On 19/04/2013 10:41, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/04/2013 21:43, Java Jive wrote:
It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
wrote:

The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
another one.

I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.

All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
screens use so much power.

Yes, but the important word there is relatively.

It depends critically on whether you want an all singing all dancing
Swiss army knife that requires carefully sharpening every night or a
titanium blade pen knife that works almost forever without any fuss.

In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
that, in return for the multimedia functionality.

Yes.

Which is fine if you want to watch video on a screen the size of a
postage stamp and do battle with a miniscule touch screen. I don't.

If I want to browse the web I use an Android tablet or iPad. I have
(access to) a Samsung Galaxy. I don't like it the battery doesn't last
that is why I want something compact and reliable as a *MOBILE PHONE*
and yes I am shouting because some people still don't seem to have got
the message. My specification is precise, knowledgeable and deliberate.

I want a near minimalist phone with the longest possible battery life
that will work well in a low signal area. End of story.

Having actually dispensed with mobiles altogether for a number of
years, I approached buying a new one with a very great deal of
scepticism. However, I needed one while I was between houses, and
bought a Samsung Galaxy II GT-N7100, together with a car charger, and
now I wouldn't want to be without it.

While I was between houses, I was able to read email, browse the web,
check my bank account, etc. If only because the phone had an
unfamiliar interface, it wasn't as hassle free as being back in my own
home and using ADSL and a laptop is now once more, but at the time
such a phone was absolutely essential for managing my life. I was
able to keep it charged up using the car charger as I drove around
looking at houses.

A 3G dongle at about £40 inclusive of 3GB of data would give you a
better user experience. A MyFi for a little bit more better still.

My Three 3G connection at home in a borderline signal area at 5Mbps is
actually twice the speed of my ADSL landline on a prehistoric exchange.
If I didn't burn so much data bandwidth I would consider dropping my
ADSL service. Mobile coverage for 2G at home is even more borderline.

Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
wake me in the morning.

If it works for you then fine, but I know exactly what I want.
Unfortunately the market seems determined not to provide it!

Surely I must have some dislikes about it? Yes ...

- It's relatively large size, though great for avoiding the need for
glasses when wearing it, does mean that it needs quite a large pocket.
Also, in certain pockets, and having its on-off switch buttons on its
side, sometimes when I bend over, say to tie a bootlace, the phone
reboots.

--- The legends on the maps are often illegibly small, so that, for
example, you can't even read a road number such as A87.

--- Would really like to share at least the camera and other data
folders so that I can manage files and back it up via Wifi from a PC.
There are apps that allow this, but they all require rooting (gaining
root, administrator, access to) the machine. However, I can at least
back it up by direct connection via USB.

--- Would like the phone's software to work with W2k. After all, it's
the same major version number as XP, so how different can it be under
the bonnet? However, at least I've managed to upgrade my standard W2k
build to XP, at last, so this laptop can talk to it.

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:

Thanks for any enlightenment.
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse
now.
...
My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur.
Not
what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
which would at least give me something I know my way around.

You might care to try actually owning one for a while. As my
experience above shows, even an old sceptic like me can be converted
to a smartphone!

I already have access to a Samsung Galaxy but I don't like it.
The GUI fluff just gets in the way and eats battery to no good end.

However, if you really do need just a basic phone, then doubtless some
of the other suggestions will do.



As already suggested.........

http://www.doro.co.uk/

Simple phones, big buttons, long battery life.

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.


I leave mine switch off and only turn on very occasionally so the
battery lasts for ages though I do have to keep setting the clock and
calendar!

Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/04/2013 21:43, Java Jive wrote:

Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
wake me in the morning.

If it works for you then fine, but I know exactly what I want.
Unfortunately the market seems determined not to provide it!

Well you know why that is? "There's no call for it guv...". ;-)

Of course there is some call for it but more & more people want a smart
phone these days and that's where the money is to be made. Even my 87 yr
old mother is agitating for an iPhone.

Hopefully the Nokia 105 will make it to these shores.

Tim

On 19/04/2013 12:43, stuart noble wrote:
On 19/04/2013 10:41, Martin Brown wrote:

I want a near minimalist phone with the longest possible battery life
that will work well in a low signal area. End of story.


As already suggested.........

http://www.doro.co.uk/

Simple phones, big buttons, long battery life.

Unless I have missed something for the functionality they offer they are
nothing to write home about with 12hour talk 500 hour standby.

Most of the ones I listed were nominally 600 hours standby or more.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:51:16 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus

You just have to accept that, say, the area around the sun will be
over-exposed, but that's at least better than this, where the whole
shot containing the sun has been exposed differently, and therefore
the stitching is unacceptably obvious:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/BadStitch.jpg

If the new gaff is around that area

Alas, the price of properties around there that I would have actually
wanted to buy, although falling in price, were tantalisingly out of
reach, and I decided that I had to make do with what I could afford
then without waiting any longer, so went elsewhere. I'm not
complaining though. It's nice around here too, though not quite so
spectacularly so.

perhaps indicated re the grumbling
of the poor mobile phone coverage I reckon the view and surroundings
win's hands down.

Absolutely.

Where is that exactly?

For anyone interested, the locations of the shots I've posted are as
follows (to get the full effect of the panoramas, I suggest zooming in
so that the height fills the screen and then slowly panning across
them):

http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/BadStitch.jpg
Aird, Isle Of Skye, Oct 2012
Long: -5.936944
Lat: 57.041943
This panorama is so badly stitched that AFAICR it's even missing
chunks out of it - I think the original series of shots encompassed
a wider field of view. I hadn't got to grips with the shortcomings of
the panorama setting by then.

http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Kyle...uallAtDusk.jpg
Kylerhea, Isle Of Skye, Nov 2012
Long: -5.673056
Lat: 57.280278

http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Lochalsh.jpg
From The Murchison Memorial, nr Kyle Of Lochalsh, Nov 2012
Long: -5.722222
Lat: 57.221669

http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/CommandoMemorial.jpg
From The Commando Memorial, nr Spean Bridge, Dec 2012
Long: -4.944167
Lat: 56.897778

and is there a small cottage in the middle on
the left hand side?..

Yes there is, alas not mine however!
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 18 Apr 2013 14:16:49 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Buy a phone for its features, and power it from one of these:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0098EO61S

12000mAh in your shirt pocket should see you OK,

It certainly would, if true. You could jump your car from that.

On 18/04/13 20:32, Sam Plusnet wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 18/04/2013 16:13, Theo Markettos wrote:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.

Theo

BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
(and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)

I agree, but as far as I can tell it's not available in the UK.

I did see a review which said
"Set to launch at the end of March, we're still awaiting UK pricing and
availability for the Nokia 105"
but "launch" may refer to some other country, not here.

It has launched in India recently (April 10)






--
djc

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.


I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.



For normal use I have Samsung Galaxy S3 ... superb SMART phone.
On odd occasions where I want max battery life and just phone
functionality I use my Nokia 6310i .... superb device.
Best Nokia phone ever made


BTW if it were in a Farady cage ,... battery life would be worse as it
would be polling on high power to get a connection

larkim writes:

On Thursday, 18 April 2013 11:33:48 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific=20
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I=20
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to=20
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It=
=20
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
=20

Can I at least raise the question of "Ludditery"? My wife thought the same=
as you do, but (despite not being a twitter or facebook user) now loves he=
r poor-battery-life smartphone.

She takes the benefits from it (integrated sat nav, emails out and about, e=
ase of use, voice activation, bluetooth capabilities, sports-tracking, game=
playing, app using etc etc) and has made adaptations to her concept of req=
uired charging - puts it on to charge overnight, puts it in a car charger w=
hen she is driving etc etc. For those small penalties, she gets the additi=
onal benefits.

It might be a bit like taking a look at Ford Model-T early last century and=
complaining that it doesn't work well when fed with grass and shod with ir=
on shoes from the black-smiths...

(You may have a perfectly good reason for looking for a more traditional mo=
bile phone, but I thought I'd raise the question at least!)

I don't expect more than one person in a hundred to agree with me, but
I find that one charge lasts several months so long as I remember to
keep the phone switched off. :-)


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

In message , Windmill
writes
It might be a bit like taking a look at Ford Model-T early last century and=
complaining that it doesn't work well when fed with grass and shod with ir=
on shoes from the black-smiths...

(You may have a perfectly good reason for looking for a more traditional mo=
bile phone, but I thought I'd raise the question at least!)

I don't expect more than one person in a hundred to agree with me, but
I find that one charge lasts several months so long as I remember to
keep the phone switched off. :-)

Avoidance of nuisance calls can also be achieved by failing to charge
altogether.

On T my ancient Sharp 770SA currently does about 5 days standby. How
much of a problem is *part* charging?

--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:39:41 +0100, just as I was about to take a
herb, Grimly Curmudgeon disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

You could jump your car from that.

If it were at 12 v of course.
--

Cheers,

DrT

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
wrote:

I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
wrote:

I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

why not? The are plenty of good optical instruments with small lenses. I
suspect cost considerations are the killer.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 22/04/2013 09:20, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
wrote:

I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?

It could well be better than most - see the review at:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smart...a-808-pureview

They don't like the phone though!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Tim Lamb writes:

In message , Windmill
writes
It might be a bit like taking a look at Ford Model-T early last century and=
complaining that it doesn't work well when fed with grass and shod with ir=
on shoes from the black-smiths...

(You may have a perfectly good reason for looking for a more traditional mo=
bile phone, but I thought I'd raise the question at least!)

I don't expect more than one person in a hundred to agree with me, but
I find that one charge lasts several months so long as I remember to
keep the phone switched off. :-)

Avoidance of nuisance calls can also be achieved by failing to charge
altogether.

But then you can't send that unanticipated text to younger daughter
hoping she wasn't in Boston.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Bill wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
snip
I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so
rare.

Although they are very popular in the USA, the hinge adds an extra level of
unreliability

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
Theo

But are those times correct?
I don't believe any of those will out last a Nokia 6310i

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

Java Jive wrote:
It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
wrote:

The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
another one.

I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.

6210 isn't a 6310i
Although they look similar 6310i has a better battery and lower power
consumption

Accept no substitutes; the Nokia 6310i is the one to choose

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

MB wrote:
On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I
have had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a
terminal encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my
previous 6300 but its battery life was never much good when new and
is much worse now.

I leave mine switch off and only turn on very occasionally so the
battery lasts for ages though I do have to keep setting the clock and
calendar!

Sounds like your clock backup battery needs changing

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

On 22/04/2013 10:45, Steve Terry wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
Theo

But are those times correct?
I don't believe any of those will out last a Nokia 6310i

That is a good question - which is why I asked. I was hoping a few
owners might chime in with how long theirs lasts between charges. Only
interested in models that survive a week or more without any trouble.
(and preferably two weeks)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2013 10:45, Steve Terry wrote:
Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
Theo

But are those times correct?
I don't believe any of those will out last a Nokia 6310i

That is a good question - which is why I asked. I was hoping a few
owners might chime in with how long theirs lasts between charges. Only
interested in models that survive a week or more without any trouble.
(and preferably two weeks)

You can make a 6310i last a month if you buy an optional 3000mAh li-ion
battery

Only it's a bit bulky being the same size as the original 900mAh Ni-Mh
battery used on the 1997 Nokia 5110.

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:50:59 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.

6210 isn't a 6310i

I didn't say that it was.

Although they look similar 6310i has a better battery and lower power
consumption

Accept no substitutes; the Nokia 6310i is the one to choose

However, I did say that I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Windmill wrote:

But then you can't send that unanticipated text to younger daughter
hoping she wasn't in Boston.

However, lack of response, due to infrastructure overload, might
well have been even more worrying.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In message , at 12:22:38 on
Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Chris J Dixon remarked:
But then you can't send that unanticipated text to younger daughter
hoping she wasn't in Boston.

However, lack of response, due to infrastructure overload, might
well have been even more worrying.

It wasn't overloaded, they switched it off - so no more bombs could be
triggered.

Although I don't think we know the full story because if there's been no
mobile coverage in Boston [about the size on Birmingham, UK] for the
best part of a week, the collateral [commercial] damage would be
enormous. And seems to be unreported.
--
Roland Perry

On 22/04/2013 09:20, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
wrote:

I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.


It's possible to make a small lens which will take good pictures "in
favourable daylight conditions" of "still subjects".

Andy

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:51:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:22:38 on
Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Chris J Dixon remarked:
But then you can't send that unanticipated text to younger daughter
hoping she wasn't in Boston.

However, lack of response, due to infrastructure overload, might
well have been even more worrying.

It wasn't overloaded, they switched it off - so no more bombs could be
triggered.

AFAIK that's a myth. For example see
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/tec...ess-woes/5320/

Although I don't think we know the full story because if there's been no
mobile coverage in Boston [about the size on Birmingham, UK] for the
best part of a week, the collateral [commercial] damage would be
enormous. And seems to be unreported.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In message , at 14:31:27 on
Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Mark remarked:
It wasn't overloaded, they switched it off - so no more bombs could be
triggered.

AFAIK that's a myth. For example see
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/tec...ess-woes/5320/

That article only speculates that it was overload.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:29:49 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

On 22/04/2013 09:20, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
wrote:

I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.


It's possible to make a small lens which will take good pictures "in
favourable daylight conditions" of "still subjects".

I interpreted Peter's claims to be more general:

"the Nokia 808 ... totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones".

This is the part that I really have trouble with.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:19:28 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 14:31:27 on
Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Mark remarked:
It wasn't overloaded, they switched it off - so no more bombs could be
triggered.

AFAIK that's a myth. For example see
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/tec...ess-woes/5320/

That article only speculates that it was overload.

I think it's more than speculation. It's quite common for mobile
communications to fail during major disasters. In addition there are
reports that some text messages were getting through which wouldn't if
the networks were switched off completely.

And the emergency services are likely to want to use the networks too.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 22/04/2013 15:36, Mark wrote:
I interpreted Peter's claims to be more general:

"the Nokia 808 ... totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones".

This is the part that I really have trouble with.

Hmmm yes I see your point.

Andy

Martin Brown (for it is he) wrote:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smart...a-808-pureview

What kind of measurement is "1/1.2in"? One one-point-twoth?

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
21:12:30 up 38 days, 12:08, 5 users, load average: 0.39, 0.35, 0.35
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.

Chris J Dixon writes:

Windmill wrote:

But then you can't send that unanticipated text to younger daughter
hoping she wasn't in Boston.

However, lack of response, due to infrastructure overload, might
well have been even more worrying.

Received an email the following morning saying that several
friends/acquaintances had been in Boston but finished early so avoided
trouble, and that she was still in Canada (as I had thought likely).

I did however make an exception and leave my mobile turned on for a
while, so was just a little worried until the email arrived.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 22/04/2013 21:13, alexd wrote:
Martin Brown (for it is he) wrote:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smart...a-808-pureview

What kind of measurement is "1/1.2in"? One one-point-twoth?

The circumference of the circle that would have been the size of the
glass CRT tube in a 1950's electron beam TV set - I am not kidding.
See:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/10/7/sensorsizes

1/1.2" CCD corresponds to roughly a 13mm diagonal depending also on the
aspect ratio of the actual sensor. I am amazed they can fit it in the
camera, illuminate it uniformly and still get enough signal to noise.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Mark wrote

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?

See e.g. http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/

Nice pics. It's hard to predict what they would have been like if
they were taken with a £400 camera though.

Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.


I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.

On 23/04/2013 09:36, DerbyBorn wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.


I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.

+1 - Agree. The use of focal length at all has plagued real cameras for
non-specialists. Fine as a secondary part of the description, but angle
has got to be the best. I do have a mental idea of 35mm focal lengths -
but as soon as the format changes, I am thrown and have to think
everything through - slowly!

--
Rod

On 23/04/13 09:36, DerbyBorn wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.

I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.
well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns
horses for doing work with.

....it is however nice that my DSLR with a 400mm strapped on the front
behaves like a 600mm used to on the old film camera..

About the same power as a pair of binoculars.

Now if only the air would keep still.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:17:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/04/13 09:36, DerbyBorn wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.

I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.
well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns
horses for doing work with.

...it is however nice that my DSLR with a 400mm strapped on the front
behaves like a 600mm used to on the old film camera..

About the same power as a pair of binoculars.

Now if only the air would keep still.

I took some pics the other day using a 400mm lens on a DSLR just
holding the camera in my hands. I was amazed that the pictures were
not a complete blurry mess. However next time I must remember to take
a tripod.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 23/04/13 10:34, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:17:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/04/13 09:36, DerbyBorn wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
wrote:

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.
I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.
well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns
horses for doing work with.

...it is however nice that my DSLR with a 400mm strapped on the front
behaves like a 600mm used to on the old film camera..

About the same power as a pair of binoculars.

Now if only the air would keep still.
I took some pics the other day using a 400mm lens on a DSLR just
holding the camera in my hands. I was amazed that the pictures were
not a complete blurry mess. However next time I must remember to take
a tripod.
If you have a VR lens its surpising how good they can be.

I seldom use the 400, because its manual focus and my eyes are poor
these days..have to go on the 'in focus' light and that keeps flickering.

mainly for bird table shots.

pre focussed, tripod.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.