|
|
#1 | |
|
Photography Pros Review the iPhone 5's Camera
![]() Photography site dpreview.com has published a lengthy review of the iPhone 5's camera. Last year, famed photographer Annie Leibovitz called the iPhone "the snapshot camera of today", and the iPhone has been the most popular camera on Flickr for years. ![]() The full review is worth a read, but this excerpt looks at interesting questions about the future of casual photography and how the simple "camera phone" has revolutionized both the mobile phone and camera industries. Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Still doesn't seem reason enough to upgrade from the 4s.....
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
#3 |
|
I've been a reader of dpreview for years. They publish very credible info.
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
#4 |
|
For this one reason alone? Clearly not. For everything combined? Easy worth an upgrade.
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
#5 |
|
But lens flares are awesome
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
#6 |
|
|
10
|
|
|
#7 |
|
True but lots of people who bought a 3GS or 4 are up for renewal, so it would be more of an upgrade for them.
__________________
MacBook Air 13-inch (Mid 2012), iPhone 5 |
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
#8 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
#9 |
|
|
2
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Video's will not open in , Adobe, Streamclip and QuickTime . Fine with 5.1, not in 6.0!
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#11 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Quote:
The iPhone camera (and other smartphone cameras) certainly won't replace DSLRs, but they will replace the basic low-to-mid-range point-and-shoots that a lot of people used to consider their primary camera. |
||
|
|
3
|
|
|
#13 |
|
I have a 4s and ordered the iPhone 5 for the better camera ... Especially in low light.
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
White/Silver 32gb iPhone 5 iOS 6.1.2 2007 MacBook Pro Hackintosh
|
||
|
|
1
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Quote:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Camer.../dp/0321684788 |
||
|
|
6
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Quote:
When I bought my iPhone 4S, it replaced three devices: dumbphone, iPod touch (4th generation with its lousy camera), and a solid Canon point-and-shoot camera. I still keep my Canon PowerShot around, just in case I'm in a sketchy photo situation (like taking pictures from a kayak) or the few situations when I really need to use optical zoom. |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
Quote:
The iPhone can take very nice pictures, but the degree of control you have with a DSLR is something you cannot accomplish with an iPhone. Sure the iPhone can simulate some basic manual controls, but if you decide the picture you just took needs adjustment that cannot be accomplished in PP, you have very little options at your disposal. Not to mention, the increments and sensitivity between each adjustment is like the difference between using a hammer and a fine chisel. I'm not trying to demean your choice to bring an iPhone instead of a DSLR on vacation. But if you want to "wow" people with your vacation photos... an iPhone is not the right tool. Not to mention any decent printer and/or lcd monitor is going to reveal stark differences between a APS-C/FullFrame sensor and the tiny sensor found in an iPhone
__________________
iPhone 5 Apple TV 3rd Gen 13" MacBook Pro Mid-2009 Mac Pro 2013 (coming soon)
Last edited by Mundty; Oct 2, 2012 at 01:51 PM. |
||
|
|
7
|
|
|
#19 |
|
|
1
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Quote:
http://dcurt.is/iphone-5-vs-5d-mark-iii The iPhone 5 is nice, but it doesn't come even close to the DSLR. Not that I expect it to. |
||
|
|
7
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Appreciation for good photography automatically makes someone a snob?
It doesn't need to, it only needs to fill the gap where a full-sized rig is too much to carry.
__________________
Google Maps for iOS: "Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited." |
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
#22 |
|
I think we purchased a P&S either right before or right after our first iPhone 4 (smartphone) purchase. But we decided to buy a waterproof/shockproof camera instead of a regular P&S.
We have: 2 DLSRs (one is infrared) 2 iPhones 1 underwater/P&S 1 old regular P&S that might not be used again. I have a camera for almost any situation. I wont always carry them all. but these phones capture the moments nicely and sometimes that's what counts. still love the DSLR but one hand iPhone shooting can be a bit easier. |
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
#23 |
|
I'm not surprised at the flare or the purple considering that the lens is covered by that nice piece of sapphire to protect the lens.
This is going to happen when you cover a lens element with anything. It isa common issue when using filters as well when shooting with a bright light source in the frame. The solution is simple. Shoot while hooding the lens or don't shoot with bright lights in the frame. Been around since cameras were invented.
__________________
2012 Retina Macbook Pro 2.3Ghz/8GB/256GB |2006 15" Macbook Pro 1.1| 2002 G4 iMac Power PC 4.2 |20" Cinema Display|Apple TV 160 GB|16GB White iPhone 5|Black 16GB iPad mini |
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
#24 |
|
|
1
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Ok, I don't get DSLRs anymore. I firmly believe they are fundamentally obsolete.
Once upon a time, the recording medium for photography was light-sensitive emulsions. They had to be kept in the dark until they were developed except for exposure. So a camera was a box that held the film in a plane in front of a shutter that briefly exposed the film to the subject/scene. The problem was that in a traditional design, you could not offer the photographer the exact same view that the film got, because of the requirement to keep the film dark until capture. For cheap cameras, the solution was a viewfinder, which offered a good-enough facsimile for what the film would see. SLRs were the solution to this problem. In front of the shutter was a movable 45 degree angle mirror. Before the shutter would trip, the mirror would snap upwards out of the way. At other times, the mirror sent the image that was going through the lens upwards into a prism and out the viewfinder. Thus, the photographer could see *exactly* what the film would see. 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! So if a DSLR is named that because it retains the mirror-prism-viewfinder system, then that is a ridiculous anachronism that does nothing but raise the price needlessly. If, instead, people call high end digital cameras "DSLRs" because of some professional level feature-set, or a better sensor, or because they lack a built-in phone or some such, then perhaps we need a better term for it. Last edited by nsayer; Oct 2, 2012 at 02:51 PM. |
|
|
|
1
|
![]() |
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 AM.










2007 MacBook Pro
Linear Mode
