US edition, page D3 I think, though your comments seem to indicate you prefer your cell phone camera over your Panasonic (relating to your recent trip to Maine). I'm sure your thoughts were condensed down and misrepresented -- you didn't sell us out, did you??
Cool . Here's the article: Which Takes Better Pictures: A Cellphone or a Digital Camera? - WSJ.com We had a long conversation, and he picked just a couple bits of it to write, but I don't think he misrepresented me. "When the only thing that matters is remembering that family moment … the camera phone is all I need" - what he left out was that lots of times I want to make a higher quality photo and remembering the moment isn't the only thing that matters, but I think that is implied in the bits that he quoted. I was worried he would do me worse than that .
It won't be long before the quality we are seeing in some cameras comes to cell phones, in my opinion. Miniturization of sensors and other critical components, and software expansion into the world of pseudo-optics. It's a huge market opportunity that won't be wasted. If micro 4/3rds can steal 10% of the market while the big boys are sleeping, think what the lowly cellphone could do given the necessary upgrade. Bokeh Diem
I eluded to this in another thread. Its not about quality as much as it is about sharing and portability.
Just read the article - first, congrats ! You may not be 'famous' already, but you are becoming an opinion leader, which is fantastic. On the other hand, the story was clearly biased toward camera phones, whatever superficial lip service the reporter paid to pseudo-objectivity. And I think he really distorted your speech to fit with his bias. He could have mentioned this site, for balance, or at least forward to your blog for a more in depth understanding of your opinion That he didn't bothered is really telling. Now, from a wider point of view, I think he's right. We're playing the same game over and over again. When photography appeared, painters were incensed people would have their portraits made by a machine instead of crafted by a human being. Then, when small formats (24x36) appeared, true photographers (the ones holding speed graphics) were making fun of those "amateurs", and lastly, when digital made its first inroad, film photographers eyed the new medium with the outmost contempt for the poor quality. We all know how those wars ended : the most convenient, smallest form factor, wins the market because most people don't care about quality, they want fast and good enough solutions. And the camera phones are a good enough solution in most of the social occasions, even more so since a flash was added to the more common models.
Well done Amin - but were you consulted as a physician (where you can send him a bill) or as a photo website guru?
I agree with the comments on camera phones, and I am envious, as my Blackberry (company issued) doesn't have a camera :-( But there are optical limitations to the form factor -- optical zoom being one, depth of field another, and low-light IQ a third. None of that will matter much perhaps to a mom in Disney, but phones will hit their limits on what they can do, and a cam phone cannot hit the same quality as a DSLR, though it could reach a "good enough" level for a large population. Of course, all these nuances are obliterated in the noise reduction algorithm that is professional journalism.
Good points. I think part of the issue is that traditional media still doesn't "get" the idea/value of linking. I would love to have seen a link to mu-43 though.
The best camera is the one you have with you. Since most people always have their phone with them and not another camera, it's the best. The phone cameras are getting much better now. Congrats Amin!
it was like 2 points of view contrasted... panasonic marketing , [ those ads "if it has a ring tone , its not a camera" are all over subway trains here] and then a panasonic customer , who says recently the droid met the need while the camera stayed home yesterday at a school graduation for a niece it seemed about a quarter of those present used cell phones to capture and many were using the larger phones for video as well i was surprised at this
Yes, but who's leading with their opinion here? I'm afraid it's the reporter... but still, it's a start! Next time, get a plug for mu-43.com Amin! Cheers Brian
Brian, you're right, it was an opportunity missed. Doh! I did mention the site at least a couple times, but I guess it didn't figure into his plan for the article.
I'll be going to my son's nursery school graduation on Friday, and the GH1 will be with me for sure .
Nothing you could have done, Amin, these guys go into an interview with a fixed agenda and later sift out the bits which support that. If there's not enough they'll invent them. It's a foregone conclusion and if you start to make demands about how you are represented and what you want included they'll just ditch you and interview someone else - or worse, stitch you up good and proper! All you can do is make the most of each opportunity by cramming in as much of what you really want to say as possible and hope that some of it will stike a chord with the interviewer or his editor. Unless you are downright misrepresented it's better to be featured than not featured. Well done for getting the attention in the first place. Now that your name is known to that publication you could follow up by sending them a press release about how this rapidly growing site has recently celebrated it's 2000th member and is reflecting the market expansion of :43: It's worth a try. :smile:
actually the reviewer missed an opportunity , if this site was mentioned as one where owners of panasonics most interesting cameras discuss things... , and the owner of that very site said what! about cell phone cams??? that s an interesting angle that would have enhanced the article rather than distracted from it .
"actually the reviewer missed an opportunity , if this site was mentioned as one where owners of panasonics most interesting cameras discuss things... , and the owner of that very site said what! about cell phone cams??? that s an interesting angle that would have enhanced the article rather than distracted from it ." Unless, of course, the journalist knew they were bending the truth a bit ;-)
