On 26 Oct 2022 15:51:28 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2022 18:33:46 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/23/22 11:57 AM, sms wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> > I kind of wish that Apple, Google, and Samsung would produce a
>> >> > professional level phone model similar to the Sony Xperia 1 IV, with
>> >> > USB-C, under-screen fingerprint reader, headphone jack, MicroSD Card
>> >> > slot, and a true optical zoom lens, even if it were a couple of hundred
>> >> > dollars more than their current flagships. It's highly unlikely that
>> >> > we'd see such a product considering that those companies want to build
>> >> > mass market consumer electronic products, not professional level devices.
>> >>
>> >> Probably a very small market. How many people even miss a viewfinder?
>> >
>> > <raises hand>
>>
>>
>> Not me. My digital camera has one.
>
> My DSLR (obviously) has one as well. But sms's and Bev's comments were
>about a (smart) *phone* and - if possible/feasible - I would like a
>viewfinder on a/my smartphone.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough and you misunderstood what I meant.
Since I use my digital camera, which has a viewfinder, to take
pictures, and almost never use my smart phone for that, I don't miss a
viewfinder.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2022 15:51:28 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> >> On 25 Oct 2022 18:33:46 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 10/23/22 11:57 AM, sms wrote:
> >> >[...]
> >> >> > I kind of wish that Apple, Google, and Samsung would produce a
> >> >> > professional level phone model similar to the Sony Xperia 1 IV, with
> >> >> > USB-C, under-screen fingerprint reader, headphone jack, MicroSD Card
> >> >> > slot, and a true optical zoom lens, even if it were a couple of hundred
> >> >> > dollars more than their current flagships. It's highly unlikely that
> >> >> > we'd see such a product considering that those companies want to build
> >> >> > mass market consumer electronic products, not professional level devices.
> >> >>
> >> >> Probably a very small market. How many people even miss a viewfinder?
> >> >
> >> > <raises hand>
> >>
> >>
> >> Not me. My digital camera has one.
> >
> > My DSLR (obviously) has one as well. But sms's and Bev's comments were
> >about a (smart) *phone* and - if possible/feasible - I would like a
> >viewfinder on a/my smartphone.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough and you misunderstood what I meant.
> Since I use my digital camera, which has a viewfinder, to take
> pictures, and almost never use my smart phone for that, I don't miss a
> viewfinder.

Yes, I got your point. But it wasn't clear you got mine. Now we both
know what the other meant, so all it good.

OTOH, this *is* Usenet, so: *YOU* *ARE* *TOTALLY* *WRONG*!!!!! :-)

On 10/26/22 7:43 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:38:48 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, it's a big convenience and it's fine most of the time. But
> sometimes you want to focus on something other than what it chooses.
>
>> At some point "easy" trumps
>>"choice". Hey, I can TAP where I want it to focus, that's close enough...
>
> Tap on the screen? Since I never use the screen on my digital camera,
> that's not a choice for me.

Phone. My digital camera has a 2" screen, but not a touch-screen which
would be fairly useless.

Sometimes I'm ashamed of my descent into mediocrity, but mostly not :-)

--
Cheers, Bev
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays
is used as a kind of divining rod to locate expensive bike parts not
far from the object we are trying to hit.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:00:07 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/23/2022 1:02 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I'd be willing to bet that it IS illegal, but nobody has tested it in
>> court.  Isn't there an established definition of "optical zoom" as
>> opposed to "digital zoom" that existed before phones had cameras?  False
>> advertising...
>
><snip>
>
>Perhaps. It would take a class action lawsuit to resolve it. I suspect
>that the defendants would have multiple defenses:
>
>1. We never claimed that our devices had continuous optical zoom.
>
>2. Automatically switching between prime lenses of different focal
>lengths is optical zooming, just not continuous optical zooming.
>
>3. We never claimed that we had a zoom lens. This would be their real
>defense. Zoom lens: "a lens allowing a camera to change smoothly from a
>long shot to a close-up or vice versa by varying the focal length." I
>don't think that any marketing material ever claimed a zoom lens (other
>than Sony for the Xperia I IV).
>
>Here's a zoom lens for a smart phone: <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KPLGMQ4>

To me the only big advantages of using the camera on a smart phone are
that it's small, light, and I always have it with me. I would never
want to also carry around a big clunky thing like that. And for only
$20, its optical quality can't be very good.

On 10/28/22 6:54 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:00:07 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 10/23/2022 1:02 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I'd be willing to bet that it IS illegal, but nobody has tested it in
>>> court.  Isn't there an established definition of "optical zoom" as
>>> opposed to "digital zoom" that existed before phones had cameras?  False
>>> advertising...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Perhaps. It would take a class action lawsuit to resolve it. I suspect
>>that the defendants would have multiple defenses:
>>
>>1. We never claimed that our devices had continuous optical zoom.
>>
>>2. Automatically switching between prime lenses of different focal
>>lengths is optical zooming, just not continuous optical zooming.
>>
>>3. We never claimed that we had a zoom lens. This would be their real
>>defense. Zoom lens: "a lens allowing a camera to change smoothly from a
>>long shot to a close-up or vice versa by varying the focal length." I
>>don't think that any marketing material ever claimed a zoom lens (other
>>than Sony for the Xperia I IV).
>>
>>Here's a zoom lens for a smart phone: <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KPLGMQ4>
>
> To me the only big advantages of using the camera on a smart phone are
> that it's small, light, and I always have it with me. I would never
> want to also carry around a big clunky thing like that. And for only
> $20, its optical quality can't be very good.

At least a year ago I ordered a thing like that. Certainly less than
$20, and it was absolutely worthless. Fortunately it was fully
returnable, which is what I did with it.

Long ago I ordered a cheap set of clip-on lenses, the only one of which
actually worked was the macro lens. Wasn't all that great, but I didn't
feel cheated. I think I know where it is...

--
Cheers, Bev
When you stop bitching you start dying.