No, I didn't miss the point of the article, though I did think it was a pointless article (even if it was filled with beautiful pictures). It's never been a question that you can take great pictures with a limited camera. People have been doing art shows based on that premise before Apple released even the first iPhone, never mind the iPhone4. Heck... ever played with a pinhole camera before? You don't get much more limited than that!

I thought it was pretty clear that wasn't what Bruno was saying, though. He essentially said the same thing as you -- given the option of using a P&S camera, or a camera phone, the P&S camera will give a better result. It's the same thing you said; you can tell the difference between your iPhone pictures and a really expensive DSLR, and you'd be pissed if you couldn't. Same with a P&S vs. iPhone -- you can tell the difference in image quality. That's not to say you can't make an artistic choice of using one tool over the other, for the specific qualities that it gives.

Yea, again you are missing the point. It won't necessarily give a "better" result just a different one. That is the basis of my disagreement with both yours and Bruno's point. Using a blanket statement that a P&S WILL (that is the important word) give a "better" image. Now that fact is simply not true as you can not judge what I deem to be a better picture.

Cheers

Cris

Cris, you're talking "art" - we're talking tech. And there are many ways to quantitatively judge the quality of an image. That's what most people mean by a better image. Not a more soulful image, not a more moving image, etc.

I don't know why you're now trying to contradict statements you wrote on your web site.

The iPhone 4 cannot handle taking natural light photos in dim environments for instance. That's a severe limitation. This can be mitigated with third party camera apps allowing the LED to be used as a modeling light, but the results are still going to be poor compared to any P&S. Noise, poor focus, soft un-processed image, very poor colour and an inability to make out fine detail well beyond the limitations of its sensor pixel count.

By saying you'd be pissed that you couldn't tell the difference between an iPhone photo and an otherwise identical photo (subject, framing, lighting, composition) from your $$$$ DSLR, you're making a statement (or at least, it reads like you're making a statement) about the quality that each delivers, and that you think the $$$$ DSLR should deliver a higher quality photo than the iPhone, not just a "different" one. I.e. you think it should be "better". That's the "better" I'm talking about. It's already defined in your terms.
Okay, I'll concede that a blanket statement isn't correct. I do have some old digital P&S cameras that wouldn't hold a candle to the image quality offered by an iPhone4. For the large majority of current (and recent) consumer-grade P&S cameras from recognized camera manufacturers however, you're going to get similar differences (though, perhaps not by such a wide margin) as between the iPhone and a DSLR. I.e. "better".

Ummm, I think you will find I am not contradicting a single thing. The article clearly shows it's possible to take great pictures with something as simple as a camera phone. I point out that you can see the difference when using my professional kit, but I am not therefore saying the iPhone pictures are no good, as you wrongly assume I am saying.

In fact in some ways the iPhone got the pictures much easier than the pro kit. It was pretty simple. It wasn't something we spend loads of time on, Stef wanted to practice her presenting skills and I had seen Lee's blog pst and wanted to give it a go. I was amazed just how versatile and easy to use the iPhone was in that situation. It was able to take pictures quickly and focusing was a doddle. I feel confident to say that under those particular conditions the iPhone would beat the average point & shoot just on shutter lag alone.

Cheers

Cris

Another possibility occurred to me as to what could be causing that problem. It could be that the flash is being partly covered with a finger. I just managed to reproduce similar pictures by partially covering flash.

Well spotted that man! I too can reproduce the exact look to the photo posted by taking a picture using the + volume button.

The natural place where my middle finger falls when holding the iPhone in this position, comes too close to the flash and must be flashing back over the sensor. My finger doesn't cover the lens though.

Let me guess I point an shoot would never do this

Cheers

Cris

Ever since the 3S there has been zero shutter lag on the iPhone (assuming you're already focused).

It constantly captures full res pictures and scales them for the preview screen, so when you hit the shutter button (actually, when you release it - that's a top tip), the image on the screen is the one that's captured.

Other phones are starting to work the same way now...

I've actually measured a tiny bit of negative shutter lag on my 4

Interesting, measured as in scientifically, or by eye. The only reason I ask is I'm trying to figure out how to determine the actual exposure time of a manually 'bulb'ed shot on my camera without using the EXIF data generated by it.

Measured by pointing it at a timer running on my pc screen, as documented in a thread on here somewhere.

I didn't get the impression that he was saying they were no good, but perhaps that's because I generally turn on my hyperbole filter when reading Bruno's posts.

I'm turning my hand to bramping. But as a poor lowly Nikon user, nobody's made a controller to do it yet, unlike the Little Bramper for the Canons.

I'm concerned that as the shutter speeds increase, something relying on a display on a screen (LCD or CRT) isn't going to work properly.

For those, like me, who never heard of bramping: Little Bramper

Sorry, should've linked it.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Nobody yet makes better cameras.

Ahh, here it is http://empegbbs.com/ubbthreads.php/posts/344683

(Made me curious)

Was the screen an LCD or CRT? The "negative" lag might have been LCD rendering lag. It's usually small enough that most people never even notice these days, but shows very clearly with a CRT and LCD rendering the same image and a high speed camera. Some graphics programmers like to go to extremes when measuring this

I think we have a winner! I just asked my wife to show me how she takes pictures on her phone. Her finger wasn't covering the flash, but it was getting a kind of close to the lens. Strangely, it wasn't close enough to get in the shot, but it might be close enough for the light from the flash to bounce off her finger.

Thanks for the help, folks! Chalk up another victory for the empeg board!

This is one of the reasons I'd love to see the camera located where the Apple logo is - though it's likely not a possibility due to the depth of the sensor and lens package. Without making a much thicker iPhone or an ugly hump anyway.

Bruno, I am waiting for your come back here to tell Hugo he is clearly wrong. Whats up ???

Could there be the slightest possibility you were wrong and had no idea what you were talking about? Surely not?

Cheers

Cris

I'll ignore that and not go there thanks.

Cheers

Cris

Vague but not exact Nikon equivalent: Sofortbild. Mac-only but exceptionally handy.

I've already said it before Cris, turn on the flash.

With regards to no flash, if the software is saving an image from an instant before it actually detected you removing your finger from the screen, then that will approach zero lag. If it's not, then as small as the apparent lag may be, it's still not zero. And if like most people, one first pre-focuses/meters by tapping the screen and then presses the shutter button, it's far from zero.

That aside, none of this affects the quality of the images produced by the sensor, so don't think for a second that my initial argument has somehow been subverted.

Yes, because the fact that I, among millions of other people on the Earth, believe that Nikon produces the finest cameras is all about you.

Is it possible that I can ever say anything without you taking it personally? It's getting really old.

Classic, despite a pretty clear statement from someone who we all know has a pretty deep understanding of the technology in the iPhone, still you contest a point. Brilliant!

If it's written in software, if it's executed by a machine, it can be timed. If it can be timed, it's not zero. It may be close, but it's not the same thing. This isn't an abstract theory.

And while I respect Hugo's insight, it doesn't provide a complete explanation for which frame of the "always filming" is actually stored.

With regards to the camera specifically, it's also been published that the sensor can't capture full resolution as quickly as it can "HD" resolutions. Which translates to potentially many frames per second, but not infinite, not 60, and not 30. So whatever number that is is also going to play a factor here. If your release happens between capture intervals, which frame is used? The previous (if buffered) or the next?

And again, try it with flash on.

I'm still not sure why this semantic argument is now the most important, because it's not relevant, the same as other features such as touch focus. Are you simply trying to make a point that I'm wrong about something? I don't have all the information, so I can't say how it's all working with 100% certainty. And I'd never make the claim that I'm always correct about anything.

I'm finding the personal attack/defense discussion threads extremely boring. I suspect anyone not directly involved would also prefer to watch paint dry. If you know it in your heart that I'm always wrong, be content with that knowledge and celebrate it without having to muddy the discussion with personal attacks. I know that some people will always disagree, and when it comes to things Apple, it doesn't seem to matter whether I'm praising or criticizing. The tech is always going to be great or terrible (or somewhere in between) - but always whatever the opposite of my opinion is on the matter.

Yeah, I understand why they put it where they put it, but it's extremely close to the edge. The placement makes it a challenge to hold it, and now when she takes a picture she ends up looking like she's trying not to touch her phone She's holding all the sides with the tips of her fingers.

Matt, tell me about it! Is she using it with the camera to her left (volume buttons at the bottom) or to her right (volume buttons on top)?

I find it a much bigger challenge using it the "new" way with volume buttons up and the lens on the right. The lens is in just about the worst place it could possibly be to hold the camera in this orientation *and* use the volume UP button as the shutter release.

No no, but when you make such absolute statements about things you need to be able to justify them.

I don't get where all this guff about personal attacks is coming from ??? I'm not attacking you, at all. Simply pointing out holes in your statements of fact and calling bull shit when I see it. What exactly is wrong with that ???

Cheers

Cris

? I do make a point of backing up statements through explanation, examples, what-have-you.

Saying someone is "full of shit" is a personal attack. While I don't consider the forum a place full of "strangers" and I post as if I'm among friends, you don't know me, Cris. You don't get to say stuff like that the same way I might say it to one of my buddies or visa versa. My reply to that wasn't any better and at no point did I say it was.

If you want to try and back up your position of disagreement with something anyone has said/written, don't do it by trying to change the playing field or topic. With regards to the comments of the iPhone4 camera which prompted this whole mess, your example photos, which I assume were your backing, had little to nothing to do with anything I'd ever written about the subject. I never said that the iPhone 4 could not take any decent pictures at all. Especially ones under controlled lighting.

Again, in the case of the iPhone 4, if the statement was absolute, it's because the facts are absolute on this topic. But if your interpretation leads you to believe I meant something different than I wrote or intended, the first step would probably be to let me clarify rather than to tell me I'm full of shit.

In case you were specifically (in this case) referring to the Nikon comment, I suggest only that you look at the context of that reply to figure out why I wrote it and why I did so in that manner.



Something about glass houses, pots and kettles.