Oh, no. Not another analog & digital thread!

[George Mann]

Has anyone ever laid their hands on the Japan-only Leica phones?

Do these have sufficiently large sensors and a real lens?

 

[RezaLoghme]

What is an unreal lens then

 

[koraks]

Many phones used to (perhaps still) have plastic lenses of mediocre quality. They've improved lots though.

sufficiently large sensors

Obviously any phone camera will have a tiny sensor.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Maybe worth a challenge - post phone pics (of contemporary iphones, not 2003 Motorolers), and Leica APO-Summicron / M11. And see if someone can spot the difference. Heresay!

 

[djdister]

What is an unreal lens then

 

[RezaLoghme]

View attachment 409151

Dont think I have seen such a lens in a phone yet

 

[koraks]

Dont think I have seen such a lens in a phone yet

There might be a phone inside that lens, though.

 

[MattKing]

Isn't it the Red Green cel phone camera?
You probably can guess how the lens is attached to it.

 

[cliveh]

Modern phones are surprisingly good cameras, by the way.

But a Barnack Leica is 1000 times more tactile and far less complicated.

 

[RezaLoghme]

is it? ever tried one?

 

[koraks]

What I do know is that if you're suffering from asthma and you want to photograph the scenery in the mountains, a Barnack Leica is a whole lot more suitable than that rhino horn of a lens. Which, of course, was pretty much the point of the Barnack Leica to begin with.

 

[RezaLoghme]

But a Barnack Leica is 1000 times more tactile and far less complicated than a phone, someone said above.

On my phone, I press one button, and it takes a photograph. A Barnack Leica requires a few more steps.

 

[cliveh]

But a Barnack Leica is 1000 times more tactile and far less complicated than a phone, someone said above.

On my phone, I press one button, and it takes a photograph. A Barnack Leica requires a few more steps.

But a Barnack Leica uses the physical integrity of film and you are dissengaged from what your phone is doing on your behalf. After taking the picture you view what your phone has captured. I'm confident I know what a Barnack camera has captured.

 

[gbroadbridge]

But a Barnack Leica uses the physical integrity of film and you are dissengaged from what your phone is doing on your behalf. After taking the picture you view what your phone has captured. I'm confident I know what a Barnack camera has captured.

The picture and the story it tells is all that matters.

How you choose to get there is irrelevant.

Some choose higher levels of pain compared to others who choose the easy road.
Whatever floats your boat.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I'm confident I know what a Barnack camera has captured.

REally?

 

[cliveh]

The picture and the story it tells is all that matters.

How you choose to get there is irrelevant.

Some choose higher levels of pain compared to others who choose the easy road.
Whatever floats your boat.

I beg to differ. I capture images, not make them. There is a world of difference between what we see and what we present as seen.

 

[gbroadbridge]

There is a world of difference between what we see and what we present as seen.

You can paint a turd pink, but it's still a turd.

 

[cliveh]

You can paint a turd pink, but it's still a turd.

No, with digital you can paint a turd pink, but with film you can photograph a turd as it is.

 

[Pieter12]

No, with digital you can paint a turd pink, but with film you can photograph a turd as it is.

You can certainly hand-color a turd pink with a print from film.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

[...]

Some choose higher levels of pain compared to others who choose the easy road.
Whatever floats your boat.

Aint that the truth now.

 

[Pieter12]

Aint that the truth now.

It really depends. I find it just as difficult to make a good shot with digital or film. Film introduces many possibilities for errors after it has been shot, something that does not occur with digital.

 

[gbroadbridge]

It really depends. I find it just as difficult to make a good shot with digital or film.

Absolutely true for me too.

Film introduces many possibilities for errors after it has been shot, something that does not occur with digital.

Well, I'm not sure about that. I've seen some pretty shocking digital edits published as 'the real deal'.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

It really depends. I find it just as difficult to make a good shot with digital or film. Film introduces many possibilities for errors after it has been shot, something that does not occur with digital.

I never bothered to "make a good shot with digital" because I went off just as quickly as I seemed to have been turned on! Ah, walking into a camera store with gleaming cameras lined up like jewels in glass cabinets, and for reasons that I still cannot fathom more than a decade on, I fell for the charms of the bright lights, shiny trinkets and slick sales talk. Nowadays I stay well away from camera stores!

'Chimping' at that little LCD screen shows that too many photographers, too often, screw up even the most basic scenes. IOW, errors are greatly amplified with digital through the instant "playback" of the image and the urge to make a cascade of changes that are not necessarily for the better.

The margin for error with film is greatly diminished with applied knowledge and experience, and particularly, conceptualisation and visualisation of the scene and how one carries it effectively to film. This often profound lack of conceptualisation and visualisation in digital is the prime reason we see so much dramatically altered – "souped up" imaging on the interwebby. What they cannot do with a/in-camera they turn to a computer (or worse, Ai). This is a travesty, not a triumph. Learn to do everything in-camera, reliably and consistently, using the grey matter between the ears and the vast mental library that you reference for guidance.

 

[Pieter12]

The margin for error with film is greatly diminished with applied knowledge and experience, and particularly, conceptualisation and visualisation of the scene and how one carries it effectively to film. This often profound lack of conceptualisation and visualisation in digital is the prime reason we see so much dramatically altered – "souped up" imaging on the interwebby. What they cannot do with a/in-camera they turn to a computer (or worse, Ai). This is a travesty, not a triumph. Learn to do everything in-camera, reliably and consistently, using the grey matter between the ears and the vast mental library that you reference for guidance.

And why wouldn't that be the same for digital as for film? Some rely on film for a certain look, not that different than using a predetermined setting on a digital camera. And not everything can or should be done in-camera. Much can be done in the darkroom in the case of a wet print.

BTW, I have tripped the shutter inadvertently on a number of film cameras. It is not reserved for the digital world.

 

[Pieter12]

Well, I'm not sure about that. I've seen some pretty shocking digital edits published as 'the real deal'.

Sure, there are lots with little taste or "eye" for what makes an image good and they can easily go overboard with digital editing and "filters." I was considering how one could mess up film (leaving it in the heat, poor processing and handling for example). I have also seen way too many terrible photos shot on film, sometimes with very expensive or exotic and well-respected equipment, that I would throw in the trash in an instant. The photographers in those cases were proud enough of their accomplishments to post them to photographic forums as examples of their great gear and experience.