ESPN uses iPhone 7 for 9th annual 'Body Issue' cover shoot

AppleInsider

ESPN The Magazine's hotly anticipated "Body Issue" hit newsstands on Friday, and at least one of the covers -- a portrait of Chicago Cubs infielder Javier Baez -- was shot using Apple's iPhone 7 handset.

Seen above, Baez's cover is a standard portraiture-style image of the baseball star in the buff. As noted by venture capitalist M.G. Siegler on Twitter, Apple purchased space on the issue's back cover to advertise that the shot was captured using an iPhone 7 Plus.

Apple's ad shows an iPhone 7 Plus alone in a sea of white with Baez's cover shot, minus ESPN's graphics, displayed onscreen. The handset is set to Portrait Mode, an iPhone 7 Plus-only feature that uses the handset's dual camera array and computer vision to simulate bokeh, though it is unknown if the actual image was captured using the Photos app tool.

Fine print below on the back cover notes the photo was edited using a Mac.

ESPN used multiple iPhone 7 units, as well as third-party equipment to capture the Baez shot. Photographers can be seen toting iPhone 7 Plus on tripods, free-hand and what appears to be a DJI Osmo gimbal in a behind the scenes video of the photoshoot posted to YouTube last week. One brief clip shows photographers gathered around an on-site production cart, on top of which sits a MacBook Pro connected to an iPhone 7 Plus in a Beastgrip Pro.

Every year, ESPN enlists athletes from a wide range of sports to bare it all in the Body Issue, which the magazine touts as a celebration of fitness. Baez is one of ten athletes to be featured on nine distinct covers. Other cover models include New England Patriots wide receiver Julian Edelman, Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott, Los Angeles Sparks forward Nneka Ogwumike, Boston Celtics point guard Isaiah Thomas, San Jose Sharks players Brent Burns and Joe Thornton, mixed martial artist Michelle Waterson, tennis star Caroline Wozniacki and Kirstie Ennis. Ennis, an accomplished mountain climber and amputee athlete, is the first veteran to feature on a Body Issue cover.

Whether other cover shoots were accomplished with iPhone 7 Plus is unknown, though behind the scenes videos for Edelman, Wozniacki and Ennis, among others, showed only professional equipment being used in staged settings.

Inside, the magazine highlights photos of Akron Racers outfielder A.J. Andrews, Chicago Red Stars defender Julie Ertz with husband Philadelphia Eagles tight end Zach, rugby standout Malakai Fekitoa, skier Gus Kenworthy, figure skater Ashley Wagner, track and field sprinter Novlene Williams-Mills and the U.S. Women's National Hockey team.

spice-boy

Sexy but not a fan of tattoos. 

saltyzip

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

suddenly newton

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

"Much more superior SLR"... LOL. That magazine cover says otherwise.

[email protected]

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

[email protected]

"though it is unknown if the actual image was captured using the Photos app tool." 'Photos" is not a camera, it is a photo database with some editing functionality!

boredumb

I happened to peruse the entire posted set of the 16 featured athletes.  Aside from occasionally interesting brief bios, there are numerous pictures,
and the equivalent of "live photos" of each of them, including wider shots of the shots themselves being taken,
and it's clear SI made extensive use of "much more superior SLR cameras".

I suppose I should really wait until I actually wake up, to start crafting comments...

analogjack

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

Well that would be pure bullshit wouldn't it? Nothing has be 'proven' with regards to the amazingness or otherwise of the iPhone camera. Yes it does produce remarkably good photos for what it is. That you have a 'small fortune' invested in 'pro' camera gear, means what exactly? And how does your choice to shoot 90% of your photos using iP7+ have any meaning? Maybe 90% of your photos are happy snaps or your 'pro' clients are very undemanding. With some decent post production work it's possible to make almost any halfway decent image work in an advertising situation.

The only actual facts that could be called facts is that professional gear or in fact any ordinary good quality consumer SLR give one an almost limitless choice of lenses and focal lengths, and that is absolutely essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer. The implication in these ads is that the iPhone is good enough to be used by professionals, but that's a meaningless metric without sufficient context. 

Sure it's fun to work within limitations, it's possible to use as a camera a sealed box with a pin hole in it that can take a 20x16" dark slide and put a piece of photographic paper in it and use that as a paper negative to make a contact print. You can have super wide angle almost infinite depth of field and no distortion. I've see photographs where a washing machine was the camera. I myself have taken a series of photos using a $2 Diana F plastic camera using 120 roll film. The point is that any camera is a valid camera and can be used in arty or professional situations.

And while the iPhone can and has been used in place of traditional professional equipment. It is an absurdity to suggest it's a professional piece of equipment. It is simply a phone in a camera  that can take good enough quality photos provided that one is willing to work within it's limitations. 

It's a camera on a phone. Get over it. 

slurpy

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

I have an iPhone 7, and I love it, as well as the camera. But to suggest it even comes close to the image quality of a real SLR is absurd. 

nht

slurpy said:

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

I have an iPhone 7, and I love it, as well as the camera. But to suggest it even comes close to the image quality of a real SLR is absurd. 

In good light the iPhone 7+ will do about as well as a 7 year old d300 with kit lens. An entry level 2016 DSLR with kit lens will do better but obviously be much larger.  Same for the m43/1" prosumer point and shoots like the RX-100.

So in good lighting at average focal lengths yeah...close enough for most folks.

nht

analogjack said:

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

Well that would be pure bullshit wouldn't it? Nothing has be 'proven' with regards to the amazingness or otherwise of the iPhone camera. Yes it does produce remarkably good photos for what it is. That you have a 'small fortune' invested in 'pro' camera gear, means what exactly? And how does your choice to shoot 90% of your photos using iP7+ have any meaning? Maybe 90% of your photos are happy snaps or your 'pro' clients are very undemanding. With some decent post production work it's possible to make almost any halfway decent image work in an advertising situation.

The only actual facts that could be called facts is that professional gear or in fact any ordinary good quality consumer SLR give one an almost limitless choice of lenses and focal lengths, and that is absolutely essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer. The implication in these ads is that the iPhone is good enough to be used by professionals, but that's a meaningless metric without sufficient context. 

Sure it's fun to work within limitations, it's possible to use as a camera a sealed box with a pin hole in it that can take a 20x16" dark slide and put a piece of photographic paper in it and use that as a paper negative to make a contact print. You can have super wide angle almost infinite depth of field and no distortion. I've see photographs where a washing machine was the camera. I myself have taken a series of photos using a $2 Diana F plastic camera using 120 roll film. The point is that any camera is a valid camera and can be used in arty or professional situations.

And while the iPhone can and has been used in place of traditional professional equipment. It is an absurdity to suggest it's a professional piece of equipment. It is simply a phone in a camera  that can take good enough quality photos provided that one is willing to work within it's limitations. 

It's a camera on a phone. Get over it. 

Are paid shots being done with an iPhone?  Yes.

Did the Chicago Sun-Times fire all of their staff photographers and gave reporters iPhones? Yes.

If it's a standard piece of gear issued for Pro use it's a Pro piece of gear.  Get over it.

analogjack

nht said:

analogjack said:

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

Well that would be pure bullshit wouldn't it? Nothing has be 'proven' with regards to the amazingness or otherwise of the iPhone camera. Yes it does produce remarkably good photos for what it is. That you have a 'small fortune' invested in 'pro' camera gear, means what exactly? And how does your choice to shoot 90% of your photos using iP7+ have any meaning? Maybe 90% of your photos are happy snaps or your 'pro' clients are very undemanding. With some decent post production work it's possible to make almost any halfway decent image work in an advertising situation.

The only actual facts that could be called facts is that professional gear or in fact any ordinary good quality consumer SLR give one an almost limitless choice of lenses and focal lengths, and that is absolutely essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer. The implication in these ads is that the iPhone is good enough to be used by professionals, but that's a meaningless metric without sufficient context. 

Sure it's fun to work within limitations, it's possible to use as a camera a sealed box with a pin hole in it that can take a 20x16" dark slide and put a piece of photographic paper in it and use that as a paper negative to make a contact print. You can have super wide angle almost infinite depth of field and no distortion. I've see photographs where a washing machine was the camera. I myself have taken a series of photos using a $2 Diana F plastic camera using 120 roll film. The point is that any camera is a valid camera and can be used in arty or professional situations.

And while the iPhone can and has been used in place of traditional professional equipment. It is an absurdity to suggest it's a professional piece of equipment. It is simply a phone in a camera  that can take good enough quality photos provided that one is willing to work within it's limitations. 

It's a camera on a phone. Get over it. 

Are paid shots being done with an iPhone?  Yes.

Did the Chicago Sun-Times fire all of their staff photographers and gave reporters iPhones? Yes.

If it's a standard piece of gear issued for Pro use it's a Pro piece of gear.  Get over it.

Wow that's a strange post because all three line in it are already answered in the post you quote. Why so defensive? The iPhone has a decent camera on it compared to camera phones from 10 years ago, and what?

nht

analogjack said:

nht said:

analogjack said:

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

Well that would be pure bullshit wouldn't it? Nothing has be 'proven' with regards to the amazingness or otherwise of the iPhone camera. Yes it does produce remarkably good photos for what it is. That you have a 'small fortune' invested in 'pro' camera gear, means what exactly? And how does your choice to shoot 90% of your photos using iP7+ have any meaning? Maybe 90% of your photos are happy snaps or your 'pro' clients are very undemanding. With some decent post production work it's possible to make almost any halfway decent image work in an advertising situation.

The only actual facts that could be called facts is that professional gear or in fact any ordinary good quality consumer SLR give one an almost limitless choice of lenses and focal lengths, and that is absolutely essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer. The implication in these ads is that the iPhone is good enough to be used by professionals, but that's a meaningless metric without sufficient context. 

Sure it's fun to work within limitations, it's possible to use as a camera a sealed box with a pin hole in it that can take a 20x16" dark slide and put a piece of photographic paper in it and use that as a paper negative to make a contact print. You can have super wide angle almost infinite depth of field and no distortion. I've see photographs where a washing machine was the camera. I myself have taken a series of photos using a $2 Diana F plastic camera using 120 roll film. The point is that any camera is a valid camera and can be used in arty or professional situations.

And while the iPhone can and has been used in place of traditional professional equipment. It is an absurdity to suggest it's a professional piece of equipment. It is simply a phone in a camera  that can take good enough quality photos provided that one is willing to work within it's limitations. 

It's a camera on a phone. Get over it. 

Are paid shots being done with an iPhone?  Yes.

Did the Chicago Sun-Times fire all of their staff photographers and gave reporters iPhones? Yes.

If it's a standard piece of gear issued for Pro use it's a Pro piece of gear.  Get over it.

Wow that's a strange post because all three line in it are already answered in the post you quote. Why so defensive? The iPhone has a decent camera on it compared to camera phones from 10 years ago, and what?

You compared the iPhone to a pinhole camera and then said that it was "absurdity" to consider the iPhone "professional equipment".  Other than for sports the iPhone is being used professionally by reporters at major US newspapers as a camera.

The assertion that a DSLR is "essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer" has also been demonstrably proven false multiple times and not just with the iPhone.

Why so defensive?  Its not. I simply disagree with your "absurd" opinion.  Get over it.

larz2112

nht said:

analogjack said:

nht said:

analogjack said:

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

Well that would be pure bullshit wouldn't it? Nothing has be 'proven' with regards to the amazingness or otherwise of the iPhone camera. Yes it does produce remarkably good photos for what it is. That you have a 'small fortune' invested in 'pro' camera gear, means what exactly? And how does your choice to shoot 90% of your photos using iP7+ have any meaning? Maybe 90% of your photos are happy snaps or your 'pro' clients are very undemanding. With some decent post production work it's possible to make almost any halfway decent image work in an advertising situation.

The only actual facts that could be called facts is that professional gear or in fact any ordinary good quality consumer SLR give one an almost limitless choice of lenses and focal lengths, and that is absolutely essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer. The implication in these ads is that the iPhone is good enough to be used by professionals, but that's a meaningless metric without sufficient context. 

Sure it's fun to work within limitations, it's possible to use as a camera a sealed box with a pin hole in it that can take a 20x16" dark slide and put a piece of photographic paper in it and use that as a paper negative to make a contact print. You can have super wide angle almost infinite depth of field and no distortion. I've see photographs where a washing machine was the camera. I myself have taken a series of photos using a $2 Diana F plastic camera using 120 roll film. The point is that any camera is a valid camera and can be used in arty or professional situations.

And while the iPhone can and has been used in place of traditional professional equipment. It is an absurdity to suggest it's a professional piece of equipment. It is simply a phone in a camera  that can take good enough quality photos provided that one is willing to work within it's limitations. 

It's a camera on a phone. Get over it. 

Are paid shots being done with an iPhone?  Yes.

Did the Chicago Sun-Times fire all of their staff photographers and gave reporters iPhones? Yes.

If it's a standard piece of gear issued for Pro use it's a Pro piece of gear.  Get over it.

Wow that's a strange post because all three line in it are already answered in the post you quote. Why so defensive? The iPhone has a decent camera on it compared to camera phones from 10 years ago, and what?

You compared the iPhone to a pinhole camera and then said that it was "absurdity" to consider the iPhone "professional equipment".  Other than for sports the iPhone is being used professionally by reporters at major US newspapers as a camera.

The assertion that a DSLR is "essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer" has also been demonstrably proven false multiple times and not just with the iPhone.

Why so defensive?  Its not. I simply disagree with your "absurd" opinion.  Get over it.

I have seen this debate before, and the friction is generated because we all have different definitions and criteria for "pro gear". I think the point Analogjack was trying to make is that just because a piece of equipment is used in a professional environment, in his opinion it doesn't automatically become a piece of "pro gear". I happen to agree. Nht, you seem to be making the argument that if something is used in a professional environment it is by default "pro gear". If that were the case, the children's instruments that Jimmy Fallon and the Roots occasionally play on his show would be considered "pro gear". I would not call any of the instruments below "pro gear". Just my opinion.

nht

larz2112 said:

nht said:

analogjack said:

nht said:

analogjack said:

[email protected] said:

saltyzip said:

So was this ESPN photoshoot sponsored by Apple, as otherwise why not use a much more superior SLR camera?

Because, as it's been proven countless times before, the iPhone 7+'s camera is nothing short of amazing. I have a small fortune invested in pro camera gear, but take 90% of my photos using the 7+.

Well that would be pure bullshit wouldn't it? Nothing has be 'proven' with regards to the amazingness or otherwise of the iPhone camera. Yes it does produce remarkably good photos for what it is. That you have a 'small fortune' invested in 'pro' camera gear, means what exactly? And how does your choice to shoot 90% of your photos using iP7+ have any meaning? Maybe 90% of your photos are happy snaps or your 'pro' clients are very undemanding. With some decent post production work it's possible to make almost any halfway decent image work in an advertising situation.

The only actual facts that could be called facts is that professional gear or in fact any ordinary good quality consumer SLR give one an almost limitless choice of lenses and focal lengths, and that is absolutely essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer. The implication in these ads is that the iPhone is good enough to be used by professionals, but that's a meaningless metric without sufficient context. 

Sure it's fun to work within limitations, it's possible to use as a camera a sealed box with a pin hole in it that can take a 20x16" dark slide and put a piece of photographic paper in it and use that as a paper negative to make a contact print. You can have super wide angle almost infinite depth of field and no distortion. I've see photographs where a washing machine was the camera. I myself have taken a series of photos using a $2 Diana F plastic camera using 120 roll film. The point is that any camera is a valid camera and can be used in arty or professional situations.

And while the iPhone can and has been used in place of traditional professional equipment. It is an absurdity to suggest it's a professional piece of equipment. It is simply a phone in a camera  that can take good enough quality photos provided that one is willing to work within it's limitations. 

It's a camera on a phone. Get over it. 

Are paid shots being done with an iPhone?  Yes.

Did the Chicago Sun-Times fire all of their staff photographers and gave reporters iPhones? Yes.

If it's a standard piece of gear issued for Pro use it's a Pro piece of gear.  Get over it.

Wow that's a strange post because all three line in it are already answered in the post you quote. Why so defensive? The iPhone has a decent camera on it compared to camera phones from 10 years ago, and what?

You compared the iPhone to a pinhole camera and then said that it was "absurdity" to consider the iPhone "professional equipment".  Other than for sports the iPhone is being used professionally by reporters at major US newspapers as a camera.

The assertion that a DSLR is "essential for having the artistic control necessary for a pro photographer" has also been demonstrably proven false multiple times and not just with the iPhone.

Why so defensive?  Its not. I simply disagree with your "absurd" opinion.  Get over it.

I have seen this debate before, and the friction is generated because we all have different definitions and criteria for "pro gear". I think the point Analogjack was trying to make is that just because a piece of equipment is used in a professional environment, in his opinion it doesn't automatically become a piece of "pro gear". I happen to agree. Nht, you seem to be making the argument that if something is used in a professional environment it is by default "pro gear". If that were the case, the children's instruments that Jimmy Fallon and the Roots occasionally play on his show would be considered "pro gear". I would not call any of the instruments below "pro gear". Just my opinion.

Nope.  Nice try with the argumentum ad absurdum.  

The iPhone (and any other smartphone) is in the same pro category as a Zoom H1 mic/recorder used by professionals.  That the far more capable Zoom F8 multitrack field recorder sits at the other end of the spectrum of field recorders doesn't make the Zoom H1 an "absurdity" as pro gear even if it is only $99.  Many pro's don't need more than the H1 as a field recorder.  Likewise many pros don't need more than the iPhone as a field camera.  Both are "pro gear".

Several years ago I thought it amusing enough to take a picture of a guy with a press badge taking video and pictures with his iPhone at an event.  Today, it's just common place. 

http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/11/26/rte-video-journalist-philip-bromwell-shoots-the-news-on-his-iphone-6/

http://www.shoulderpod.com/journal/2014/12/4/mobile-journalist-philip-bromwell-shoots-a-visual-story-in-dublin-for-the-irish-tv-using-an-iphone-6-plus-and-a-shoulderpod-mount.

iPhone on one end of the pro spectrum. Sony EX3 at the other.
iPhone on one end of the pro spectrum. Nikon D5 on the other.

Professional journalists have been filing news stories using iPhones for years.  Debate over.

larz2112

nht said:

The iPhone (and any other smartphone) is in the same pro category as a Zoom H1 mic/recorder used by professionals.  That the far more capable Zoom F8 multitrack field recorder sits at the other end of the spectrum of field recorders doesn't make the Zoom H1 an "absurdity" as pro gear even if it is only $99.  Many pro's don't need more than the H1 as a field recorder.  Likewise many pros don't need more than the iPhone as a field camera.  Both are "pro gear".

Several years ago I thought it amusing enough to take a picture of a guy with a press badge taking video and pictures with his iPhone at an event.  Today, it's just common place. 

http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/11/26/rte-video-journalist-philip-bromwell-shoots-the-news-on-his-iphone-6/

http://www.shoulderpod.com/journal/2014/12/4/mobile-journalist-philip-bromwell-shoots-a-visual-story-in-dublin-for-the-irish-tv-using-an-iphone-6-plus-and-a-shoulderpod-mount.

iPhone on one end of the pro spectrum. Sony EX3 at the other.
iPhone on one end of the pro spectrum. Nikon D5 on the other.

Professional journalists have been filing news stories using iPhones for years.  Debate over.

Again, it's a matter of opinion, no matter how authoritatively you state it. And claiming a debate that is based on opinion is over is pretty pretentious and absurd. Some people might not consider a camera to be "pro gear" unless it allows for f-stop and shutter speed adjustments. That is their opinion. You obviously do not feel the same way. That is your opinion. There is a LOT of equipment that has been used in professional environments for years that many folks would not consider "pro gear".  Again, it is a matter of opinion.