo instead of just saving it digitally.
 
The pictures a phone can take now are pretty dern amazing.... I pulled out my Nikon DSLR just the other day and am planning to try and start back at photography as a hobby... but probably won't since the aftermath of Helene will take up any free time. The problem with real Nikons is only big corporations and rich folks can afford the real lenses for these cameras.... consumer grade lens are okay and cost about the same as a good handgun.... 500-1000 dollars... but the commercial ones run in the range of 5-10...... or more.

Also, the reality is even these megapixel pictures don't match up to good old Kodachrome. But at least you don't have to be in a dark room dipping your fingers in some evil chemicals to try and manipulate the picture.
 
Sorry, but no way a dollar plastic 1/4" lens in a phone camera can match real glass multicoated optics on a DSLR.

There's an old saying among photographers... "The BEST camera in the world is the one you have on you when you need it", and that is where the phone camera cannot be beat.
Well, I have my 'phone wwith me in my shirt pocket but it is turned off. When I fish it out and turn it on, by the time the 'phone is ready, the opportunity has left the scene. My cell 'phone is primarily for emergency use only. Very few people have my cell 'phone number, so it stays stashed away.

Bob Wright
 
Some crappy cell phone pics from my old Turbo2!!!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20170615_102202052~3.jpg
    IMG_20170615_102202052~3.jpg
    25.2 KB
  • IMG_20170524_130457602~2.jpg
    IMG_20170524_130457602~2.jpg
    19.6 KB
  • IMG_20160622_083508489_TOP~2.jpg
    IMG_20160622_083508489_TOP~2.jpg
    91.1 KB
  • IMG_20160622_083508489_TOP.jpg
    IMG_20160622_083508489_TOP.jpg
    150.5 KB
  • IMG_20170524_130457602.jpg
    IMG_20170524_130457602.jpg
    183.8 KB
  • IMG_20170615_102202052.jpg
    IMG_20170615_102202052.jpg
    117.7 KB
I gave my old stuff (2 Canon FT bodies, a half-dozen lenses from 35mm to 400mm, filters, macro-focus rings, flashes, etc) to a teacher at the local college who teaches photography. Tried to sell it cheap, but no takers. I settled on a "bridge" camera.... almost a DSLR, way more than a "pocket" camera. 14 megapixel and a 28X zoom. It's Fuji something or other - don't remember the model. A friend with an i-phone can't match the quality - I'm certain it's the lens that makes the difference.
 
Back when DSLR's came into existence a very funny thing happened. None of the existing lenses for SLR cameras would work. Seems the was they placed the sensor resulted in the new DSLR's having a different focal length.

Now tell me, if you are starting from scratch to design a camera using me technology, how hard could it be to have the same focal length?

On my early Canon DSLR I tried various adapters to use my expensive SLR lenses. Results were crappy and use was clunky to say the least.
 
Back when DSLR's came into existence a very funny thing happened. None of the existing lenses for SLR cameras would work. Seems the was they placed the sensor resulted in the new DSLR's having a different focal length.

Now tell me, if you are starting from scratch to design a camera using me technology, how hard could it be to have the same focal length?

On my early Canon DSLR I tried various adapters to use my expensive SLR lenses. Results were crappy and use was clunky to say the least.
Yep, I think it had to do with the size of the sensor.... but then they fixed that but by that time they had redone all the lenses.. and then now the DSLR is old school it seems and everything is going to the mirrorless cameras.... for those that don't understand... for years the pro camera was a 35mm SLR which stood for Single Lens Reflex... you looked through the view finder of the camera and through a mirror the lens ... and the lens you could change out in a few seconds.... when you tripped the shutter the lends flipped up just before the shutter opened... the mechanics of this were pretty amazing if you think about it when you are using a 1-2,000 of a second shutter speed. Digital SLR's were the same just with no film but were limited to the sensor that captured the picture behind the 'shutter'. Good professional cameras can do everything the old film cameras could do... manipulate the f-stops and shutter speed and actual 'film speed' as well as so much more I've never been able to figure it out. My semi-pro DSLR, a Nikon D7100, is now old school and it came with a 400 page instruction book.

But then I have to say sometimes a smart phone is the way to go.... I was watching the sun rise this morning and had not only my two Nikon DSLRs out but my little Nikon cool pix I use for work and then decide to take this picture with my iPhone:
(I reduced the memory size of it down... when I started to export it I looked and the original was over 35 megabytes and this is with a little couple years old smart phone! )

IMG_8266 (2).jpeg
 
The pictures a phone can take now are pretty dern amazing.... I pulled out my Nikon DSLR just the other day and am planning to try and start back at photography as a hobby... but probably won't since the aftermath of Helene will take up any free time. The problem with real Nikons is only big corporations and rich folks can afford the real lenses for these cameras.... consumer grade lens are okay and cost about the same as a good handgun.... 500-1000 dollars... but the commercial ones run in the range of 5-10...... or more.

Also, the reality is even these megapixel pictures don't match up to good old Kodachrome. But at least you don't have to be in a dark room dipping your fingers in some evil chemicals to try and manipulate the picture.
Careful scratching your nose with tongs in rubber gloves...
 
Back when DSLR's came into existence a very funny thing happened. None of the existing lenses for SLR cameras would work. Seems the was they placed the sensor resulted in the new DSLR's having a different focal length.

Now tell me, if you are starting from scratch to design a camera using me technology, how hard could it be to have the same focal length?

On my early Canon DSLR I tried various adapters to use my expensive SLR lenses. Results were crappy and use was clunky to say the least.
Planned obsolescence, and prolly a corporate directive explicitely against using anybodys old lenses. Gave them as much of a slow start as their prices.
 
Yep, I think it had to do with the size of the sensor.... but then they fixed that but by that time they had redone all the lenses.. and then now the DSLR is old school it seems and everything is going to the mirrorless cameras.... for those that don't understand... for years the pro camera was a 35mm SLR which stood for Single Lens Reflex... you looked through the view finder of the camera and through a mirror the lens ... and the lens you could change out in a few seconds.... when you tripped the shutter the lends flipped up just before the shutter opened... the mechanics of this were pretty amazing if you think about it when you are using a 1-2,000 of a second shutter speed. Digital SLR's were the same just with no film but were limited to the sensor that captured the picture behind the 'shutter'. Good professional cameras can do everything the old film cameras could do... manipulate the f-stops and shutter speed and actual 'film speed' as well as so much more I've never been able to figure it out. My semi-pro DSLR, a Nikon D7100, is now old school and it came with a 400 page instruction book.

But then I have to say sometimes a smart phone is the way to go.... I was watching the sun rise this morning and had not only my two Nikon DSLRs out but my little Nikon cool pix I use for work and then decide to take this picture with my iPhone:
(I reduced the memory size of it down... when I started to export it I looked and the original was over 35 megabytes and this is with a little couple years old smart phone! )

View attachment 57305
SLR tech is over 150 years old, interchangeable lens sets predate ww1, pentaprism just after ww2. I had a fun lil prewar exacta which i gave a niece who, like her father, prefers to have an old film camera to mess about with.
To paraphrase a famous amphibian, There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing about with cameras.
I retire and i may well get back into it...
 
Well, I have my 'phone wwith me in my shirt pocket but it is turned off. When I fish it out and turn it on, by the time the 'phone is ready, the opportunity has left the scene. My cell 'phone is primarily for emergency use only. Very few people have my cell 'phone number, so it stays stashed away.

Bob Wright
I hear you, Bob, but with your fanbase, you need to keep that phone on so that you can get that incoming call from an adoring fan or someone wanting an interview. Heck, you may even get a call from Publisher's Clearing House telling you you've won the "big one."
 
Back when DSLR's came into existence a very funny thing happened. None of the existing lenses for SLR cameras would work. Seems the was they placed the sensor resulted in the new DSLR's having a different focal length.

Now tell me, if you are starting from scratch to design a camera using me technology, how hard could it be to have the same focal length?

On my early Canon DSLR I tried various adapters to use my expensive SLR lenses. Results were crappy and use was clunky to say the least.
Pentax still uses the same basic "K" mount on their DSLRs that they have been using since 1975. It has been updated many times but you can still use your old "K" "M" "A" "FA" etc lenses on the digital bodies. The only limitations are all the newer features don't work on the newer bodies with the older lenses. But, because the digital sensors are smaller than the 35mm film area the effective focal length increases by 50%. A 50mm lens covers the same area as a 75mm, my old "K" 135-600mm lens is now a 200-900mm lens but I have to manually set the focus and set the aperture and shutter speed.
I am on my fourth Pentax DSLR and still using the same lenses.
 
Pentax still uses the same basic "K" mount on their DSLRs that they have been using since 1975. It has been updated many times but you can still use your old "K" "M" "A" "FA" etc lenses on the digital bodies. The only limitations are all the newer features don't work on the newer bodies with the older lenses. But, because the digital sensors are smaller than the 35mm film area the effective focal length increases by 50%. A 50mm lens covers the same area as a 75mm, my old "K" 135-600mm lens is now a 200-900mm lens but I have to manually set the focus and set the aperture and shutter speed.
I am on my fourth Pentax DSLR and still using the same lenses.
Such vast possibilities, yet with half-vast equipment.
 
Pentax still uses the same basic "K" mount on their DSLRs that they have been using since 1975. It has been updated many times but you can still use your old "K" "M" "A" "FA" etc lenses on the digital bodies. The only limitations are all the newer features don't work on the newer bodies with the older lenses. But, because the digital sensors are smaller than the 35mm film area the effective focal length increases by 50%. A 50mm lens covers the same area as a 75mm, my old "K" 135-600mm lens is now a 200-900mm lens but I have to manually set the focus and set the aperture and shutter speed.
I am on my fourth Pentax DSLR and still using the same lenses.
I'm under the impression that most older Nikon lenses have the same backward compatibility but only to the limits of the old lenses. In my case I was a Canon shooter so I had to re-acquire my lens stash for my Nikon DSLR.
 
I have a Canon AE1 with no batteries because it has sat in the back of my closet for many years. I've thought about getting it serviced and using it again but don't even know where the 35mm film is found anymore.
I took these two photos just seconds apart with my iPhone 11 and I doubt I could do better with the Canon.

IMG_0408.jpeg
IMG_0409.jpeg
 
WAY back when the digital cameras first came out, I sold my Cannon E90 (something) along with several lenses for $1500-- about 1/4 of what it was worth. I then purchased a Cannon digital camera (I don't remember the model number) and haven't looked back since. I took great pics for about 10 years or so. Then I somehow lost sight of it and never found it. I then purchased a small digital Olympus Stylus 800 camera that I am still using. It takes great pics although I have to charge the battery often.
 
Back in about '77 while in journalism school (Radio and Television Broadcasting) I had a Pentax K1000 (I think) and a friend came in with one of those new fangled Cannon A1s or such.... I told him I would not own a camera that required a battery to operate. My Pentax only needed the battery to run the light meter on it... while that Cannon. would not do a thing with a dead battery. I for sure never saw into the future back then.
 
Last edited:
Even after cell phone cameras became popular I still used a real camera. I'll admit that I went digital pretty early with my first digital camera, a Canon, having a 1.2 megapixel lens which would be seen as a joke today. But by the time I got my first Iphone I don't think that I have touched any of my old cameras. The camera in my current phone, an Iphone 12, is good enough that it meets my needs and so is so convenient, being with me all the time, that I doubt I will ever go back to lugging around a seperate camera. I remember the old days when we would go off for the day as a family with my wife carrying a bag with drinks and snacks for the kids, and me carrying a heavy camera bag with my SLR, several additional lenses, a flash attachment, filters and extra film. I know I will never go back to that no matter how much I use to enjoy photography.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top