On 17 May 2014 15:42, John Guillory wrote: (2) > ... someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic camera is because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better ... Would this be the Apple that produces the "Retina" displays aimed at exceeding perceivable dot pitch at typical viewing distances so that the eye is well served? Apple's cameras are OK enough with lots of light. They are not as good as those in good dedicated cameras because Apple think they can get away with spending less than that would take. They can use tiny sensors, add lots of megapixels and the Apple experience and most people's wants are met. 'Most people' is usually enough. Large sensors require large optics and cost rises rapidly. Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed badly and/or framed badly and/or ... . If I used a phone camera most of these ones would not exist at all. Especially when I travel, the camera is an extension to my arm and, as well as record of travel, and purposeful quality-directed photos, I also push the camera beyond its abilities, and then see what I have managed to do well enough to be worthwhile. Surprised the person who pulls a strange face or adopts a ridiculous pose for a brief moment in front of my camera as a challenge to the cameraman. Most are quite amused when shown the photo(s) that quite often manage to get taken in such moments of levity. 'Good quality' well-lit well focused photos are always 'nice to have', but SOME of the best photos manage only some or even none of these. A top DSLR seems to take photos almost before the shutter button is pressed - so much so that in unsighted photos from moving vehicles you need to trail the spot where your brain says the subject is.) A cameraphone or even OK point & shoots are far too unresponsive for this. [I use them too, but differently]. ___________ (1) Just curious, but what is the dot pitch of your eyes, and are they factory > standard, or have you replaced them with new improved eyes? Just > wondering, because someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic came= ra > is because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better. > My son's comments on getting a 4k monitor included - "This looks to have more detail than reality - I'm going to stay here inside where it's warm". I have very normal 'failing with age' eyes. I wear $2 shop reading glasses BUT carefully chosen to have a diopter rating to suit screen and viewing distance that I usually use. Glasses that I carry or wear around tend to have short lifetimes. Very strange :-). I browse shops that sell cheap reading glasses, then go through the various models until I find ones that work well optically and but a number of that model. Results vary very markedly - some are very good. Others are almost worse than not being used. Presently I'm using 2.75 dioptre - both 2.5 and 3 dioptre are less-good for me. The limits of the HD+ screen are easily noticed on SOME photos. Below is a link to a 24 Mp, 4000 x 6000 head and shoulders "portrait" 16 MB download. I chose it (solely) for large file size for a JPG (so wide range of detail changes) and the very fine hair on the man's forehead. [FWIW this is ~=3D a rowing coach - I'd just been photographing his student= s as they carried racing shells from a river and approached him to swap contact details. This photo was as an 'aide memoir' for me. It works.][Note the label on the side zip - that's a life-jacket!] http://bit.ly/Sample_RowingCoach There are lots of things that show screen resolution here but his ucrly forehead hair, his eyelashes and to a lesser extent his along-the-top hairline have (or should have) lots of detail. This as produced by an in-camera RAW to JPG engine so is less than optimum. DxO rate this lens about 6 Mp? equivalent by their standards AND it's at about max aperture so softer than at best settings. And the screen is still a limiting factor. Use a 15 Mp rated lens (only one that I own achieves this*), run it at optimum aperture, point it at eg a bride with white veil, and wish you had a 4K monitor. *Sony nee Minolta 50mm f/1.8. prime But about NO lens available - not even the very very best - gets over about 20 Mp DxO rating. Russell > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .