"Wolf" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Max from Holland" wrote in message
l.nl...

Some mobile phone cameras produce amazing results. We were recently
hunting with hawks in the Highlands and everyone (five of us) took lots
of pictures with good SLRs as well as digitals. The lighting conditions
were perfect. The best results were taken with a phone.

I wouldn't have believed it but they were all sent to me so I have the
evidence.

Mary


That's because phone cameras have tiny lenses, which means a very small
f-stop, which means a very long depth of field (focussing zone.) The SLR
was I imagine set to telephoto ("zoom"), which results in a shallow depth
of field. It also has a larger ;ens, so even at normal settings it has a
shallow depth of field.

But the hawk moves...

So the phone camera will get an "in focus" image of the hawk even as it
moves out of the shallower focussing zone of the SLR camera. So "at normal
viewing resolutions" the picture will look sharp. Try the digital zoom in
your image viewer, and you will see the jaggies sooner in the cellphone
image. Or try full screen, which also shows up differences in image
resolution. Cheap point'n'shoot cameras also have small lenses, etc.

Bottom line: for snapshots and 4x6 prints, point'n'shoot and cellphone
cameras are very good indeed. They're also often good for closeups, if
they can focus close up at all. They're also much lighter. :-)

But if you want images you can print at 8x10 or larger, an SLR will win
hands down.

Several points, mainly THANK YOU :-)

I worked for a professional photographer for a few years and I've been
taking and processing pictures for fifty. But that was all before digital!
Even my old boss has given in and bought himself a very good digital camera
and is grudgingly admitting that the results are acceptable :-) My point is
that I do understand quite a lot about photography and cameras - but not
digital ones so I appreciate your input and shall save it - in the hope that
it will sink into my old brain and I can flaunt my new-found knowledge to my
oh-so-clever 'children'.

What I've noticed is that phones can take shots in very poor light with good
results. I've resisted getting a bells and whistles phone but I'm being
tempted ...

The other point is that I rarely print pictures now and have never printed
more than 5 x 8 for my personal use. The difficulty is choosing the best
from so many good ones - and all my contacts seem to have a pc.

But one of my very favourite pictures is a monochrome close-up of my husband
which I'd have been proud to have taken and printed. It's about 12 x 16 and
won the photographer a First Class prize in the UK Association of
Photographer's Something or Other. We don't know him, he took it when we
were at a show and then sent the print. I had it framed and it hangs in my
corner, it's superb!

Thanks again,

Mary