| Author |
Can camera phones replace low-end dedicated digital cameras |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-03-21 06:13:15, dazbradbury wrote:
@ AYA, that is the perfect camera phone use. And the same reason I would end up using the camera in my phone.
But you wouldn't consider yourself a photography enthusiast, or a serious photographer, or even put such photographs in an exhibition. Or am I wrong?
|
|
Yes you are dazbury. Because you missed the point I made about skill. I didn't mean skill as in the ability to create a technically perfect picture - what's so clever about that if you have the perfect camera? It still doesn't make the picture artistic. See this is what you miss Dazbury, the art involved. We are talking art here and I think you'd agree a picasso would still be a picasso if it was painted with crayons would it not?
You are a technical elite - and good luck to you - but many photographers care more about what is in front of the camera than what is in their hands. Those photographers aren't as hung up with equipment as you would think.
I'm not the only one who embraces camera phones as an artistic tool. I'm in good company. Many photographic artists around the world are turning to camera phones for the intimacy, immediacy and sponteneous nature of the medium.
Below are some links that show that simple low end cameras can and are utilised by artists around the world. I guess you think all the works linked to below, some by renowned photographers, don't qualify as photographic art?
Camera Phone Photograpers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3879633.stm
http://home.powertech.no/pervo/bromweb/nokia2.htm
http://moblog.co.uk/cblog.php?show=1390
http://www.americanphotomag.c[....]&article_id=3416&page_number=1
Box Brownie Photography
http://www.deviantart.com/print/165063/
http://www.brownie-camera.com/gallery.htm
| |
|
chili
Joined: Dec 09, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM, WWW
|
I remember a news feature on TV in the mid-80s. It was about a Japanese man who had managed to put together a photo exhibit with "just" an entry-level point-and-shoot film camera.
The guy actually used FILM, enabling him to make large prints.
Regardless, to be considered a "serious" photographer back then, you had to have some sort of SLR or a rangefinder with full manual controls, at least 3 fixed-focal length lenses, a variety of zoom lenses, flashes, tripods, shutter release cables, filters, etc. Hence the "amazing story" about him.
(Digicams were unheard of by the public back then.)
I wonder when a phone camera owner will be considered "serious," "enthusiast," etc. by using an antiquated SE K800. The "non-serious" ones of course will be using wink-operated camera-sunglasses. Or maybe ogle-operated camera-contact lenses.
I'll have a good laugh when that day comes. |
dazbradbury
Joined: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - Derby/London
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
As a matter of fact, it does seem that the two of you are saying the same thing, but strangely seem bent <IMG SRC=\"/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif\"> on antagonising yourselves <IMG SRC=\"/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif\">
|
|
haha, I think we do agree on most things. It's just when the barrier is being pushed from general consumer photography, towards a higher level of photography, I feel it is my place to say a camera phone isn't adequate. And people shouldn't be given the impression that it is.
|
DeLa
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From:
PM |
I think you should make a distinction between professional photography that needs to be print etc and "art" on itself.
Professionals need the best available for the job, usually because it has to meet some printing standards.
Artist need whatever enables them to express themselves.
But even then. Take the Leica, expensive indeed, but in fact not even a reflex camera and with little or none automatic settings and usually not even a zoomlens. Would you say someone with a Leica is not a serious photographer?
Its pointless to make such a difference between serious and not serious. Where would you draw the line??
If a cameraphone is available at a certain situation, and it's because it is a cameraphone that it is available, well, at that point, the cameraphone is the best camera. |
chamak
Joined: Jan 05, 2006
Posts: 226
From: Bangladesh
PM |
I think we're moving aside from our main topic. It's 'bout replacing the low-end digital cameras not professional photography, and it shouldn't come newhere near the current topic. After having a K750i I would NEVER rely on a dedicated digi-cam for everyday shooting even if it's a 10MP Super Something....
I've a Fuji FinePix S5500 (called S5100 someplace) it has 4MP and 10x Optical zoom. But definitely never wanna carry that HUGE thing hanging in my neck everywhere I go.
The point is the hight-end  camera phones have already replaced the low-end point&shoot digi-cams...I've felt it with the ppl around me...even in some outdoor occassions (like having a picnic) ppl use camera phones, they print and they share, wheter someone agrees or not.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
chamak, good points.
Basically if the end user would normally use a cheap digital camera, they can now get away with using a mobile phone such as the K750. Before camera phones, I was using my 2MP Kodak for my photographic endeavours. Now I can use the K750. Dazbury may consider it incorrect to use for serious photography, but it's still effectively no different to using a low end digital camera (which is "incorrect" also by the same reasoning that dazbury uses to discount camera phones).
Many serious photographers world wide are picking up low end cameras of all kinds and using them to create art. Of course in many photographic applications you need a certain level of equipment, I have no argument with that. I never once proposed camera phones as a general replacement for all types of photography. But Dazbury's view that the seriousness of a photographer is in direct proportion to the complexity of their equipment is an opinion not shared by all photographers.
I am not asking for peer approval to use a low end digital camera for artistic purposes. I have already made that choice and I am doing it, it's a fact.
|
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Given some more years . . . Digicams/Handycams-Videocams will become obsolete ! So goes with Laptops ! Just like what happened to 'pagers' when celfones entered the GADGET . . . arena ! Mark my word here mates . .. as I speak like Nostradamus at times !
Now, I am just wondering what will replace - CELFONES in the future 
[addsig] |
dazbradbury
Joined: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - Derby/London
PM, WWW
|
Ok, i'm sorry, but anything i say you seem to change your argument. Orginally you were an enthusiast, arguing the quality of photographs from your K750i is good enough. Then, a serious photographer, saying the options available through a k750i are far and wide. At one point you admitted to not even being an amateur photographer, and that the k750i was perfect for your needs. Now, you claim you like to use the low resolution and crippled functionality in an \"artsy\" way.
There is actually no point in discussing this with you. At first I was trying to help, but it resorted in me having to justify that to your continual developing photographical story.
Yes, camera phones are handy, yes, they are improving, and yes, they have a low resolution and output pixelated images which may be deemed as artsy. They are in themselves low-end digital camera's, so of course, if you have a phone with that functionality, you wouldn't carry round a second device that is the same. In that sense, they have eliminated such devices due to widespread mobile phone usage and high integration of camera's into phones.
I think those are all facts, and pretty obvious ones at that.
I just think it's a shame that photography has undergone so much, and you are trying to claim a serious photographer would use such a device as a primary camera. There is so much science that comes with photography, the basic stuff like aperture relating to focal distance, the way long exposures can capture movement, the way different lenses can be used for varying purposes, and so much more.
I just get annoyed that you are trying to justify using a crippled device which leaves little to learn. I'm not saying you don't allready know all of these things, just that, someone picking up from an early age, and only ever using a camera phone, would never learn it. Nor would they appreciate it.
|
chili
Joined: Dec 09, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM, WWW
|
@chamak's right. Yeah absolutely, K750 and its equivalents are sufficient for day-to-day shooting needs that used to be met by low-end digicams. When Max says low-end digicams, I suppose that means 3.2mp or less, autofocus (or w/ very small aperture to avoid focusing problems), and w/o manual shutter speed & aperture control. Right Max? 
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-03-22 02:07:16, dazbradbury wrote:
Ok, i'm sorry, but anything i say you seem to change your argument. Orginally you were an enthusiast, arguing the quality of photographs from your K750i is good enough. Then, a serious photographer, saying the options available through a k750i are far and wide. At one point you admitted to not even being an amateur photographer, and that the k750i was perfect for your needs. Now, you claim you like to use the low resolution and crippled functionality in an "artsy" way.
|
|
Mate I never changed my story, it's simply that you're view and my view of what constitues Professional, Enthusiast, Amatuer are all different. You are trying to box photography into neat categories based on the more "elite" the form of photography, the more complex a camera needed.
Photographers doesn't necessarily run parallel to your neat little chart of what constitutes a serious photographer. I'll never be able to fit into your chart, so of course it looks to you like I am changing my story, when infact I'm change YOUR story.
Besides you have changed your story - at first you argued that ANY digital camera would be better than any camera phone. Now that I and other posts have shown that to be wrong, you are claiming that it's okay to use a camera phone in place of a low-end digital! Exactly what I am trying to say!!
The only difference of opinion we have here is this; is using a low-end digital camera (of whatever type) suitable to be used as the primary tool of a photographic artist? My answer is yes, depending on the requirements of the photographer (or the person contracting the photographer). I don't believe the answer is in any broad brushed list of right and wrong camera choices.
Once I understood the context of your chart, I realised that the closest I fit is in the enthusiast category. This is not because of the camera I use but because of how prolific and committed I am to the artform of photography. You can question my commitment because I don't use a "serious" camera but I simply don't accept your arguments about how important equipment is. I also am capable of practicing as a professional photographer - indeed I used to provide such services commercially, when digital cameras didn't exist as a viable form of professional equipment. I own an SLR, and I know how to use it. I have just as much right to an opinion as you do about what constitutes a suitable camera for any given purpose.
With regard to pixelation - every digital camera image has pixelation - it's a matter of degree. But the K750 at 2MP is high enough resolution that you can print up to 8x10 images before the pixelation becomes evident. More than enough resolution to print pixelation free photos for an exhibition.
Besides I never mentioned pixelation as being good artistically (a legitimate concept that you obviously don't understand), infact I am not interested in pixelation affects. My interest in art photography is more about capturing interesting lines, shapes and colours made by natural or man made objects - I try to avoid pixelation, and indeed it is actually possible to get crisp clear images with the K750, although lighting circumstances do make that hard at times. Again it's just a matter of degree - any camera has limitations. I enjoy the challenge of achieving excellent results from such limited equipment.
It is VERY demanding in some circumstances getting excellent results from a camera like the K750 - but you underestimate how much control a photographer has over the end result when they can't fall back on traditional controls. There are many ways to manipulate light, shadow, placement etc to get the result one is after.
I could get "cleaner" photos with a better camera it's true, but a better camera isn't in my pocket 90% of the time when I need it. And I believe the K750 is suitable for the various uses to which I put it, which includes family snap shots, photo opportunities while out and about, and artistic pursuit.
You can think what you like, but please don't claim you have the right to dictate what constitutes serious photography.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-03-22 02:33:59, chili wrote:
@chamak's right. Yeah absolutely, K750 and its equivalents are sufficient for day-to-day shooting needs that used to be met by low-end digicams. When Max says low-end digicams, I suppose that means 3.2mp or less, autofocus (or w/ very small aperture to avoid focusing problems), and w/o manual shutter speed & aperture control. Right Max?
|
|
Correct. exposure control based on ISO rating, but no physical appertures.
|
dazbradbury
Joined: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - Derby/London
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
Besides you have changed your story - at first you argued that ANY digital camera would be better than any camera phone. Now that I and other posts have shown that to be wrong, you are claiming that it's okay to use a camera phone in place of a low-end digital! Exactly what I am trying to say!! |
|
Actually, i was talking about a dedicated camera you could get for the price difference between an m600i and a p990i. I would put my £100 or so into a dedicated camera.
What you are trying to say now is completely different, you are arguing the K750 can be used for photographers everywhere. That is where my gripe is.
Quote:
|
I enjoy the challenge of achieving excellent results from such limited equipment.
|
|
Great.
Quote:
|
Mate I never changed my story, it's simply that you're view and my view of what constitues Professional, Enthusiast, Amatuer are all different. You are trying to box photography into neat categories based on the more "elite" the form of photography, the more complex a camera needed.
|
|
Why do we have better equipment then? And yes, that is true. Generally, people start off with a simple point and shoot, and work their way up, slowly, to a selection of lenses and fully manual SLR. Along the way, they will use various different camera's, but at each step there is more to learn. This is the progression from begginner, to proffessional. Going through various stages imbetween.
Anyway, this thread is getting pretty tiresome and repetitive. I wish you luck in your endeavour of using bad equipment to make great photo's. Maybe it will mean if you ever allow yourself better equipment, the photo's will be the best the world has seen, who knows.
[ This Message was edited by: dazbradbury on 2006-03-22 14:25 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Dazbradbury, mate I think we agree more than we disagree mate. I'm not trying to argue that a person SHOULD use a low end camera, and I'm not arguing that it's better. It may not be a choice that you would ever make, and I respect that. I myself will certainly welcome the newer and "better" phone cameras as they arrive, so I am not immune to wanting good equipment.
But because the phone is on me in 90% of the cases I see something I want to photograph, I use it. These cameras afford many advantages over a dedicated camera, including the fact you can take 100's of pictures and the battery doesn't even look like dying, the convergence factor (one device in your pocket), the "ever present" factor, and the fact that many people completely ignore someone with a camera phone when they would become spastic if you stick a real camera in their face.
You make out that my willingness to accept less than technically "perfect" photos it return for the advantages listed above means I'm not a serious photographer. Myself, I believe that imperfection of the medium doesn't impair the photographers ability to capture the essence of a scene. This in my view is the primary goal of photography. The ability to take a crisp, perfectly exposed photo is secondary.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your wishing me luck, I wish you the same.
BTW There are some good low-end cheapies, there are also some VERY BAD. And given I purchased the K750 for MP3 player functionality as well as camera, there is no saving to me in buying three devices: a cheap phone, a dedicated mp3 player, AND a cheap camera that is only marginally better (or far worse) than the K750 camera. But ultimately the cost is not the factor - it's the "ever present" factor that appeals to me about camera phones, and as in my thread title, I am arguing that these types of cameras are good enough now to supplant low end dedicated cameras.
Whether a low-end digital camera (of any kind) is good enough for serious photography is another issue and not what I was trying to argue in this thread. Given that someone already uses a low-end camera for their photography (bad or not as that may be), the K750 (or N90 or Sharp 903 etc) is as good a choice as any.
|
marlonski
Joined: Oct 16, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM |
@max - it's been an interesting read mate I'm planning on getting myself a dedicated camera 5 to 6 mp. I've decided not to go straight down the slr route but rather the super zoom at the moment, enough manual settings to enable me to develop some of the shots i like to take and to also experiment a little more.
That said my w800 doesn't have the ccd lens my 2mp camera has nor does it have the optical zoom, however, I myself have taken well over 1000 shots with my w800 and have found the quality certainly good enough not to have to worry about using my current digicam which was the point of this thread and I have already mentioned.
I've always enjoyed photography, my interest has grown since purchasing my K700 even with it's vga capabilities enabling me to take shots otherwise missed because like most people didn't have a camera with me.
The w800/k750 etc for me was a breath of fresh air, sure it has it's limitations, but as you have mentioned, mine is always with me enabling one to capture that 'Kodak Moment' and in the hands of someone that has a keen eye and understands it's limitations can be a very capable 2mp camera.
Not sure if i have mentioned this to you previously but I feel it's worth mentioning it here, that my local news/TV station (meridian) have used a couple of my w800 shots for their weather reports. Now of course they were lucky shots but nevertheless they were taken with a  2mp camera phone. Quality ? well they may not be award winning shots mate abut having said that, I've seen a few really nice shots taken and posted on the different picture threads here that even if taken with a more capable camera wouldn't have made much of a difference other than the fact that the picture could've been printed much larger without any loss in quality.
keep your eye out for a few of my holiday snaps which I'll be posting here on esato later next month
_________________
=
[ This Message was edited by: marlonski on 2006-03-23 00:53 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
hey Marls, hope we didn't bore you! Couldn't agree more with all you say.
I Look forward to checking your holiday snaps - where you going this time?
| |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-03-21 08:40
