Could you tell me more about the disadvatanges?
Maybe with some examples.
Does the battery ever not last a whole day for example?
Is the worse camera only about quality or does it take unreasonably longer to process combined with lower compute power?
It’s got a rubbish camera. It’s basically 3 x zoom and that’s it, as long as you’re taking photos in bright lighting conditions, aren’t particularly bothered about really high quality colour reproduction, aren’t planning to zoom in after the fact (it ain’t got enough pixels for that), it’s okay.
But taking photographs at night even in fairly well illuminated streets is basically impossible. Not only do the photos not have great contrast but they’re also really noisy.
Obviously that’s only important to me, for me personally I’d rather have a better quality camera than the latest and greatest processor.
curious question: did you consider carrying around a small camera if taking pictures is so important for you? i am weighting pros and cons of this solution myself and slowly but surely coming to that breaking point…
I’ve yet to find a camera that’s both small enough that it isn’t a significant presence on my person, while at the same time a quality that it’s significantly better than something on a high end smartphone.
You can get some very good SLRs but they’re not exactly compact. Plus they’re really expensive and because they’re bigger more likely to get knocked. I suppose I can get really bougie and get an old compact film camera and then scan the negatives. But I think that would get really expensive.
i went the film way… i had pentax mx first (about 400g with pancake lens), that was too big so i went with olympus ees2. much faster for quick snaps but still big. even rollei 35s i carry now (as small as it gets) is still a bit too cumbersome to handle if it is inside my backpack…all of these are good solution for a photo walk but not fast enough for quick snaps. so now I’m thinking really small digicam… something fitting inside my pocket or something with rugged design i can use anywhere. any newer compact is going to run circles around even high-end smartphone… but price is a consideration.
with film the price is not an issue if you enjoy developing it yourself (which i do) and will buy film in bulk. with k400 and d76 i can get to 6-8 cents per picture when shooting half-frame (try dividing a price of a good dslr by the average amount of pics you make with it over its life and you will get pretty close to that).
Could you tell me more about the disadvatanges?
Maybe with some examples.
Does the battery ever not last a whole day for example?
Is the worse camera only about quality or does it take unreasonably longer to process combined with lower compute power?
Battery last me almost always everyday except with excessive use.
Snapshots with camera takes a bit longer and like the other guy said it ain’t great (personally acceptable but that is opinion).
And specific example compute power I really don’t have, I am not the biggest power user anymore. I can say for typical daily tasks it is totally fine.
I just remind myself that making something cheap, repairable, better for enviroment and no slavery just isn’t as good as the slave made phones hahaha.
It’s got a rubbish camera. It’s basically 3 x zoom and that’s it, as long as you’re taking photos in bright lighting conditions, aren’t particularly bothered about really high quality colour reproduction, aren’t planning to zoom in after the fact (it ain’t got enough pixels for that), it’s okay.
But taking photographs at night even in fairly well illuminated streets is basically impossible. Not only do the photos not have great contrast but they’re also really noisy.
Obviously that’s only important to me, for me personally I’d rather have a better quality camera than the latest and greatest processor.
curious question: did you consider carrying around a small camera if taking pictures is so important for you? i am weighting pros and cons of this solution myself and slowly but surely coming to that breaking point…
I’ve yet to find a camera that’s both small enough that it isn’t a significant presence on my person, while at the same time a quality that it’s significantly better than something on a high end smartphone.
You can get some very good SLRs but they’re not exactly compact. Plus they’re really expensive and because they’re bigger more likely to get knocked. I suppose I can get really bougie and get an old compact film camera and then scan the negatives. But I think that would get really expensive.
i went the film way… i had pentax mx first (about 400g with pancake lens), that was too big so i went with olympus ees2. much faster for quick snaps but still big. even rollei 35s i carry now (as small as it gets) is still a bit too cumbersome to handle if it is inside my backpack…all of these are good solution for a photo walk but not fast enough for quick snaps. so now I’m thinking really small digicam… something fitting inside my pocket or something with rugged design i can use anywhere. any newer compact is going to run circles around even high-end smartphone… but price is a consideration.
with film the price is not an issue if you enjoy developing it yourself (which i do) and will buy film in bulk. with k400 and d76 i can get to 6-8 cents per picture when shooting half-frame (try dividing a price of a good dslr by the average amount of pics you make with it over its life and you will get pretty close to that).