In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
In article <7col165fm8ghsiajdakf7i3rjtfphu0t06@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
It couldn't make your images look any worse and would probably be a
step up from your precious Panasonic.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:11:39 -0700, in
<180620100611396422%rag@nospam.techline.com>, "Mr. Strat"
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>In article <7col165fm8ghsiajdakf7i3rjtfphu0t06@4ax.com>, John Navas
><jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
>> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
>> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
>> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
>> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
>> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
>> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
>
>It couldn't make your images look any worse and would probably be a
>step up from your precious Panasonic.
Back into the killfile you go!
--
Best regards,
John
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:11:39 -0700, in
> <180620100611396422%rag@nospam.techline.com>, "Mr. Strat"
> <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <7col165fm8ghsiajdakf7i3rjtfphu0t06@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
>>> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
>>> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
>>> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
>>> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
>>> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
>>> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
>>
>> It couldn't make your images look any worse and would probably be a
>> step up from your precious Panasonic.
>
> Back into the killfile you go!
On Jun 17, 10:02*pm, John Navas <jn...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
>
> MORE:
> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/sizing-up-the-iphone-4-for-...>
I would be suprised if its anywhere near camera quality to print large
and exposure control will lack. its just a phone and Mp means nothing
as to overall quality. Photos may look decent on the phone but it wont
replace any decent camera.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 17, 10:02*pm, John Navas <jn...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
>> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
>> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
>> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
>> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
>> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
>> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
>>
>> MORE:
>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/sizing-up-the-iphone-4-for-...>
>
>I would be suprised if its anywhere near camera quality to print large
>and exposure control will lack. its just a phone and Mp means nothing
>as to overall quality. Photos may look decent on the phone but it wont
>replace any decent camera.
However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
In message
<702b61a3-6779-461b-addc-197060193cfc@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
ransley <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>I would be suprised if its anywhere near camera quality to print large
>and exposure control will lack. its just a phone and Mp means nothing
>as to overall quality. Photos may look decent on the phone but it wont
>replace any decent camera.
In general (based on previous iPhones) I'd agree. However, given the
larger sensor, it sounds like Apple might have dropped more than $0.25
on the camera this time.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), ransley
><Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 17, 10:02*pm, John Navas <jn...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
>>> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
>>> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
>>> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
>>> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
>>> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
>>> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
>>>
>>> MORE:
>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/sizing-up-the-iphone-4-for-...>
>>
>>I would be suprised if its anywhere near camera quality to print large
>>and exposure control will lack. its just a phone and Mp means nothing
>>as to overall quality. Photos may look decent on the phone but it wont
>>replace any decent camera.
>
>
>However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
available. We've seen your "work".
I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a Brownie-Box
camera if I so desire.
James Nagler wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>> <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
>
> And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
> available. We've seen your "work".
>
> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a Brownie-Box
> camera if I so desire.
Riiiiight. You have some lame excuse for not proving same?? Like posting
a scan of your Brownie snaps is too difficult??
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:40:21 -0500, James Nagler
<jnagler@spamproofed.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
>
>And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
>available. We've seen your "work".
You haven't, and I promise you that you never will.
>I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a Brownie-Box
>camera if I so desire.
>
>Can't you?
My first published photograph (in a local newspaper) was taken with a
Box Brownie. It was 1963 and I was eight years old.
I earn my living from photography. Can't you?
I cannot imagine that your interminable images of moths could pay the
mortgage. ;-)
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>> <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 10:02*pm, John Navas <jn...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
>>>> average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
>>>> standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
>>>> more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
>>>> camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
>>>> use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
>>>> camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
>>>>
>>>> MORE:
>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/sizing-up-the-iphone-4-for-...>
>>>
>>> I would be suprised if its anywhere near camera quality to print large
>>> and exposure control will lack. its just a phone and Mp means nothing
>>> as to overall quality. Photos may look decent on the phone but it wont
>>> replace any decent camera.
>>
>>
>> However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
>
> And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
> available. We've seen your "work".
>
> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a Brownie-Box
> camera if I so desire.
>
You are also excellent at pulling rabbits out of your ***. Aren't you
*special*?!?
On 6/18/10 12:27 PM, in article hvga9n$dna$3@news.eternal-september.org,
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> James Nagler wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT), ransley
>>> <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
>>
>> And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
>> available. We've seen your "work".
>>
>> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a Brownie-Box
>> camera if I so desire.
>
> Riiiiight. You have some lame excuse for not proving same?? Like posting
> a scan of your Brownie snaps is too difficult??
The only thing 'Brownie' that *it* might exhibit would be similar to Rita's
poop portraits...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:40:14 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:40:21 -0500, James Nagler
><jnagler@spamproofed.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
>>
>>And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
>>available. We've seen your "work".
>
>
>You haven't, and I promise you that you never will.
I must have confused you with all those point & shoot crapshooters that
submit their dreck photos to those SI challenges.
>
>
>>I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a Brownie-Box
>>camera if I so desire.
>>
>>Can't you?
>
>
>My first published photograph (in a local newspaper) was taken with a
>Box Brownie. It was 1963 and I was eight years old.
My first good image was at 5 years old when I stuck a lit sparkler in the
wet sand on the beach at night next to a seashell. I wanted to learn how to
use the "bulb" shutter setting on the Brownie Box camera. The image was
never sold but won awards. The first of many.
>
>I earn my living from photography. Can't you?
>
>I cannot imagine that your interminable images of moths could pay the
>mortgage. ;-)
>
>
I guess you missed the discussion about how those were a side-project that
I took on for 1.5 months during a photo-trek sabbatical, outside of my
other wildlife photography. Documenting over 700 unique species of insects,
two times more unique species than the University in that area documented
during their whole existence. Those moth images were just a small portion
of that 1.5 month project. Some of the insect photos are of species that
had never been photographed before. One of the species not even being seen
since the 1920's with no surviving specimens, no photographs, only partial
line-drawings were available from the 1920's detailed enough to determine
its identity. The last two preserved holotype and allotype specimens were
destroyed in a NY museum due to poor storage conditions back in the 1940's.
As far as anyone knew they were now just partial line-drawings of an
extinct species that would never be seen again. I have the only images of
living specimens in existence in high resolution, where in some images just
the mouth-parts and their highly unusual stubby antenna structures fill up
the whole frame. You'd be surprised what an image like that can go for.
Think how much an image of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker would go for if it
was detailed enough to resolve the feather's structures, let alone just its
100% guaranteed identity. (On my to-do list because I have an uncanny
ability to find and photograph some of the rarest or once-thought-extinct
species on earth.) But I don't make my money on insect photos. That's only
a side interest.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com>
saying something like:
>In all, the iPhone 4 offers a lot of photo and video power for the
>average user—some may even find it enough to consider eschewing a
>standalone point-and-shoot still camera or compact camcorder. Those with
>more serious imaging needs won't be ditching a DSLR or 3-CCD video
>camera anytime soon, but there are a few welcome improvements for casual
>use. Judging from the samples Apple has provided so far, the improved
>camera hardware looks like it will be a solid performer.
Back Side Illumination, or as is known - ArseLight.
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4mbn16pjbfj20a6f0tj648pgbqsb9d9h0u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:40:21 -0500, James Nagler
> <jnagler@spamproofed.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:12:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>However, it will be good enough for John Navas. Anything is.
>>
>>And some people will continually create crap with the most expensive gear
>>available. We've seen your "work".
>
>
> You haven't, and I promise you that you never will.
I ownder who really has
>
>
> My first published photograph (in a local newspaper) was taken with a
> Box Brownie. It was 1963 and I was eight years old.
Uh huh!
>
> I earn my living from photography. Can't you?
Uh huh!
With help from your your unidentified friends at Olympus, I suppose.
NEWS: Sizing up the iPhone 4 for shutterbugs 
Linear Mode
