iPhone DSLR Prototype 1.0

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "Here are Photos/Pictures of my iPhone DSLR Prototype 1.0. This is my first attempt at putting together an iPhone DSLR. You might ask 'Why pair an iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, or iPhone 4 with a DSLR lens?' Why not!" Prototype or not, it's a cool project.

Comments

you were slashdotted

[iPhr0stByt3]

site unavailable in 5...4...3...2...1...

Re:you were slashdotted

[cK-Gunslinger]

I think it happened at 4.87, actually..

Re:you were slashdotted

[pavera]

more like 5...4...

Re:you were slashdotted

[morgan_greywolf]

So I take it the iPhone DSLR was actually hosting TFA? Because it's still down 1.5 hours later. It's in the Google Cache, though.

Pro-tip: before posting your iPhone-hosted website on Slashdot, take your finger off the antenna.

Re:you were slashdotted

[netsharc]

Another tip is, don't use a frigging uncompressed 4 bytes-per-pixel BMP format for your header image!

Morons...

uh, samples?

[SoupGuru]

So, where are the goods? I mean, pics of an iPhone with a big lens strapped on are cool, I guess.... but I was kind of hoping for what the results of that unholy union are.

Re:uh, samples?

[InvisibleBacon]

Yeah I'm already skeptical that this would produce good results.. Not having any samples doesn't help much.

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, this could be done with any phone, android-based ones included. Phones have had cameras for more than a decade, why is this suddenly news because it's an iphone?

Oh that's right, Apple fanboys are being hired by Steve Jobs to rewrite history so we all believe iPhones were the first phones with a camera

Paid slashvertisement, indirectly, much?

Re:uh, samples?

[falzer]

It could be done with any phone, but it wasn't, because it's so incredibly useless and indulgent.

Re:uh, samples?

[gandhi_2]

I don't care about the goods.

Anyone who goes out of their way to say iPhone 5 times in 3 sentences is a douche.

Re:uh, samples?

[SETIGuy]

You don't need to be skeptical. This will produce crappy results. You're still pushing the light through a tiny dirty lens and a tiny aperture. The iphone's autofocus will be fighting your attempts to get the focus you want (unless there's a way to turn off autofocus). The iphone 4 may be a nifty point and shoot camera, but it's not SLR quality regardless of the number of pixels.

I'd title this one "I don't know anything about optics or photography, but I can machine a bracket out of aluminum."

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh. You said "iPhone 5". At least that's what I saw at first.

Re:uh, samples?

[candyer]

Iphone's antenna and srceen are my question. Even so, I still love my iphone. We are confident that we can solve the problems that have arisen. We have been expecting the newer version have a good job! iPhone OS 4.0: Top 9 New Features to Expect (http://www.aneesoft.com/tutorials/iphone/iphone-os-4-new-features.html)

Re:uh, samples?

[Xiterion]

I wasn't aware there was any autofocusing going on inside cell phone cameras? I thought they simply used their incredibly small aperture and corresponding large f ratio to get a really deep field. Consequently the optical system is very slow, leading to their abysmal low light performance.

Re:uh, samples?

[trapnest]

I don't know about the iPhone 4, but the T-Mobile G1 has a mechanical (probably magnetic, the way optical drives focus) autofocus. You can hear it when you go to take a photo.

Re:uh, samples?

[StarDrifter]

There is another post with the result: http://iphonedslr.com/blog/archives/62fb
It is somewhat disappointing, to say the least. I do give some credit for posting it though. Even though things didn't work out as planned it is nice to see what happened.

Re:uh, samples?

[Lev13than]

You don't need to be skeptical. This will produce crappy results. You're still pushing the light through a tiny dirty lens and a tiny aperture

No kidding - I was looking forward to learning how he removed the iPhone's crappy lens and then got an slr lens exactly the right distance from the film plane to be useful. This was followed by a realization that he'd be wasting about 95% of the glass, since the sensor's size is a tiny fraction of a crop or 35mm sensor.

If he does stick with the iPhone lens, he's sticking the wrong optics in front. Canon and many other manufacturers make telephoto and wide angle lenses designed to fit over existing optics. This would get rid of the blue fringing, blurriness etc... in his sample pics. He could have saved a lot of time and effort by getting a Canon TC-DC58N lens on eBay and modded a LADC58B lens mount (or similar) to get the spacing right.

Re:uh, samples?

[cheater512]

The stunning camera in the N900 also has a real focus. Sometimes it actually makes a thunk noise.
Also you can alter the focus settings with two taps.

Re:uh, samples?

[tibit]

That blog format of his is abysmal: it's very hard to explore, you feel like peeling data out of the blog's cold dead hands. Why do people set up their blogs such that even if there is maybe a dozen articles, you have to keep clicking and scrolling forever to see them all? It almost feels like those online news formats where a single page article is split across 15 pages, each with ads covering 80% of screen real estate... </offtopic_rant>

Re:uh, samples?

[kimvette]

Well with a EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM imagine what the equivalent focal length is if you take crop factor into account. What would the crop factor be anyhow - 32.0?

Anyway this is not an SLR. SLR = Single Lens Reflex. Last I checked, there is no optical viewfinder, no pentaprism or pentamirror, nothing that would make it an SLR. In fact for a camera to be an SLR, technically speaking, interchangable lenses are not even required. What is required is a single lens provides the image for both the sensor/film and the optical viewfinder. This is more similar to the increasingly popular 4/3 format where the sensor provides the image for an EVF, but the lenses are interchangeable.

It is a neat project but it seems like it would be a royal pain in the ass to use. Your EF lens will be stuck at full-open aperture (so you will have no DOF) and while you are trying to use the manual focus on the lens, your iPhone will be trying to use its internal focus, making it very, very difficult to focus. It will also be incredibly difficult to hold steady enough to capture sharp images; the crop factor will be like using a really, really long lens and because the lens isn't powered by the iPhone you will not be able to use the lens's IS/VR/OS feature so there is no way to counteract camera shake. To make matters worse there is zero control over the iPhone's "shutter speed" so there is no way to even use the 1/(equivalent focal length) rule of thumb, so you would be restricted to using a very steady tripod.

Also, EF-S lenses would have been a better (and generally less expensive) choice as they mount closer to the sensor.
Sample images? I didn't see any.

Re:uh, samples?

[sincewhen]

I believe the later iPhones use a lens like this one.

Re:uh, samples?

[Doctor O]

If he had actually THOUGHT about what he's going to do, he might have discovered this strange concept of "focal length" and how it might affect lens placement.

This must be among the most stupid "efforts" I've seen on Slashdot.

Re:uh, samples?

[Entropius]

The crop factor is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15, I'd guess. I'm pretty sure that the Canon 70-300/5.6 isn't sharp enough to outresolve the tiny little pixels on the sensor, so you'd be left with a greatly magnified but fuzzy mess.

This guy would have had to remove the iPhone's own lens, otherwise he couldn't focus at all -- the lens is projecting an image behind it, and there's no way the iPhone can then focus on it.

I've never heard of the Canon 35-80; I imagine that's just an old and cheap lens he had lying around.

Minor correction: the 4/3 format is *not* the EVF-driven mirrorless system. Four Thirds is a perfectly ordinary SLR system that works in the standard way (and is the one I use, incidentally.) You're thinking of "micro Four Thirds", which uses the same sensors as regular 4/3 (crop factor 2), but has no mirror and uses an EVF. Ordinary 4/3 lenses can mount to micro 4/3 cameras with an adapter (which is just a spacer to fix up the mount-sensor distance)

Re:uh, samples?

[Entropius]

Especially because I can buy a real SLR for $200 used.

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is autofocus on the iPhone 4, also if you're not afraid of apple marketing material (Oh my god! This is going to change the way you slice bread!) check-out 'tap to focus'. The terrible low-light performance on any phone is going to be down to the tiny lens gathering very little light and the tiny chip collecting the light at the other end. If a larger lens could be used to collect more light, you'd see better low-light performance, but I'm skeptical that simply adding external lenses will prove a worthwhile activity.

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol pwnt hardcore

Re:uh, samples?

[abhi_beckert]

Most high end phones created in the last few years have had a proper autofocus.

Re:uh, samples?

[stephanruby]

'Why pair an iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, or iPhone 4 with a DSLR lens?'

Evo envy? Your iPhone 4 didn't work anyway (you were holding it wrong)? And your ex-wife got the DSLR camera in the divorce settlement, and you only got a lens???

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most phone cameras have electromagnetic AF, with a diaphram, coils and field magnets kind of like a miniature speaker. I know because I take them apart all the time to steal the IR filters out of them.

Re:uh, samples?

[Custard Horse]

iPhone 5

iPhone 5?! Where can I get one??

Re:uh, samples?

[Custard Horse]

It is quite an unfortunate demo. You can hardly make out that it is a giraffe at all..

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the perfect generalized pairing for the iPhone. Come up with anything that is both incredibly useless and indulgent (the latter being key, but the former also being very important), and the iPhone fanboys will love you for it. You can never lose! It's just like the way they use their iPhones in the Apple store... though at least, the Apple store ideas aren't completely useless... just no more useful than ordinary means and yet more indulgent (and add on more confusing, which unlike all the iPhone fanboys, I find the entire iPhone everything to be more confusing... but who listens to me?)

Re:uh, samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one could make the case that this pointless, non-functional project could only have happened on an iPhone: Android phones lack the combination of standard form factor and money-to-burn audience that would make it profitable for someone to market the chunk of aluminum that adapts the iPhone to be used as a camcorder.

And without that chunk of aluminum, the author might never have had the idea of mounting a random selection of lenses on the thing and thinking it might work. He certainly wasn't going to machine the thing himself.

The whole thing reminds me of the "200Gb iPod Nano upgrade" joke from several years ago. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but it combines the worst aspects of its components into something that is both outlandishly expensive and barely works.

Re:uh, samples?

[ZosX]

Oh yeah? What SLR could you possibly buy used for $200? Oh wait. You said SLR and NOT DSLR. Heck you can find old Pentax K1000s for like $50-100 anymore. Old pentax glass is generally kind of on the cheap side too (and they make great glass!) I don't even think you could buy an original rebel DSLR for $200

Re:uh, samples?

[Entropius]

I've seen old-but-not-too-old Olympus E-510's (10MP, image stabilization) for $175-200, and my father sold a Rebel XT kit (8MP) to someone for $225.

Re:uh, samples?

[Rantastic]

It could be done with any phone, but it wasn't, because it's so incredibly useless and indulgent.

No, actually it can't be done with any phone. It doesn't work.

Elsewhere on the same site, the designer says:

While all the part fit to make a decent looking iPhone DSLR, the results of the configuration are completely useless.

How naive I was to think that snapping all these pieces together would just work.

I don't know why this is on Slashdot. The headline might as well read "Neat looking was to disable your iPhone's camera"

Re:uh, samples?

[Coren22]

Hey, its a picture of my mother, you insensitive clod!

Re:uh, samples?

[dunkelfalke]

Canon is not the only DSLR maker you know.
Three years ago I've bought a Sigma SD9 with a 18-50mm/F3.5-5.6 for EUR170 on eBay. It is a DSLR by every definition.

Re:uh, samples?

[commodoresloat]

iPhone 5

iPhone 5?! Where can I get one??

Check stuff left behind in the bars around closing time...

Slashdotted in under 5 minutes....

[phoenixwade]

who'd have thought

DegroundingJackiPhoneOldPhoneSpoon?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you do, vote on which icon to use?

You have a camera in your ear

[countertrolling]

What? I can't hear you!

I said, you have a camera in your ear!

I can't hear you. I gotta a camera in my ear...

Re:You have a camera in your ear

[phoenixwade]

well, I do Admit I can't play Farmville on my D3h.....

Re:You have a camera in your ear

[Anonymous Coward]

Debunking ahead:

Odds are, overwhelmingly, that you don't possess a D3h, considering that such a model does not exist (yet), the last such iteration being the D2h. Which you probably don't possess either, because you wouldn't confuse the name of a 5000$ tool bought years ago (and probably used just about every week since then) with a non-entity.

Aside of this, nice joke. But... did I hit bullseye?

Re:You have a camera in your ear

[Entropius]

If Olympus built cell phones I'd buy one, since all the cell phones I have used suck both at being phones and at being cameras.

Re:You have a camera in your ear

[imakemusic]

Just buy an Olympus digital camera. All the quality of a full digital camera with all the phone-call functionality of an iPhone 4!

*runs*

Trying too hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

The three pictures of the device (pics A thru C) look like blurry garbage. I hope this is by accident and not design.

Re:Trying too hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

The three blurry garbage pictures were taken with the iPhone DSLR Prototype 2.0 - you should have seen the crap from the 1.0 version!

coral cache...

[TheSHAD0W]

http://iphonedslr.com.nyud.net/blog/archives/73fb
 
...But it doesn't seem to be working right either...

CNet has copied some of the pictures

[DWMorse]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10409153-1.html

I'm kinda seconding the general thought everyone else is voicing. Disappointment over the lack of improvement. But I think with some more work, it could be made to do better.

Let's face the facts though - it's taped onto the phone.

Re:CNet has copied some of the pictures

[falzer]

Well, the person in this article made an aluminum mount.

Re:CNet has copied some of the pictures

[DWMorse]

Oohh, I figured it was the same thing. Move along, move along...

Re:CNet has copied some of the pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they bought one. Well, the bought one that has a detachable lens on it. And then bought an adapter for Canon lenses.

Some kind of mega fucking super genius here, man.

Another site... similar idea

[import]

http://cow.mooh.org/2009/12/phone-o-scope-attaching-slr-lenses-to.html

NOT DSLR!!

[LoudMusic]

DSLR does not mean "detachable lens". It means "Digital Single Lens Reflex", or "digital camera that uses a mechanical mirror system and pentaprism to direct light from the lens to an optical viewfinder on the back of the camera".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dslr

In fact, it has nothing to do with detachable lenses. That is a completely different technology, which just happens to be commonly (but not universally) paired with (D)SLR hardware. Nor is the mechanical mirror or pentaprism contained in the lens. The SLR mechanism(s) are in the camera body, which clearly do not exist in the iPhone nor the mount that the phone and lens(es) are attached to.

What this device provides is simply detachable lenses for the iPhone camera system. Detachable lens camera systems have been available for non-SLR cameras for quite some time.

This horribly wrong use of technical terms really should not be showing up on the site that proclaims itself as "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a timothy posting, what can you expect.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[bkgood]

This horribly wrong use of technical terms really should not be showing up on the site that proclaims itself as "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

Have you been living under a rock? Fodder like this has been the vast majority of slashdot for years, it feels. Being about an Apple product just means it got to the front page even quicker.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Luckyo]

Mod parent up. This pretty much summed up my confusion about the article, i.e. "where's the DSLR?".

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[VTI9600]

Good point but the terminology is kind of debatable. After all, the camera is digital and does technically use a single lens rather than separate lenses for the viewfinder and image sensor. So the best term would be "DSL Camera" (dropping the 'R').

All hair-splitting aside, your post is much appreciated, and your mod points well-deserved. The reason I (and I'm sure others) read discussions is to filter out the truth from the BS, so thanks.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Splab]

Also, using the iPhone will cost more than most entry level DSLR, the iPhone wont have auto focus enabled on the lenses - so basically he ends up with something way inferior more expensive, and by the looks of it, way less user friendly.

Also, with my DSLR it's the lenses and flash that weigh me down, both economically and mass, using the iPhone just give me an inferior product, with no benefits.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[S-100]

Absolutely right. I just purchased a Sony NEX-5 which to me is the tipping point of SLR digital camera technology. Sure, a pure DSLR will always have some advantages, but I think these are now superseded by all of the benefits gotten by the new mirror-less APS-C and Micro Four Thirds cameras.

Back to the original post, that looks like very nice industrial design, but doesn't the lens mask or occlude the flash LED? It's also nothing but a joke putting a big lens with a wide objective size in front of the tiny iPhone lens. Probably 90% of the glass is doing nothing. Plus it's attached to automatic-everything firmware. And although that could be upgraded, it doesn't involve the lens at all, except that the big lens is on perpetual manual focus mode, and there's no aperture control at all.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[mwvdlee]

Many large manufacturers of DSLR's, such as Canon and Sony, have started removing the mirrors from their prosumer-level camera's in exchange for sensors that can work in different modes.

It seems to improve autofocus and add (HD)-video features at the cost of the optical viewfinder (and as such, manual focus quality) without affecting photo quality.

From what I understand, taking away the "R" from DSLR is becoming more and more common. At some point a digital viewfinder could have enough resolution as to make no significant difference and the "R" bit will have become redundant.

(I still shoot with the "R" though; need manual focus).

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Mr. Freeman]

"Good point but the terminology is kind of debatable"
No, it's not.

Yes, this camera uses a single lens and yes, it's digital. So does that $20 piece of junk point-and-shoot digital camera that you can buy at walmart. By your logic every single modern day camera is actually a DSLR because they use one lens and are digital.

"A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses a mechanical mirror system and pentaprism to direct light from the lens to an optical viewfinder on the back of the camera."
The iphone does not use a mechanical mirror system and pentaprism and therefore is not a DSLR, period. There's no debate here. It's simply not a DSLR camera.

From the TFA:
"Now by no means would I consider myself a professional photographer. Heck&#8230; I am by would I even consider myself an amateur photographer. The truth is I really know nothing about photography. " Link: http://iphonedslr.com/blog/archives/42fb

By his own admission, he doesn't really know what he's doing or why this is simply a bad idea.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Mr. Freeman]

"so basically he ends up with something way inferior more expensive, and by the looks of it, way less user friendly."

This literally describes every single apple product ever made. This project is perfect for the iphone.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Moghedien]

It seems to improve autofocus

Well, maybe improve accuracy in some cases, but the contrast detection AF of non-DSLRs is usually slower than phase detection AF of DSLRs. The very best CDAF is comparable with PDAF of average DSLRs, and then there are the sports cameras...

Have you tried a modern digital viewfinder? For example the VF of the Olympus EP2. I'd say it has enough resolution to not make a significant difference. It has 100% coverage (of course :-) and 1.15x mag. And for those still life photos you can magnify a portion of the view (up to 10x?) to fine-tune the focus. And best of all, the flange focal distance is small enough to use Leica M-lenses at infinity -- but the 2x "crop factor" may be a curse or a blessing...

Many large manufacturers of DSLR's, such as Canon and Sony, have started removing the mirrors from their prosumer-level camera's in exchange for sensors that can work in different modes.

Well, Canon (and Nikon) are still on the fence. Nikon may (or may not) present a mirrorless system camera at Photokina, Sony has their new NEX-system, then there's Olympus and Panasonic (micro four thirds), and yet another system, Samsung NX. Even Ricoh is jumping on the bandwagon, in their own idiosyncratic way.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliminating the mirror, replacing it with an electronic viewfinder has been common in non-removable lens "bridge" cameras for almost a decade. Its all done in the name of cost cutting as its expensive to construct and align a mirror/pentaprism system; a similar move has occurred with compact cameras, where the optical viewfinder has almost completely vanished and users bob about like Meerkats with their little snappers at arms length, trying to compose a picture in bright sunlight. Opttical viewfinders that compensate for focal length are not compatible with cheap digicameras!

One of the good things with a pure optical path and manual focus is that you can compose images through the viewfinder without having to switch the camera on. If you have a more considered approach to your photography, then this extends battery life. Another is that looking at a scene through a pure digital system isolates your preception of tonal values and true luminance as what you see is already being processed by the intervening electronics. With analogue optics, what you see is what you get!

As far as this HD-video fad goes, its ok when you're using a bridge camera with a crappy 2.7" sensor, but if you're using a high-end full frame sensor Canon like the 7D or 1D Mk IV, then whats wrong with mirror lock-up? Shooting with such a system, you're either going to be tethered or using the rear screen whilst the camera is mounted on a tripod. It'd be unusual if you were using the viewfinder!

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Alef]

By your logic every single modern day camera is actually a DSLR because they use one lens and are digital.

...including the IPhone itself before it was modified.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Entropius]

Snark: the NEX-5 isn't a DSLR either, since it doesn't have a reflex mirror. Doesn't make it suck, though -- not everything has to be a SLR to be a good camera.

Question about it -- I saw pictures of the thing and it looks so darn hard to use. No viewfinder, no real way to hold it, and badly unbalanced if you put any sort of ambitious lens on it. Obviously it takes good images, but how's the actual experience of shooting with it?

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares? it's retarded anyway.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And it uses two lenses... the original iphone lens is still floating about... just to make matters worse.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[thegarbz]

EVIL!

Why make up terminology and debate what really isn't debatable when the correct terminology exists:
"Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lenses" or EVIL, which is the term that has gained huge popularity to describe the Olympus EP-1 and EP-2 and other digital cameras with new optical viewfinders and interchangeable lenses

In reality the terms for the cameras have never described the lens system so you can not simply called it a DSL. For example:
- SLR: (Single lens reflex) Describes a camera with a reflex mirror showing in the view finder through a single lens.
- TLR: (Twin lens reflex) Describes a camera where one lens will render the picture on the screen, and another identical lens which is mechanically coupled to the first for focusing and zooming will display the image in a viewfinder.
- Rangefinder: Where the lens assembly and the viewfinder a completely different systems, often mechanically coupled for zooming.
- Viewcamera: Where the picture is directly projected on a ground glass plate which you look at at the back of the camera, and when you're ready to take the picture you slide the film in place infront of the ground glass.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrorless cameras are a bad idea for professional work. When you keep the sensor on all the time, it heats up and increases the noise. With a proper SLR, the sensor is only turned on when actually shooting.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Anonymous Coward]

iDontCare, it's an iPhone, with a cool looking lens attached! Do you understand? an IPHONE, with a COOL LOOKING LENS attached!

this will revolutionize photography, and make all other cameras obsolete

GUARANTEED!

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[gomoX]

I have to say the CDAF on my Panasonic G1 when using the kit lens feels as fast as the 70-200 f/4L AF on my 40D. This is definitely "fast AF" territory. This is not the case with the other lenses i've tried on the lineup, but it definitely goes to show that it is possible.

And the best thing about CDAF is that it actually gets the damn focus right where it needs to be. Unlike everything else out there. The fact that latest DSLRs have "AF fine tune" settings to deal with the mess that is PDAF attests to this.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[gomoX]

This is just a theoretical problem. Proper cooling takes can take care of this, and as of today is a non-issue on any cameras except on pixel peeping benchmarks.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[S-100]

Snark? Hardly. Read again. My opinion is that cameras like the NEX-5 have the potential to replace DSLRs for the majority of people looking for cameras like that. I never said it WAS an SLR (which it obviously isn't.)

I don't have the camera in hand yet, so I can't comment on handling. As for a viewfinder, there will be one that bolts onto the new proprietary hot shoe on top. That's currently how you attach the flash or an external stereo mic (which bypasses the built-in mics). I've very rarely used the viewfinder in any of my P&S cameras, so I will not miss it.

Yes, the camera is "unbalanced" if you look at it like an SLR. But with a compact pancake lens, it's smaller and better balanced that the typical "superzoom" point-and shoot. With the kit zoom lens (and with legacy 35mm lenses attached via adaptors) it is more like you are handling a lens with a small appendage on the back (which happens to be the camera itself). So if you want it "balanced", just tape on about a pound of lead weights. For me, I'd rather have the package as small and light as possible, and re-adjust my thinking to what a "balanced" package will be. There's no longer a need for a large heavy digital camera, but lenses still have to follow the laws of physics and optics.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[Entropius]

Ah, I see what you're saying now.

I mostly do outdoor wildlife photography, so I like viewfinders -- I can't see the screen in the sunlight. Good that there's at least the option for one on the NEX if you want one.

For small pancake lenses, I agree -- this, or equivalently the Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras, are a good direction for design to go in. But I'd be interested to see how it handles with a 1.5 or 2-pound on the front, though; if your hand on the lens has to bear most of the weight all the time, it seems like it'd be hard to balance the lens, zoom the lens, and fiddle with camera settings without being able to use your hand holding the camera to bear weight.

Re:NOT DSLR!!

[S-100]

Well, I'm used to "unbalanced" on SLRs as well, when I attach my 800mm mirror lens to my old film SLR. To solve the problem, a tripod mount is attached to the lens, not the camera. Same thing works here with mirror-less digital cameras, except they will be more common. I believe the coming 18-200mm E-mount lens from Sony already includes its own tripod mount.

And what puts it over the top for me is that the new E mount lenses also work on Sony's new line of pro-sumer camcorders, which are similarly compact and leave videotape behind forever.

This is an EVIL camera

[Bryansix]

The lens may be borrowed from a DSLR but what it makes is an EVIL camera. EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangable Lens.

Re:This is an EVIL camera

[Dzonatas]

Only if it doesn't have Android.

Re:This is an EVIL camera

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly does seem unholy.

Why?

[OverlordQ]

'Why pair an iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, or iPhone 4 with a DSLR lens?' Why not!"

Because it wouldn't take very good pictures.

not a dslr

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently this guy doesn't know what dslr means.

Tag Cloud

[lemur3]

Seeing the tag cloud reminded me of those sites from the 90s that would put the whole dictionary into the bottom of their page black text on a black background to garner the most hits.

See for yerself:

This entry was posted in iPhone DSLR Prototypes and tagged Canon EF mount, Digital DSLR, DSLR, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3G aluminum housing, iPhone 3G camera, iPhone 3G camera lens, iPhone 3G with DSLR lens, iPhone 3G with SLR lens, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3GS aluminum housing, iPhone 3GS camera, iPhone 3GS camera lens, iPhone 3GS with DSLR lens, iPhone 4, iPhone 4 aluminum housing, iPhone 4 Camera, iPhone 4 camera lens, iPhone 4 with DSLR lens, iPhone aluminum housing, iPhone camera, iPhone camera lens, iPhone Digital DSLR, iPhone DSLR, iPhone DSLR housing, iPhone DSLR Prototype, iPhone Prototype, iPhone with DSLR lens, iPhone with SLR lens.

Desperate for hits much?

Re:Tag Cloud

[CyberDragon777]

Digital DSLR

*facepalm*

The phone killed the GPS

[bugs2squash]

now it will kill the digital camera too

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[CMonk]

It killed the consumer GPS market and it will kill the consumer digicam market too. It hasn't and won't touch pro-sumer let alone pro GPS/camera markets. "Phones" are becoming the jack of all trades, master of none.

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[tagno25]

"Phones" are becoming the jack of all trades, master of none.

Except being phones. And possibly UUMPC.

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[Nadaka]

I hate to brake this to you, but the iPhone is pretty bad at being a UMPC, and it is even worse at being an phone.

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[tagno25]

I was talking smart phones in general.

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

"Phones" are becoming the jack of all trades, master of none.

Except being phones. And possibly UUMPC.

I disagree. I jumped up and down, a lot, on my Motorola phone because it was so crappy at being a phone - the radio stack kept crashing with no indication until you went to make a call or send an SMS and so was missing all incoming calls and SMSs. I went back to my trusty old and reliable Palm Trëo.

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[trapnest]

That's Tr-e-with-macron-o. Posting the word with no accent is more correct than posting with the wrong one.

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[flowwolf]

Not really. I know dozens of people with GPS enabled cell phones and swear by their GPS navigation systems still. They're faster and have greater ease of use then cell phones. The large screen and large type work as well. Single function devices still have a huge place in the market. Navigation systems also don't require a locked in contract and $100 / month bill. Also, phones use assisted GPS.
Most people won't replace their GPS with their phone. It's silly. The same goes for cameras. Phones have had them for a decade now, longer than GPS, and still the new camera models are selling every quarter. Also, phones have been playing mp3's for a decade also, yet no one cares and still buys dedicated music players. Weeeird huh?

Re:The phone killed the GPS

[Entropius]

And since all the phones suck at being both phones and being cameras, I figure it's about time the camera makers made cameras that could also make phone calls.

Pentaprism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the pentaprism (you know, the part that actually makes it an SLR)?

Re:Pentaprism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually many recent DSLRs use a penta-mirror system because it's cheaper. But your point is valid.

Good for gps tagging

[Trieuvan]

Cheap solution if it works . The canon one is over $700.

Re:Good for gps tagging

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The canon one costs over $700 because it has a big-lens. Forget the high sensitivity CMOS sensors and variety of settings and options and modes.

The CMOS sensor is actually one of the most important components of cameras - the better the sensor, the better (less noisy, better color resolutions etc.) you get. And it costs a lot. I have a pretty good pro-sumer camera, and when I use that vs. my friend's DSLR in a controlled setting. The DSLR blew mine away.

Re:Good for gps tagging

[jd2112]

Cheap solution if it works . The canon one is over $700.

The Canon one doesn't require a 2 year AT&T contract + expensive data plan.

Re:Good for gps tagging

[acnicklas]

Or just buy one of these http://www.amazon.com/AGL3080-Logger-Windows-Software-included/dp/B000WO6HJW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1279250061&sr=8-1/ for $50 and tag the photos before you upload them.

Re:Good for gps tagging

[sjwt]

The Canon one also has a 35mm sensor, the bigger the sensor in physical size, the better image quality.
The Canon one has very good processing power behind the sensor.
The Canon one has over 12mp
The Canon one has been designed to focus the image from the lens.
The Canon one has much better ISO range and smarter Automatic settings.
The Canon one can manipulate the aperture and focus of the lens

I would not be surprised to find out that you can get a better result with a magnifying glass taped to the phone.

Cheap version with actual results

[Anonymous Coward]

here:

http://cow.mooh.org/2009/12/phone-o-scope-attaching-slr-lenses-to.html

No mirror, no pentaprism=NOT AN SLR!

[Ellis D. Tripp]

This is just a bigger lens kludged onto an iPhone. Epic fail....

Why does anyone care?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't even an SLR. You can't look directly through the lenses... it's still a point and shoot.

Also, you're still stuck with the shitty image sensor.... it's not like anyone is going to through an APS-C or even 4/3 image sensor in a cell phone any time soon.

Pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if this is the same guy, but I found this article: http://hypebeast.com/2010/07/iphone-4-dslr-lens/

More is better, shoot for the moon

[NicknamesAreStupid]

If you are going to do something like that, then do it all the way -- http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR/Views/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR_FRONT.png .

Re:More is better, shoot for the moon

[Zakabog]

600mm is not all the way, it's just half-way there!

Worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

What a worthless post. As others have said, not only is this NOT a "DSLR" in any way shape or form, it's going to produce shit results. Just easier to take a snapshot with a iPhone and then add gaussian blur or such to get shallow DOF effect. Still, using iphone for anything other than just "I was here" snapshots is a major waste of effort.

ummm

[commodoresloat]

It's not going to take any better pictures than any other camera using that lens. The advantage here is being able to view and edit the photos on the fly using the iphone screen and editing tools. Which is pretty cool, I guess -- personally I'd rather have an actual DSLR (which this is technically not) connected to an iPad so I can see the photos on a big screen and edit at will. But still a cool hack nonetheless.

Crop_factor++;

[Anonymous Coward]

People using DSLRs with crop sensors are already shitting their pants due to focal length multiplication. Seeing how small the iPhone sensor is, what will it turn a 35mm lens into? A tele?!

Re:Crop_factor++;

[CrashandDie]

Well, there is already a lens in front of the iPhone's sensor, so I don't think crop factor due to sensor size comes into play.

The iPhone 4 is supposed to have a 28mm equivalent Field of View. I'm not sure what kind of vignetting this would give on most lenses, but let's assume we put a full-frame lens on it and there is no vignetting, my guess would be that the effective 'crop-factor' would be something around 1.25 (35/28).

Please note I'm really not sure about this, so feel free to correct me.

Timothy, you're an idiot.

[BitZtream]

Moron, SLR requires that it has a few mirrors and some moving parts.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera

And read it, not just look at the pictures. Nothing external to the camera that you can see has anything to do with SLR, its all internal mechanics and not the fact that you can screw on a different lens.

This isn't slashdot: News for idiots by idiots

Its Slashdot: news for nerds.

Timothy, you have never been a nerd for a split second of your life.

Re:Timothy, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Timothy, you have never been a nerd for a split second of your life.

Timothy dreams of being a nerd. Maybe we can get him to sniff some spores and become a geek like that one episode of TOS where Spock did the same thing and started mackin' on that bitch like shit was getting real.

Yeah, I went there.

Re:Timothy, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Timothy, you have never been a nerd for a split second of your life.

No, but he has taken it up the ass...

Re:Timothy, you're an idiot.

[konohitowa]

This isn't slashdot: News for idiots by idiots

The bulk of this site conflicts with your hypothesis. Sadly, I feel like I'm watching a trainwreck -- can't seem to take my eyes off of it.

Where's the pics?

[teslatug]

I think sharks with frickin' lasers attached to their heads have a better chance of functioning than this thing.

Shenanigans

[hkz]

This thing cannot work, unless they remove the iPhone's original lens, of which the article makes no mention. You simply cannot stack lenses like that. Compare it to what you see when you look (with your eye, which is a lens) through the rear of a lens. You see a round patch of light, not a whole view of the world. The iPhone would see the same thing. Also, if you _did_ remove the original lens, you'd end up with an enormous crop factor, turning every SLR lens into a very long tele. Try holding that steady with a mount like this. In short, I call shenanigans, get the brooms!

Re:Shenanigans

[Zerth]

Really? Oh wait, there's these photos... He does seem to be getting some chromatic aberration, though.

I've done a similar thing with the large front lens from a set of binoculars on my camera as a $15 macro lens.

Works decent enough, but since I picked cheap binocs, the lens was attached to the front tube instead of being separate, so the edge shows a bit if I'm zoomed all the way out. I could saw it down but the eyepiece cap fits perfectly over the open end.

Re:Shenanigans

[Moghedien]

You simply cannot stack lenses like that.

Well yes, you can: It's called afocal photography.

Re:Shenanigans

[hkz]

Yes. Those are photos of a defocused patch of light. My original statement still stands. The only way this would work is by taking pictures through an SLR viewfinder, which has, you know, a ground glass on which the projected image forms. You cannot otherwise stack two photographic lenses.

Re:Shenanigans

[Zerth]

Clearly you have never googled "stack lenses" or seen a lens coupling adapter or seen this guy's rig.

You just need find a set of lenses that reduces the chromatic aberration but still has a decent plane of focus. Lots of people have done crystal clear shots.

If stacking lenses doesn't work, then ophthalmologists have some explaining to do:)

You are all a bunch of jerks

[grandmasterlee]

For the most part. His article clearly states even in the /. snippet "PAIRING an iphone with a DSLR lens." It doesn't say it turns the iphone into a SLR camera, and iphonedslr.com is a lot easier than iphonewithadslrlensbutnoprismpleasedontcrucifyme.com. That said, I would think the addition of good optical zoom would be a boon for the iphone camera, as it would be for any non-SLR camera. It doesn't need to do your laundry while filing your taxes and walk the dog, it just needs to add something. The poster seems good natured and doesn't deserve such vitriol. And I don't know who the hell he is or even own an iphone as a disclaimer.

Re:You are all a bunch of jerks

[The Living Fractal]

"iPhone DSLR Prototype 1.0"
"iPhone DSLR"

Sounds to me like he's calling it a DSLR in the summary. Since most Slashdotters these days don't RTFA, I'd say that's your real problem here (they don't RTFA). And yeah, the summary is weak.

Re:You are all a bunch of jerks

[Anonymous Coward]

in the sentence IMMEDIATELY prior to that he says "This is my first attempt at putting together an iPhone DSLR."

so I submit that YOU are the jerk, you jerk, and HE is an idiot.

Newegg OWLE

[Loconut1389]

Done before, better:
http://www.wantowle.com/

Available at thinkgeek:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/portable-audio-video/cd04/

and a review:
http://gizmodo.com/5309119/owle-iphone-3gs-video-mount-is-about-as-practical-as-an-iphone-3gs-video-mount-can-be

Re:Newegg OWLE

[Vegeta99]

LOL I'd like to mod you down, but this is DNRTFA syndrome real bad here, go click the damn link, dude, and take one look at the pictures. You dont even have to RTFA!

Big lens != SLR

[TyFighter]

I highly doubt an iPhone has the capacity to hold a Single-lens Reflex mechanical action, nor has anyone every designed one. Do people even know what SLR means?

new producut

[Anonymous Coward]

when will the idea put into market. chi flat iron , chi hair strighteners
chi hair straighteners , chi flat iron
chi nano ceramic flat iron , chi nano ceramic flat iron
[url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi hair straighteners[/url] chi hair straighteners [url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi flat iron[/url] chi flat iron

Pictures, or it didn't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Put that together with a DSLR lens, and you’ve got a device that can shoot amazing images/video with SLR lenses

Seriously - after claiming you get amazing images or videos, why don't you show us some of them? I suspect they were bad (assuming the pictures are authentic). And no, 5 megapixels doesn't mean you get fantastic pictures. A lot more goes into amazing photographs than just megapixels.

What part did he actually make?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this guy takes an iPhone and an OWLE and, what?

He mentions adapters for lenses, but that's not even needed for the Canon lens he's using.

The only thing he's actually created is an utterly incorrect definition of DSLR.

I'm very skeptical......

[CapeDoryBob]

Where are the pictures taken with this monstrosity?

Maybe there are none.

DSLR's are superior because, among other things, their sensors are larger, Over 1 sq cm. The lenses are built to provide images that cover that area. How does this adapter funnel that light into the little iPhone lens? Some fancy optics?

Unobtainium has interesting optical properties!

Re:I'm very skeptical......

[epp_b]

DSLR's are superior because, among other things, their sensors are larger, Over 1 sq cm. The lenses are built to provide images that cover that area. How does this adapter funnel that light into the little iPhone lens? Some fancy optics?

No "funnel" or "fancy optics" are necessary, assuming that the lens mount is fitted in such a way that it focuses correctly to the image plane through the iPhone's lens. You can use a regular SLR lens with a smaller sensor, but it's going to be an extremely long focal length (ie.: 50mm will become something like 250mm or so).

Re:I'm very skeptical......

[epp_b]

(ie.: 50mm will become something like 250mm or so).

"become equivalent to" is what I meant to say.

This is basically pointless (and wrong)

[epp_b]

"SLR" is the abbreviation of "Single Lens Reflex"; it's defined by a camera having a reflex mirror (go figure, huh?); the ability to change lenses has nothing to do with this definition.

With that out of the way, I feel compelled to point out that this adds a very small amount of functionality for the bulk. As any photographer knows, no phone will be able to work with depth of field because the sensor is too small. All you're getting is the ability to change focal lengths instead of walking 10 feet.

Re:This is basically pointless (and wrong)

[harley78]

acronym, it's an acronym.

Re:This is basically pointless (and wrong)

[flowwolf]

Acronyms are words made out of initials. You can't pronounce SLR; Thus it is, in fact, an initialism.

NOT an SLR

[M0b1u5]

IAMANOTA camera buff, but even *I* know that is *NOT* an SLR.

SLR refers to the mechanism which allows yo to view the actual image which will be taken by the camera without any paralax effects.

Plus this is a shitty thing to do in the first place. Why would anyone want to spend a lot of money to take crappy photos with a crappy phone attached to a humungous lens?

Re:NOT an SLR

[qzulla]

Maybe he is making up for lackings in other departments?

qz

Re:Is a SLR, yes it is.

[harley78]

No, it's not a SLR. It might be single lens(well now, dual); but no reflexes.

SLR???

[Hamsterdan]

As in *S*ingle *L*ens *R*eflex?

This is not a SLR.

This is no better than crappy point-and-shoot cameras with removable lenses. Even a low-end DSLR (such as the Canon Rebel) has a much bigger (and better) sensor, not counting the Reflex parts ...

I did something similar

[Anonymous Coward]

I did something similar once:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/171412-getting-most-my-camera.html

Re:Is a SLR, yes it is.

[sjwt]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and very wrong.

That is what is called an 'Lens'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_lens

And he has attached the 'Lens' to a 'camera phone'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone

an SLR is a camera that has various mechanical moving parts, that allow you to split the same light that will be hitting the film or sensor, so that you can see this with your own eye, and then the millisecond you hit the shutter button, the Reflex mirror, jumps out of the way, and the shot is taken with almost the exact same light you where seeing that was sent to your eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera

This is just a phone that might as well be taped to a large magnifying glass, there are no SLR parts in the lens of a SLR camera.

It's just an expensive close-up lens

[Anonymous Coward]

Put a prime lens in front of another prime lens, and you lose the ability to focus to infinity. Great if you want a close-up of a ladybug, useless if you want a picture of someone standing twenty feet away.

-j

LOL

[p51d007]

Anyone that owns an SLR or DSLR will tell you that you can put the biggest piece of fast glass on a crappy tiny sensor and you will get a big photo of what happens when you put a big piece of fast glass on a crappy tiny sensor.

Re:LOL

[Entropius]

Think you're trolling, because there are no SLR's or DSLR's with "crappy tiny sensors" around. Their sensors are all pretty close to the same size. There were two DSLR's with non-interchangeable lenses with crop factor 4 a lonnnng time ago, but I don't think you mean those.

The sensor sizes on modern DSLR's are no smaller than half the diagonal of 35mm film, and that sensor size (the Four Thirds format) is perfectly adequate to make great images. All the other sensors are bigger.

The only camera I know of with a particularly bad sensor was one of the Sony models (not sure which one), and it wasn't so bad -- maybe 2/3-1 stop worse at high ISO than it should be given its size.

Actually, it turns out you can put a nice sharp lens on a non-crappy tiny sensor and make beautiful large prints. Panasonic made a business of doing this for a long time, and I have beautiful 16x20" prints from a crop factor 5 camera (the Panasonic FZ50). The Panasonic LX3 is even better, since it has a less-ambitious lens on it (24-60 f/2-2.8 rather than 35-420 f/2.8-3.7 equivalent). but Yes, I'm picky. They're not quite as sharp as my SLR, but they're pretty darn good. I'd put them up against results from a Canon kit lens any day (and have, and they're sharper).

Duh

[davmoo]

I'll skip leaving a "this is not a DSLR" comment because that has already been covered.

While its interesting from the "can this be done?" standpoint, I see absolutely no practical reason for doing this. He's basically taking a point and shoot cellphone camera and putting another lens on it, and it gains nothing useful by doing so. The device is no longer pocketable, and the pictures certainly won't be as good as the DSLR the lens came from could produce. If you're going to lug something around that you can't stick in a pocket anyway, why not just lug around a good DSLR.

This is definitely something only a iPhone fanboy could get excited about.

Re:Duh

[Mushdot]

Exactly, he may as well glue his iPhone to a DSLR. As well as getting much better quality images he will probably not suffer reception loss by holding his iPhone 'incorrectly'.

It would be cool if he had managed to link his phone (I'll use a generic term here) directly to the memory card slot of a DSLR, so taking a picture would go straight to the phone memory. Or alternatively use wireless transmission from the camera to automatically send the pic to his phone and from there upload it to his blog/facebook page. In fact, there's a challenge for you Android coders!

Does the lens match the CCD?

[deboli]

DSLR Lenses are designed for relatively large CCDs (up to 24 x 36mm for full frame cameras). The iPhone has a tiny CCD and needs a much shorter focal length to give you a normal field of view.

You would need an super wide angle lens to achieve normal viewing angles with this device. Any normal DSLR lens would just give you a super telephoto lens. This is already the case for consumer grade DSLRs where you often have a conversion factor of 1.6 or 1.5: A 50mm (normal) lens takes photos as a 75mm (light tele) on a 35mm film camera.

The smaller CCD effectively crops your image. This is cool if you're into wild-life photography and very cool as the image only sues the centre part of the image circle of the lens (for lenses that work with both half and full-frame cameras) because every lens degrades close to the edge of the field of view. However, if you need a 20mm wide angle lens you have to get a very expensive 14mm lens for the same effect.

Re:Does the lens match the CCD?

[Khyber]

It honestly gets even more complex than that.

I've had issues even acquiring images under a 100x magnification lens with 200x the amount of photon flux. I'm talking about having replaced the crap incandescent filament bulb with LED and we still have problems even with the diodes being configured to output maximum luminous flux.

It's just a problem involving optical physics. Maybe when we get the lenses lined with a silver compound, we can get better resolution images.

Why not?

[Khyber]

I could give several reasons why not to convert your iPhone into a DSLR.

First reason - the iPhone camera has always sucked. I've had better quality from a parallel-port Logitech from the early 90s.

Second - no lens mount.

Third - no flash or ring-mounted flash? NO FLASH PERIOD BY ANY NAME?

Fuck you.

That's not DSLR

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's great. A bunch of guys that don't even know what DSLR means, will build an iPhone DSLR.
From Wikipedia:

"A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses a mechanical mirror system and pentaprism to direct light from the lens to an optical viewfinder on the back of the camera."

I could also build a pair of eyeglasses with DSLR mounts, but that wouldn't make me the Human DSLR Prototype. Well, unless I put a mirror system or pentaprism in my head.

Poor choice in lens

[tsangc]

Apart from the fact the focal plane distance and distortion due to other lens elements in the existing iPhone lens package screw up this idea...the builder also picked a Canon EF lens, which by default, unpowered is left at full aperture. Canon EF lenses stop down on command through the serial port in the EF interface. If this guy had actually managed to interface the EF mount electronically to the iPhone's camera subsystem...well, that would be pretty cool.

A better choice would have been to use an older Nikon (or M42, or K-mount) which has a manual aperture ring on the rear.

My guess is this setup would yield very narrow field of view (due to the smaller sensor and longer focal length), a fair amount of distortion and probably a lack of infinity focus (due to the distance extended from the existing lens groups--I would assume this is like using an extension tube).

Quoting The Not So Fine Blog...

[denzacar]

Quoting The Not So Fine Blog...

I created this blog to document the steps I'm taking in making an iPhone DSLR.
The honest truth is, I really dont know anything about DSLRs aside from the fact that you press the button and it snaps the picture.
So whether the feat is actually possible or not, I'm in to to find out.

Also:

Now by no means would I consider myself a professional photographer.
Heck... I am by would I even consider myself an amateur photographer.
The truth is I really know nothing about photography.
Before starting this endeavor the most I knew about cameras was that you push the button and it takes a picture.

Re:Quoting The Not So Fine Blog...

[SynthaxError]

Heck... I am by would I even consider myself an amateur photographer. The truth is I really know nothing about photography

Well you just have to look at the blurry picture of his "iPhone DSLR" to know that this guy has ever heard of a depth of field. Plus, this has absolutely nothing like a DSLR camera...

Re:Is a SLR, yes it is.

[Entropius]

"Dual lens reflex" means something different -- some old cameras have two identical lenses mounted near each other. You look through one and shoot through the other, with no movable flippy-mirror.

Machine a bracket? HAH!

[denzacar]

He just bought the ready-made parts and put them together.

http://iphonedslr.com/blog/archives/14fb

DSLR Lens Mount
Posted on June 28, 2010 by Jeremy Salvador

Canon Extension Tube
        Canon Extension Tube

I have Canon EF lenses and have been looking for a mount so the iPhone DSLR can easily interchange the lenses. So far all the products I've looked at are fairly expensive (in the $100-$200) range.
  Then I stumbled upon the Canon Extension Tube. ($8.78) from SunTek.

This tube ring mount is generally used for macro shots and can fit all Canon EOS DSLR / SLR Camera EF lenses.

The Package Includes:

Canon Lens Mount Adapter Ring
        Canon Lens Mount Adapter Ring

  (1) Camera body mount adapter
  (1) 9mm tube (Tube 1)
  (1) 16mm tube (Tube 2)
  (1) 30mm tube (Tube 3)
  and most importantly! (1) Lens mount adapter

The Canon EF Lens Mount Adapter will allow lenses to be easily interchanged from the iPhone DSLR.
Now to figure out how to attach this thing to the iPhone.

And here is how - you buy an Owle:

http://iphonedslr.com/blog/archives/33fb

Owle Bubo
Posted on July 6, 2010 by Jeremy Salvador
The Owle Bubo is one of the most impressive iPhone accessories I've ever seen and I think it's going to be perfect as a housing for my iPhone DSLR. It's a camera mount that brings the best features of a camcorder to the iPhone 3GS: stability, optics, microphones and tripods!

The Owle Bubo is made of a solid piece of anodized billet aluminum making it extremely durable and virtually indestructible. This full aluminum frame gives the housing a good 1.1 lbs in weight giving the housing just enough weight to make keep the device steady. The two handle grips make it a real breeze to carry. Also the Owle provides 4 x 1/4-20 female threaded mounting holes so you can actually screw this thing into a standard tripod.

The Owle Bubo comes standard with 37mm lens threading, as well as a 0.45x wide angle/ macro lens combination. This is a real piece of optics, delivering stunning images with better color saturation, contrast and sharpness than is possible with the iPhone's camera alone. The wide angle lens accepts 49mm screw in filters. So with a 49mm-58mm step up ring, I'll be able to attach the Canon Lens Mount Adapter Ring to this housing.

Hopefully, Jeremy is something like 9 or 10.
Cause, a "grown person" doing something like this and calling it a "prototype" is like "creating" a portable laser printer by getting a really long power cord and some straps on ebay.

How this could

[toxygen01]

make it to slashdot?

pasting from the site:

I created this blog to document the steps I'm taking in making an iPhone DSLR. The honest truth is, I really dont know anything about DSLRs aside from the fact that you press the button and it snaps the picture. So whether the feat is actually possible or not, I'm in to to find out.

In my world...

[DickeyP]

..."cool" remains a very subjective term.

WTF

[nicknamesarefunny]

Just because it is an iPhone doesnt mean anything you do with it is cool.
Attaching a DSLR to an iPhone is pure stupid, just a way to attract attention to his insane project.
And this is not even DSLR!!!!!!!!!

Re:Is a SLR, yes it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've spoilt the surprise 'iPhone DSLR with Macro!' story that was coming next!

Re:iPhone rules!

[dwinks616]

Quite possibly, but at least I can take a cock in the ass while having reception on my phone! That's much better than taking a cock in the ass like iDiot iPhone users do while having no reception (unless they hold their phones with toaster tongs).

Nitpicks

[RichiH]

While the project is probably fun for anon, this setup misses pretty much all advantages of DLSR. To mention a few:

* Autofocus in most lenses
* Measuring focus before, on and after the plane of the sensor, making for even faster focus calculations
* Cleaner exposure with less movement artefacts due to mechanical shutter
* Less noise in the pictures because the sensor is not needed for viewfinding and thus does not heat up
* Large image sensor

And prolly a dozen I forgot about. You may now return to normal /. mode and continue discussing details without reading the article :p

Comment from TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

58 Responses to iPhone DSLR Prototype 1.0

Older Comments

Kyle says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Stop wasting our time, retard apple fanboy.

That rube goldberg contraption does not work

[hviniciusg]

From another post from the author:

"How naive I was to think that snapping all these pieces together would just work. I’m beginning to realize this is getting way over my head. More research is necessary to determine solutions to these problems."

http://iphonedslr.com/blog/archives/62fb

Just shoot me

[linuxguy]

Timothy the Slashdot Editor> Prototype or not, it's a cool project.

A jet engine on a lawn mower does not make an F-16 fighter. Yes this is project is that stupid!

Went Viral Before It Was Ready

[A440Hz]

Scary that this dude is getting his Warhol 15 minutes at the wrong point in the project. Too bad.

The price will rise

[notony]

iPhone's model is big enough ,still add accessories. hui@dingshengtrade.com chi flat iron , chi hair strighteners
chi hair straighteners , chi flat iron
chi nano ceramic flat iron , chi nano ceramic flat iron
[url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi hair straighteners[/url] chi hair straighteners [url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi flat iron[/url] chi flat iron

Re:Is a SLR, yes it is.

[AnAdventurer]

"reflex" definition clearly needs to be updated. "Lens" is not an actual reference to the number of lenses. If you take apart an "lens" you will find up in the hundreds of smaller lenses.

At this point is seems to be an argument over semantics and SLR definition.

Even though I got moded underrated, I win; as I have have photographs taken with and SLR published in national publications and work as a professional photographer.