analogjack

thinkman@chartermi.net 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. 

gmgravytrain said:

All my Macs have lasted five years and some are running longer than that. For me to pay $5000 for the base iMac Pro is great if I can use it well for five years. That's just $1000 a year and will likely be maintenance free for that time as all my other Macs (except one) was. 

You're forgetting that it will probably have at least a $2000 resale value.

I believe these latest figures are falsely inflated by their recent super aggressive offer for 3 months of premium for 99c. I've been sent two of these the past month. The second time I accepted it because, why not. Nevertheless I have no intention of continuing after the 3 months is up. However since I paid 99c via PayPal, they can claim me as a premium subscriber. But I'm not and never will be. Notice how this latest boast from Spotify is about a month (in my case) since they aggressively tempted me into an offer that will cost them a lot more than the 33c per month they are getting from me. 

Absolutely impossible to believe. The whole raison d'être of the iPhone was predicated on two things, 1. a proper OS and 2. no keyboard.

JinTech said:

Seeing how crooked Uber is...

That's why they hired her, to er 'craft their brand story'.