On Sun, 31 May 2020 13:06:16 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> Same you see with the number of pixels in smartphone cameras.
> They should start with the lenses, the lenses in those cameras are so
> shit that my Canon with good lenses and less than a quarter of the
> pixels gives better detail...
>
Thats largely sales bullshit but also has quite a lot to do with high
pixel counts being a lot cheaper than high quality glass lenses.

I use a Pentax Spotmatic F for many years. Would still use it if
Ektachrome 64 slide film was available. Bought a Pentax K100 DSLR because
it could use the Spotmatic lenses and has a nice, big 6MP sensor. Lovely
camera except that it used AA cells and destroyed anything that wasn't
ludicrously expensive within two charge cycles - and yes, I have high
quality chargers which are used for more than just charging cameras.

Anyway, sometime later I bought a Pentax WG-1 for pocketability. Its
waterproof, with a tiny glass lens and a 14MP sensor. Its usable, but its
image resolution is about 3 times worse than the K100 thanks to its tiny
lens mounted close to a tiny sensor. This is lost of resolution is
immediately obvious in a side-by-side comparison of pics of the same
subject.

> But those phones need to be flat...
>
Thats by itself is why anybody who's even semi-serious about photography
needs a decent camera as well as a phone - and may well find that, now
the phone isn't needed to take pics, that a feature-phone suits them
better as well as being cheaper than a smartphone, its more secure too.


--
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05