The Electrical Engineer

The comparison between the Lumia and a similar spec'd DSLR drew a bit more attention then I would ever expected. It is nice to see so much interest in such a great pock-able camera. While I stand by the original test I thought I might revisit it once more for a moment. Addendum   There is so much more to making great images then cameras, and there is so much more to great cameras then megapixels. It's a fairly established morsel of common photographic knowledge that quality is often preferred to quantity when speaking about the pixel. So then why even compare such machines, since they are so wholly different. It's because it's hard not to be curious what 38mp on a phone looks like compared to a SLR with a similarly impressive marketing number. After shooting with 36mp I've come to learn that pixel perfect sharpness provides more elusive and such a camera is prone to bringing out weaknesses in both lens and photographer patience. In reality most ph

I will be the first to admit that the choice of title is a bit absurd. The D800 sits near the top of DSLRs with astounding dynamic range, interchangeable lens, and a sensor that's nearly 15 times the size of the 1020. So why even consider comparing such different machines? One word: Resolution The Lumia 1020 sports a 41 mega pixel "Pureview" sensor and optical image stabilization (OIS). In 4:3 this gives a working resolution of 38 mpix, and at 16:9 a working resolution of 34 mpix. This puts it 2 mpix on either side of the D800’s very impressive 36 mpix sensor. These two cameras which are worlds apart share nearly identical pixel counts.  While not all megapixels are created equal, we can’t help but wonder in a practical sense, how does a 36mpix image on a phone stack up when compared to the likes of a dedicated SLR of similar resolution? But exactly what would be fair wasn't easy. The Nikon is a very versatile machine producing images no smart phone cou

The demise of film seems to be a favorite topic among photographers. As a hobbyist I’ve mostly quietly disagreed with many of these assertions of digital supremacy. It’s not that I refuse to shoot digital; in fact I very much enjoy my digital cameras as well, but I never felt one could substitute for the other. It’s been said before that there is a specific look to film, and it’s hard to quantify why digital doesn’t reproduce it. Having played with both digital and film for years now I’ve felt that a large part of this difference is actually comes down to how highlights are handled between the two. Now what is a talk about highlights without bringing up dynamic range and latitude. While the two terms are tossed around often interchangeably, in the photography world they describe two related but distinct qualities of a medium. Dynamic range is a measure of the brightest and darkest that a medium can capture simultaneously, while latitude is the measure of a mediums ability to b