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

[brent8927]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/te...ro-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 here 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/201...-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/201...-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.