In article <ipur2k-fkfa2.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On 20/11/2023 08:58, Andy Burns wrote:
> > > Chris Green wrote:
> > >
> > >> Smartphones are second best at everything
> > >
> > > The point frequently being, for a multitude of tasks, they are the
> > > best device you have with you.
> > >
> > > C.f. a Swiss Army Knife, Leatherman or the like

> Yes, and personally I find them just as horrible! :-) One sees many
> screws etc. that have been ruined by attempting to use one of the above
> one them. It's rarely that I need tools when I'm not in my car or on my
> 'bike, thus it's perfectly reasonable to have a good set of tools with
> one.

The knife on my Leatherman is excellent. It is a Real Leatherman, not a
copycat.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 20/11/2023 15:30, charles wrote:
> In article <ipur2k-fkfa2.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> wrote:
>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2023 08:58, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Smartphones are second best at everything
>>>>
>>>> The point frequently being, for a multitude of tasks, they are the
>>>> best device you have with you.
>>>>
>>>> C.f. a Swiss Army Knife, Leatherman or the like
>
>> Yes, and personally I find them just as horrible! :-) One sees many
>> screws etc. that have been ruined by attempting to use one of the above
>> one them. It's rarely that I need tools when I'm not in my car or on my
>> 'bike, thus it's perfectly reasonable to have a good set of tools with
>> one.
>
> The knife on my Leatherman is excellent. It is a Real Leatherman, not a
> copycat.
>
Never seen a screw ruined by a Swiss Army knife. I have had both a
Wenger and Victorinox and the screwdriver blades on both are correctly
profiled. The Wenger had the nice feature that when depressed the blades
locked, but I see these are no longer made.

In my experience screws get ruined by power drivers with worn bits, by
using the wrong type of crosspoint bit (PH/PZ) or the wrong size of
cross point bit.

Dave

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:03:45 +1100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:

> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19/11/2023 20:26, Chris Green wrote:
>> > Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [1] Yes, I know I could use the phone to read books, but its screen
>> is
>> >> terrible for this purpose - when compared to the Paperwhite.
>> >>
>> > Exactly!! Smartphones are second best at everything, no good for
>> > reading on, no good for taking pictures, no good for sending messages.
>> > They are OK[ish] as phones.
>> >
>> Goodness, you grumpy so and so. The camera in my Galaxy S10+ is not as
>> good as my Fuji XE-1 but it fits in my pocket and I don't need a second
>> bag. Its better than my pocket size Nikon. In manual mode it will do
>> quite a range of special effects, so long exposures for moving water,
>> high shutter speed for action shots.
>>
> My Tz60 is smaller and lighter than a smartphone and has a proper
> viewfinder and a 30:1 telephoto lens. Why would I lug my smartphone
> around instead?

Because it does a hell of a lot more than any camera can do.

>> I now seldom use a real camera. The pictures from my mobile are on my
>> laptop almost instantly via OneDrive, no messing with cards or USB
>> leads.
>>
> The Tz60 can use WiFi but I prefer a piece of wire. :-)
>
>> Its really the only way to send Text messages. The SatNav is always up
>> to date. Before you say "won't work where there is no signal" if I
>> download the route before I start it will.
>>
> Text messages I mostly send from my laptop, far easier with a proper
> keyboard.

Bullshit. Any decent smartphone has voice input.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:41:59 +1100, ken, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
dennis@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5.41611@fx46.iad>

On 20/11/2023 17:41, ken wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:03:45 +1100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>
>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 19/11/2023 20:26, Chris Green wrote:
>>> > Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] Yes, I know I could use the phone to read books, but its
>>> screen is
>>> >> terrible for this purpose - when compared to the Paperwhite.
>>> >>
>>> > Exactly!!  Smartphones are second best at everything, no good for
>>> > reading on, no good for taking pictures, no good for sending messages.
>>> > They are OK[ish] as phones.
>>> >
>>> Goodness, you grumpy so and so. The camera in my Galaxy S10+ is not as
>>> good as my Fuji XE-1 but it fits in my pocket and I don't need a second
>>> bag. Its better than my pocket size Nikon. In manual mode it will do
>>> quite a range of special effects, so long exposures for moving water,
>>> high shutter speed for action shots.
>>>
>> My Tz60 is smaller and lighter than a smartphone and has a proper
>> viewfinder and a 30:1 telephoto lens.  Why would I lug my smartphone
>> around instead?
>

Its smaller x & y but at 34mm thick its a lot thicker and 50% heavier
than my Galaxy S10+.The extra thickness means it won't slip into my
shirt pocket like the s10+

> Because it does a hell of a lot more than any camera can do.
>
>>> I now seldom use a real camera. The pictures from my mobile are on my
>>> laptop almost instantly via OneDrive, no messing with cards or USB
>>> leads.
>>>
>> The Tz60 can use WiFi but I prefer a piece of wire. :-)
>>
>>> Its really the only way to send Text messages. The SatNav is always up
>>> to date. Before you say "won't work where there is no signal" if I
>>> download the route before I start it will.
>>>
>> Text messages I mostly send from my laptop, far easier with a proper
>> keyboard.
>
> Bullshit. Any decent smartphone has voice input.

+1

Dave

On 19/11/2023 20:50, Tim+ wrote:
> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [1] Yes, I know I could use the phone to read books, but its screen is
>>> terrible for this purpose - when compared to the Paperwhite.
>>>
>> Exactly!! Smartphones are second best at everything, no good for
>> reading on, no good for taking pictures, no good for sending messages.
>> They are OK[ish] as phones.
>>
>
> Don’t be daft. Making calls is bottom of the list. They do a hundred other
> things brilliantly.
>
> Tim
>

Taking decent photos is debatable.

My Moto G31 has a very average camera. It has several annoying
features.

I read Investors Chronicle in the library and take phone pics
of interesting articles but the silly thing keeps trying the
take the photo in landscape when the magazine is flat on the
desk.

Also, it has no feature or intelligence to flatten the page
so that the whole page is in focus. The bit near the staples
tends to bulge up a bit. An app to take a photo multiple times
and combine them to give better depth of field would be useful.

My Olympus tough can do focus stacking, do any phones do this ?.

On 20/11/2023 12:20, SteveW wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 12:04, Chris Green wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> Smartphones are second best at everything
>>>
>>> The point frequently being, for a multitude of tasks, they are the best
>>> device you have with you.
>>>
>> But I don't, I have my (smaller) camera and probably a laptop.
>
> But do you have those every time you walk to the local shops? If you see
> something interesting, you are far more likely to have your phone with you.
>

I don't even bother to take my phone with me for a that sort of
minor excursion !. If a fast moving 'incident' occured, it would
be over before you got the phone out and faffed around with the
camera anyway.

If I am going anywhere by train and/or bus then thats a different
matter, it holds my railcard (*) and timetables.

I only need the odd tenner and loose change for a visit to a
local shop.

(*) only because ATOCS have decided that to buy a 3 year railcard
you now need a mobile phone number to renew online, or rely on the
post. Having had to buy a mobile phone for this and all the 2FA
stuff, it seemed obvious to have the railcard on my phone.

On 20/11/2023 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>> Smartphones are second best at everything
>>>
>>> The point frequently being, for a multitude of tasks, they are the best
>>> device you have with you.
>>>
>> But I don't, I have my (smaller) camera and probably a laptop.
>
> If I'm going somewhere that requires good photos, I'll take a camera; if
> I'm going somewhere that will be dark, I'll take some form of torch;  if
> I know I'll need to work from an oddball location, I'll take a mifi;
>
> But for times when I haven't taken any of the above, my phone can step
> in ...
>

reaching behind big TVs, computers or peering under cabinets etc
is the only time I have a mobile phone useful to take a photo of all
the connections, wires etc.

Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
> My Olympus tough can do focus stacking, do any phones do this ?.

Plenty of modern ones (Apple, Samsung, Google etc): they take a number of
photos at different settings and combine them in software to get a better
result. They also come with sensors with more pixels and then use software
to downsample: eg a 48Mpixel image processed down to 12Mpix has more for
software to get its teeth into than a straight 12Mpix sensor.

Theo

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 05:58:43 +1100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 19/11/2023 20:50, Tim+ wrote:
>> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [1] Yes, I know I could use the phone to read books, but its screen is
>>>> terrible for this purpose - when compared to the Paperwhite.
>>>>
>>> Exactly!! Smartphones are second best at everything, no good for
>>> reading on, no good for taking pictures, no good for sending messages.
>>> They are OK[ish] as phones.
>>>
>> Don’t be daft. Making calls is bottom of the list. They do a hundred
>> other
>> things brilliantly.
>> Tim
>>

> Taking decent photos is debatable.

Not with the best of the smartphones.

> My Moto G31 has a very average camera.

That is a very low end smartphone.

It has several annoying
> features.
>
> I read Investors Chronicle in the library and take phone pics
> of interesting articles but the silly thing keeps trying the
> take the photo in landscape when the magazine is flat on the
> desk.
>
> Also, it has no feature or intelligence to flatten the page
> so that the whole page is in focus. The bit near the staples
> tends to bulge up a bit. An app to take a photo multiple times
> and combine them to give better depth of field would be useful.
>
> My Olympus tough can do focus stacking, do any phones do this ?.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 06:09:08 +1100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 20/11/2023 12:20, SteveW wrote:
>> On 20/11/2023 12:04, Chris Green wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Smartphones are second best at everything
>>>>
>>>> The point frequently being, for a multitude of tasks, they are the
>>>> best
>>>> device you have with you.
>>>>
>>> But I don't, I have my (smaller) camera and probably a laptop.
>> But do you have those every time you walk to the local shops? If you
>> see something interesting, you are far more likely to have your phone
>> with you.

> I don't even bother to take my phone with me for a that sort of
> minor excursion !.

More fool you. I pay for everything using Apple Pay and the
phone is very handy to check if a special price really is etc.

If a fast moving 'incident' occured, it would
> be over before you got the phone out and faffed around with the
> camera anyway.

But if its a car accident, it is handy to record the
damage and the id details of the other driver etc.

> If I am going anywhere by train and/or bus then thats a different
> matter, it holds my railcard (*) and timetables.
>
> I only need the odd tenner and loose change for a visit to a
> local shop.

I don't bother to fart around with cash at all anymore except
with garage/yard/car boot sales and thats only because some
of the sellers are too stupid to accept electronic payments
which anyone with a mobile phone can do now.

> (*) only because ATOCS have decided that to buy a 3 year railcard
> you now need a mobile phone number to renew online, or rely on the
> post. Having had to buy a mobile phone for this and all the 2FA
> stuff, it seemed obvious to have the railcard on my phone.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:48:41 +1100, ken, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Pomegranate Bastard addressing the trolling senile cretin from Oz:
"I repeat, you are a complete and utter imbecile."
MID: <mpelth1engag7090piqvqp85pco7nphoal@4ax.com>

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:53:55 +1100, ken, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Ed Pawlowski addressing Rodent Speed:
"You come across as a "know it all" and superior to the mere mortals. I bet
your farts don't stink either."
MID: <6UnrL.207334$8_id.180264@fx09.iad>

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 20:21:49 +0000, Theo wrote:

> Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> My Olympus tough can do focus stacking, do any phones do this ?.
>
> Plenty of modern ones (Apple, Samsung, Google etc): they take a number
> of photos at different settings and combine them in software to get a
> better result. They also come with sensors with more pixels and then
> use software to downsample: eg a 48Mpixel image processed down to 12Mpix
> has more for software to get its teeth into than a straight 12Mpix
> sensor.

My (27 yo !) "lad" loves skateboarding and uses his 2 year old Samsung to
take videos of the action. It can create slo-mo effects in real time,
plus loads of other on the spot processing that even 10 years ago would
have needed a dedicated console.

I think it's fair to say even the cheapest phones are capable of
broadcast quality footage.

On 24/11/2023 10:33, Jethro_uk wrote:
> think it's fair to say even the cheapest phones are capable of
> broadcast quality footage.

Mine certainly isn't

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken