Are cell phones as good as DSLRs? My friend says 'yes'.

[waday]

 

[astroNikon]

Personally, I would like to see a thesis or dissertation paper on this from Photoguy
which should contain actual research and actual analysis..

 

[xzyragon]

Oh shoot. I was all wrong. I didn't realize that 'better' means 'more expensive'.

My bad.

a starting DSLR kit is around $400 - $500 new, and you can pick up a starter kit with a couple OK lenses for $700 or $800. If you're looking in the used market it's a helluva lot cheaper. A new smartphone is $700 or $800.

The best camera for capturing the moment is the one you have with you. My best camera is my 7D, so I routinely have it with me.

 

[waday]

Personally, I would like to see a thesis or dissertation paper on this from Photoguy
which should contain actual research and actual analysis..

Research and analysis would actually be really interesting to see.

I doubt it would support his hypothesis.

 

[photoguy99]

What? Research? I've restated some trivially verifiable facts and drawn some equally trivial conclusions from them.

That's not really a 'research' or ' thesis' deal. I've done the former and written the latter so I have a rough idea.

Pray tell, what question would this research project propose to answer?

 

[manaheim]

ooo... this topic. I haven't seen this one in weeks. *rolls eyes*

 

[JerryLove]

Pray tell, what question would this research project propose to answer?

Is this claim true: "Even you guys use your cell phone cameras more than your DSLRs" (post #106)? Anecdotal responses suggest it's not

Is the obvious implied claim true "Greater use = as good as or better"?

Can something be authoritatively claimed to be the standard and, if so, does greater-use on that standard = better? "Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard." (post #92)

Did you, in fact, "stop now" (post #96)

Is this a correct definition of photography and how can we establish it? It's not supported (in exclusion of others) by English: "What you think of as irrelevant snaps by the unwashed masses, that's 'photography'." (post #98).

Indeed: "What is photography", which you have just assumed, seems worthy of its own research paper.

Can you prove "[there is] no camera enthusiast who isn't desperate to justify his purchases." (post #63). Doesn't this conflict directly with your claims that Daryll posts accurately?

Are cellphone cameras capable of a more extreme DoF than DSLRs? (post #73)
Are ergonomics better on a cellphone than a DSLR? (post #73)
Can connectivity be "waived aside" when determining a better "camera", or is that an intrinsic part of what makes a camera good or bad? (post #73)

Is this *the* definition of photography? It's not supported by any dictionary "Photography is immediate. It's now. It's at least as much about frictionless sharing as anything else. " (post #79).

Also: Can these meta assertions be supported?
"You're all refusing to see my starting point because you feel attacked. "
"this is the internet and disagreement = attack, and must be replied to with vigorous counter attack."
"I'm more qualified to judge soundness than you guys are. "
"you can't follow my argument. I assure you that it's sound"

That's only half the thread. Should I go on?

Your facts are not trivial, especially not your assumed ones. You simply assume that things are however you chose to define them; even when that equivocation is unique to yourself. You've covered almost every logical fallacy in the book including but not limited to: Straw-man, Appeal to authority, Ad hominem, and Equivocation (all evidenced above).

 

[photoguy99]

Just listing a bunch of stuff you disagree with isn't the same thing as writing research proposals.

A bunch of that stuff is just definitions which we disagree on, and for which your definition is silly. Regardless there's no right or wrong, there's no research or thesis.

You really have a bug up your butt about the statement that you guys use your cells a lot. You need to reread other people's posts where several people clearly stated that as a fact of their lives. I was obviously just echoing those statements.

In general context matters. Especially in an informal setting like an internet forum. I write assuming that your familiar with the earlier remarks in the thread.

Other parts are just quoting mild hyperbole and raging against an obviously wrong literal reading. 'Everyone' often means 'a lot of people' or 'most people' in colloquial phrasing, for example, but you insist that I mean it literally (maybe not that exact word and usage, but several similar ones) and then complain that it's not literally true. Duh.

Just listing a bunch of fallacies and attributing them to me doesn't accomplish anything. Especially when you get them wrong.

But, try on petitio principii for yourself. I've pointed it out a couple of times, so no need to belabor the details here.

And on and on. Do I need to be worried that you're a psycho stalker here or do you just have an incredible amount of free time on your hands to pull this sort of post together?

I assume that you're just performing for the audience here, counting some imagined coup, but, whoa.

 

[photoguy99]

Also, I have decorously ignored this, but do you seriously not get that smaller sensors yield greater DoF?

There are some technical details you should state if you're a pedant up to and including 'if you are in a universe with these constants', but the statement as it stands is meaningful and well understood.

 

[W.Fovall]

And now for something completely different

 

[JerryLove]

Also, I have decorously ignored this, but do you seriously not get that smaller sensors yield greater DoF?

There are some technical details you should state if you're a pedant up to and including 'if you are in a universe with these constants', but the statement as it stands is meaningful and well understood.

I know as absolute fact that your claim above is false.

I am completely certain that I can take my full-frame Canon 6D, put my 50mm f1.2 lens on it, put it on a tripod and take a picture. I know that I can then take my T2i, put the same lens on it, mount it on the same tripod, and get the exact same DoF.

The AoV was different; obviously. The resolution was different (better on the T2i once I cropped the 6D pic to match composition), but the DoF was completely unchanged.

This is a trivial thing and you cannot manage to understand it.

 

[JerryLove]

Just listing a bunch of stuff you disagree with isn't the same thing as writing research proposals.

You asked what questions could be answered. I gave you a bunch. You are desperately dodging. It's kinda pathetic actually.

 

[photoguy99]

Also, I have decorously ignored this, but do you seriously not get that smaller sensors yield greater DoF?

There are some technical details you should state if you're a pedant up to and including 'if you are in a universe with these constants', but the statement as it stands is meaningful and well understood.

I know as absolute fact that your claim above is false.

I am completely certain that I can take my full-frame Canon 6D, put my 50mm f1.2 lens on it, put it on a tripod and take a picture. I know that I can then take my T2i, put the same lens on it, mount it on the same tripod, and get the exact same DoF.

The AoV was different; obviously. The resolution was different (better on the T2i once I cropped the 6D pic to match composition), but the DoF was completely unchanged.

This is a trivial thing and you cannot manage to understand it.

I understand it perfectly well. You are talking past me. You probably understand that we're talking about two different things, and I certainly do.

You are denying it, however. I don't know if you're stupid or just determined to count coup. Luckily, I don't care.

 

[W.Fovall]

Larger sensor gets a shallower DOF.. This has been know for ever and Tony Northrup did a video on YouTube to help understand the math.

 

[JerryLove]

Larger sensor gets a shallower DOF.. This has been know for ever and Tony Northrup did a video on YouTube to help understand the math.

You don't understand a rather important part of that math... "for the same composition".

Thought experiment.

If all the pixels on the outside of my FF Canon 6D's sensor just broke. The inner pixels would capture a different DoF?!?

How does a pixel in the center of my sensor know whether a pixel on the outer edges of my sensor is working or not? What magic changes the light hitting a point on the sensor's plane based on whether a different part of the sensor is working or even exists?

From CambridgeInColour "As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. " (Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

Note the part bolded by them. The sensor has no *direct* relationship to DoF. It's indirect and based on other factors. What you think you know is wrong.