Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
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! I have had several lenses for my 35 mm cameras and several enlarger lenses. I would however,love to see a "Angle of cone of view" description though. I also wonder how long modern cameras will continue to offer the sound effect of an old mechanical SLR. Perhaps we also need a new description for "footage" when describing video. |
#82
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
In message , at 10:17:02 on Tue, 23 Apr
2013, The Natural Philosopher remarked: well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns horses for doing work with. I was out in the fens last Sunday and passed a horse-and-cart. Haven't seen one for a while. Although the "Steptoe" ones were commonplace in London when I was growing up. I think some breweries still have a few horse-drawn drays as a publicity thing. -- Roland Perry |
#83
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... 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. Snooker table? |
#84
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
Some nice pictures, especially of the surrounding countryside. Roughly
where is that? Looks like Welsh borders to me, Shropshire say, or possibly a bit further south, Herefordshire, west Gloucestershire. Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been that, or a Practika): http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png 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/ -- ================================================== ======= 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 |
#85
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
In article , Peter
scribeth thus Mark wrote 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. I have got a fair selection of pics of the same scene taken with the 808 and the Canon S95 (£360 a year or two ago) and the 808 outclasses it very obviously. I also have taken some comparison shots with a Pentax K5 and those are better, as one would jolly well expect given the K5 body alone was £1000 when it came out, but not massively better. In fact I would sell the K5 now, if it wasn't for the much greater flexibility / control (shutter speed etc) and much better low light performance. For "easy" targets in daylight I would not bother with a DSLR at all. The raw camera in the 808 is awesome and if Nokia bothered to deliver some decent control (AV, TAV, M, etc) - which they won't because they can't be bothered - they would have an amazing product whose only weakness would be the low light performance. Let me see if I can take a pic with all three... Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken? The latitude and longitude should be in the EXIF data As is sadly all too often the case nowadays! And google trawls the net and picks up all photos it finds with GPS data in the EXIF header and drops them all over google maps... It's in Sussex, mostly, I think. North of Brighton. No doubt about it England's is still in most parts a fine looking country.. You can see some differences like the blue fringing on the extremities of the top of the 808 pix but all in thats very good... -- Tony Sayer |
#86
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 24/04/2013 21:45, Peter wrote:
When I get a moment I will do a comparison of cameras. What is especially impressive on the 808 (BTW I am using the Camera Pro 3rd party camera app, which offers some advantages over the built-in camera app) is the way the jpeg compression handles vegetation (leaves, grass) well. On most cameras you get a mess. You shouldn't unless you are daft enough to use any of the less than highest quality settings of in camera JPEG compression. They are all hyperbolically named so that "good" = poor, "very good" = good etc. You are right that high contrast green vegetation is amongst the most tricky things for a JPEG encoder to get right. The others are faint black detail on a blue or red background. eg Veins in flowers. But I shoot with a 100% jpeg quality setting, which produces ~10MB files. The built-in app does ~2.5MB files. Obviously there is bound to be a difference in the image quality... You should find that around 98% gives the best size performance trade-off without faithfully digitising thermal noise for posterity. Regards, Martin Brown tony sayer wrote No doubt about it England's is still in most parts a fine looking country.. You can see some differences like the blue fringing on the extremities of the top of the 808 pix but all in thats very good... |
#87
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/04/2013 21:45, Peter wrote: When I get a moment I will do a comparison of cameras. What is especially impressive on the 808 (BTW I am using the Camera Pro 3rd party camera app, which offers some advantages over the built-in camera app) is the way the jpeg compression handles vegetation (leaves, grass) well. On most cameras you get a mess. You shouldn't unless you are daft enough to use any of the less than highest quality settings of in camera JPEG compression. They are all hyperbolically named so that "good" = poor, "very good" = good etc. You are right that high contrast green vegetation is amongst the most tricky things for a JPEG encoder to get right. The others are faint black detail on a blue or red background. eg Veins in flowers. But I shoot with a 100% jpeg quality setting, which produces ~10MB files. The built-in app does ~2.5MB files. Obviously there is bound to be a difference in the image quality... You should find that around 98% gives the best size performance trade-off without faithfully digitising thermal noise for posterity. Regards, Martin Brown tony sayer wrote No doubt about it England's is still in most parts a fine looking country.. You can see some differences like the blue fringing on the extremities of the top of the 808 pix but all in thats very good... I'm happy with the 9/14 megapixel (1) RAW files from a Fuji 9500, myself, but I rarely print bigger than A4, and crop in camera. I can live with the larger file size now that storage is so cheap and plentiful, and the increased time to store a frame makes me think more carefully about what I want to shoot. No compression artifacts at all, so no coloured fringes on high contrast edges, apart from some slight chromatic aberration. (1) (9 megapixel using third party applications, 14 using Fuji's own converter, which can access the stored information from the smaller, interposed sites that the sensor design has in it.) -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#88
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 25/04/2013 08:27, Peter wrote:
I am uploading three versions of the same photo here http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/3-camera-test/ I didn't take any care to match shutter speeds etc... The K5 was in TAV move, 1/250 F7.1 auto-ISO. The S95 was in P mode. The exposure is rather different. However look at the pigeon behind the bush on the bottom left, and the twigs. Andy |
#89
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote:
What is your view (no pun intended)? Pentax canon nokia in that order. Andy |
#90
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
No interest in these shots then? FTR, the thing that a little
different about them is that they were taken using only moonlight. I was pleased with the first, disappointed with the second (which was chronologically earlier, and my first attempt to use moonlight - the most difficult thing about it apart from judging the exposure was getting our Pyrenean Mountain-of-a-Dog to lie still for long enough - finally he did settle down, but the picture was still rather disappointing) ... I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but apparently not! On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:24:51 +0100, Java Jive wrote: Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been that, or a Practika): http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png -- ================================================== ======= 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 |
#91
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus No interest in these shots then? FTR, the thing that a little different about them is that they were taken using only moonlight. I was pleased with the first, disappointed with the second (which was chronologically earlier, and my first attempt to use moonlight - the most difficult thing about it apart from judging the exposure was getting our Pyrenean Mountain-of-a-Dog to lie still for long enough - finally he did settle down, but the picture was still rather disappointing) ... I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but apparently not! On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:24:51 +0100, Java Jive wrote: Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been that, or a Practika): http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png Missed those what sort of level of Moonlight full, half can you say?.. -- Tony Sayer |
#92
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 28/04/2013 23:10, Java Jive wrote:
I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but apparently not! Many years ago I woke up in the middle of the night, and looked out of the window to see unusually bright moonlight, and the garden lit up with this beautiful silvery effect. So I got my camera and tripod out, and took a shot. When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day. Andy |
#93
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
AFAICR, full or pretty nearly so in both cases.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:29:42 +0100, tony sayer wrote: Missed those what sort of level of Moonlight full, half can you say?.. -- ================================================== ======= 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 |
#94
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
Yes, I have some examples of those, here's one taken at the same time
as Ex1: http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex3.png I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look like daylight. The above was apparently the longest. As with Ex1, the other, shorter exposures are more bluey. Another thing that's very noticeable about the shorter exposures is how the scene darkens in the corners of the shot. You can see it a little here, but it's much more pronounced on the shorter exposures. It happens with all lens photography, but we don't normally notice it with daylight shots, only when the film is 'challenged' by marginal exposures. Both Ex1 and this one Ex3 were taken in the winter of 79/80, in the vicinity of Woodchester Park. I don't have precise shooting details, but AFAICR a wide-angle to near telephoto zoom on the FTb, onto Kodachrome slides, with exposures of the order of just under a minute to about two minutes. On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:14:10 +0100, Andy Champ wrote: When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day. -- ================================================== ======= 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 |
#95
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 29/04/2013 10:14, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/04/2013 23:10, Java Jive wrote: I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but apparently not! Many years ago I woke up in the middle of the night, and looked out of the window to see unusually bright moonlight, and the garden lit up with this beautiful silvery effect. So I got my camera and tripod out, and took a shot. When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day. Andy When I used to go out with a camera at night, the make of film had a huge impact on the final image. Agfa would tend very strongly to a sort of dull green. IIRC Fuji was the most 'real'. -- Rod |
#96
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 28/04/2013 20:51, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote: What is your view (no pun intended)? Pentax canon nokia in that order. Andy Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image. The internal JPEG details and average info content a Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel The bits/pixel is for the main image only. So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens! Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible). -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#97
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
Yes, I also remember Agfa was sh*te at low light intensities. As you
say, an awful green cast. On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:23:09 +0100, polygonum wrote: Agfa would tend very strongly to a sort of dull green. IIRC Fuji was the most 'real'. -- ================================================== ======= 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 |
#98
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 23/04/2013 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns horses for doing work with. I'm planning to start using one of my mules to pull a harrow, instead of using the tractor :-) |
#99
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to
carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable light conditions) is a £1500 1080P camcorder... All well 'n good but does it work well as a mobile phone 'tho?... -- Tony Sayer |
#100
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 29/04/2013 22:02, Peter wrote:
Martin Brown wrote Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image. The internal JPEG details and average info content a Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel The bits/pixel is for the main image only. So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens! Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible). Very interesting analysis - thank you. I am not concerned about the Canon S95, though there should be no image sharpening selected. 2.8 bits per pixel is crap though... The cheaper Canons use custom quantisation tables that are too brutal. The image quality would be better if they used Q~95 and ~4 bits/pixel. High end Canons use scaled versions of the canonical Qtables. It is actually very hard to detect JPEG artefacts in Q 95 images unless they are designer test pieces intended to break the codec. The Pentax K5 is entirely at its default settings with no manual over/under exposure. I shoot at the max jpeg quality setting. Normally I get great results with it; the only problem is that one needs a waist pack to carry it! Ground shots I rarely tweak but airborne shots usually have a lot of haze which I try to remove using various means. I also have a Pentax K5 it replaces my older istD (that always needed a systematic bias added to its default exposure in most lighting). I find the K5 performs very well after I got used to the chunky battery grip. The Pentax ex camera image is hardly touched by unsharp masking and so is superficially softer but that gives you the option to do it later. You can tweak so many settings internally that it can be confusing. The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable light conditions) is a £1500 1080P camcorder... I am honestly astonished by how close to diffraction limited its small lens is. I wasn't really expecting the answer that I got. I am amazed quite how well it does in daytime conditions. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#101
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
In article , Peter
scribeth thus tony sayer wrote The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable light conditions) is a £1500 1080P camcorder... All well 'n good but does it work well as a mobile phone 'tho?... Yes; as good as any other smartphone. I even have VOIP on it. I ask as it seems to me that users of more modern smart phones seem to have more trouble maintaining a connection than what users of older phones do... -- Tony Sayer |
#102
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:47 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote: On 28/04/2013 20:51, Andy Champ wrote: On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote: What is your view (no pun intended)? Pentax canon nokia in that order. +1 Andy Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image. The internal JPEG details and average info content a Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel The bits/pixel is for the main image only. So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens! You've lost me there! Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible). -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around (")_(") is he still wrong? |
#103
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.telecom.mobile
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
Java Jive writes:
Yes, I have some examples of those, here's one taken at the same time as Ex1: http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex3.png I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look like daylight. Sounds entirely reasonable. After all, you're taking a picture which is illuminated by reflected sunlight, though admittedly rather dim reflected sunlight! -- 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 |
#104
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
newshound wrote in news:517ed592$0$29899$c3e8da3
: On 23/04/2013 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote: well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns horses for doing work with. I'm planning to start using one of my mules to pull a harrow, instead of using the tractor :-) Will go and shoot some "footage' on my SD Card later! My digital camera sounds like an old SLR when I take a photo - why doesn't it make a noise like and old movie camera when in video mode? Seriously - current cameras are being sold to a generation who have no empathy with old 35mm - so why perpetuate the effects and the lens equivilents? |
#105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
In article 42,
DerbyBorn scribeth thus newshound wrote in news:517ed592$0$29899$c3e8da3 : On 23/04/2013 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote: well we had better stop referring to horse power, since no one owns horses for doing work with. I'm planning to start using one of my mules to pull a harrow, instead of using the tractor :-) Will go and shoot some "footage' on my SD Card later! My digital camera sounds like an old SLR when I take a photo - why doesn't it make a noise like and old movie camera when in video mode? Umm ... it has sound, your old camera didn't?... Seriously - current cameras are being sold to a generation who have no empathy with old 35mm - so why perpetuate the effects and the lens equivilents? Indeed I bet non of them have any idea what goes on in it or how it works... -- Tony Sayer |
#106
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:20:18 GMT, DerbyBorn
wrote: Seriously - current cameras are being sold to a generation who have no empathy with old 35mm - so why perpetuate the effects and the lens equivilents? The sounds can be disabled on some and hacked/disabled on others. In some markets the sound is required for 'privacy' reasons - whether this is a legal requirement or not, I can't say. |
#107
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 12/05/2013 10:20, DerbyBorn wrote:
Will go and shoot some "footage' on my SD Card later! My digital camera sounds like an old SLR when I take a photo - why doesn't it make a noise like and old movie camera when in video mode? Seriously - current cameras are being sold to a generation who have no empathy with old 35mm - so why perpetuate the effects and the lens equivilents? What sound would you rather they made? I can't think of any other sound (and I have been mulling this for ages, going through lots of sounds, ringtones, music, etc.) that I would rather it made. -- Rod |
#108
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
On 2013-05-12, polygonum wrote:
On 12/05/2013 10:20, DerbyBorn wrote: Will go and shoot some "footage' on my SD Card later! My digital camera sounds like an old SLR when I take a photo - why doesn't it make a noise like and old movie camera when in video mode? Seriously - current cameras are being sold to a generation who have no empathy with old 35mm - so why perpetuate the effects and the lens equivilents? What sound would you rather they made? On my own camera, none. ;-) When other people are snooping around me, a warning sound. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mobile phones - OT | UK diy | |||
OT mobile phones | UK diy | |||
Online Mobile Stores – Best way to buy mobile phones | Electronics Repair | |||
FORGET ABOUT MOBILE PHONES... | Electronics Repair | |||
mobile phones - new uses ?? | Home Repair |