On Oct 14, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
(in article<326e928a-3060-4c7d-93f8-f77a8721c160n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> > In article<slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> > <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> > > telephone.
> > such as?
>
> if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)

Worse! Shooting video in portrait orientation.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

> On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> > <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> > > telephone.
> >
> > such as?
>
> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> consumer.

Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> >> telephone.
> >
> > such as?
>
> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> consumer.

what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
before.

On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 15:19:56 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
> (in article<326e928a-3060-4c7d...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> > > In article<slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> > > <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> > > > telephone.
> > > such as?
> >
> > if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)
> Worse! Shooting video in portrait orientation.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck

Yeah that is bad, keep telling my facebook friends not to do it.
There's a very few occaions when it's OK, but normally it looks crap and annoying.

On 2021-10-14, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
> (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
>
>> On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> > <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
>> > > telephone.
>> >
>> > such as?
>>
>> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
>> consumer.
>
> Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people
actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
far more than I.

On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
>> >> telephone.
>> >
>> > such as?
>>
>> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
>> consumer.
>
> what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
> before.

Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad
photos from camera 'phones.

On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgm1k.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

> On 2021-10-14, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
> > (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
> >
> > > On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> > > > <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> > > > > telephone.
> > > >
> > > > such as?
> > >
> > > The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> > > consumer.
> >
> > Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.
>
> People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people
> actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
> inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
> quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
> in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
> Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
> far more than I.

I guess I come up short in the arrogance department. We should all strive to
be more like you, and to know what others really need and want better than
they do.

On 2021-10-14, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
> (in article<slrnsmgm1k.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
>
>> On 2021-10-14, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
>> > (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
>> >
>> > > On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> > > > <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
>> > > > > telephone.
>> > > >
>> > > > such as?
>> > >
>> > > The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
>> > > consumer.
>> >
>> > Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.
>>
>> People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people
>> actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
>> inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
>> quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
>> in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
>> Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
>> far more than I.
>
> I guess I come up short in the arrogance department. We should all strive to
> be more like you, and to know what others really need and want better than
> they do.

We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.

Am 14.10.2021 um 18:29 schrieb Incubus:
> On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
>>>>> telephone.
>>>>
>>>> such as?
>>>
>>> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
>>> consumer.
>>
>> what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
>> before.
>
> Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad
> photos from camera 'phones.

The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
of high end audio ("high fidelity").

For some time in the 1980s and 1990s people were spending significant
money on high end audio systems and every household was supposed to have
a "Hi-Fi system" in the living room.

Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

It's the same for cameras. Obviously a 100MP MF camera will deliver
superb quality, but for most people a 12MP shot from a smartphone is
good enough.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article <slrnsmgmng.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> >> >> telephone.
> >> >
> >> > such as?
> >>
> >> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> >> consumer.
> >
> > what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
> > before.
>
> Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad
> photos from camera 'phones.

there's plenty of competition. nothing prevents nikon or canon from
doing what apple and google are doing.

In article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
> of high end audio ("high fidelity").

it's not similar at all.

high end audio is nothing more than snake oil designed to separate
people from their money.

cameras just keep on getting better.

the only 'snake oil' camera is sigma/foveon, which is pure rubbish.
actually, that's an insult to rubbish.

In article <slrnsmgnp1.r2c.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> quality.

top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

On Oct 14, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>):

> Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

All?

On 10/12/21 3:08 PM, Bengt_T wrote:
> My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

Which lenses do you have?
Are they all EF-s?
Or any EF's (non-s)?

fredag 15 oktober 2021 kl. 05:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Fishrrman:
> On 10/12/21 3:08 PM, Bengt_T wrote:
> > My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
> Which lenses do you have?
> Are they all EF-s?
> Or any EF's (non-s)?

My lenses are all EF-S lenses.

On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmgnp1.r2c.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
>> quality.
>
> top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

On 2021-10-14, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
> (in article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>):
>
>> Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.
>
> All?

I use a Sony Discman with professional wired headphones.

In article <slrnsmif5h.3bg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> >> quality.
> >
> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>
> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

broadcast tv isn't the only source.

On 2021-10-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmif5h.3bg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
>> >> quality.
>> >
>> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>>
>> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
>
> broadcast tv isn't the only source.

It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.

On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> >> >> quality.
> >> >
> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >>
> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >
> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> the appalling standard of broadcast television.

And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
pay for it.

In article <slrnsmihu7.4sm.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
> >> >> image
> >> >> quality.
> >> >
> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >>
> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >
> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>
> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> and soon 8K

bluray is obsolete.

buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
phone.

> but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> the appalling standard of broadcast television.

again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
support higher quality anyway.

On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
>> >> >> quality.
>> >> >
>> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>> >>
>> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
>> >
>> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
>> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
>> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
>
> And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
> pay for it.

We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
of the content you fucking div.

On 2021-10-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmihu7.4sm.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
>> >> >> image
>> >> >> quality.
>> >> >
>> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>> >>
>> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
>> >
>> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>>
>> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
>> and soon 8K
>
> bluray is obsolete.

Really? There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.

> buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
> phone.
>
>> but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
>> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
>
> again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
> support higher quality anyway.

It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of
broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.

In article <slrnsmj3nc.52f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
> >> >> >> image
> >> >> >> quality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >> >
> >> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
> >>
> >> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> >> and soon 8K
> >
> > bluray is obsolete.
>
> Really?

really.

> There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.

they aren't selling very many.

very few people want to fuss with discs versus a couple of taps to
stream just about any movie ever made, especially for movies they only
want to watch once.

<https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/11/08/VIDEO%20MARKET.157
3232240621.png>

> > buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
> > phone.
> >
> >> but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> >> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
> >
> > again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
> > support higher quality anyway.
>
> It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of
> broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.

broadcast tv is yet another thing that's obsolete.

most people watch cable tv or more commonly, via the internet.

On 10/15/21 3:39 AM, Bengt_T wrote:
> My lenses are all EF-S lenses.

They will work on an R-series camera with the Canon
adapters... BUT...

.... the images will be "cropped" automatically. This will
result in a loss of pixels.

For example, the EOS R (which I have) is nominally 30mp, but
when I use one of my EF-s lenses, the resulting cropped
image is about 10mp.

Still usable, but definitely "less to work with".

If you were to get the EOS R5, however, the resulting images
would be around 18mp in size. However, if one is going to
spend the $$$$ for the R5, I would think one might also buy
either R-series lenses or trade in the EF-s glass for EF
(non "s") glass...