It depends on your phone, of course. With my phone the balance is definitely the other way .

Ah, those happy days when the hardware needed for little kids took priority and fun things for parents got whatever carrying capacity was left (if any). Mobile phones and RAW processing hadn't been invented, film SLRs weighed a lot less than DSLRs and you had to be patient and wait for the end of the holiday before you could see your photos. But you then had the delayed pleasure of forcing the family to spend an hour or so in darkness while you forced them to look at the slide show . Things have changed since then, but for better or worse... ??

Steve

Not for me, either. In fact, I hardly use my phone as a phone, let alone a camera. It's used as a 2-factor authentication device, a controller for music streaming devices, a receiver for internet radio, etc. etc. but as a camera? No. The main competition for my DSLRs are my Q and Q-S1, which are my 'have it in a pocket just in case' cameras.

As for AI processing of images, as far as I can make out some of what is goes under the AI banner is a just product of the vivid imaginations of a marketing department (remember when 'nano' was the buzz word?). True AI enhancement of images can either make a nice-looking image that includes made-up features (so-called 'hallucinating') or it can stick to the data that really are present and produce an image that doesn't look wonderful or it can do some sort of compromise (explained in this semi-technical article if you're interested link ). What it can't do is accurately and reliably create something that isn't in the original data, it's only guessing.

So if you just want a nice-looking image of a nice-looking view and aren't concerned about accuracy of detail or want a flattering picture of your partner that hides their wrinkles and spots then a phone with built-in AI enhancement may be OK. But IMHO if you want an accurate, detailed representation or control over which wrinkles and spots are removed then a 'real' camera with human intelligence is the way to go.

And in spite of how good phone cameras have become, I'm still sceptical of their value for macro focus stacks and distant birds .

Steve

Well, you've had a go and found that it's easy to get a picture but much harder to get a good picture. Welcome to the club! As for what makes a 'good' ICM picture, my view is simple: if you like it then it's good, if other people like it too then it's a miracle . Personally, I prefer to hang around at the abstract end of the spectrum where it's more about shape, colour, tones, contrast etc. than a specific subject. But that's just me, it's just as valid to like seeing a bit of recognisable subject.

Keep experimenting - different subjects, different movements, different exposures - it's cheap, it's fun and it's nothing like 'normal photography!!

Steve

Spores of all sorts are extremely resistant to everything and, as has been said, they are everywhere. Experience of trying to eliminate mould from bags used to store non-photographic things in unsuitable places is that you think you've done a thorough clean but it's still hiding there and will be back. I suggest you store lenses in a dry, airy place, get a new bag for photographic use only, only put lenses in the bag for transportation - then clean the old bag and use it for something else (no point in wasting an otherwise servicable bag).

Good luck

Steve

My guess is that you've accidentally pressed a button that has changed JPG only to RAW only. I've managed to simulate this on my K3 by:
(a) setting capture to JPG only;
(b) setting RAW/Fx button to RAW/One push file format/JPG>RAW/ 'Cancel after 1 shot' NOT selected.
Pressing the RAW/Fx button makes all shots from then on RAW, so accidentally pressing the button would leave you wondering why the camera has changed from JPG to RAW for no apparent reason. It's possible that other button customisation options would have the same effect, I haven't looked.

Good luck. And please let us know when you've sorted the problem and whether any of our guesses were correct.

Steve

This version is definitely less 'in-yer-face' and all the better for it.
Or perhaps time is really running backwards and we're looking millions and billions of years into the future without realising it. Anyway, it's turtles all the way once you look far enough...

Steve

A hand held backlight is my sort of lighting! I've got an assortment of LEDs on stalks, small dimmable torches, a Lumecube, flashes etc. plus various rods and clamps to hold them - and still find myself using a hand at times. Not thought about UV though...

Steve

Now that made me think. Birds and out of normal reach things were why I bought the lens. Since then it has gradually transformed into a lens for maximum magnification at shortish distances (the sort of distance that won't quite spook a butterfly etc.). Both birds and butterflies are now 'conventional use' for me.

As for non-conventional use, that means attaching a Q to the back end and reversing a Q-01 lens on the front end...

Steve

Stunning pictures of a beautiful butterfly with my favourite butterfly lens

More from groping around in the weed-ridden undergrowth. A shaft of light illuminated the flower in an otherwise unlit area under rhubarb leaves (I kid you not). This is one weed that I'd be happy to have more of but unfortunately it doesn't seem to like my soil (unlike bindweed :evil.

K3 + Irix 150mm + 1.4TC, aperture almost wide open for short exposures to freeze slight but significant movement in light gusts of wind. The first one is at almost max magnification (min focus distance), the second from a bit further away. Depth of field was miniscule and no chance of focus stacking so go for a soft and dreamy look.

Thoughts, comments etc. welcome as usual.

1.



2.



Steve