iPhone Camera Hype? Look — it's NOT a good camera!
I have a beef with the heavily marketed notion (by Apple, Canon and Nikon in particular and in that order) that every person must have some sort of camera at the ready at all times. The Nikon D700 mated with almost any modern lens ever made by Nikon, represents a pinnacle of technical achievement which leaves only the photographer at 'fault' for capturing poor light, poor balance, poor composition or boring subject matter. The D700 is a bit of a load and it's therefore not glued to my hip 24/7. Sometimes, despite my enthusiasm about photography in general, I actually wander around without a camera (gasp!).
Chase Jarvis' insistence (along with Ken Rockwell, Scott Kelby, Steve Simon and dozens of other respected photography proponents, all of whom earn as much of a living from the sales of books and instruction courses as they do from photography and product endorsements) that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is all well and good, but speaks to me of some urgent push to purchase an iPhone rather than any sort of genuine need to be in possession of a camera at all times.
Frankly, iPhone photos are mostly only marginally well focused, vaguely color accurate, and offer only limited dynamic range. The same is true for the vast majority of point & shoot cameras in conventional form factors. They're all perfectly useful in varying degrees of limited shooting conditions. So we snap shots, at every opportunity, of mundane things which catch our eye, and then spend yet more time sorting, approving, collating, cataloging and classifying hundreds (or thousands) more photos? For what purpose? To what end? Do we refine our photography eye in this way? Not with an iPhone.
Apple successfully promotes and supports a lot of surreptitiously effective marketing. "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is another example. I liken it to the widespread promotion and sale of MP3 music on iTunes and so many other music sites. MP3 files, even on the best reproduction systems, represent to me far too little of the originally produced CD or DVD. Given that even a cheap stereo system is capable of reproducing more detailed and accurate music from an original CD than any typical MP3 purchased through iTunes, what on earth have we accepted as a standard? MP3 is a huge step backwards.
Similarly, broad acceptance that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" motivates us to snap away at anything, secure in the knowledge that the average focus and average general image fidelity of a photo made with an iPhone is just fine because, well, everybody is doing it. Score another one for Apple.
The point is that a D40 will do just as well to extend our abilities as photographers as a D700. In my opinion, an iPhone will not. So we're being told what by Apple (through intermediaries such as Chase Jarvis)? That an iPhone is just as effectively creative as any dedicated camera on the shelf? Apple can and does do anything and everything it can to sell its products. So does RIM. So does Sony. So do all the others. But let's not allow reality to be warped by any arch notion that we should divide our precious time still more because we really should be looking at millions of 'wonderful' photos being made with iPhones.
The world is awash in digital photos, most of them being family photos (which are not at issue here). As usual, 90% (or more) of everything besides family photos is complete junk, of vague interest mainly to the photographer who saw something and captured it in some blurry, unbalanced or poorly composed way. But he got the shot! Thank you iPhone? I think Apple has done a successful job of making us turn our heads from time to time away from quality and toward mere convenience. The iPhone and its photos are like MP3 players and files - poor stand-ins for the real thing. We've even come to accept iPod audio quality which is measurably, and more important, audibly inferior to competing players.
Saving money, considering all the alternatives, then carefully choosing a fine camera (from a used Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel XT on up) with which to pursue the hobby, avocation or amateur pursuit of photography, is a wonderful process which almost always includes the gradual acquisition of more knowledge about the art and craft of photography. In my opinion the iPhone speaks to none of that. My BlackBerry Curve 8330 is capable of capturing the same absence of photographic quality as the iPhone, so its handiness is just as perfect for snapshots of things which need to be remembered (mistakes, wine bottle labels, notes, etc., etc.). It's only a creative tool if we force it to be. The only way to do that, it seems, it to spend so much time using it (to capture only softly focused shots of limited dynamic range) that we have no energy left for a walkabout with a camera that is capable of fully reproducing what we observe. In other words, we make an inferior choice.
Ken Rockwell, Chase Jarvis and many others would have us believe (in my opinion, mainly to drive retail clicks on their web sites) that as long as light and composition are just right, well, that's that - it's a great photo. Nonsense! Most of Jarvis' photos - indeed most of his iPhone photo collection - is just like an episode of Seinfeld: all about nothing.
Rockwell and Jarvis and many others would have us believe that we can rock our world with tiny point & shoots, iPhones and put away the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D MKII forever. But when the newest cameras and lenses are released, there are all the boys reviewing and writing madly and ensuring that B&H Photo and Adorama links are prominent all over the place. What self-serving nonsense they all promote! Of course they're entitled to promote their 'fortunes' and I think they do it well. But an iPhone is just another piece of semi-useful gadgetry to suck dollars out of our pockets and into Steve Jobs overflowing treasure chests.
Step out of the hype for a moment and walk around without a camera. No D700, no iPhone, nothing. Find things - observe things, inevitably - which capture your attention. Return when it's convenient with the least expensive Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony digital SLR and almost any lens you can put your hands on to shoot the subject. Leave the iPhone at home (no phone calls to distract you). Carry the digital SLR and a small lens instead. You'll be much happier with the results.
I think that if a Nikon D700 (or even an old D70, D40 or P6000/P90) are all just too bulky or too much weight for you some days, that you're really not in the right mood to be making photos in the first place. Once again, step outside the Apple (and Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony) hype and leave both the iPhone and the digital SLR at home. The change will do you good.
Not to be outdone by any of the other guys, we're happy to push good cameras too. Our favorites these days are the Olympus EP-1 & EP-2, Nikon D300s, Canon Rebel XSi, Nikon D5000, Canon 7D, and the Panasonic GF-1.
Chase Jarvis' insistence (along with Ken Rockwell, Scott Kelby, Steve Simon and dozens of other respected photography proponents, all of whom earn as much of a living from the sales of books and instruction courses as they do from photography and product endorsements) that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is all well and good, but speaks to me of some urgent push to purchase an iPhone rather than any sort of genuine need to be in possession of a camera at all times.
Frankly, iPhone photos are mostly only marginally well focused, vaguely color accurate, and offer only limited dynamic range. The same is true for the vast majority of point & shoot cameras in conventional form factors. They're all perfectly useful in varying degrees of limited shooting conditions. So we snap shots, at every opportunity, of mundane things which catch our eye, and then spend yet more time sorting, approving, collating, cataloging and classifying hundreds (or thousands) more photos? For what purpose? To what end? Do we refine our photography eye in this way? Not with an iPhone.
Apple successfully promotes and supports a lot of surreptitiously effective marketing. "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" is another example. I liken it to the widespread promotion and sale of MP3 music on iTunes and so many other music sites. MP3 files, even on the best reproduction systems, represent to me far too little of the originally produced CD or DVD. Given that even a cheap stereo system is capable of reproducing more detailed and accurate music from an original CD than any typical MP3 purchased through iTunes, what on earth have we accepted as a standard? MP3 is a huge step backwards.
Similarly, broad acceptance that "The Best Camera is the One You Have With You" motivates us to snap away at anything, secure in the knowledge that the average focus and average general image fidelity of a photo made with an iPhone is just fine because, well, everybody is doing it. Score another one for Apple.
The point is that a D40 will do just as well to extend our abilities as photographers as a D700. In my opinion, an iPhone will not. So we're being told what by Apple (through intermediaries such as Chase Jarvis)? That an iPhone is just as effectively creative as any dedicated camera on the shelf? Apple can and does do anything and everything it can to sell its products. So does RIM. So does Sony. So do all the others. But let's not allow reality to be warped by any arch notion that we should divide our precious time still more because we really should be looking at millions of 'wonderful' photos being made with iPhones.
The world is awash in digital photos, most of them being family photos (which are not at issue here). As usual, 90% (or more) of everything besides family photos is complete junk, of vague interest mainly to the photographer who saw something and captured it in some blurry, unbalanced or poorly composed way. But he got the shot! Thank you iPhone? I think Apple has done a successful job of making us turn our heads from time to time away from quality and toward mere convenience. The iPhone and its photos are like MP3 players and files - poor stand-ins for the real thing. We've even come to accept iPod audio quality which is measurably, and more important, audibly inferior to competing players.
Saving money, considering all the alternatives, then carefully choosing a fine camera (from a used Nikon D70 or Canon Rebel XT on up) with which to pursue the hobby, avocation or amateur pursuit of photography, is a wonderful process which almost always includes the gradual acquisition of more knowledge about the art and craft of photography. In my opinion the iPhone speaks to none of that. My BlackBerry Curve 8330 is capable of capturing the same absence of photographic quality as the iPhone, so its handiness is just as perfect for snapshots of things which need to be remembered (mistakes, wine bottle labels, notes, etc., etc.). It's only a creative tool if we force it to be. The only way to do that, it seems, it to spend so much time using it (to capture only softly focused shots of limited dynamic range) that we have no energy left for a walkabout with a camera that is capable of fully reproducing what we observe. In other words, we make an inferior choice.
Ken Rockwell, Chase Jarvis and many others would have us believe (in my opinion, mainly to drive retail clicks on their web sites) that as long as light and composition are just right, well, that's that - it's a great photo. Nonsense! Most of Jarvis' photos - indeed most of his iPhone photo collection - is just like an episode of Seinfeld: all about nothing.
Rockwell and Jarvis and many others would have us believe that we can rock our world with tiny point & shoots, iPhones and put away the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D MKII forever. But when the newest cameras and lenses are released, there are all the boys reviewing and writing madly and ensuring that B&H Photo and Adorama links are prominent all over the place. What self-serving nonsense they all promote! Of course they're entitled to promote their 'fortunes' and I think they do it well. But an iPhone is just another piece of semi-useful gadgetry to suck dollars out of our pockets and into Steve Jobs overflowing treasure chests.
Step out of the hype for a moment and walk around without a camera. No D700, no iPhone, nothing. Find things - observe things, inevitably - which capture your attention. Return when it's convenient with the least expensive Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony digital SLR and almost any lens you can put your hands on to shoot the subject. Leave the iPhone at home (no phone calls to distract you). Carry the digital SLR and a small lens instead. You'll be much happier with the results.
I think that if a Nikon D700 (or even an old D70, D40 or P6000/P90) are all just too bulky or too much weight for you some days, that you're really not in the right mood to be making photos in the first place. Once again, step outside the Apple (and Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony) hype and leave both the iPhone and the digital SLR at home. The change will do you good.
Not to be outdone by any of the other guys, we're happy to push good cameras too. Our favorites these days are the Olympus EP-1 & EP-2, Nikon D300s, Canon Rebel XSi, Nikon D5000, Canon 7D, and the Panasonic GF-1.
Labels: digital camera, digital photography, digital SLR, iPhone
posted by Howard Carson, Managing Editor @ 10:43 AM
