Changes in lens design/application
Discussion
When I was little, my dad's camera lenses seemed like they were basically made out of glass fairy dust - they were massive things, the bigger the better, and if I even looked at one the wrong way I'd get told off and he'd get a little cloth and clean the end, meticulously keeping a lens cap on until he was ready to take a photo.
These days camera lenses on phones are tiny, they have no covers and people don't care about getting greasy fingers on them or having them sloshing around in a bag along with sticky drinks bottles and biscuit crumbs, and yet they can still take phenomenal photos.
What changed over the last forty years?
These days camera lenses on phones are tiny, they have no covers and people don't care about getting greasy fingers on them or having them sloshing around in a bag along with sticky drinks bottles and biscuit crumbs, and yet they can still take phenomenal photos.
What changed over the last forty years?
Another factor is the sensitivity to light of the recording medium. In the 1980s the commonest speed was 100 or 400. 1,000 just existed but it was incredibly grainy. And so you needed to shovel a fair amount of light onto the sensor to get good results. Hence the bigger the lens, the better.
With the advent of digital imaging, the ability to amplify the signal and clever processing on top, you can get good-looking results from a tiny lens. The laws of physics haven't changed, just the technology.
With the advent of digital imaging, the ability to amplify the signal and clever processing on top, you can get good-looking results from a tiny lens. The laws of physics haven't changed, just the technology.
ScotHill said:
These days camera lenses on phones are tiny, they have no covers and people don't care about getting greasy fingers on them or having them sloshing around in a bag along with sticky drinks bottles and biscuit crumbs, and yet they can still take phenomenal photos.
A phenomenal photo can be taken on any device capable of capturing light on to the appropriate surface; film or sensor. Where the smaller cameras and phones fall down is on the technical quality of images which is made up for via all manner of processing and trickery. Rarely an issue if the image will only ever be kept on the phone or an instagram account ... or if you think that depth of field is OK like that generated on a Teams call.On phones, the lens is protected by an outer glass window, rather like UV filters you'd add to a traditional lens. These protect the lens and inner workings of the camera/phone from the elements and content of you pocket. Because they're small, they're easily wiped clean.
Those that still use 'real' cameras with 'real' lenses will treat them with the same respect as your Dad did.
I think theres also been changes in types of glass, hardness and coatings, so camera phone lens glass is probably a little more resistant to finger grease dirt etc.
Also dont forget, a lot of people change their phones every year or two. So they magically get a new clean lens! - but proper old fairy dust lenses are / were kept for a long time, so theres more onus to look after them
Also dont forget, a lot of people change their phones every year or two. So they magically get a new clean lens! - but proper old fairy dust lenses are / were kept for a long time, so theres more onus to look after them
Good glass is vastly superior to the lenses on a mobile.
The best investment a photographer can make is quality glass and it can last a very long time.
I have switched from Canon EF L quality to RF L quality and the lenses are very, very good. Newer coatings and processing are the main advancements.
The best investment a photographer can make is quality glass and it can last a very long time.
I have switched from Canon EF L quality to RF L quality and the lenses are very, very good. Newer coatings and processing are the main advancements.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff