That panoramic feature seems pretty cool in the TV spot. I wonder if it works that well in real life with a big group of twitchy elementary kids.
That panoramic feature seems pretty cool in the TV spot. I wonder if it works that well in real life with a big group of twitchy elementary kids.
For the photography snobs: The best camera is the one you have with you, and any shot you take is better than one you didn't.
For the phone camera supporters: A phone camera will never compare to a same-gen DSLR. Period, end of story.
OK. Well, a lot of professional photographers might disagree with you, along with all the major manufacturers of cameras.
Again, a lot of people who make their living taking photographs specifically WANT a viewfinder because it helps with composition and is one less source of battery drain. And if you're seriously pretending the iPhone is a better camera than, say, a high-end Canon or Nikon DSLR (which, incidentally, also have live-view LCDs on the back) -- well, you're fooling yourself.
There are new camera systems (micro 4/3s, for example) that don't rely on a flip-up mirror. But the DSLR seems to be a proven form factor that works for a lot of professionals.
Also, you fail to realize that legacy lenses and accessories are a major investment for photographers and nobody's going to just throw all that stuff away because it's supposedly "obsolete".
You failed to grasp the nature of my argument.
It is possible to design a digital camera with every advantage that the professional cameras have, but without the need for the reflex-mirror-prism-viewfinder arrangement that IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF a dSLR.
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?
Lastly, some have tried to argue that the form factor of SLRs and dSLRs is some how optimal. I disagree. They are traditional. They are what we have become accustomed to. That's not at all the same thing as "optimal." SLRs are, in fact, optimized to be held such that the viewfinder is in front of your eyeball. But if you don't have a need to hold the camera up to your eye, then that optimization is specious.
I can envision a professional level camera being a very different thing. It would have a large sensor inside of a small box that attaches to the lens and provides a tripod socket. On the back is an LCD touchscreen panel, but its use is actually optional. As an alternative, the device could wirelessly (BT or WiFi) to some other device, such as a laptop or smartphone for remote control. The camera would come with a slot for flash storage, but also be able to transmit images wirelessly with BT or WiFi - perhaps even optionally with LTE.
nsayer said:As an alternative, the device could wirelessly (BT or WiFi) to some other device, such as a laptop or smartphone for remote control. The camera would come with a slot for flash storage, but also be able to transmit images wirelessly with BT or WiFi - perhaps even optionally with LTE.
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?
That panoramic feature seems pretty cool in the TV spot. I wonder if it works that well in real life with a big group of twitchy elementary kids.
While the quality of LCD has improved (and is improving) and it offers benefits than optical view finders lack (e.g., tap to focus, articulating screen), there are still some compelling benefits of having optical view finder.
- LCDs are not as usable under bright lighting, especially sunlight.
- Optical viewfinders have effectively infinite resolution and and perfect color rendition. For LCD, you are at the mercy of LCD panel (which often have much more limited color gamut and contrast ratio) and factory calibration.
- Overlay information do not obstruct view as much as overlays on LCD.
I think the future of photography is smartphones and SLR/mirror-less. Those that care about quality will want both. Those that care about just casual photography will carry only the smartphones.
Having said that, SLRs and mirror-less will have to offer features smartphones offer as standard features, such as wireless, apps for uploading to social services and Macs/PCs, and GPS.
Purple lens flare from lights...
Anyone else?
Given the "purple" issue if I had not sold my 4S I would have gone back to it. It is not a matter of simply avoiding pointing directly at the sun, etc. Go try to take photos at a football game at an indoor stadium and try not to have purple all over your photos.
For the phone camera supporters: A phone camera will never compare to a same-gen DSLR. Period, end of story.
There's absolutely no reason for this if the image capture material is a CCD. The "viewfinder" on an iPhone shows exactly what the final captured image is going to be (modulo resolution), because it is displaying exactly what the CCD is capturing. It's, in fact, better than a traditional SLR, because you don't have to hold the camera up to your eye to see through the lens!
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?
Not seeing any purple in this pix from the weekend
It's, in fact, better than a traditional SLR, because you don't have to hold the camera up to your eye to see through the lens!
For the photography snobs: The best camera is the one you have with you, and any shot you take is better than one you didn't.
For the phone camera supporters: A phone camera will never compare to a same-gen DSLR. Period, end of story.
The iPhone is simply a different tool than a traditional camera. It's nice that the iPhone 5 camera is solid, but I don't see how this is a paradigm shift any more than the previous iPhone cameras.
I WILL say that the iPhone has totally replaced a point-n-shoot for my purposes.
And you wouldn't in a shot like that no, there are no direct lights. The stadium I am going to has a lot of lights pointed all over the place.
On a side note, took 10 photos today of Halloween decorations. 3 of which have a nice purple haze to them.
FTFY. Smartphones cost $500-800 off-contract. If you say they cost $200, that's like saying you get a free fridge when you buy a million dollar house.$600+ phone won't compare to a $600+ single purpose camera.
It really does work that well. My wife was making cookie dough and stirring a bowl when I shot a panorama. It did some magical voodoo as she was perfectly still (no arm/hand movement in the Pano). That was quite impressive.That panoramic feature seems pretty cool in the TV spot. I wonder if it works that well in real life with a big group of twitchy elementary kids.
Apparently you didn't read the DPreview Quick Review as they specifically address this:Purple lens flare from lights...
Anyone else?
Is it internal reflections / Lens flare?
Almost certainly, yes. The most likely cause of the iPhone 5's purple haze is probably lens flare and internal reflections in the camera lens assembly. All lenses are succeptable to lens flare to some degree, and as you can see from the images at the top of this page, the iPhone 4S isn't immune either (ditto the iPhone 4 and competitive smartphones from other manufacturers).
...
Really, our advice is not to worry. Just do what you should do anyway, and avoid putting bright lights near the edge of the frame when shooting.