Photography with an iPad

[donaldsc]

Sorry, I only look at top end. I earn income with mine so unless the review has either Canon or Nikon I wont even give them a second glance.

 

Are you suggesting that only Canon and Nikon have top end cameras and all of the rest of them are 2nd rate? Do you really believe that?

 

DON

[donaldsc]

Huhh?

 

A snapshot is designed as a camera and can function with quicker shutter speeds due to the size of its sensor and lens. Light reaches the sensor quicker meaning you will always get crisper and clearer photos than any iPad or mobile phones. You will also have a better built lens quality opposed to the cheap plastic used by the iPad which again deteriorates its quality.

 

You lost me. a snapshot..........?:confused:

Also, most lenses on tablets/smartphones (iPad's/IPhones) use glass not plastic optics.

 

As absurd as it may sound, the highlighted portion of the post may be technically true although the conclusion drawn from it is totally wrong. I found this on the internet -

 

"air at 0 °C and 1 atm pressure :

about 299704644.53915 metres per second

 

water at 20°C :

about 224900568.64216053 metres per second

 

Theres lots of differnent types of glass:

these are at room temperature

 

fused silica glass : 205618969.82167354 metres per second

pyrex glass: 203940447.6190476 metres per second

acrylic glass: between 200933282.84182307 and 201202991.94630873 metres per second"

 

If we assume that a camera lens is made of fused silica glass, the speed of light in glass is 68% of the speed of light in air so that the more pieces of glass you put in a lens, the longer it will take for the light to get from the front of the front element to the sensor.

 

Does it have any impact on your photograph - no. Did the poster know know what they were talking about - no. Were they sort of right - maybe.

 

DON

[TruckerDave]

Are you suggesting that only Canon and Nikon have top end cameras and all of the rest of them are 2nd rate? Do you really believe that?

 

DON

 

 

I wonder where that leaves Leica and Hasselblad if Canon and Nikon are tops on his list. :rolleyes:

[Brisbane41]

As absurd as it may sound, the highlighted portion of the post may be technically true although the conclusion drawn from it is totally wrong. I found this on the internet -

 

"air at 0 °C and 1 atm pressure :

about 299704644.53915 metres per second

 

water at 20°C :

about 224900568.64216053 metres per second

 

Theres lots of differnent types of glass:

these are at room temperature

 

fused silica glass : 205618969.82167354 metres per second

pyrex glass: 203940447.6190476 metres per second

acrylic glass: between 200933282.84182307 and 201202991.94630873 metres per second"

 

If we assume that a camera lens is made of fused silica glass, the speed of light in glass is 68% of the speed of light in air so that the more pieces of glass you put in a lens, the longer it will take for the light to get from the front of the front element to the sensor.

 

Does it have any impact on your photograph - no. Did the poster know know what they were talking about - no. Were they sort of right - maybe.

 

DON

 

I would kindly suggest that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Taking a photo at 1/30 second with image stabilisation, a high ISO rating will result in a poor image with high noise and look totally crap.

 

Taking a photo at 1/250 second with no image stabilisation a low ISO rating will produce a crisp clear and sharp photo.

 

When you have a real camera with a large sensor you are going to get more light on that sensor allowing for a much quicker shutter speed. When you have a mobile device or similar you have a tiny sensor which will never produce a fast shutter speed.

 

The camera equipment I own costs more money than most people pay for at least a 30 night cruise. Investing in equipment like that requires a lot of research and you need to be serious about your hobby and interest to begin with. Also even though it is a hobby and I am serious about it I have made income off it and strictly that income alone has paid for a cruise.

[donaldsc]

I would kindly suggest that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Taking a photo at 1/30 second with image stabilisation, a high ISO rating will result in a poor image with high noise and look totally crap.

 

Taking a photo at 1/250 second with no image stabilisation a low ISO rating will produce a crisp clear and sharp photo.

 

When you have a real camera with a large sensor you are going to get more light on that sensor allowing for a much quicker shutter speed. When you have a mobile device or similar you have a tiny sensor which will never produce a fast shutter speed.

 

The camera equipment I own costs more money than most people pay for at least a 30 night cruise. Investing in equipment like that requires a lot of research and you need to be serious about your hobby and interest to begin with. Also even though it is a hobby and I am serious about it I have made income off it and strictly that income alone has paid for a cruise.

 

I am really glad that you have lots of expensive equipment and you make money off your photo hobby. I hope that you have pity for those of us who have to suffer with non-Nikon/Canon inferior equipment. I would point out that it might be because of your skills as a photographer and the the equipment you use that you get photographs that sell well enough to get significant sales.

 

However, it does appear that you can not read. The poster clearly stated that the pictures taken with a real camera (obviously a Nikon or Canon) with more glass elements will be better because the the light gets to the sensor more quickly than in a lower end camera (not a Nikon or Canon) with fewer glass elements.

 

Since light moves significantly more slowly in glass than a vacuum or in air, the transit time for light to pass through the Nikon or Canon lens with more elements will be longer than for a lens with fewer elements. In fact, if you do the calculation and assume that the lens length is the same at 20 cm, it would take light about 6.67E-11 seconds for light to traverse the 20 cm in air (i.e., a single element lens) as compared to 9.76E-11 in the multielement lens.

 

Nobody is questioning your 1/30 versus 1/250 second statements. Nobody is questioning that a larger sensor is better than a smaller sensor.

 

However, the original poster made a statement based on a false premise that more elements means that the light gets to the lens more quickly. My comments were concerned only with the false premise, not with the second part of the logical if A, then B statement.

 

DON

Edited January 29, 2015 by donaldsc

[tanzer22pilot]

We watched this IPAD photographer almost get hurt by walking into the parade on the Oasis of the Seas. Total lack of situational awareness.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2015 by tanzer22pilot

[Brisbane41]

I am really glad that you have lots of expensive equipment and you make money off your photo hobby. I hope that you have pity for those of us who have to suffer with non-Nikon/Canon inferior equipment. I would point out that it might be because of your skills as a photographer and the the equipment you use that you get photographs that sell well enough to get significant sales.

 

However, it does appear that you can not read. The poster clearly stated that the pictures taken with a real camera (obviously a Nikon or Canon) with more glass elements will be better because the the light gets to the sensor more quickly than in a lower end camera (not a Nikon or Canon) with fewer glass elements.

 

Since light moves significantly more slowly in glass than a vacuum or in air, the transit time for light to pass through the Nikon or Canon lens with more elements will be longer than for a lens with fewer elements. In fact, if you do the calculation and assume that the lens length is the same at 20 cm, it would take light about 6.67E-11 seconds for light to traverse the 20 cm in air (i.e., a single element lens) as compared to 9.76E-11 in the multielement lens.

 

Nobody is questioning your 1/30 versus 1/250 second statements. Nobody is questioning that a larger sensor is better than a smaller sensor.

 

However, the original poster made a statement based on a false premise that more elements means that the light gets to the lens more quickly. My comments were concerned only with the false premise, not with the second part of the logical if A, then B statement.

 

DON

 

My mistake was to type that light reaches the sensor quicker opposed to more light reaches the sensor allowing for a quicker shutter speed.

 

However my interest in photography had humble beginnings too. I started off with basic compact film cameras and in my early 20's just had a simple pentax 35mm compact film camera. Eventually I upgraded to digital and used the bridge SLR Panasonic FZ20.

 

Anyone can take good photos if they know what they are doing. It is an art form, it is creative, it takes patience and people need to admire beauty and sit back and enjoy what they are seeing and set up that shot.

 

My essence stands true that the original poster asking the question would be better off with their camera opposed to iPad.

 

It is the quick turn around speed that is ruining photography and turning it into something cheap. The mobile phone and iPad generation of photos are just poor quality that they destroy the concept of photography. At the end of the day the results produced by suck mediums are poor quality and would not be appreciated by future generations looking back. In reality old film cameras and even WWII era photography craps all over the quality iPads and mobile devices take. People say they use their iPad to give people back home a picture. Well I say people back home can wait. They have a life and they don't need to see your photo the moment it is taken. Give me the good old days when you went away and sat down with people on your return and show them your adventures in person. The rush for a quick turn around produces poor results.

[donaldsc]

My mistake was to type that light reaches the sensor quicker opposed to more light reaches the sensor allowing for a quicker shutter speed.

 

However my interest in photography had humble beginnings too. I started off with basic compact film cameras and in my early 20's just had a simple pentax 35mm compact film camera. Eventually I upgraded to digital and used the bridge SLR Panasonic FZ20.

 

Anyone can take good photos if they know what they are doing. It is an art form, it is creative, it takes patience and people need to admire beauty and sit back and enjoy what they are seeing and set up that shot.

 

My essence stands true that the original poster asking the question would be better off with their camera opposed to iPad.

 

It is the quick turn around speed that is ruining photography and turning it into something cheap. The mobile phone and iPad generation of photos are just poor quality that they destroy the concept of photography. At the end of the day the results produced by suck mediums are poor quality and would not be appreciated by future generations looking back. In reality old film cameras and even WWII era photography craps all over the quality iPads and mobile devices take. People say they use their iPad to give people back home a picture. Well I say people back home can wait. They have a life and they don't need to see your photo the moment it is taken. Give me the good old days when you went away and sat down with people on your return and show them your adventures in person. The rush for a quick turn around produces poor results.

 

We totally 100% agree on this point.

 

DON

[MauiLvrs]

... a high ISO rating

 

ISO (AKA ASA for us old people) really has nothing to do wi a digital sensor.

It is magic and mirrors BS in the digital world :eek:

 

Don, Thanks for digging up the details ...

Edited January 29, 2015 by MauiLvrs

[pierces]

ISO (AKA ASA for us old people) really has nothing to do wi a digital sensor.

It is magic and mirrors BS in the digital world :eek:

 

Don, Thanks for digging up the details ...

 

The base sensitivity of a sensor to light and at various levels of amplification has been given a set of criteria closely paralleling film by the International Organization for Standardization (same people that developed film ratings), so the ISO of a sensor has the same (approximate) relationship to the trinity of exposure (sensitivity, light and time) as film did. While it is true that one media is chemical and the other electronic, for all practical purposes they can be treated the same, ISO-wise.

 

Dave

Edited January 29, 2015 by pierces

[pierces]

Just a note on mobile devices.

 

Modern mobile devices have come a long way from the little pinhole camera in early flip phones. If you take your time and pay attention to photo basics, you can get a quality image from your phone or tablet in a wide range of situations. It's a given that a large-sensor camera will deliver acceptable images in a wider range of circumstances but dismissing a mobile device as a viable tool for photography is no longer automatic. iPhones, Lumias and other advanced devices may not offer the lens choice of a "real" camera but they are leaps and bounds ahead of early compacts and under some conditions may even rival DSLRs from the last decade in general image quality.

 

This was taken with my Lumia Icon at ISO 800 during a recent trip:

 

It doesn't have the dynamic range of this shot from the A6000 at ISO 3200 but not bad for a phone:

 

In good light, the images produced from a good mobile device can be hard to tell from one taken with a $6K camera at normal viewing sizes.

 

Icon at ISO 100

 

Even at moderate light levels, a steady hand and limiting ISO (250 here) can produce good results:

 

I won't be replacing my DSLR or ILC cameras with the phone anytime soon, but I haven't bought a replacement for my compact camera since I got the Icon. It lacks the zoom of a decent compact but I don't feel "camera naked" just carrying my phone anymore.

 

The best camera is the one you will use and the picture you take will always be better than the one you missed. ;)

 

 

Dave

 

PS. If you do use a mobile device, do us all a favor and PLEASE turn off the ridiculous phony shutter sound! That will double your credibility as a photographer instantly! :)

Edited January 29, 2015 by pierces

[MauiLvrs]

The base sensitivity of a sensor to light and at various levels of amplification has been given a set of criteria closely paralleling film by the International Organization for Standardization (same people that developed film ratings), so the ISO of a sensor has the same (approximate) relationship to the trinity of exposure (sensitivity, light and time) as film did. While it is true that one media is chemical and the other electronic, for all practical purposes they can be treated the same, ISO-wise.

 

Dave

 

All good well and mostly accurate ... but I'll stick with calling it ISO (International Standards Organization) is inaccurate and useless and EI (Exposure Index) being more accurate and useful.

And in the old film world it was film speed.

 

Manufactures calling it ISO (International Standards Organization) instead of EI (Exposure Index) or some other useful term like speed is just plain stupid.

[marysb]

Back to the simple basic question ... (amateur to amateur)

 

I find the ipad photos much too grainy and pretty blurry. Never a substitute for a DSLR or a point and shoot that will fit in your pocket.

 

BUT-

If your camera doesn't have a panorama setting, then a panorama app is a handy thing to have with your ipad.

 

Also, I like it to take some videos. You have a nice big screen to see what you are filming and then use the imovie app to put together some fun travel videos or "trailers".

[zackiedawg]

Staying out of the debate about whether the image quality is up to snuff (it's all on what a person needs, how they shoot, and what they are using the photos for)...

 

The only primary comment I have about shooting with an iPad would be the same comments I have for any photographer, but just amplified: please try to be courteous to others around you when shooting. I say this to all photographers, as one myself, because I sometimes fall victim to the bad behavior of others: people see me with a big camera or tripod and just assume I'm going to block their view, or they sneer at me because they assume I'm not going to be aware of them because I'm too busy looking through my camera setting up a shot...or they don't talk to me because they've encountered so many photographers that don't socialize or talk to them when shooting and assume I'm another one of those nasty anti-social photographers. None of the above applies to me - because I do pay attention - I don't block people's paths, I wait until people are out of my way rather than inconvenience them, and I am friendly and talkative to anyone while I'm out shooting. Even I have encountered those photographers who do all those things - so I know why people make the assumptions they do.

 

But the problem gets a little worse with camera phones, and P&S cameras that use LCD screens only...because there are even more ways to disturb others around you. Holding up a camera or phone over your head or out in front of you can interfere with other people's views, and other photographers' photos. Bright glowing screens held up in front of you at night or in dark environments can be incredibly annoying and distracting. And it seems there are some folks more prone to walk or move around while shooting with an LCD than those who shoot through a viewfinder - making inattentive people running or backing into you even more likely.

 

Those problems - especially blocked views and interference, and bright glowing screens, are amplified even more when dealing with tablets and iPads. If a 3" LCD glowing at night in front of you while trying to see a concert or show, or view fireworks, is annoying...think of how much more annoying a 10" or 12" screen held up in front of you will be. If a 4" x 3" phone held up in the air partially blocks your view...think of how much more of your view is blocked if someone in front of you holds up a 13" x 10" tablet.

 

If the person using the tablet has the courtesy to hold the screen down a little lower, at head or chest level, taking into consideration the people around them, turns down the screen brightness or holds the screen lower at night, and pays attention when shooting rather than moving around while only looking at the screen and bumping into people, then tablet/iPad shooters will gain a better reputation, and it can be a very valid and useful way for some people to photograph (my stepfather would probably do very well with one, as his eyes are just not capable of shooting with a 3" screen anymore, and he's not a photographer so adapting to looking through a viewfinder is just not going to happen).

[pierces]

All good well and mostly accurate ... but I'll stick with calling it ISO (International Standards Organization) is inaccurate and useless and EI (Exposure Index) being more accurate and useful.

And in the old film world it was film speed.

 

Manufactures calling it ISO (International Standards Organization) instead of EI (Exposure Index) or some other useful term like speed is just plain stupid.

 

Exposure index is the measure of the amount of exposure received by the image receptor whether film or digital. Aperture and time of exposure determine the amount of light striking the receptor leaving an un-stated factor in the trinity of exposure which is the sensitivity of the receptor. EI was developed as a method of calculating an adjusted exposure to push or pull the native sensitivity of a fixed ISO film. For general purposes 1/125s at f/16 with an ISO setting of 100 on any digital camera will produce a Sunny 16 exposure index as will a setting of 1/250s at f/16 with an ISO of 200. ISO (or whatever you want to call it) is a component in determining the total exposure index.

 

Besides, until it replaces ISO/Shutter/Aperture settings used to set exposure in virtually all digital cameras, asking a new photographer to calculate the EI without using the units of measure embedded in their digital camera's software is just mean! ;)

 

Dave

[zqvol]

I got an iPad Air 2 for Christmas and wonder what people think about photography with an iPad. I always thought people looked stupid taking pictures with their iPads but the Air 2 has an 8 megapixel camera, my snapshot camera is 5 mp. I'm not talking professional level photography, just taking snapshots while cruising. Thoughts?

 

 

Don't be concerned with mega pixels, unless you want huge pictures ( I mean like 8 feet by 10 feet) The most important factor is the lens and your camera has a better lens, even though the ipad takes OK pictures.