John Rumm wrote:
On 26/12/2012 23:34, Simon Finnigan wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article


and for those of us that only need good quality
photographs, a smart phone is ...

... totally inadequate.

Hardly - not even the camera snobs I know are making the claim that a good
smart phone camera is inadequate. Maybe if you want to print photographs at
A0 and bigger, but for most people in most situations, there's so little
difference between a smart phone and a consumer level camera you'd be hard
pushed to tell the difference when printed out at normal size, or viewed on
a normal monitor.

No really, a phone camera really is inadequate for pretty much any real photography...

Even when the clarity and resolution are adequate, the inability to
change lens is a show stopper. The physical size of the optics and hence
the tiny apertures make for unattractive results in many cases simply
because you can't limit the depth of field adequately.


So for the 0.01% of people into that kind of photography a smartphone isn't
suitable. For the vast majority of people, a smart phone take perfectly
good pictures. It's like claiming that because you live on a mountain only
accessible by dirt track road that the only vehicle that's any good is a
4x4 - you seem to have unusual needs in a camera, but to extend that to the
idea that smartphone cameras aren't fit for purpose is just ridiculous.