Manah: phone photography! What is the freaking point? Is it because they are too lazy to carry a real camera and lenses that we should make this a topic? Ridiculous! DPreview, please focus on photography, not cell phones.
Ah, the real and the unreal, only this time applied to cameras themselves. :). Let me assure you that the iPhone is a "real" camera.
Morgan David: All great, exept for the cheating picture 6 that most certainly is not shot with a smartphone.This DOF is not achievable with the size of the iPhone sensor.
Smartphones are often criticized for their alleged inability to produce shallow focus, bokeh effects, etc. i'm simply remarking that this style was not always as favored as it appears to be today.
What makes you think that shallow focus is a superior way to make photographs? You have heard, in cinema, of people like Orson Welles and William Wyler? Sometimes you want shallow focus, sometimes you want deep focus.
tomatoketchup: Excellent... more tyros holding their gigantic pads out at arms length will now be able to swing their monstrosities from left to right, looking even more like complete tools.
Yes, we all know photography is about how you look doing it.
rdscibilia: The iPhone needs more megapixels, although it appears Apple is not going in this direction. A quality eight-megapixel image is fine, but you need some space for cropping.
Okay, I'll settle for 10. :)
The iPhone needs more megapixels, although it appears Apple is not going in this direction. A quality eight-megapixel image is fine, but you need some space for cropping.
larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)
"Real" photography is no more dependent on the camera that is used than "real" movies are dependent on using an Arri or Red.
And there are many photographs made today that could only have been made with a smart phone. Doubters are going to have to learn to accept that reality. Those who think that Cartier-Bresson would've shunned the iPhone are being naïve.
I suggest we use the same calculator for eugenics studies. Why should we have to suffer with people who don't have the right look?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: This is completely stupid. But, if people get paid to create stupid algorythms, who am I to get in the way? Oh well...
Or be analyzing questionnaires without ever stepping into the real world.
The social sciences have become a travesty.
The opposite of popular is not dull.
Leave it to a PhD candidate to miss the real point.
blink667: Beautiful camera, but $2000 for $500 worth of performance?
So...is a Leica "high maintenance?" :)
This is the kind of camera Mick Jagger will buy 10 of to give to his friends as Christmas gifts.
I thought The EOS M had been discontinued...
o_23: I would vote for Canon EOS M. It has very intuitive touchscreen. Compact solid magnesium body. Compatible with all Canon lenses. Excellent IQ. Focusing is very accurate and pretty fast after June firmware update. I bought 2 cameras for $399 (kits with flash and 2 lenses). If you subtract prices of kit lenses and flash, the price of a camera is just ridiculous. I also prefer Canon colors, specifically skin tones look much more natural than from other cameras. Though I like Full Frame camera more for better bokeh, but I am tired to carry heavy FF lenses. My backpack is 3 times lighter now.
I bought one for $299 not that long ago. Is it perfect? No, but it is an awfully good camera for that price, and the image quality is excellent.
People like Ben Lowy and Annie Liebowitz are just fine with the iPhone. No, they don't use it for everything, but they use it. Face the fact that it is one more useful tool that can produce real photographs.
The smart phone by the way is not just a point-and-shoot. It is far better. Why? Form factor and apps and connectivity.
rdscibilia: One uses a smartphone because there are certain photos you can only get with a smartphone. Anyone who thinks you cannot make a good photograph with an iPhone not only has been asleep the last few years but is likely to remain asleep. The Revolution is here whether you like it or not. It is not whether the iPhone offers the best absolute quality, it is that you choose the right tool for the circumstances. The reality is that the iPhone can do the job more times than you may think. Do not dismiss this tool to quickly.
As soon as you lift a traditional camera to your eye it changes the whole context of the photograph. That should be obvious to everybody here. I never said that smart phones were the right tool for every photographic circumstance, but for some they are all but essential.
Hello Kitty? See, this is what I mean. Just arrogant ignorance. If you think only really crappy photos are being shot with an iPhone you are truly out of it. I see a lot of threatened, frightened photographers here. And too many guys in love with tech. Good photography is not about tech.
Go on being dismissive, even venomous. I realize you think you are defending quality photography, but in fact you do not understand that a lot of traditional cameras are just obtrusive.
One uses a smartphone because there are certain photos you can only get with a smartphone. Anyone who thinks you cannot make a good photograph with an iPhone not only has been asleep the last few years but is likely to remain asleep. The Revolution is here whether you like it or not. It is not whether the iPhone offers the best absolute quality, it is that you choose the right tool for the circumstances. The reality is that the iPhone can do the job more times than you may think. Do not dismiss this tool to quickly.
rdscibilia: This is better than the EOS M I bought for $299 how exactly?
A lot of palaver here about market value. Tell me how the Nikon DF is worth $3000. Tell me how the Leica is worth its price. What someone is willing to pay does not necessarily reflect the objective realities of quality or even utility. What it reflects is desire,