On 29/12/2012 16:37, Simon Finnigan wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 28/12/2012 17:45, Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/12/2012 13:48, John Rumm wrote:
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.

Funny that. I have seen photos where the depth of field has been used
deliberately - but I don't like the effect, and never do it.

IME not being able to adequately control depth of field basically makes a
whole range of shots either impossible, or gives results that either lack
impact, or are significantly less appealing. I would say it is one of the
fundamental skills to master in photography (right up there with control of exposure time).

Simple example - taking pictures at a zoo. You want a good shot of
something, but its behind a wire fence. Now normally I get close to the
fence, focus on the critter of interest and select a wide aperture on a
fast lens and photograph away. The fence will be so out of focus as to be
invisible. Try that with a camera phone though and you will typically get
a distracting image of a fence right over your target.

However it really depends on if you are after "snaps" or photographs.

A shot like:

http://internode.co.uk/temp/bud.jpg

Would lose much of its impact if you could clearly see the distracting
and ugly fence not far behind the subject. (in reality that particular
shot actually needed an extra couple of inches of depth of field rather
than less - but the wind was blowing stuff about so much at the time it was hard to setup)

(photographed at around f1.7 IIRC on Fuji Velvia colour reversal film).

Most people are perfectly happy without having to carry a SLR and multiple
lenses round with them, and are happy with the trade off in picture
quality. Which for most people is minimal - how many people care enough to
learn how to use a high end camera?

Most people don't - but most would not count photography as a hobby.

For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they
need. For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR for
the large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same way
they would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera phone)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/