Seems clunky to me. Get out your lens, turn it on, get out your camera, start it up, find and run the dedicated app, and then you're ready to take a photo of that precious moment in time... that happened two minutes ago.
Pretty silly conjecture. For those shots, turn on your iPhone, point and shoot. You'll still get a respectable result (aka a hi-res "snapshot"). This device, like any fuller featured SLR, enables a number of options, none of them fitting your sudden "capture the candid unexpected moment" scenario (unless, like any SLR, you are already all set up and ready to go).
- Remote viewing and shooting. This is also great for those "group shots" you can't get without help from another pair of hands.
- Higher quality lens, with optical telephoto, etc.
- Companion control and processing app
- "outboard" storage option (meaning, not using the iPhone memory)
There's a lot to like.
Finally, I haven't watched the video, but somehow, I suspect it might be possible to trigger the "shutter" without having the phone connected... can anyone confirm?
Also realized, with this particular device, the words "connected" vs "attached" are going to matter to avoid confusion…
How is it not? You don't have to attach it to your phone (you can carry it separately or mount it on a tripod), the $499 model has a real (not optical) zoom, it uses high-quality sensors and lenses.
The only thing missing really is a good way to grip it when you want both the phone and lens together. But I have no doubt accessory makers aren't far behind with a proper handheld mounting bracket.
Obviously, you've never used a Digital SLR camera. At least, not extensively. There's a BIG difference in the image creation capabilities of a Digital SLR versus a point & shoot. Not the least of which is tighter control over depth of field thanks to the SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRs. And recent Digital SLRs can focus and take a photo in a fraction of the time and in a fraction of the light needed for point & shoot cameras.
Granted, the best camera is the one you have with you. But anyone who thinks there aren't real and significant benefits to shooting with a interchangeable lens Digital SLR is just fooling themselves.
Those who said using this looks stupid don't know the potential of this new type of cameras.
This is a brilliant innovation! It's even more portable than an MILC camera while having similar picture quality. More important, you can put it at a lot of different (or even hard-to-reach) places. This is only the beginning; it'll continue to improve and evolve. I'm seeing this finally replace P&S and MILC cameras.
I think people are using the "high end" reference as RELATIVE to the iPhone's built in camera. The accessory "enhances" it, providing "higher end" results… No, it isn't a Canon 1D or some such, nor is that remotely implied, I think. Understood?
Finally, I haven't watched the video, but somehow, I suspect it might be possible to trigger the "shutter" without having the phone connected... can anyone confirm?
Yep, I read (somewhere) that you can snap photos with the QX10 and QX100 without any smartphone connected.
I think people are using the "high end" reference as RELATIVE to the iPhone's built in camera. The accessory "enhances" it, providing "higher end" results… No, it isn't a Canon 1D or some such, nor is that remotely implied, I think. Understood?
read it again
Quote:
Using this, the lens can be attached to the back of an iPhone, and together the units will work in tandem as a high-end camera.
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website www.jazz77.com
Seriously, one of the dumbest gimmicks ever. If ur serious about photography, thr iphone won't be ur tool of choice & if ur not, the standard iPhone cam will do. This is a bunch of b.s. geared towards the people who have no clue what their needs are and have memorized to much tech shizz than they apply in real life.
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website www.jazz77.com
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website jazz77.com
This is perfect for when my wife leaves her giant Nikon at home and we end up wanting to take some nice pictures. I am a bit surprised that a lense with a 10x optical zoom is half the price of a lense with a 3.6x optical zoom. For us, 90% of the time we take pictures the optical zoom is the most important feature!
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website
Seriously, one of the dumbest gimmicks ever. If ur serious about photography, thr iphone won't be ur tool of choice & if ur not, the standard iPhone cam will do. This is a bunch of b.s. geared towards the people who have no clue what their needs are and have memorized to much tech shizz than they apply in real life.
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website jazz77.???
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website xurl.es/2qc30
I think you are missing the advantages from a photography viewpoint. Read my post two up from yours.
I thought about that (the fact that a lens+sensor without out the rest of the camera is slightly more "positionable" than a full camera), but I don't buy it. A full-fledged camera that can be slaved to a smart phone easily is a cool idea, but I don't see how this product is going to succeed. It's not that small and it's not at all cheap.
This is perfect for when my wife leaves her giant Nikon at home and we end up wanting to take some nice pictures. I am a bit surprised that a lense with a 10x optical zoom is half the price of a lense with a 3.6x optical zoom. For us, 90% of the time we take pictures the optical zoom is the most important feature!
The glass and aperture (f/1.8) are much better on the Carl Zeiss lens which is why you are paying more. Although the specs state the optical zoom is during moving recording. The focal length for the QX100 is 28-100mm which is not bad at all for that size lens. However, the QX10 claims 27.5-275 which is very odd. I must be reading this incorrectly.
Let me clarify my point. I think the idea is cool, but I think this implementation is lacking. Being able to have the lens in one place while the controls and view screen are somewhere else (and connected wirelessly) is neat. Presumably it'll be popular in the DIY porn/sexting market. But as a stand-alone device, a lens-shaped cylinder isn't the best design. Sure it clips onto a smart phone, but for off the phone use it's lacking. And it's big and expensive. If I were in the market for this, I would rather pay a couple hundred bucks more and get the camera it's based on and have the best of both worlds. A fully functional camera with proper controls, plus the ability to control it remotely from my phone. Or even better give me a much smaller version for $100-$200 optimized for off-phone use.
The glass and aperture (f/1.8) are much better on the Carl Zeiss lens which is why you are paying more. Although the specs state the optical zoom is during moving recording. The focal length for the QX100 is 28-100mm which is not bad at all for that size lens. However, the QX10 claims 27.5-275 which is very odd. I must be reading this incorrectly.
So wouldn't you consider this "high end" as a camera? Yes it's not DSLR quality, but it's at the very high end of the "not a DSLR" range. $750 (retail/Amazon price) for a camera is pretty high end -- except for professionals.
Comments
Seems clunky to me. Get out your lens, turn it on, get out your camera, start it up, find and run the dedicated app, and then you're ready to take a photo of that precious moment in time... that happened two minutes ago.
Pretty silly conjecture. For those shots, turn on your iPhone, point and shoot. You'll still get a respectable result (aka a hi-res "snapshot"). This device, like any fuller featured SLR, enables a number of options, none of them fitting your sudden "capture the candid unexpected moment" scenario (unless, like any SLR, you are already all set up and ready to go).
- Remote viewing and shooting. This is also great for those "group shots" you can't get without help from another pair of hands.
- Higher quality lens, with optical telephoto, etc.
- Companion control and processing app
- "outboard" storage option (meaning, not using the iPhone memory)
There's a lot to like.
Finally, I haven't watched the video, but somehow, I suspect it might be possible to trigger the "shutter" without having the phone connected... can anyone confirm?
Also realized, with this particular device, the words "connected" vs "attached" are going to matter to avoid confusion…
How is it not? You don't have to attach it to your phone (you can carry it separately or mount it on a tripod), the $499 model has a real (not optical) zoom, it uses high-quality sensors and lenses.
The only thing missing really is a good way to grip it when you want both the phone and lens together. But I have no doubt accessory makers aren't far behind with a proper handheld mounting bracket.
Obviously, you've never used a Digital SLR camera. At least, not extensively. There's a BIG difference in the image creation capabilities of a Digital SLR versus a point & shoot. Not the least of which is tighter control over depth of field thanks to the SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRs. And recent Digital SLRs can focus and take a photo in a fraction of the time and in a fraction of the light needed for point & shoot cameras.
Granted, the best camera is the one you have with you. But anyone who thinks there aren't real and significant benefits to shooting with a interchangeable lens Digital SLR is just fooling themselves.
Mark
Those who said using this looks stupid don't know the potential of this new type of cameras.
This is a brilliant innovation! It's even more portable than an MILC camera while having similar picture quality. More important, you can put it at a lot of different (or even hard-to-reach) places. This is only the beginning; it'll continue to improve and evolve. I'm seeing this finally replace P&S and MILC cameras.
high-end? you are not being serious are you?
I think people are using the "high end" reference as RELATIVE to the iPhone's built in camera. The accessory "enhances" it, providing "higher end" results… No, it isn't a Canon 1D or some such, nor is that remotely implied, I think. Understood?
Finally, I haven't watched the video, but somehow, I suspect it might be possible to trigger the "shutter" without having the phone connected... can anyone confirm?
Yep, I read (somewhere) that you can snap photos with the QX10 and QX100 without any smartphone connected.
Mark
I think people are using the "high end" reference as RELATIVE to the iPhone's built in camera. The accessory "enhances" it, providing "higher end" results… No, it isn't a Canon 1D or some such, nor is that remotely implied, I think. Understood?
read it again
understand?
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website www.jazz77.com
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website jazz77.com
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website
xurl.es/2qc30
Seriously, one of the dumbest gimmicks ever. If ur serious about photography, thr iphone won't be ur tool of choice & if ur not, the standard iPhone cam will do. This is a bunch of b.s. geared towards the people who have no clue what their needs are and have memorized to much tech shizz than they apply in real life.
You know nothing about photography
my best friend's sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay check was $13971 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this website jazz77.???
That sounds like an urbanized job description of… anyone intelligent enough to be a specialist in any field.
I think you are missing the advantages from a photography viewpoint. Read my post two up from yours.
I thought about that (the fact that a lens+sensor without out the rest of the camera is slightly more "positionable" than a full camera), but I don't buy it. A full-fledged camera that can be slaved to a smart phone easily is a cool idea, but I don't see how this product is going to succeed. It's not that small and it's not at all cheap.
This is perfect for when my wife leaves her giant Nikon at home and we end up wanting to take some nice pictures. I am a bit surprised that a lense with a 10x optical zoom is half the price of a lense with a 3.6x optical zoom. For us, 90% of the time we take pictures the optical zoom is the most important feature!
The glass and aperture (f/1.8) are much better on the Carl Zeiss lens which is why you are paying more. Although the specs state the optical zoom is during moving recording. The focal length for the QX100 is 28-100mm which is not bad at all for that size lens. However, the QX10 claims 27.5-275 which is very odd. I must be reading this incorrectly.
Let me clarify my point. I think the idea is cool, but I think this implementation is lacking. Being able to have the lens in one place while the controls and view screen are somewhere else (and connected wirelessly) is neat. Presumably it'll be popular in the DIY porn/sexting market. But as a stand-alone device, a lens-shaped cylinder isn't the best design. Sure it clips onto a smart phone, but for off the phone use it's lacking. And it's big and expensive. If I were in the market for this, I would rather pay a couple hundred bucks more and get the camera it's based on and have the best of both worlds. A fully functional camera with proper controls, plus the ability to control it remotely from my phone. Or even better give me a much smaller version for $100-$200 optimized for off-phone use.
The glass and aperture (f/1.8) are much better on the Carl Zeiss lens which is why you are paying more. Although the specs state the optical zoom is during moving recording. The focal length for the QX100 is 28-100mm which is not bad at all for that size lens. However, the QX10 claims 27.5-275 which is very odd. I must be reading this incorrectly.
So wouldn't you consider this "high end" as a camera? Yes it's not DSLR quality, but it's at the very high end of the "not a DSLR" range. $750 (retail/Amazon price) for a camera is pretty high end -- except for professionals.