Are theses lenses scams? I imagine the IQ would be shit for a

>>3007646
the iq on modified iphone lenses is always shit

>phone with interchangeble lenses
Would it kill the mirrorless market?

There are nice lenses, built by the likes of Schneider and a few others, but they're relatively expensive, to the point where you start to wonder what the point even is. You can spend $300 on a complement of lenses and they're still attached to your iPhone.

>>3007646
>flash on

>>3007662
the point is to make money from rich idiots
the optical quality of those lenses is always severely limited by the shit front element on the iphone and all the abuse it receives, and the low precision inherent in any surface mount. in the last generation of phones you even got dust accumulating on the back of the lens element.

>>3007674

>rich idiots

I believe you mean idiots.

>>3007646
they didn't even manage to make a decent picture for the ad of the product, let alone a high precision lens.

The ones that are a set of 5 or so are sort of interesting. The macro lenses are really useful for shooting shit point blank, like lens touching, and most of the time they'll still focus on the usual distances anyway.
The x2 converters seem like they might have some functionality, but mostly they are just a removable component of the macro.
There's something to be said for the ultrawides too.
IQ isn't great, but I doubt most phones would make that very apparent... except to /p/s pixelpeeperfags.
The 10x... i don't know, but I imagine it would be chromabs and smudges all the way.
I imagine it'd be more useful to use one of the 0.65x macro-intermediate lenses to adjust the effective flange distance disparity and shove a 110 lens in front.

>rich
Do you even ebay bro?
The two sets I got cost like $15 total.

>>3007646
Are you fucking retarded?
Yes, they're a scam.

>>3007646
What a shit photoshop lol

>>3007646
Funny to me how after all this time and even after the "mirrorless revolution", the D-SLR is still considered a benchmark camera. So much so that phone companies etc. keep having to mention "D-SLR like quality" to people who don't realize that the image quality is because of the sensor, not the size or necessarily price of the body it's in.

>>3007646
Oh for christ sake, BUY a fucking camera.

>>3007646
YEs

File: scam vs reality.jpg (133KB, 994x500px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 994x500px

>>3007646

>>3009120
Spot on!

Might as well get a point and shoot for the same price, it would be a better camera and would be just as cumbersome as carrying a bunch of miniature lenses in your pocket.

>>3007782
15? hold up, I need to eat this week too muchy

>>3007646
lol, top of the mountain in the background is transparent, quality chinese workmanship right here

>>3007654
It's like with gaming headsets. If you buy a 2in1 you normally get two very crappy halves.
Also, there's the Olympus and Sony attempts to make a minimalist mirrorless camera that uses your smartphone as a control.
It never works out

>>3009883

>minimalist mirrorless camera with smartphone as a control

They are actually kinda neat.

But they are still quite bulky, the wireless connection devours batteries, and controlling a damera through a touchscreen sucks.

Still, they make a grwat edc camera that sits in the bottom of your bag.

If you could take the QX1, keep it a similar size, add a few controls and a pop-up evf like the RX100 and you'd be onto something interesting.