I don't use dslr, just a slr. Quality is unbeatable .... Something about = true film that digital can't touch... -- KF5QEO John Guillory westlakegeek@yahoo.com Cell: 601-754-9233 Pinger: 337-240-7890 Google Voice: 601-265-1307 > On May 17, 2014, at 12:23 AM, RussellMc wrote: >=20 > On 17 May 2014 15:42, John Guillory wrote: >=20 > (2) > ... someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic camera is > because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better ... >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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 wit= h > spending less than that would take. They can use tiny sensors, add lots o= f > megapixels and the Apple experience and most people's wants are met. 'Mos= t > people' is usually enough. Large sensors require large optics and cost > rises rapidly. >=20 > Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed bad= ly > 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 we= ll > 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 fa= ce > 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. >=20 > A top DSLR seems to take photos almost before the shutter button is press= ed > - 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 ev= en > OK point & shoots are far too unresponsive for this. [I use them too, but > differently]. > ___________ >=20 > (1) >=20 > Just curious, but what is the dot pitch of your eyes, and are they factor= y >> standard, or have you replaced them with new improved eyes? Just >> wondering, because someone said the reason Apple has such a pathetic cam= era >> is because the human eye isn't capable of perceiving anything better. >=20 > 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"= .. >=20 > 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 vario= us > models until I find ones that work well optically and but a number of tha= t > 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 a= nd > 3 dioptre are less-good for me. >=20 > The limits of the HD+ screen are easily noticed on SOME photos. >=20 > Below is a link to a 24 Mp, 4000 x 6000 head and shoulders "portrait" 16 = MB > download. >=20 > I chose it (solely) for large file size for a JPG (so wide range of detai= l > changes) and the very fine hair on the man's forehead. > [FWIW this is ~=3D a rowing coach - I'd just been photographing his stude= nts > 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.][No= te > the label on the side zip - that's a life-jacket!] >=20 > http://bit.ly/Sample_RowingCoach >=20 > 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. >=20 > This as produced by an in-camera RAW to JPG engine so is less than optimu= m. > 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 sti= ll > a limiting factor. >=20 > 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 ha= d > a 4K monitor. > *Sony nee Minolta 50mm f/1.8. prime > But about NO lens available - not even the very very best - gets over abo= ut > 20 Mp DxO rating. >=20 >=20 > Russell >=20 >=20 > --=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 --=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 .