BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the technical feasibility of a consumer-grade cellular iPhone camera as an ocular imaging device compared to existing ophthalmic imaging equipment for documentation purposes. METHODS: A comparison of iPhone 4s and 5s images was made with external facial images (macrophotography) using Nikon cameras, slit-lamp images (microphotography) using Zeiss photo slit-lamp camera, and fundus images (fundus photography) using RetCam II. RESULTS: In an analysis of six consecutive patients with ophthalmic conditions, both iPhones achieved documentation of external findings (macrophotography) using standard camera modality, tap to focus, and built-in flash. Both iPhones achieved documentation of anterior segment findings (microphotography) during slit-lamp examination through oculars. Both iPhones achieved fundus imaging using standard video modality with continuous iPhone illumination through an ophthalmic lens. Comparison to standard ophthalmic cameras, macrophotography and microphotography were excellent. In comparison to RetCam fundus photography, iPhone fundus photography revealed smaller field and was technically more difficult to obtain, but the quality was nearly similar to RetCam. CONCLUSIONS: iPhone versions 4s and 5s can provide excellent ophthalmic macrophotography and microphotography and adequate fundus photography. We believe that iPhone imaging could be most useful in settings where expensive, complicated, and cumbersome imaging equipment is unavailable.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the technical feasibility of a consumer-grade cellular iPhone camera as an ocular imaging device compared to existing ophthalmic imaging equipment for documentation purposes. METHODS: A comparison of iPhone 4s and 5s images was made with external facial images (macrophotography) using Nikon cameras, slit-lamp images (microphotography) using Zeiss photo slit-lamp camera, and fundus images (fundus photography) using RetCam II. RESULTS: In an analysis of six consecutive patients with ophthalmic conditions, both iPhones achieved documentation of external findings (macrophotography) using standard camera modality, tap to focus, and built-in flash. Both iPhones achieved documentation of anterior segment findings (microphotography) during slit-lamp examination through oculars. Both iPhones achieved fundus imaging using standard video modality with continuous iPhone illumination through an ophthalmic lens. Comparison to standard ophthalmic cameras, macrophotography and microphotography were excellent. In comparison to RetCam fundus photography, iPhone fundus photography revealed smaller field and was technically more difficult to obtain, but the quality was nearly similar to RetCam. CONCLUSIONS: iPhone versions 4s and 5s can provide excellent ophthalmic macrophotography and microphotography and adequate fundus photography. We believe that iPhone imaging could be most useful in settings where expensive, complicated, and cumbersome imaging equipment is unavailable.