Brando Telescope makes iPhone 3G photos 6x worse

We've seen these zoom lens add-ons before. Now Brando's slapped together this 6x "Telescope" for the iPhone 3G -- a phone not exactly revered for its image quality. Just snap the unit to the back of the iPhone 3G and get to work. How good is it? About as bad as the $19 worth of optics within. Seriously, 19 bucks and available now.

[Fernando Marques @ Aug 18th 2008 6:44AM]

Really ? Have you noticed that the iPhone take much better pictures than some "5 MP" that appear in the market ???

[Nick K. @ Aug 18th 2008 6:52AM]

Damnit, don't -encourage- them. As a proud owner of a fair amount of Apple products, ranging from my MacBook, iPhone, to A/V Cables, even I would have to say that Engadget posts too many Apple stories.

Just because Engadget have turned into Apple fanboys, doesn't mean they're SUPPOSED to be Apple fanboys. Let them criticize.

[Rich @ Aug 18th 2008 6:52AM]

Which ones? Got any comparisons you can link to?

The iPhone's camera is laughable compared to something like the N82. Especially in low light conditions.

[Paris @ Aug 18th 2008 7:16AM]

Very few phones can take good pictures in low light conditions and the iphone is not one of them.

[TMM @ Aug 18th 2008 8:54AM]

The iPhones camera is good enough and fits the overall design nice.

A larger camera would make it more expensive, bigger and heavier, which then would be another thing the Nokia - or insert anything else here - community would troll about in every single opportunity possible.

The iPhone is about usability.

And, oh, what marvel, that is the reason why the iPhone is the most used camera phone on Flickr, and not the N-series phones, which do have much better cameras, but suck at usability.

Choose whatever you like ...

[Rich @ Aug 18th 2008 9:15AM]

Of course the iPhone is top of the Flickr rankings. Flickr is predominately a North American-centric website - exactly the same market where its nigh impossible to buy most of the high-end cameraphones.

[tyler @ Aug 18th 2008 9:20AM]

Sorry. I own one, and as many other (non-brainwashed) owners can attest to, the camera is not that good.

[tyler @ Aug 18th 2008 9:37AM]

Sorry. But, as many non-brainwashed owners can attest to, the iPhone camera is not good.

[Quad @ Aug 18th 2008 10:33AM]

After having using an iPhone and playing with the camera, it's only a camera phone in the end. Megapixels doesn't matter in the digital camera world, hell the Nikon D2h (4MP) takes better photos than an iPhone. Your brainwashed mind has fallen to the emperors of Apple's marketing. Trying not to be biased since I own a MBP myself (8525 owner), nothing wrong with the products, just the people.

Also the iPhone is most used on flickr because MANY PEOPLE HAVE THE DAMN IPHONE! and too lazy to setup FTP. Usability is the same as every camera phone out there, open program then take picture (old technology?). I'll stick to my Canon 850 IS for a camera and D200 for serious photography.

[Jack Storm @ Aug 18th 2008 12:25PM]

Maybe the pics look good because of the resolution of the actual iPhone screen, but then print those pics and then compare them and im sure some others would look alot better.

[Katarn @ Aug 18th 2008 12:46PM]

@Quad: No, it's not the same as every one out there. You take a picture and then use the iPhone's superior usability to upload the picture straight to Flickr.

[Alex @ Aug 18th 2008 2:12PM]

LOLOL, that has to win the overstatement award of the year. NO PHONE WILL SURPASS THE IMAGE QUALITY OF THE WORST CAMERA ON THE MARKET. That's a fact. Mechanisms, processing, etc. is all different.

[boss-hogg @ Aug 18th 2008 10:39PM]

a must have for every Iphone user; just like those large plastic cases that make the iphone larger and ugly.

[Phoenix @ Aug 18th 2008 6:55AM]

Engadget, I tipped you off about this like a year ago, the only difference being the plastic case was shaped for the 1st gen iPhone.

Gee, thanks.

[Shiva N Singh @ Aug 18th 2008 8:31AM]

Ha! Sucks to be you!

[James @ Aug 18th 2008 8:39AM]

Sorry, un-related, but Phoenix, can you un-block me on skype so I can send you my console concepts.

[fanman @ Aug 18th 2008 2:08PM]

This has been on the w810i for years. Why is that this £60 phone (with a better camera) does not get the same coverage?

[Hellios @ Aug 18th 2008 6:55AM]

I'd buy this as a gag gift for my friends, if anyone had an iPhone of course.

[j_g_puff @ Aug 18th 2008 7:32AM]

Is that $19 worth of plastic crap in your pocket...or are you just thinking about Steve Jobs again?

[PeteC @ Aug 18th 2008 7:03AM]

Wow, way to screw up a nice form factor!

Having to carry around something that size only to get an iPhone qaulity photo out at the end without any decent processing options/features seriously brings into question, why not just carry a compact with a decent zoom around instead!

[Nytrojen @ Aug 18th 2008 7:07AM]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Pastry Chef @ Aug 18th 2008 7:25AM]

My iPhone 3G takes much better pictures than my Tilt ever did even though the Tilt has a 3MP camera. It's not always about mega-pixels.

[Jeff McNabb @ Aug 19th 2008 3:06PM]

I agree. My previous Nokia had a 5MP but looked rather pitiful without color correction and sharpening. While the iPhone doesn't have many megapixels, it does work quite well as far as most camera phones go that I've used. (p.s. see my post about this Brando product on page two of this article for sample photos).

[Ford Mustang @ Aug 19th 2008 3:55PM]

RE: My iPhone 3G takes much better pictures than my Tilt ever did even though the Tilt has a 3MP camera. It's not always about mega-pixels.

Actually it's rarely ever about megapixels. Too many people fall for the "more megapixels means better pictures" fallacy. In reality more megapixels just means more pixels, nothing more. My 6 megapixel D40 takes pictures a million times better than 99% of the 10+ megapixel point and shoot cameras out there. You could literally have a camera phone with 25 megapixels and it would never take as good of a picture as a 4 megapixel point and shoot just for the fact that the pns has a larger better lense.

[Kookr @ Aug 18th 2008 7:46AM]

Is that a 3g iphone lens in your pocket or are you happy to see me!

[Raheem @ Aug 18th 2008 8:05AM]

Freudian much?

[Raheem @ Aug 18th 2008 4:55PM]

I demand an explanation to the low rank. If no valid reason, low ranks becoming synonymous with l33t.

[Zinger314 @ Aug 18th 2008 7:56AM]

The pedophiles will have a field day with this.

[ipubs bastard child @ Aug 18th 2008 9:49AM]

Because up until now they've not had any access to cameras with large lenses..

[Adam @ Aug 18th 2008 10:36AM]

this being the definition of subtle as well... try taking that to a playground in your pocket.

[Jeff @ Aug 18th 2008 3:02PM]

@adam - was that a dangling participle?

i wouldn't even know how to get to "the playground in your pocket."

:)

[munscher @ Aug 18th 2008 8:00AM]

What case is that on the iPhone 3g? Is that the Naked Case?

[Magnificen7 @ Aug 18th 2008 9:09AM]

That is the case that comes with the... uh... 'lens' to allow the device to dock with the iPhone camera.

[Richard @ Aug 18th 2008 8:40AM]

Im surprised no one has mad a mobile camera dock for the iPhone yet, add in a decent 5MP CCD and a Xenon flash with its own battery and use the iPhone screen as the interface.

[y3k.nik @ Aug 18th 2008 8:48AM]

And why is that better than just getting a $100 digital camera?

[Chris Dunning @ Aug 18th 2008 11:04AM]

y3k.nik: I can think of a number of reasons.

1. Not many cameras have as large a screen as the iphone or ipod touch.
2. Wifi, 3G, GPS are all included in the iphone. Things that very few, none, and very few (respectively) stand alone cameras have. Wifi and 3G allow for great uploading experiences for thing like flickr and such. GPS would allow for geo tagging.
3. Potentially customizable user interface on a touchscreen. There are so many things that could be done with a revamped camera software for the iPhone. Smart face recognition is nice, but so many cameras recognize every face in a picture and bring them all into focus. If you could just touch the faces you want in focus, you could get some really nice shots with DOF to them. Otherwise many $100 cameras just give you infinite focus, which actually sacrifices some of the resolution for a more general focus.
4. One device in your pocket instead of two.
5. If it could swivel, we may finally have a front facing camera to do video chatting/conferencing.
6. We need someone to start using the iPhone/iPod touch dock connector for feature extension rather then just docking.
7. What 99% of gadgets come down to: Bragging Rights.

[z3r0D @ Aug 18th 2008 1:03PM]

It'd be convenient taking the picture, but it'd still look like shit compared to an actual point and shoot

[Jack Storm @ Aug 18th 2008 8:44PM]

lmao @ chris and so much typical fail.

bragging rights? with a phone with and 'ok' cam that so many people have... riiiiight try bragging.

[Greg Combs @ Aug 18th 2008 10:26AM]

"Is that an iPhone telescope in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

Engrish warning:
http://mobile.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?prod_id=03534

Overcome the short coming of camera cellphone that can only near-sighted, it also makes distant view for you at the moment.

The new design to run of rays can effectively avoid the contortion of image, and makes the super wide angle, the larger luminous flux, the higher visual acuteness, good for color reduction, which makes the high quality of photography.

[The Beef Machine (lala lala la) @ Aug 18th 2008 10:28AM]

Introducing the iSore!!

[Richard @ Aug 18th 2008 11:00AM]

The sad thing is, that's not even $19 worth of optics. They are making a profit so it could really be worth $5 or so.

But, people will buy it.

[crackp1pe @ Aug 18th 2008 11:02AM]

I'm not sure why everyone is hating so much on this. To have a little thing you can throw in your pocket or wife's purse in case you want to take a few pictures with some zoom on a 3g isn't that stupid. Sure there are far better cameras out there, but the simplicity of snapping pictures and instantly emailing them to people is a nice feature and most of the time it's not about quality, it's about capturing the moment. We have several excellent cameras at my house, but very often end up taking pictures of our 6 month old using an iPhone 3g, mainly because the phone is always with us, it's charged, and we can immediately send it to family. I can see us using something like this on occasion, and the $19 price is about right. Just like my Canon XSi and SD630 each have their place, so does this.

I will say though that Richard's idea of a snap-on camera for the iPhone 3g that can leverage all of the features of the phone (instant email, geotagging) while taking actual quality shots would be far better, but of course far more expensive.

[Lediur @ Aug 18th 2008 11:18AM]

Is it just me or does Brawndo spring immediately to mind?

[John from Buffalo @ Aug 18th 2008 11:23AM]

The Creep Scope.

[Das Boot @ Aug 18th 2008 11:36AM]

I preferred to be called socially challanged than creep. So what if I like to watch, don't you?

[booticon @ Aug 18th 2008 11:33AM]

I don't know why everybody's ragging on the iPhone camera. Sure, it's only 2MP, but it takes surprisingly good outdoor shots. I do plan on getting a cheap point and shoot, but goddamn if it isn't convenient.

Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/booticon/2745340916/

[Meus @ Aug 18th 2008 12:37PM]

This just made my life so much easier taking those candid snapshots on the subway. Thank you Brando!

[Kuruption84 @ Aug 18th 2008 1:28PM]

The iphone has the best camera for a phone that I've ever had, but that's not saying much, my previous phone was a Moto Q. I'll stick with my cybershot either way.

[Harold J. Johnson @ Aug 18th 2008 1:30PM]

These Brando telescope lenses: are they any good? It's clear the OP isn't fond of them, at least not as used with the iPhone 3G. I've never heard of Brando before; anyone recommend them? Or a similar brand? I'd like a telescope I could attach to a Gmini 402 camcorder.

[meist3r @ Aug 18th 2008 1:58PM]

Arrr, land ahoy captain.