The funny thing is that for all the amazing technological improvements discussed, all the pictures in the article actually show that A. having a photographer who knows how to frame things, and sees the right moment to capture an image, and B. having a subject worthwhile photographing, are way more important than having a top tier quality camera.
I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body.
If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
I think Nikkor assumes that you would use software to do the post processing. It gives you something a lot closer to what's coming from the sensor, so you can choose which $XXX image editing suite you want to run it through. The iPhone knows the vast majority of people won't do that with their photos, so they can go all-out, but you're stuck with their specific result baked in to your photo.
Mine don't (iPhone 13 Pro Max, Fuji XT-2 and various lenses). They do in daylight, sure, but things like sunrise/sunset or unusual colors throw them off like crazy.
Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the texture effect, almost.
They also suffer a bit zoomed in.
The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone cameras but it has its limits.
On good camera hardware there's very little that all that post-processing would add outside of extreme-high-ISO-noise, IMO. Which - would it be nice? Sure. But you can find software and stack exposures manually and such for those situations too.
And a lot of the other smart stuff gets fooled too easily.
The Nikon does minimal post processing. The iPhone throws a metric shit ton of algorithms at the image data to make it passable. For normal people the iPhone output is good enough - though it often looks very over-processed.
Nikon just expects you to handle that post processing part that your iPhone is doing for you. In exchange you get way more control over the final image.
Both devices are aimed at different people. I myself have an iPhone 13 pro and a Nikon Z6ii. I tend to take snapshots with my iPhone because getting out the Nikon + playing around with sliders in Capture One is just too much hassle for a snapshot. Now would I take the iPhone and do a landscape photo where I hiked 6 hours to the photo location at 3 a.m. in the morning? Probably not. ;)
Just shoot your mirrorless in RAW and process them later. Lightroom gives great results, but you can also use Apple Photos to get similar color processing as your iPhone photos.
The mirrorless photos will look much better on a laptop or bigger screen but about the same on a phone.
Do the jpegs (or hief?) look as good on a 27-inch monitor, or just on the phone screen?
Capturing non-raw in my experience (iPhone 6S, now have 13 mini) the jpegs are heavily de-noised, and really don't look that good 1:1 on a large monitor: on the iphone screen they look very good, as they're downsampled.
The article mentions the 'watercolor' effect since the iPhone 8, but I definitely had the issue with all the jpegs taken on my iPhone 6S since 2015...
DNGs however DO look very good, so clearly the sensor is capable of pretty nice images.
A landscape photo is the easiest thing for any camera to capture. Focus is at infinity and no depth of field means the lens can be literally a greasy pinhole and still get sharp shots. You're probably taking photos in direct sunlight so again the camera has to do very little work and is flooded with light.
Try taking a portrait photo in iffy lighting, like at a concert, wedding, sporting event, etc. Something that really needs a fast and sharp lens.
I think it's processing power and engineering effort. I got a Sony RX100M2 for my mom and it has the same computational photography techniques that Google released the following year (https://ai.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high-dyn...). But Sony's image stacking is only in "Superior Auto" mode, and is only used when necessary. Google's implementation does a lot of advanced work, including selecting and blending parts of the photo depending on motion, that Sony doesn't do. I assume Sony's imaging engineers have less expertise in advanced processing, and didn't have the resources to implement the features that Google did. Sony also has to devote engineering resources to other features - a lot of their sales are to photographers that will edit in post (RAW), and later, videographers. So features that are only in "auto" mode may have limited budget.
iPhones apply filters to make the photos look more vivid and to make them "ready to share". If a professional camera would do that, it would not be professional.
Because deep down, it's not what they do. They are optics and camera hardware companies. In the race between physics and software, they are on the physics side. This is evident in the entire user experience. They keep missing the boat with the way people actually use photography today, and don't even seem to care much. There's not much evidence they have the kind of research expertise that Apple, Google or Adobe built in signal processing and image processing, either.
Try zooming in, even a little bit. You'll notice squiggly oversharpening artifacts pretty quickly. Yes they probably look fine on a phone screen, but blow them up at all and they start to show their weaknesses
I doubt those iphone photos look the exact same as the nikon ones on a large display (i.e. anything bigger than an iphone...) It has not been the case for me.
The Nikon photos will be under sharpened because it's so easy to apply sharpening in post, and the amount of sharpening is very dependent on the size and format of your desired output. Also, in ideal conditions (medium sized, evenly and brightly lit, static subject a moderate distance away) practically all cameras will give good results: try comparing in less ideal circumstances like a darkish area indoors.
Well, put bluntly, the reason is that you probably are not using the Nikon properly. So, your photos are not coming out that great or as you hoped. Don't take this personally, I also have my limitations using cameras properly. But I understand I'm an amateur when it comes to this and that I'm part of the problem. I try to learn to do better. I try, and sometimes it works out nicely and I get a really nice shot. Landscape photography is tough to get right. You really need to understand your camera and lenses to make that work.
The point of such a camera is not the in camera processing, which most pro users would not use on principle. Instead it's gaining a lot of control over setting up the shot properly with a lot of control over all the parameters that matter to achieve a look that matches what you want, intentionally. And then you finish the job in post processing. There's reason these things have so many buttons and dials: you need to use them to get the most out of the camera. And the point of owning such a camera is having that level of control. The flip side is that that makes you responsible for the intelligence. That kind of is the whole point. If that's not what you wanted, you bought the wrong camera.
The iphone has a very limited set of controls. You actually have very little control over it. Nice if that's what you want and the AI is awesome. But it's also a bit limiting if you want more. Of course it's very nice when that's the camera you have and you want to take a shot quickly by just pointing and clicking. Nothing wrong with that. I have a Pixel 6 and a Fuji X-T30. I use them both but not the same way.
Obviously you don't look at close detail on computer, which is very strange for seemingly such a power photo user. Phones these days are good but not yet that good if you don't do some beginner mistakes with camera. Maybe Pixel 7 pro based on samples I saw, but definitely not ie iphone 13 pro max.
What people often mean by similar statements is they like default phone processing compared to 0 in the camera, and there is enough detail due to tons of light and due to landscapes being generally easiest scene to shoot.
As for why they are not comparable, also a very strange question from seemingly experienced photo shooter - compare software development department and budget in Apple vs Nikon, who is a tiny player we all love (have D750 since it came out and carried it everywhere up to 6000m), they use very specialized CPUs which are very good for 1 thing only (basic operations on raw sensor data and potential jpeg transformation), and various ML and stacking transformations aren't simply available there at performance required. The whole construction of camera and processing hardware isn't around snapping 30 pics and combining them together under 1s, pre-taking pictures before actually hitting shutter etc.
Nikon and Canon and all the other camera companies, Japanese, German, or otherwise, are not software companies and have a pretty awful track record for even the basic software in their camera interfaces. Post processing is something they could not or would not get involved in.
Apple ate their lunches and then some. While I'm an old-school photographer who thinks a great SLR camera is the photographic equivalent of driving a Porsche, I don't miss carrying pounds of gear around. (OTOH I HATE the Ux of iPhones for photography.) I digress. The camera biz is a classic biz school study in humans being human.
Apple and photography processing at this point is like TSMC and chips. They probably have a great deal of algorithmic knowhow that is in house and they're doing things that no one else is quite getting close to at any of the big camera brands. Maybe just Pixel phones have some clue in's on some of the post processing hacks. I'd guess in the dark ex apple helped consult.
Because landscapes are easy. The subject isn't moving, you aren't in a hurry and the phone has all the time in the world to gather enough data for a photo. Same goes for posed portraits, the phone has time to use it's processing power to make the image look amazing.
Now try to do sports photography with a mobile phone.
The first problem is lack of zoom compared to a 200mm lens. The second issue is trying to get the 1/8000 exposure you need on a rainy football field you need to stop the action for a good photo.
There is no way they do. First of all you don't have a DSLR, but a mirorrless (Nikon Z) series. But nevermind, that's just nitpicking.
Likely a Z6 from the price point you mentioned. It has 24 MP (instead of iPhone 13's 12MP) and a much much higher dynamic range (more than 11 steps vs an iPhone's about 8).
So unless you don't know what you're doing the Nikon is a way better camera (as it should be. It ways 5x as much with lens)
This is probably the wrong way to think of it. Especially at screen sizes, there are certain photos your iphone 13 can take that are comparable to what you would get with your nikon gear. However there are photos you can get with that 1.8 that won't work at all on your phone.
Because landscape photos are easy. No bokeh, no depth of field (everything at infinity), good lighting, no need for fast shutter speed or a big sensor. Your images will be sharper I guess, but that's not worth $2k in most cases.
iPhone 13 photos will look just as good as a Nikon photo on your iPhone. As soon as you view the iPhone photos on a monitor or print them out, everything falls apart.
iPhone photos are excellent as long as viewers are only seeing them on iPhones.
I guess if you like that look. I don't; not really. The photos from my phone are fine. If taken in really good light, they are actually pretty good. But they are always processed to within an inch of their lives.
> “I think the 12 MP shooting default is a wise choice on Apple’s part, but it does mean that the giant leap in image quality on iPhone 14 Pro remains mostly hidden unless you choose to use a third party app to shoot 48 MP JPG / HEIC images or shoot in ProRAW and edit your photos later.”
This, 100%.
The massive difference in image quality is when shooting in RAW. That’s when you actually get the 48MP & the images are fantastic.
But that’s not the default. The default is 12MP.
That’s why reviewers are so torn on this camera system. If the default was a 48MP picture/quality, everyone would be praising it. But when the default is 12MP, it’s par for the course.
The 48 MP bayer mode is indeed impressive, but it does not increase the spatial frequency response. I recently used it to document some color transition errors on LG OLED displays and even with the 48 MP "RAW" mode there are artifacts from the limited spatial resolution. One of the images properly captures the display sub-pixel layout, but that is taken closer to the display. Enabling/disabling "RAW" did not change the spatial resolution of the photos.
Coming from a iPhone 12 to the 14, the aggressive switching between lenses is pretty annoying in close and far shots. The lens shift screws up framing and hits at unpredictable times.
Unfortunately, it still takes crappy concert photos. The combination of low light, crazy lighting, etc., still wreak havoc on the images.
Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line arguing with them about it.
(I'm also not one of those people that is taking pictures [and I never record video] the whole show, I just want a handful of high quality shots to help me remember the show)
Coming from a Pixel 5 to the iPhone 14 Pro, I gotta say I'm pretty disappointed. The pictures are mediocre at best, and just plain bad in dim light especially.
Google's computational photography is years ahead. The latest Pixel has better sensors too.
Would be curious to see what they think of the Pixel 7 Pro camera. Video is still worse, but picture quality overall seems to be slightly (but noticeably) better than the iPhone 14 Pro.
i did a point and shoot picture of a cat while a group of friends and I were sitting on the floor of a halloween party bathroom
later, when sharing the photos, i realized we could distinctly see my partner and I in the reflection of the cat's eye. the CSI enhance memes are real :-)
Well this detailed camera review conclusively proves that I am a mediocre photographer who doesn't go anywhere interesting. Thanks a lot, lux.camera. Thanks a lot.
The iPhone 14 has a fantastic camera. It's a noticeable improvement from previous models and takes fantastic photos that rival or surpass many SLR cameras on the market. If Apple had taken another leap and included usb-c port it would have been enough for me to upgrade. For now, I wait.
I upgraded from an Xs Max to a 14 partway through a road trip this year. The massive difference between these phones is in video (and particularly stabilisation) but I’ve also enjoyed the 0.5 and 2-3x options on the camera.
I haven’t had enough wifi to backup to iCloud and free up space to work in raw/48MP, but you can see the sorts of shots here with the stock app and 12MP.
I am carrying a GoPro, an Osmo Pocket, an Insta360 Go 2, two drones and the two phones - the 14 is the one I used as a priority because the quality and options were so good.
The iPhone cameras are superb I think, but the "Apple Image Processing" renders stock camera photos useless for me. The watercolor smear and color smoothness that the article talks about. I like noise, don't smooth away the reality of life.
ProRAW is confusing because it is not RAW at all, instead it's an uncompressed image that has had a milder "Apple Image Processing" applied.
I've tested the iPhone 14 Pro, and the ProRAW files are too processed for me. They are not "reality". This is a philosophical concept. Do I want to capture what I see, or a smoothed watercolor ideal of what Apple think I should see?
I want a 48MP genuine RAW file that I can post-process in Lightroom or Photoshop. Here's looking forward to the iPhone 15 Pro!
These relatively cheap tiny cameras would be so useful in so many other products, from medical to sports.
It is really a shame that most new consumer tech is locked behind the doors of large corporations these days, that will keep the tech from reaching its true potential in a myriad of products.
> And yes: 48 megapixel capture is slow. We’re talking up to 4 seconds of capture time slow
Pretty disappointing that a US$1000+ flagship device still can't batch capture at high resolution. Even entry-level DSLRs/mirrorless cameras can do 15+ fps in RAW mode.
I just can't help but notice how soft so many of these shots look. The composition and lighting is beautiful, the immediate impact of the photo is great, but then if you start to really look for more than a few seconds on desktop, you see how smudgy so much of the detail is.
I recently gave up my mirrorless in favor of my iPhone because the latter was just so much more convenient and largely good enough. I wonder if it is physically possible, however, for these smaller lens and sensor packages to ever get to the point of eliminating that phone camera smudge?
A bit of knowledge of optics and photography is enough to know that little sensor with miniature glass cant compete with a dedicated camera. (Eg regardless of 'equivalent' field of view via crop factor, a 50mm and 10mm are going to produce a very different depth of field.)
You can definitely take nice photos with it given the right variables and/or some creativity (as you could with a point-and-shoot a decade ago)... but don't be taken in by their marketing if photography is a goal for you.
The size of the sensor isn't as important as people think it is. What really matters is the diameter of the aperture (the absolute diameter, not the f number). Consider a cone of light for a given angle of view hitting a small sensor close to the aperture and a large sensor further from the aperture:
o < aperture of a given diameter
/\
/ \
---- < small sensor (less area, more light per unit area)
/ \
/ \
-------- < large sensor (more area, less light per unit area)
If you compare typical shooting apertures for DLSRs and camera phones, they're not radically different. Say you are shooting a 50mm lens at f8 on a DSLR. That's an aperture of 6.25mm. A typical smartphone camera will have an aperture of around 3-4mm. In this scenario, then, the DLSR is getting about 3 times more light (or ~1.5 stops).
Of course you can use much wider apertures on DSLRs, but their use is more limited given the shallow depth of field that results. If you're shooting e.g. landscapes, then you're probably not going to use apertures much wider than f8 anyway.
[+] [-] city17|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sys32768|3 years ago|reply
If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
[+] [-] sp332|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majormajor|3 years ago|reply
Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the texture effect, almost.
They also suffer a bit zoomed in.
The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone cameras but it has its limits.
On good camera hardware there's very little that all that post-processing would add outside of extreme-high-ISO-noise, IMO. Which - would it be nice? Sure. But you can find software and stack exposures manually and such for those situations too.
And a lot of the other smart stuff gets fooled too easily.
[+] [-] kybernetyk|3 years ago|reply
Nikon just expects you to handle that post processing part that your iPhone is doing for you. In exchange you get way more control over the final image.
Both devices are aimed at different people. I myself have an iPhone 13 pro and a Nikon Z6ii. I tend to take snapshots with my iPhone because getting out the Nikon + playing around with sliders in Capture One is just too much hassle for a snapshot. Now would I take the iPhone and do a landscape photo where I hiked 6 hours to the photo location at 3 a.m. in the morning? Probably not. ;)
[+] [-] pb7|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fassssst|3 years ago|reply
The mirrorless photos will look much better on a laptop or bigger screen but about the same on a phone.
[+] [-] berkut|3 years ago|reply
Capturing non-raw in my experience (iPhone 6S, now have 13 mini) the jpegs are heavily de-noised, and really don't look that good 1:1 on a large monitor: on the iphone screen they look very good, as they're downsampled.
The article mentions the 'watercolor' effect since the iPhone 8, but I definitely had the issue with all the jpegs taken on my iPhone 6S since 2015...
DNGs however DO look very good, so clearly the sensor is capable of pretty nice images.
[+] [-] qbasic_forever|3 years ago|reply
Try taking a portrait photo in iffy lighting, like at a concert, wedding, sporting event, etc. Something that really needs a fast and sharp lens.
[+] [-] andrewia|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GoToRO|3 years ago|reply
iPhones apply filters to make the photos look more vivid and to make them "ready to share". If a professional camera would do that, it would not be professional.
[+] [-] MurrayHill1980|3 years ago|reply
See also https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news-archives/nikon-201... and https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news-archives/nikon-201...
[+] [-] packetlost|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shishy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsmith99|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|3 years ago|reply
The point of such a camera is not the in camera processing, which most pro users would not use on principle. Instead it's gaining a lot of control over setting up the shot properly with a lot of control over all the parameters that matter to achieve a look that matches what you want, intentionally. And then you finish the job in post processing. There's reason these things have so many buttons and dials: you need to use them to get the most out of the camera. And the point of owning such a camera is having that level of control. The flip side is that that makes you responsible for the intelligence. That kind of is the whole point. If that's not what you wanted, you bought the wrong camera.
The iphone has a very limited set of controls. You actually have very little control over it. Nice if that's what you want and the AI is awesome. But it's also a bit limiting if you want more. Of course it's very nice when that's the camera you have and you want to take a shot quickly by just pointing and clicking. Nothing wrong with that. I have a Pixel 6 and a Fuji X-T30. I use them both but not the same way.
[+] [-] saiya-jin|3 years ago|reply
What people often mean by similar statements is they like default phone processing compared to 0 in the camera, and there is enough detail due to tons of light and due to landscapes being generally easiest scene to shoot.
As for why they are not comparable, also a very strange question from seemingly experienced photo shooter - compare software development department and budget in Apple vs Nikon, who is a tiny player we all love (have D750 since it came out and carried it everywhere up to 6000m), they use very specialized CPUs which are very good for 1 thing only (basic operations on raw sensor data and potential jpeg transformation), and various ML and stacking transformations aren't simply available there at performance required. The whole construction of camera and processing hardware isn't around snapping 30 pics and combining them together under 1s, pre-taking pictures before actually hitting shutter etc.
[+] [-] JALTU|3 years ago|reply
Apple ate their lunches and then some. While I'm an old-school photographer who thinks a great SLR camera is the photographic equivalent of driving a Porsche, I don't miss carrying pounds of gear around. (OTOH I HATE the Ux of iPhones for photography.) I digress. The camera biz is a classic biz school study in humans being human.
[+] [-] sfmike|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theshrike79|3 years ago|reply
Now try to do sports photography with a mobile phone.
The first problem is lack of zoom compared to a 200mm lens. The second issue is trying to get the 1/8000 exposure you need on a rainy football field you need to stop the action for a good photo.
[+] [-] ulfw|3 years ago|reply
Likely a Z6 from the price point you mentioned. It has 24 MP (instead of iPhone 13's 12MP) and a much much higher dynamic range (more than 11 steps vs an iPhone's about 8). So unless you don't know what you're doing the Nikon is a way better camera (as it should be. It ways 5x as much with lens)
[+] [-] sudosysgen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stavros|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ska|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xdfgh1112|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TedShiller|3 years ago|reply
iPhone photos are excellent as long as viewers are only seeing them on iPhones.
[+] [-] pkulak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alberth|3 years ago|reply
This, 100%.
The massive difference in image quality is when shooting in RAW. That’s when you actually get the 48MP & the images are fantastic.
But that’s not the default. The default is 12MP.
That’s why reviewers are so torn on this camera system. If the default was a 48MP picture/quality, everyone would be praising it. But when the default is 12MP, it’s par for the course.
[+] [-] spookthesunset|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willis936|3 years ago|reply
https://imgur.com/gallery/amP2lR4
[+] [-] stingrae|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anotheryou|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cthalupa|3 years ago|reply
Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line arguing with them about it.
(I'm also not one of those people that is taking pictures [and I never record video] the whole show, I just want a handful of high quality shots to help me remember the show)
[+] [-] solardev|3 years ago|reply
Google's computational photography is years ahead. The latest Pixel has better sensors too.
[+] [-] oldstrangers|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2c2c2c|3 years ago|reply
later, when sharing the photos, i realized we could distinctly see my partner and I in the reflection of the cat's eye. the CSI enhance memes are real :-)
[+] [-] brookst|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m348e912|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|3 years ago|reply
I haven’t had enough wifi to backup to iCloud and free up space to work in raw/48MP, but you can see the sorts of shots here with the stock app and 12MP.
http://instagram.com/isaacforman/
I am carrying a GoPro, an Osmo Pocket, an Insta360 Go 2, two drones and the two phones - the 14 is the one I used as a priority because the quality and options were so good.
[+] [-] pigtailgirl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wolfegard|3 years ago|reply
The iPhone cameras are superb I think, but the "Apple Image Processing" renders stock camera photos useless for me. The watercolor smear and color smoothness that the article talks about. I like noise, don't smooth away the reality of life.
ProRAW is confusing because it is not RAW at all, instead it's an uncompressed image that has had a milder "Apple Image Processing" applied.
I've tested the iPhone 14 Pro, and the ProRAW files are too processed for me. They are not "reality". This is a philosophical concept. Do I want to capture what I see, or a smoothed watercolor ideal of what Apple think I should see?
I want a 48MP genuine RAW file that I can post-process in Lightroom or Photoshop. Here's looking forward to the iPhone 15 Pro!
[+] [-] amelius|3 years ago|reply
It is really a shame that most new consumer tech is locked behind the doors of large corporations these days, that will keep the tech from reaching its true potential in a myriad of products.
[+] [-] b0ner_t0ner|3 years ago|reply
Pretty disappointing that a US$1000+ flagship device still can't batch capture at high resolution. Even entry-level DSLRs/mirrorless cameras can do 15+ fps in RAW mode.
[+] [-] virgildotcodes|3 years ago|reply
I recently gave up my mirrorless in favor of my iPhone because the latter was just so much more convenient and largely good enough. I wonder if it is physically possible, however, for these smaller lens and sensor packages to ever get to the point of eliminating that phone camera smudge?
[+] [-] chobytes|3 years ago|reply
You can definitely take nice photos with it given the right variables and/or some creativity (as you could with a point-and-shoot a decade ago)... but don't be taken in by their marketing if photography is a goal for you.
[+] [-] foldr|3 years ago|reply
Of course you can use much wider apertures on DSLRs, but their use is more limited given the shallow depth of field that results. If you're shooting e.g. landscapes, then you're probably not going to use apertures much wider than f8 anyway.