On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 13:42:01 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> https://petapixel.com/2023/10/16/gen-z-complain-about-the-difficulties-of-using-digital-cameras/

Doesn't surprise me. Too many options to select, and find no reason to find out.
I don;t need to know how to wring a chickens neck, pluck it and use skills to cut it up
and turn into into KFC.
I can't even make my own cola either can you ?

On 18/10/2023 23:05, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 13:42:01 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
>> https://petapixel.com/2023/10/16/gen-z-complain-about-the-difficulties-of-using-digital-cameras/
> Doesn't surprise me. Too many options to select, and find no reason to find out.
> I don;t need to know how to wring a chickens neck, pluck it and use skills to cut it up
> and turn into into KFC.
> I can't even make my own cola either ca

The main complaint seems to be uploading - I thought that some cameras had
built-in Wi-Fi - at least one of mine does. I have little sympathy for the one
who managed to break an SD card! Those who have a "proper" camera seem to
appreciate the benefits.

BTW: I recently compared, for a night sky shot, a smartphone with an MFT camera
fitted with a 20 mm f/1.7 lens, expecting the larger camera to be much better.
However, with both supported firmly, but not on a tripod, the smartphone won
because it internally aligned multiple images over a 6-seconf exposure, whereas
the MFT camera showed camera shake in spite of having in-body IS enabled.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 00:23:06 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 18:05:36 UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 13:42:01 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> > > https://petapixel.com/2023/10/16/gen-z-complain-about-the-difficulties-of-using-digital-cameras/
> >
> > Doesn't surprise me. Too many options to select, and find no reason to find out.
> > I don;t need to know how to wring a chickens neck, pluck it and use skills to cut it up
> > and turn into into KFC.
> > I can't even make my own cola either can you ?
> Difference is, if I wanted to do either, I would LEARN it. Just like photography with a camera. They should stick to Fuji Instax.
There's little difference, I doubt I could even catch a chicken , but it was in a rocky film so I guess I could learn.

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 05:33:10 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> On 18/10/2023 23:05, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 13:42:01 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
> >> https://petapixel.com/2023/10/16/gen-z-complain-about-the-difficulties-of-using-digital-cameras/
> > Doesn't surprise me. Too many options to select, and find no reason to find out.
> > I don;t need to know how to wring a chickens neck, pluck it and use skills to cut it up
> > and turn into into KFC.
> > I can't even make my own cola either ca
> The main complaint seems to be uploading - I thought that some cameras had
> built-in Wi-Fi - at least one of mine does.

They do , but the hardware/software isn't very good and sometimes difficult to use.
The camera don't have the physical architecture for social medai to be written into it.

>I have little sympathy for the one
> who managed to break an SD card! Those who have a "proper" camera seem to
> appreciate the benefits.
>
> BTW: I recently compared, for a night sky shot, a smartphone with an MFT camera
> fitted with a 20 mm f/1.7 lens, expecting the larger camera to be much better.

It is likely to be much better you just need to know how to use it.

> However, with both supported firmly, but not on a tripod, the smartphone won
> because it internally aligned multiple images over a 6-seconf exposure, whereas
> the MFT camera showed camera shake in spite of having in-body IS enabled.

You most likely shook the MFT more it beening larger . I use inffinity photo if I want shots aligned.
If you learn how to properly use any camera it is likely to out perform almost any smartphone.

>
> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 19/10/2023 11:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
> You most likely shook the MFT more it beening larger . I use inffinity photo if
> I want shots aligned. If you learn how to properly use any camera it is likely
> to out perform almost any smartphone.

Well, no, it was firmly braced, so I suspect the in-body IS to a little time to
activate. I was expecting better, and have achieved better in the past.

Yes, if you set the camera to take multiple short exposures and download them,
and have the appropriate processing software.... It's all built into the phone
- quite remarkable.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 11:45:36 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 11:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > You most likely shook the MFT more it beening larger . I use inffinity photo if
> > I want shots aligned. If you learn how to properly use any camera it is likely
> > to out perform almost any smartphone.
> Well, no, it was firmly braced, so I suspect the in-body IS to a little time to
> activate. I was expecting better, and have achieved better in the past.

If it were firmly braced then you should turn IS off.
I noticed this effect when I had my camera mounted on a tripod with IS on.
I couldn;t at first work out why my movie was a bit gittery.
If I hadn't been filming a brick wall for 15mins I doubt I would have noticed.

>
> Yes, if you set the camera to take multiple short exposures and download them,
> and have the appropriate processing software.... It's all built into the phone
> - quite remarkable.

yes I agree they are quite remarkable, but they also have drawbacks .
They haven't yet (and I doubt they will) replaced 'proper cameras'.

> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 19/10/2023 13:09, Whisky-dave wrote:
> If it were firmly braced then you should turn IS off. I noticed this effect
> when I had my camera mounted on a tripod with IS on. I couldn;t at first work
> out why my movie was a bit gittery. If I hadn't been filming a brick wall for
> 15mins I doubt I would have noticed.

Yes, I had forgotten that!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 19/10/2023 15:39, RichA wrote:
> You mean the $30 billion poured into camera phone development by the likes of
> Apple and Samsung yielded some positive results over an old camera and 20 year
> old lens? I'm shocked!

Google, in this case. Lens is 14 years old, and the camera 10.

I may try and repeat the experiment with the in-body IS disabled, and all being
well the MFT camera will produce better results.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 16:27:54 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 15:39, RichA wrote:
> > You mean the $30 billion poured into camera phone development by the likes of
> > Apple and Samsung yielded some positive results over an old camera and 20 year
> > old lens? I'm shocked!
> Google, in this case. Lens is 14 years old, and the camera 10.
>
> I may try and repeat the experiment with the in-body IS disabled, and all being
> well the MFT camera will produce better results.

It would be interesting but sometimes it's difficult to judge 'better results' as it depends on the aim.
When I'm taking pictures of insects and such things, tonal quality, accuracy of colours and being able to
choose Depth of field is important and of course image stabilisation.

But when I was filming Lene Lovitch a 74 year-old 'pop'-punk' singer those things are less important.
But image stabilisation is I just wish the stabilisation could counteract number of pints drunk.
https://youtu.be/PCih333mZLs

My IS is in the lens but not sure how much that really matters.

> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 11:27:54 UTC-4, David Taylor wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 15:39, RichA wrote:
> > You mean the $30 billion poured into camera phone development by the likes of
> > Apple and Samsung yielded some positive results over an old camera and 20 year
> > old lens? I'm shocked!
> Google, in this case. Lens is 14 years old, and the camera 10.
>
> I may try and repeat the experiment with the in-body IS disabled, and all being
> well the MFT camera will produce better results.
> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Reminds me of when the soccer moms started buying DSLRs in the early 2000's, then complained the images lacked focus.
They didn't have a clue about DOF with a large sensor, stopping down the lens, etc.

On 23/10/2023 14:55, RichA wrote:
> Reminds me of when the soccer moms started buying DSLRs in the early 2000's,
> then complained the images lacked focus. They didn't have a clue about DOF with
> a large sensor, stopping down the lens, etc.

Yes, and you get that on the phone now as well - software rather than hardware.
There's still plenty of scope for the professionals, too, of course!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu