Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 3, 2012, 07:37 AM   #51
designs216
macrumors 65816
 
designs216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Down the rabbit hole
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.
designs216 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 08:38 AM   #52
donrsd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by designs216 View Post
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.
Sure it does.....just slow down when scrolling left/right - right/left.
__________________
PSN: DonVCorleone
The U - NY Mets - NY Giants - Miami Heat

Quote Me So I Am Notified
donrsd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 09:01 AM   #53
yusukeaoki
macrumors 68030
 
yusukeaoki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Purple lens flare from lights...
Anyone else?
__________________
17" MacBook Pro (Early 2011), 2.2GHz i7-2720QM, 16GB RAM, 128GB SSD+1TB HDD@5400rpm
11" MacBook Air (Mid 2013), 1.7GHz i7-4650U, 8GB RAM, 512GB Flash
HTC J One (White) 32GB
yusukeaoki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 09:23 AM   #54
tatonka
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJammin103 View Post
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.
I agree .. I still have a DSLR for all the important photos in my life (mostly of the kids and vacations). For many other opportunities the phone camera must be enough.

One of the reasons I did stick with an iPhone over a Galaxy SII or SIII was the camera, though. If I carry around a camera all the time, I want it to make decent pictures. The Samsung images I saw on a friends phone just didn't cut it.

T.
tatonka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 12:57 PM   #55
nsayer
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by curmudgeon32 View Post
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".
Sigh.

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.

No one who has replied to my original post has actually refuted the point.

Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder? The closest I have seen so far is that someone mentioned that a pure optical viewfinder will save on battery life, since it means not lighting up an LCD screen. So far, that's the only point scored. However, if you simply trade the extra weight the reflex system and prism add for more battery, then I think you'd wind up ahead of the game using an LCD.

Most of the other arguments have been about the quality of dSLRs. I assert that that is not part of my argument. I never said that the iPhone was a professional level camera. What I said was that professional level sensors and photography do not benefit at all from the SLR feature in and of itself.

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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 04:38 PM   #56
avro707
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
We refuted your argument well. You just said very broadly that the DSLR is fundamentally obsolete. DSLR means the whole camera, fundamentally obsolete is meaning obsolete in its most basic and total form.

Now you are trying to excuse and change the meaning like a politician does when he has attracted a storm of criticism.

On your last idea, I suspect you've not ever used a pro level camera for work. Your idea will fail badly on practice. Touch screens are ridiculous because you have to look at them, while buttons on traditional DSLR cameras become second nature. You can use them to change settings in a hurry without needing to pay much attention to them. They work.

The DSLR cameras look the way they are due to the feedback us photographers give the companies that make them.

I challenge you, if you are in Sydney to join me one time on a photo shoot and you'll see in practice why things are done as they are.

Try a Nikon D3s, use it for a few hours non-stop and you'll find out why the shape is like that. It is comfortable to hold and use in either orientation. The camera feels balanced. It has the conventional viewfinder which is very bright, clear and reliable. At night, this better than some electronic alternative. What you see is absolutely correct, the optical viewfinder cannot be confused. Electronics can be.

It has a live view feature if you need that (I don't).

Lastly, we don't have time to muck around with gimmicks that are stylish to the MacRumors or iGadget devotees, we need cameras that just work, are easy to use and work with our existing tens of thousands of dollars of equipment.
__________________
Website
Mac Pro 5,1 | iMac | iPhone 5 64gb | Nikon D800e | Nikon D3s

Last edited by avro707; Oct 3, 2012 at 05:29 PM.
avro707 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 04:38 PM   #57
curmudgeon32
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer View Post
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.
And you missed the point of my post: if there wasn't a good reason to build dSLRs they way they're being built, don't you think they'd stop building them that way?

Is the dSLR a half-step toward newer formats? Sure. But when the moment comes for it to go away, you can be pretty sure that the laws of supply and demand will make that happen.

Quote:
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?
Well, professional photographers seem to think there's some use for them, or they wouldn't be there, would they? I mean, wouldn't camera makers have liked to save the bulk, weight, fragility and expense of a mirror system and optical viewfinder if they could? But if you spend any time on DP Review or the like, you'll see that pros put a big value on having an optical viewfinder. Whether out of habit or for other reasons (ergonomics, shooting style, battery life, light sensitivity), I don't know. But if people who spend their entire careers behind a camera want an optical viewfinder -- guess what? -- the camera makers are going to put one on there.

Quote:
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.
So there's no value in making something in a form factor that people find usable and familiar? The landfills are practially brimming with products made without regard to human factors that consumers just weren't "forward-thinking" enough to adopt.

Quote:
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.
You may well be on the right track — or not — about what the professional camera of the future looks like, but not everything changes overnight. Good mirrorless cameras are indeed infiltrating the upper levels of the consumer market, and if pros have a use for them, you can bet they'll make it up to that market too.

Photographers have a host of things to worry about, from durability to battery life to performance under dramatically different light conditions to backward compatiblity with existing equipment. Because of the nature of their work, they have to capture events at moments that are not always totally under their control -- and if the moment is missed because some touch screen was in the wrong mode or some card got unseated or they lost their grip on the "small box that attaches to the lens", they're screwed. The football has been caught, the lioness has walked away, the just-married couple has gotten in the car, and they don't have the shot and they're not getting paid.

No surprise they buy cameras that work in a familiar way and are compatible with their thousands of dollars worth of lenses and flashes and accessories — despite not being "optimal" for what you think a professional camera should or could be like.
curmudgeon32 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:40 PM   #58
avro707
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer
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.
DSLRs already can be controlled from laptops or smart-phones/iPads through some things like Nikon Camera Control Pro and using various wireless adaptors depending on the type of camera you have and what you want to do with it. Canon I'm sure has many of the same things. Nikon has another device which will let you operate a camera from the iPad, tapping the screen to adjust focus and other things. This is a good idea, better than including it on the camera itself where it would just not work well enough.

The Royal wedding a while back in Sweden between Crown Princess Victoria and her personal-trainer Daniel Westling used this kind of setup for many of the images. Cameras like D3x controlled remotely were stealthed away in camera boxes with cut-outs for the lenses (to quieten the camera) and in the end over 10,000 images were taken if I remember right from multiple cameras, while a traditional photographer (dressed in amusingly formal attire) took the group portrait shots, perched on a ladder.
__________________
Website
Mac Pro 5,1 | iMac | iPhone 5 64gb | Nikon D800e | Nikon D3s

Last edited by avro707; Oct 3, 2012 at 05:56 PM.
avro707 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:47 PM   #59
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer View Post
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?
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.
  1. LCDs are not as usable under bright lighting, especially sunlight.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Last edited by nutmac; Oct 3, 2012 at 05:53 PM.
nutmac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 01:50 AM   #60
thasan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Quote:
Originally Posted by designs216 View Post
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.
it certainly does work. removes movement when you pan. i shot a river photo with boats and it shot the boats perfectly!
if u have seen reviews that says it is difficult, its because the reviewers (including one promiment tech editor) are kind of stupid to try to take panorama of subjects 4/5 ft away from them! it works best for 15 ft and further away in my personal experience. i already have some beautiful 15-20+ MP shots which are absolutely gorgeous. the stitching is nearly flawless too!
thasan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 07:40 AM   #61
ncaissie
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
My wife’s Sony ION camera blows my iPhone 5 camera out of the water.
It’s 8mp and the pictures look great. My iphone pics look grainy. That is the only reason she bought the phone. Otherwise it sucks. The OS is two versions behind.
__________________
2011 MacBook Pro iPod touch 2G iFone 5! iPad 2 ATV 2G
ncaissie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 09:28 AM   #62
Psychj0e
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Clearly the idiots who are saying a viewfinder can be replaced by an LCD panel on the back have never used a dSLR... For one, the view finder doesn't always represent the shot, and two - how the hell do you expect to take a photograph when the light is too bright, and three - using the view finder helps preserve battery, and four - it helps block out all other information and lets you concentrate on getting the best shot.

Imagine you're out in the middle of sticks somewhere (e.g. the Atlas Mountains in Morroco) and you take a number of batteries with you, because you know you won't have the ability to re-charge them - wouldn't it make more sense to turn of the LCD panel and use the view finder (the sun in that situation also make any LCD panel difficult to use, too).

Duh!
Psychj0e is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 09:49 AM   #63
bretm
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutmac View Post
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.
  1. LCDs are not as usable under bright lighting, especially sunlight.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
Obviously optical viewfinders have absolutely ZERO color rendition. The colors you see in an optical viewfinder has as much bearing on the image being captured as does the exposure you see in the viewfinder. You might as well say optical viewfinders have infinite exposure latitude!
bretm is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 11:51 AM   #64
aerok
macrumors 65816
 
aerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
I need my OVF, I cannot live without one. My friend passed me a Panasonic micro 4/3 once with no viewfinder but with a touchscreen LCD, I could not stand it.
__________________
Kangmlee Photography Blog
Macbook Pro 13 - iPhone 5S - iPad Air - Samsung Note 8
aerok is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 08:04 PM   #65
bushido
macrumors 601
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: España y Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by yusukeaoki View Post
Purple lens flare from lights...
Anyone else?
apple is aware of this, but its a "feature" u're just holding it wrong, and i'm serious thats their excuse once again
__________________
¡No hables a menos que puedas mejorar el silencio!
bushido is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 11:22 PM   #66
cdebnil
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianpj View Post
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.
Not seeing any purple in this pix from the weekend
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	2.65 MB
ID:	366594  
cdebnil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 12:55 PM   #67
loslosbaby
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJammin103 View Post

For the phone camera supporters: A phone camera will never compare to a same-gen DSLR. Period, end of story.
As a camera, the iPhone can't even replace a Canon D2000/Kodak DCS-520 (2MP, 1998, 15k$) because of the lenses alone...but that camera, with a flash, flash bracket, and a (e.g.) 105L lens on it weighs as much as an AR-15.

"F8 and be there [and post]"

G.
__________________
Greg S. - http://www.insideablog.com - Setting up a blog, from the inside.
MBA13-Ult+ACD27 / old Minis / All iPhones / 5G iPod
loslosbaby is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 02:40 PM   #68
Mike Oxard
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer View Post
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!
You obviously haven't tried to accurately compose many pictures in bright sunlight!
Mike Oxard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 03:24 PM   #69
Mike Oxard
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer View Post
Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?
It's not just about swapping the mirror for an LCD panel, there is a lot of work needed to get it to work right. That will cost a lot which will be passed on to the photographer (camera manufacturers are not scared of doing this). Professional photography for many isn't paying what it used to, so having to pay for a change to something that isn't broken would really be galling.

Some of the problems the'd have to get around to make it work:

People would be worried about the quality of the image they are getting, at the moment they see the reflection of the true image, how is the LCD viewfinder going to get it's image? Is the shutter open to expose the sensor all the time so you get a live view from the actual sensor itself , if so how is it going to focus? not all manufacturers can use the sensor for focusing, usually it's done off the mirror by dedicated focussing hardware.

A big (full frame) sensor that is open all the time to give a live view just for the viewfinder is going to generate a lot of heat. It'll either shut down or give artefacts in the image. It'll also drain the battery more than you are assuming. At the moment most cameras have a 'long exposure noise reduction' system that compensates for hot pixels during a long exposure, they'd have to develop this a lot further for the sensor to be able to cope with being active all the time.

Time lag, for your live viewfinder the shutter is open, when you press the release it'll have to close, then open, then close again to get the the shutter speed correct. With mirrors they have got the mirror lifting perfectly synchronised with the shutter. If they can't sort this out then it's a reason by itself to stick with mirrors.

If the shutter is open all the time for a live viewfinder, the sensor is going to be much more prone to getting dirty, a real issue with dSLR's. If the live viewfinder gets it's data from a secondary sensor, it's going to have to get out of the way in time for the shot, so you might as well just use a mirror.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea if it were reliable, seamless and didn't cost a fortune to implement (though I'm not a pro). I think it'd be a brave manufacturer that launched it on their top level dSLR's, they'd have to prove it on entry level ones first I think. My wife's a pro photographer, and her main compliant is the weight of the camera all day (though I think RSI is more the problem!) anything to reduce weight would make her happy.
Mike Oxard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 11:10 PM   #70
canadianpj
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdebnil View Post
Not seeing any purple in this pix from the weekend
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.
canadianpj is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 01:44 AM   #71
firewood
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsayer View Post
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!
Actually, this is an ergonometric disadvantage.

Humans have evolved to instinctively position their own eyes in their head in the right position to see or something interesting or to compose a view. Not some object a foot or so in front of their head.

Try it your self. Position your head so that your MacBook display is centered in your view. You probably did that before you finished reading this sentence. Now get a small mirror. Stand off to the side of your MacBook, and see how fast you can center the image of the display in the mirror. Is is steady or wobbling around?

So a camera with an imaging plane as close as possible to the retina in your eye will always provide a more natural aim for rapid and instinctive composition. You can't get an iPhone anywhere near as close, and see the display, even if you are extremely nearsighted.

Furthermore, one's head is usually closer to one's center of gravity axis, and thus much easier to hold still, if necessary, than any handheld object well away from the body.
__________________
Apple II+, Mac 128k->512ke, Duo 210, MacBook Air 11, iPhone 5, iPad Mini Retina
firewood is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 11:03 AM   #72
liutang330
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJammin103 View Post
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.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJammin103 View Post
For the phone camera supporters: A phone camera will never compare to a same-gen DSLR. Period, end of story.
$200 phone won't compare to a $600+ single purpose camera.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJammin103 View Post
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.
I think they were referring to online connectivity. Traditional cameras do not have easy shoot and upload capabilities.
liutang330 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 03:28 PM   #73
cdebnil
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianpj View Post
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.
Don't know what your talking about...Top right corner.....Huge set of direct lights.
cdebnil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 04:00 PM   #74
shurcooL
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by liutang330 View Post
$600+ phone won't compare to a $600+ single purpose camera.
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.
shurcooL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 04:24 PM   #75
QuarterSwede
macrumors 604
 
QuarterSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by designs216 View Post
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.
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.

However, I still think AutoStitch stitches different exposures together better, especially since it can stitch HDR shots together. Panorama mode is a very close second and it's definitely quicker to use. I find the resolution of the Pano's on the 4S to be pretty low though (1.5MB files at max in my tests) and so they don't zoom/blow up well. It seems to take much higher resolution Pano's on the iPhone 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yusukeaoki View Post
Purple lens flare from lights...
Anyone else?
Apparently you didn't read the DPreview Quick Review as they specifically address this:

Quote:
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.
__________________
“In a world of idiots, the average man is king."

"Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world." -- Martin Luther

Last edited by QuarterSwede; Oct 6, 2012 at 04:32 PM.
QuarterSwede is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Hires Nokia's Lumia Photography Lead to Work on the iPhone's Camera MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 113 May 15, 2014 10:18 AM
Makers of Clear Tease New iPhone Photography App 'Analog Camera' MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 24 May 15, 2013 04:52 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC