The funniest thing I've seen in a while--iPhone SLR.

[brent8927]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/t...turn-a-smartphone-into-a-semi-pro-camera.html

I thought this was too funny not to post--check out the slideshow, especially the one where a lady is using a 300mm+ zoom lens attached to an iPhone.

I thought the article was a joke at first...

-Brent

 

[kminov]

“With a smartphone and some easy-to-use lenses, they don’t need to know anything about photography or lighting to take great pictures."

that right there is the problem of modern day "photographers"

 

[brucemuir]

Oh the irony...

 

[nhemann]

on the photojojo site Dead Link Removed they show them mounted on keyrings and chains so you can wear your optics sytem. Wish I could do that with some of "real" lenses (if you could only see how hi my nose is pointed right now!) lol

Fun stuff.

 

[zsas]

Love the key ring lens necklace

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The best one is this, in my opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/11/17/technology/20111117-BASICS-5.html

At least they're using a nice Berlebach Report tripod...

 

[brucemuir]

The best one is this, in my opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/11/17/technology/20111117-BASICS-5.html

At least they're using a nice Berlebach Report tripod...

haha, I noticed the tripod also...

 

[billbretz]

Funny? Why?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Funny? Why?

I will draw a picture for you:

Take a low resolution device with a relatively low cost
Spend lots of money to buy high quality optical equipment
Spend more money for adpation equipment
Result: A crappy low resolution image.​

 

[MaximusM3]

I will draw a picture for you:

Take a low resolution device with a relatively low cost
Spend lots of money to buy high quality optical equipment
Spend more money for adpation equipment
Result: A crappy low resolution image.​

I don't know if that stands. It would imply that low resolution means a crappy image, which couldn't be father from the truth. If that was so, then loads of grainy film images or lith prints would fall under that realm. There are PLENTY of crappy images on film, being spit out with equipment worth thousands, sharp and of the highest resolution.

I draw this:

Take a low speed, high resolution film of relatively low cost
Spend LOTS of money to buy high quality optical equipment
Result: a crappy high resolution image

So, what's the difference? Both are crappy images and the film guy actually spent more money since he's buying rolls at probably $4 per and blowing through it like water.

 

[billbretz]

Result: A crappy low resolution image.

Hysterical!

Actually, the funny part is the pretension shown on this thread. At least one of the above posters gets that joke.

 

[removed account4]

i don't know about crappy photographs,
stephen schaub makes some beautiful images

one could draw the parallel between getting a low-fi / plastic, holga,
meniscus, or lens baby lens and using it on a "nice" body ...


the tripod is kind of funny though ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

So, what's the difference? Both are crappy images and the film guy actually spent more money since he's buying rolls at probably $4 per and blowing through it like water.

While working at Kodak, I took a class on the "Image Quality Chain". In the class, rule number one is only improve the weakest link of the chain, improving any other link in the chain will not make an appreciable difference.

Basically we are saying the same thing. My point though was to explain the humor to billbretz et al whom did not see the humor.

 

[billbretz]

My point though was to explain the humor to billbretz et al whom did not see the humor.

I think you know I understood the point of the "humor."

What you don't realize is that a lot of folks make a lot of pictures with cell phones, happily enjoying the results. Lots of folks will find fun, interesting, artistic, maybe even meaningful ways to use these laughable products.

And we can debate whether the resolution is "crappy." Frankly, for a lot of uses, it is quite good.

Real world: I work as a photojournalist for a newspaper/online news resource. We are trying to stay relevant and employed. One way to do that is immediacy. The tools being discussed here can help me stay relevant. It is especially helpful considering a lot of that "high quality optical equipment" is already in the trunk of my car.

Yeah, I can use that. Nothing funny about that. Laugh if you like, I call it working.

 

[Sirius Glass]

bill,

I find digital imaging good for six situations:

1. Journalism: When the boss want the images before the image was taken.
2. Weddings: The Brides want the digitial images of the wedding before the wedding has taken place.
3. Posting images for eBay.
4. Posting images of mechanical problems on line when one needs help fast.
5. Infrared photography: Ever since the demise of HIE, digital does infrared imaging better.
6. Remote sensing: Example, Voyager I's and Voyager II's image collection at Jupiter and Saturn.​

 

[billbretz]

One last thing from me (we hope!)... Sorry to the OP and other posters for steering this thread awry... the image of a 300 on an iPhone is comical on its face, I agree. I know I have been dissuaded from participating in forums because of strongly negative reactions to some things I've offered, so, I hope I haven't been too much of a killjoy.

 

[brent8927]

One last thing from me (we hope!)... Sorry to the OP and other posters for steering this thread awry... the image of a 300 on an iPhone is comical on its face, I agree. I know I have been dissuaded from participating in forums because of strongly negative reactions to some things I've offered, so, I hope I haven't been too much of a killjoy.

I think you actually made a good point. Personally what I found funny was the excessiveness--the 300 on the Berlebach tripod, etc. It just seems to defeat the entire advantage that a cell-phone camera has--ease of portability. I think cell phone cameras and point-and-shoots are great for that--the best camera is the one you have with you, and I know when I was shooting 4x5, I only brought that with me when I was intending to go shoot some photos. Personally I don't have a iPhone or pocket point-and-shoot, but I would because I can't always have my Hasselblad with me, and frankly, sometimes it'd be nice to have a spontaneous photo of my wife and I when we go out. Sure the quality of an iPhone isn't up to par with Zeiss, Rodekstock, Schneider, etc., but it's good enough.

So, I'm totally in favor of people having fun with this--if people are willing to pay for the equipment, and it gets them excited about photography, I'm completely in favor. But I certainly still find many of the photos hilarious!!!

 

[bdial]

I do like the part about "they don’t need to know anything about photography or lighting to take great pictures...".
The little keyring kit I understand, but if you're going to carry a 300 tele, an slr body doesn't add much to the kit vs. the phone.

 

[kminov]

While you are absolutely right, it takes more than a good eye (although the eye being indispensable) to make a good photo. Besides you are comparing analog liths with digi something. While the analog liths are 1:1 or close to what the lenses see the digi is something like 25:1, and everything like tones and grays are also 25:1. Or worse. The whole concept is senile, the little digi sensor could never possibly use those lens as they were meant to be used.

I don't know if that stands. It would imply that low resolution means a crappy image, which couldn't be father from the truth. If that was so, then loads of grainy film images or lith prints would fall under that realm. There are PLENTY of crappy images on film, being spit out with equipment worth thousands, sharp and of the highest resolution.

I draw this:

Take a low speed, high resolution film of relatively low cost
Spend LOTS of money to buy high quality optical equipment
Result: a crappy high resolution image

So, what's the difference? Both are crappy images and the film guy actually spent more money since he's buying rolls at probably $4 per and blowing through it like water.

 

[removed account4]

I do like the part about "they don’t need to know anything about photography or lighting to take great pictures...".
The little keyring kit I understand, but if you're going to carry a 300 tele, an slr body doesn't add much to the kit vs. the phone.

the thing that i think is funny about that statement is the absolute truth in it !
before people become "serious" photographers they take some of their best photographs
they have no knowledge of fstops, lighting technical BS &c, they are free to point and press ...
when people have all that "stuff" on their mind they no longer have an invisible barrier between
their camera and them, they have all the tech-stuff working as a barrier.

i hope these funny little lenses on people's phones make a difference in their images!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I still use "serious" cameras and doubt I'll ever drop using B&W film but one of my most success print and usage sales lately is from one of my fairly recent iPhone images, over $900 and counting....not so funny anymore. As for money spent? Heck it's my phone and mini-internet browser with loads of apps anyway, oh, and has an 8MP camera that I sometimes use BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE IT WITH ME.

I think the hubris I'm seeing here is funnier...

 

[JBrunner]

I don't care how someone makes an image, and I use my phone to make picture all the time. But for the life of me I can't figure out why I would want to drag around a bunch of lenses without just bringing along a camera body that uses them. It's not like an itty bitty sensor brings anything to the table that using full size lenses takes advantage of or benefits from. I think this is just mostly a case of marketing genius. Creating a need that doesn't exist and then filling it is a long, lucrative, and brilliant enterprise zone. Maybe Canon should just build a cell phone into their next body LOL.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Mostly because you have a teeny tiny device that is designed to be practical and nimble, and 'all-in-one device', both with its capabilities and its size. Then you completely throw out the original idea of the device, mount a fairly extreme lens to it via some sort of lens mount that doesn't destroy the camera, and finally put it on a tripod.

It's the idea of going to the length they have to make that with an iPhone. That's the funny part. It's disproportionate, a bit nuts, and a bonkers way of building a working camera system.

Funny? Why?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

It's obvious these attachments and lenses are not for us with other cameras but for people who only have iPhones and have no interest in buying other cameras and who may want to use such attachments and lenses. No big deal, makes perfect sense.

 

[pbromaghin]

The big lenses are a weird idea, but the kit of 3 little lenses (fisheye, wide angle, and a telephoto) looks pretty good. I showed it to my wife and she got real excited. She got an iPhone 4s a couple weeks ago and has mentioned that it would be good if it had some kind of zoom capability. They would fit nicely in her purse.