Apple Explores Adding a Lens Mounting System to the iPhone

[D-Dave]

In other news, Canon and Nikon **** themselves with fear.

Nah, don't think they even care apart from the very low end business (which had terrible margins anyway)...
...and more importantly, why on earth would anyone want to use a bayonet system with the tiny sensor that is in the iphone? The whole point of the camera in any phone is that you always have it with you and that it delivers a reasonably acceptable quality. Thats exactly why Smartphone Cams are killing point and shoot Cams...any present system with changeable lenses is a completely different story: vastly superior Quality and possibilities at the price of not being "always with you".

 

[dilbert99]

The age of the phone cam is analogous to the mp3'ing of music - giving up qualities and possibilities for convenience.

You do give up a lot with phone camera's but you give up less with each generation. (I own many cameras including phone, point and shoot and DSLR)

Any camera with a single focal length lens gives up control of perspective and "true" control of depth of field (although software can simulate the latter).

Here's a primer: Lens focal length has personality. It brings a certain character, a feeling, to a shot.

Sounds logical re depth, but remember not to confuse that with depth of field which relates to distance that appears acceptably sharp and has many more parameters than just focal length. Granted it is difficult to get shallow depth in a phone. Also note that depth of field is not related to focal length when the image magnification is the same. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Also, while I'm not familiar with the phone you mentioned, I have looked into the Lumia high-end cams.

And what they do IS a form of digital zoom - they simply have enough info in the image file to let you pick different parts of the image that still have enough resolution to look good on screen or at reasonable print sizes so that you can extract a number of interesting pics from a single snap.

Actually it was the Lumia I was meaning...It has 40mp sensor to produce an 8mp image which means it has the capacity to extract more information than software would alone relating to zooming, that was all I was pointing out. I do and still agree that optical zoom is still way better than what this phone is capable of

As a photographer, and appreciator of photography, I'm pained at how this information is simply disappearing from the knowledge banks of most who point a lens at things. Still, we're getting by with our snapshooting new world and more things than ever are being photographed and videoed.

Nothing has changed there, there are very view people that have ever known what they have been doing behind a lens. I class myself as an amateur and trying to learn all the time with my DSLR

 

[chimpboy74]

.. I have both a Canon and a Nikon, and aside from some minor issues, I'd probably never know the difference....

I had a Nikon DSLR and my father in law bought a canon. He was so impressed with the pictures from my Nikon he ditched the canon and went Nikon. His pictures were still cr*p. Turns out he wasn't a very good photographer

 

[lawrencewinkler]

That Tree

An interesting perspective on the need for lenses. See http://thattree.net.

A journal photographer, Mark Hirsch, was challenged to take pictures of a lone Burr Oak tree, every day for a year, with just an iPhone. The result that he showed was that great photography starts with the person behind the camera, not the camera.

 

[PlainviewX]

This would be cool but it would have to be recessed like DSL camera mounts are. A protruding camera mount would look awful.

 

[lawrencewinkler]

A patent for bayonet mount for lenses? How is there not previous art? They had bayonet mounts for lenses long before I was born (I'm 64). Or is it new because it's built onto a smart phone?

"A bayonet mount" has likely not been patented. A particular kind with particular functionality and size and design and manufacturing processes undoubtedly has along with the matching lens mounts.

The "idea" of a bayonet mount (as you obviously think patents cover) are not patentable. A particular manifestation, however, is.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I had a Nikon DSLR and my father in law bought a canon. He was so impressed with the pictures from my Nikon he ditched the canon and went Nikon. His pictures were still cr*p. Turns out he wasn't a very good photographer

Well, there is that...

Yeah, I imagine that if I were a better photographer, I would be able to tell instantly (HAH! stretching it I'm sure) the difference between cameras, but I'm not so I have the Canon for my telescope, and the Nikon for 'art' pictures...

I made the mistake of asking for recommendations on a busy astronomy site and poked my finger in the Canon v Nikon nest. A Jihad swirled around me as I picked the best arguments for and against, and chose the Canon for the scope after getting some serious recommendations from some gifted photographers. (Prattling on I realize) I shot the 'Great Venus Transit' that took nearly all day, and have done some stunning shots of the Moon and sunspots. But in the end, after all the sturm und drang, I think I made the right choice because the adapter for the scope was easier to come by for the Canon.

One thing is for sure (returning to topic) is that Apple has the ability to totally screw this up bad. Trolling photography sites for recommendations, I found them filled with complaints about this or that type of lens mount. People lashing themselves and their equipment because of loose lenses and striped mounts and having to jettison beloved equipment because of mount failures. (And cheap Chinese knockoff lenses being crap. Surprised?)

I viewed the camera Jihad the same as the computer Jihad, the dirt bike Jihad, the 2-stroke v 4-stroke Jihad, the mountain and road bike Jihad, the tube v transistor amp Jihad, the CD v vinyl Jihad, the Phish v Grateful Dead Jihad, the Crest v Colgate Jihad... Did I miss any? I hope I continue to...


EDIT: One thing that I have noticed, and I'm not talking after doing extensive research, but just watching people at concerts, the iPhone camera (sucks) is less optimal at a concert venue... I have gotten some incredible shots at concerts, but the quality for the vast majority has been tragically sub-par. Someone told me about a concert goer being confronted by security at a concert for taking pictures, and after seeing it was an iPhone, the security guard let the guy alone saying 'I can't throw you out for using an iPhone to take pictures here, they aren't going to be any good anyway.' It's probably internet lore by a 'Droid fanboy, but I have tons of blurry and overexposed pictures to remind me of concerts I've been to. *SHRUG*

 

[Menneisyys2]

I had a Nikon DSLR and my father in law bought a canon. He was so impressed with the pictures from my Nikon he ditched the canon and went Nikon. His pictures were still cr*p. Turns out he wasn't a very good photographer

Both Nikon and Canon have their strengths and weaknesses. In the P&S / compact market, Canon is better, while in the DSLR market, Nikon. Therefore, it can't be generally stated "Nikon is superior to Canon" - again, Canon P&S / compact cameras are better, particularly now that they have announced the G1X Mk II, against which only the rumored Nikon P800 could have any chance in the same (large-sensor compact with non-interchangeable lens).

DSLR-wise, assuming starting from zero (without previous investment in either system, lens-wise) on the other hand, I personally would go for Nikon because of the superior sensor tech. Canon has certainly been lagging in that dept for 2-3 years. The Sony sensors used by Nikon DSLR's are certainly better than Canon's own sensors.

----------

The result that he showed was that great photography starts with the person behind the camera, not the camera.

Nevertheless, a large-sensor camera will always perform better in challenging lighting (low light, large differences in lights requiring a sensor with large DR etc.) Small-sensor cameras, incl. the iPhone, will always have the handicap of high noise and low DR, even if their lens and, WRT iOS, their WB algorithm are otherwise excellent.

----------

EDIT: One thing that I have noticed, and I'm not talking after doing extensive research, but just watching people at concerts, the iPhone camera (sucks) is less optimal at a concert venue... I have gotten some incredible shots at concerts, but the quality for the vast majority has been tragically sub-par. Someone told me about a concert goer being confronted by security at a concert for taking pictures, and after seeing it was an iPhone, the security guard let the guy alone saying 'I can't throw you out for using an iPhone to take pictures here, they aren't going to be any good anyway.' It's probably internet lore by a 'Droid fanboy, but I have tons of blurry and overexposed pictures to remind me of concerts I've been to. *SHRUG*

Of course you can't make good handheld low-light shots with an iPhone. It painfully lacks any kind of image stabilization, meaning it'll always try to shoot at 1/15s (extendable to 1/20s on the iPhone 5/5c and 1/30s on the 5s using AppStore apps like 645 Pro - see my dedicated report HERE), which will almost always mean motion / camera blur, particularly in a concert where both the subjects and the camera moves. And, unlike top cameraphones like the Nokia 1020, there isn't any kind of OIS in the iPhone, meaning there is simply no way of getting rid of camera shake, unless you can find a way to stabilize the phone. Which is pretty much impossible in a concert.

And you can't shoot at, say, 1/100s to reduce motion (with some very high ISO) because iOS doesn't allow for configuring the shutter speed / ISO. In this regard, it's vastly inferior to all other smartphone OS'es.

 

[typeadam]

I do have two iPhone lens wishes - macro and 50mm. If that means a lens attachment then fine. But if that means creating microscopic components to fit into the iPhone shell - even better.
Even though my camera is with me 80% of the time, sometimes swapping lenses and all that other SLR time-consumption for when you need just a quick pic is just unnecessary.

 

[Menneisyys2]

You do give up a lot with phone camera's but you give up less with each generation. (I own many cameras including phone, point and shoot and DSLR)

Small-sensor cameras are (and will remain for the foreseeable future) still much inferior to large-sensor ones under challenging circumstances (low DR, high noise).

 

[LordVic]

Interesting, are Canadian coins magnetic?

some (at least used to be, it has been a long time since i've tried to. now i'm going to go home and go through my change jar to see whicch are or arent.

 

[D.T.]

Interesting, are Canadian coins magnetic?

Apparently quiet a few are, here’s a wiki for the dime:

In Canada, a dime is a coin worth ten cents. It is the smallest (in physical size) of the currently issued Canadian coins. According to the Royal Canadian Mint, the official national term of the coin is the 10 cent piece, but in practice, the term dime predominates in English-speaking Canada. It is nearly identical in size to the American dime, but unlike its counterpart, the Canadian dime is magnetic due to a distinct metal composition: from 1968 to 1999 it was composed entirely of nickel, and since 2000 it has had a high steel content.

 

[LordVic]

As a photographer, and appreciator of photography, I'm pained at how this information is simply disappearing from the knowledge banks of most who point a lens at things. Still, we're getting by with our snapshooting new world and more things than ever are being photographed and videoed.

I'm a hobbyist at best. Have my run of the mill DSLR (canon 40D), my Run of the mill point and ****, and my Phone.

it saddens me when i pull out the P&S or the DSLR and friends / colleagues ask whats the point of that giant bulkiness when they can just take a photo with their phone and it's "just as good"

I LOVE photographs that play with focal lengths and depths of feild. IMHO, changing detph of field and playing with the focal point is a great way of expressing character and emotion. it makes things stand out and lets you play with the what you want the viewer to focus on.

Phone cameras are fine for most social media and your casual snapshots. But without a real lense system, and without a real quality sized sensor, no phone camera will ever match the purpose, and the quality of a SLR based system.

 

[Thunderhawks]

The popout lanyard on the iPod Touch is a nice implementation of an optional mounting point - it’s sturdy, doesn’t protrude when not in use, and even adds an interesting little design detail. Since it’s highly likely the next iPhone will change form factor, necessitating new case designs anyway, it’s easy considered. I realize the tolerances would have to be tighter for a lens.

I think it’s pretty neat. I’d love to be able to optically enhance photos with a tiny lens I could pocket, or easily keep around, since for me, I like the convenience of photos on my phone (vs. a small P&S).




Very cool. Do you have any photos you’ve shot with technique? I’m sure I’m not the only one that would love to see a couple

All I have in a hurry: 2 close ups of bottles. Shot to who glass distribution/flaws.

 

[LordVic]

EDIT: One thing that I have noticed, and I'm not talking after doing extensive research, but just watching people at concerts, the iPhone camera (sucks) is less optimal at a concert venue... I have gotten some incredible shots at concerts, but the quality for the vast majority has been tragically sub-par. Someone told me about a concert goer being confronted by security at a concert for taking pictures, and after seeing it was an iPhone, the security guard let the guy alone saying 'I can't throw you out for using an iPhone to take pictures here, they aren't going to be any good anyway.' It's probably internet lore by a 'Droid fanboy, but I have tons of blurry and overexposed pictures to remind me of concerts I've been to. *SHRUG*

its my experience too at Concerts.

Its the lighting (as photography always comes down to).

The lighting in a fancy concert is changing so fast, and so dramatically, with flashpots, strobelights, different spotlights, and all of varying colour and intensity, all with a really dark background (as most concerts don't keep house lights on).

All this combined just leads to really crappy photos from mobile devices. They're not able to handle the constantly changing light. Even some Point and Shoots have had issues.

the SLR's work because of the pure manual control you can gain to adjust for the lighting conditions instead of relying on the camera's own sensors to try and judge shutter speed and aperture.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Ah!

Well, there is that...

Yeah, I imagine that if I were a better photographer, I would be able to tell instantly (HAH! stretching it I'm sure) the difference between cameras, but I'm not so I have the Canon for my telescope, and the Nikon for 'art' pictures...

I made the mistake of asking for recommendations on a busy astronomy site and poked my finger in the Canon v Nikon nest. A Jihad swirled around me as I picked the best arguments for and against, and chose the Canon for the scope after getting some serious recommendations from some gifted photographers. (Prattling on I realize) I shot the 'Great Venus Transit' that took nearly all day, and have done some stunning shots of the Moon and sunspots. But in the end, after all the sturm und drang, I think I made the right choice because the adapter for the scope was easier to come by for the Canon.

One thing is for sure (returning to topic) is that Apple has the ability to totally screw this up bad. Trolling photography sites for recommendations, I found them filled with complaints about this or that type of lens mount. People lashing themselves and their equipment because of loose lenses and striped mounts and having to jettison beloved equipment because of mount failures. (And cheap Chinese knockoff lenses being crap. Surprised?)

I viewed the camera Jihad the same as the computer Jihad, the dirt bike Jihad, the 2-stroke v 4-stroke Jihad, the mountain and road bike Jihad, the tube v transistor amp Jihad, the CD v vinyl Jihad, the Phish v Grateful Dead Jihad, the Crest v Colgate Jihad... Did I miss any? I hope I continue to...


EDIT: One thing that I have noticed, and I'm not talking after doing extensive research, but just watching people at concerts, the iPhone camera (sucks) is less optimal at a concert venue... I have gotten some incredible shots at concerts, but the quality for the vast majority has been tragically sub-par. Someone told me about a concert goer being confronted by security at a concert for taking pictures, and after seeing it was an iPhone, the security guard let the guy alone saying 'I can't throw you out for using an iPhone to take pictures here, they aren't going to be any good anyway.' It's probably internet lore by a 'Droid fanboy, but I have tons of blurry and overexposed pictures to remind me of concerts I've been to. *SHRUG*

Don't forget the electric guitar jihad. Man that can be fierce.

 

[joejoejoe]

I wonder how much a phone would cost if it had a lens equal to a Cannon L, lets say a 400mm F2.8?

don't see that happening in the near future, and there may always be a gap between a high end professional lens that needs all of that physical space for the elements, aperture blades, iris etc and a phone that has much smaller attachable lenses (or internal lenses that swap out).

what i assume will happen is that phones will encroach on the prosumer level with the help of better sensors, glass, and maybe some version of interchangeable lenses, but i don't see how they can become a replacement for high end professionals given how large professional lenses need to be.

 

[nburwell]

Personally, I couldn't care less about this. I use my iPhone to take random pictures which I never print anyway. I use my DSLR for scenes in which I either plan on printing in the future or to share on photography sites such as Flickr and 500px.

I'm sure Nikon and Canon couldn't care less about this either.

I'm all for making the iPhone camera better, but a protruding lens? C'mon.

 

[Woutje76]

Would i make money if i said the perfect solution would be to make the strap on lens to be magnetic? Just like magsafe....just click it on... ;-)

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Don't forget the electric guitar jihad. Man that can be fierce.

OH MY GOD, and you aren't kidding...

I made the mistake of mentioning that a friend of mine (semi-pro musician that toured with Pat Metheny, among others) didn't have any love for the new Gibson's (post early 80's I guess). I said it to the wrong person! You'd have thought that I dropped his mother's trousers and rogered here on the spot! Oh boy... I didn't have the heart to show him my incredible hard tail Strat and my slicker than snot Traveler...

'Fenders are for cars!' He bellowed!!! I threw him a curve ball with 'Rickenbacker'... Stopped him in his tracks that did...

----------

Apparently quiet a few are, here’s a wiki for the dime:

I was surprised that so many Caribbean coins are aluminum... Makes them odder than heck.

 

[Ubele]

OH MY GOD, and you aren't kidding...

I made the mistake of mentioning that a friend of mine (semi-pro musician that toured with Pat Metheny, among others) didn't have any love for the new Gibson's (post early 80's I guess). I said it to the wrong person! You'd have thought that I dropped his mother's trousers and rogered here on the spot! Oh boy... I didn't have the heart to show him my incredible hard tail Strat and my slicker than snot Traveler...

'Fenders are for cars!' He bellowed!!! I threw him a curve ball with 'Rickenbacker'... Stopped him in his tracks that did...

I have a 1971 Gibson SG Deluxe that I bought in a pawn shop in 1979 when I was a teenager, because it cost $220, and I had $240 in my pocket. For a long time, I'd read about how Gibson, Fender, and Martin all had quality-control problems during the 1970s, and people shopping for used guitars were advised to avoid guitars made during that period. For many years, the value of my SG hovered at about $400. Well, now it's "vintage" (so am I), and the SG Deluxe was made for only two years, so it's worth considerably more. Although it's not the ideal guitar for the type of music I play, I hang onto it for sentimental reasons, and because it's a beautiful guitar.

The worst on-line guitar fight I ever read was about whether the Gibson Les Paul or the PRS Custom was a better guitar for rock.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

The worst on-line guitar fight I ever read was about whether the Gibson Les Paul or the PRS Custom was a better guitar for rock.

I ran into a poser that loved to rail against anything that wasn't a PRS... He went on and on about the quality that went into them, and the sound they produced, the sustain, the looks, the feel... He ripped on Gibson, Fender, just about everything. Loved Rickenbacker... (What is it? All because of the Beatles?)

I asked what he played, and he looked scared for a second and then admitted that he didn't play... Um, OK......... Then someone piped in with 'I play in a band, and have a Yamaha Les Paul copy and it'll play the living (poo) out of anything anyone can put up against it!'. (I had a run in early in my life with a Yamaha guitar evangelist. Leave them alone, just walk away)

Well, there you go... Everyone was tired of the BS and macho pissing about and just said 'OK' and let it be... "How about them Tigers?"...

But, yes, PRS guitars are very pretty... SO are Martin's! I'll keep my dented and scratched Strat. I really don't play much either, but knew a lot of excellent guitar players, most of whom have moved on to better climates and better bands.

Oh, knew someone who played a Danelectro in high school. At some point, it's just a guitar I guess, right?

 

[Ubele]

Given the current high quality of cell-phone cameras, I have to wonder how much P&S/DSLR market share there is left to erode. In other words, how many P&S/DSLR owners would say, "I'd sell my gear and switch to an iPhone if it did X, Y, and Z," or how many people in the market for a camera would say something similar -- where X, Y, and Z are capabilities that we can reasonably expect to see in cell-phone cameras in the next two or three years? I can see sensors getting better and better, and low-light capability improving, but do the laws of optical physics allow for high-quality telephoto lenses and variable aperture to produce the depth-of-field variation you can get with a DSLR?

I love my iPhone camera, and I've taken some great photos with it. But I spent years using an SLR with mutiple lenses, and then digital super-zoom cameras (because they were lighter and "good enough" for me at the time), and optical zoom is something I can't give up. You can't digitally zoom in much with the iPhone before the image starts to degrade. Last year, I decided to get back into more serious photography, and I bought a Sony NEX 6 mirrorless camera. I can't put it in my pocket, but it's a lot smaller and lighter than a DSLR, the quality is comparable, and it's a lot more versatile creatively than my iPhone camera. My iPhone is always with me for those spontaneous photo opps, but when I go somewhere with the intention of taking pictures, I bring my Sony.

Convenience is another part of the equation. I had an Olloclip for my iPhone 4, and it was a cool device, but to use it, I had to remove the case from my iPhone, take the Olloclip out of its bag, take off the lens cap, sometimes unscrew one lens to get to the one I wanted, take my picture(s), and reverse the process when I was done. That's the same hassle you have to go through with a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but a DSLR or mirrorless is much more versatile.

I'm an enthusiast photographer, not a professional. I'd switch to an iPhone as my only camera, even if it involved accessories (e.g., multiple lenses), if the combined kit allowed me to do, say, 95% of what I do with my Sony, if I found the quality of the photos good enough for my needs, if the entire kit could fit in a pocket or belt case, and if I didn't have to upgrade accessories every time Apple changed the iPhone form factor. With the iPhone, I don't see, any time soon, being able to get the equivalent of a 300 mm telephoto lens, or smooth bokeh (I haven't found a software simulator that does anything more than blur the background outside a certain radius), or long, noise-free, starry-sky exposures. But who knows?

Anyway, to return to my original question: I suspect that most people, for whom a cell-phone camera is good enough, already have one. If this rumored interchangeable lens system comes to pass, it will be popular, as long as it's convenient to use. But I don't think it will eat into the DSLR/mirrorless market unless the quality and versatility come close. (The biggest threat to DSLRs right now are mirrorless cameras.) And even if they come close, there will always be a niche market for people who need or want the best possible image quality and maximum versatility.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Although it's not the ideal guitar for the type of music I play, I hang onto it for sentimental reasons, and because it's a beautiful guitar.

One thing I wanted to add is that you always remember your first guitar. I fell madly in lust for a Gibson Les Paul Custom with the Sunburst pattern. Sure, it looked like 'just a guitar', but the warmth of the paint, the feel of the thing, the heft, the balance, the tones, the incredible detail of it. I think it was a '68 maybe. We're going back 40 years here, but it had the best look, except for the monotone pickguard someone had on it. The way light would play off the colors though was mesmerizing... I can't remember if it had the gold heads, but my BFF at the time bought it and added the vintage gold knobs. I think it was stolen...

But back to lenses!!!

----------

I'm an enthusiast photographer, not a professional. I'd switch to an iPhone as my only camera, even if it involved accessories (e.g., multiple lenses), if the combined kit allowed me to do, say, 95% of what I do with my Sony, if I found the quality of the photos good enough for my needs, if the entire kit could fit in a pocket or belt case, and if I didn't have to upgrade accessories every time Apple changed the iPhone form factor. With the iPhone, I don't see, any time soon, being able to get the equivalent of a 300 mm telephoto lens, or smooth bokeh (I haven't found a software simulator that does anything more than blur the background outside a certain radius), or long, noise-free, starry-sky exposures. But who knows?

Anyway, to return to my original question: I suspect that most people, for whom a cell-phone camera is good enough, already have one. If this rumored interchangeable lens system comes to pass, it will be popular, as long as it's convenient to use. But I don't think it will eat into the DSLR/mirrorless market unless the quality and versatility come close. (The biggest threat to DSLRs right now are mirrorless cameras.) And even if they come close, there will always be a niche market for people who need or want the best possible image quality and maximum versatility.

That sums it up very well.

If it works well, Apple will create a bigger market for people looking for that niche of being better than 'just a phone' and 'having that extra thing to carry'. I doubt it would kill the DSLR market, mainly because I think it would have died a hundred times by now. Funny how that goes...

The longevity of the form factor is what concerns me. It's been nice for people to upgrade without having to buy another case. That's rather rare in that business... It will be interesting to see what happens.

Heck, 40 years ago Fuji film was king, and people were into those Disc cameras I think...

 

[Ubele]

I ran into a poser that loved to rail against anything that wasn't a PRS... He went on and on about the quality that went into them, and the sound they produced, the sustain, the looks, the feel... He ripped on Gibson, Fender, just about everything. Loved Rickenbacker... (What is it? All because of the Beatles?)

I asked what he played, and he looked scared for a second and then admitted that he didn't play... Um, OK......... Then someone piped in with 'I play in a band, and have a Yamaha Les Paul copy and it'll play the living (poo) out of anything anyone can put up against it!'. (I had a run in early in my life with a Yamaha guitar evangelist. Leave them alone, just walk away)

Well, there you go... Everyone was tired of the BS and macho pissing about and just said 'OK' and let it be... "How about them Tigers?"...

But, yes, PRS guitars are very pretty... SO are Martin's! I'll keep my dented and scratched Strat. I really don't play much either, but knew a lot of excellent guitar players, most of whom have moved on to better climates and better bands.

Oh, knew someone who played a Danelectro in high school. At some point, it's just a guitar I guess, right?

When I was young, single, and free from responsibilities, I bought the best gear I could afford, thinking it would make me a better player/producer/engineer/rock star. Talent? Practice? Those were secondary. As a result, I have better instruments than my talent warrants. I can hear the difference beween good and cheap instruments, though. But I'm amazed how much low-end instruments have improved. I bought an entry-level Yamaha dreadnought in 1978 for $180. It always sounded dull, and it was hard to play. I finally upgraded to a Martin. A couple years ago, I bought my stepson a $180 entry-level Yamaha dreadnought. I was amazed -- it has 80% of the sound quality as my Martin, at a fraction of the price. If I were sensible, I'd sell my Martin, buy a Seagull or something similar, and pocket the difference -- but how can I bear to sell my Martin?

Oh, wait -- isn't this thread about iPhones or something?