I care quite a bit about photography, even the comparatively limited kind you can get from most smartphones and wondered why Sorrel would slam one of the few options we have for vastly improving iPhone photography. First of all, iPhone 5S photography is pretty damn good. Not SLR-good, mind you, but good enough that virtually any photo you view on another iPhone or larger-screen iPad is going to look pretty sharp (prints look good, too, but who prints anything anymore?). There are, naturally, unavoidable limitations that come with a tiny auto-focus-only lens, some of which I can partially ameliorate with a decent lens accessory, just the kind that Sorrel seems to dismiss. Choosing the right camera Sorrel is right. The iPhone is a point-and-shoot replacement and it will never be equivalent to the best photography has to offer. People like me (and probably him), who have been taking pictures since before we could shave our whole face and can still remember the smell of fixer (part of the old analog development process), also own higher-end DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with big, interchangeable lenses. Those are great for when, say, we want to get the beauty shot or when we want a big enough lens (200mm will do) to get an up-close photo of a rarely seen snowy owl. Charlie, though, is just plain wrong about iPhone photo accessories. I have taken some of my favorite shots with my collection of Olloclip lenses (most of which I have reviewed). I love, for instance that that little, barrel-shaped telephoto lens gets me twice as close as the iPhone. You have no idea what a difference that can make. There is, obviously, always the option of using the iPhone's built-in zoom, but then you're choosing the ultimately image-destroying digital zoom as opposed to the consistently superior optical zoom.