Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Photographer Tests iPhone 6 and 6 Plus in Iceland, Demos Focus Pixels, Other Camera Improvements

APlotdevice

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,145
3,861
Roessnakhan said:
Unless this is sarcasm, you can't tell him/her what s/he is and isn't - if you take photos then yes, you can consider yourself a photographer.
Click to expand...

Eh, I think the bar has to be set a little higher than that, considering that, unless you're Amish, you had to have taken a photo at some point in this day and age. (To me a photographer is someone who understands and considers lighting and composition as they take their shots)
 
Last edited:
sk1wbw

sk1wbw

Suspended
May 28, 2011
3,483
1,010
Williamsburg, Virginia
DamoTheBrave said:
Interesting... what was Android's 8 megapixel optically stabilised phone camera that came out in 2004 (three years before the release of the iPhone)? Oh, I see - it was a joke poking fun at the fact that someone always feels the need to post such nonsense... carry on then.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. And furthermore, an operating system can't have an 8 megapixel optically stabilized phone camera. Just saying.
 
O

Oracle1729

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2009
638
0
Max(IT) said:
12 megapixel aren't an high number.
I'm not speaking about an insanely high 16-20 megapixel, just something a little higher than 8 to help me with the crops when I need some zoom in capabilities.
Overall I'm pleased with the results.
Click to expand...


The cheap little lens in the iPhone doesn't even have the resolving power for a 12 megapixel sensor the size of an iPhone sensor. (For that matter, I'm not sure my $2000 glass has enough resolving power for that many pixels in such a small area)

Without getting technical, when you zoom an iPhone picture you see how it starts to get blurry and lose sharpness long before it pixelates? That's the limit of your lens and more pixels won't help. Take an SLR with much larger pixels and much more capable glass and when you zoom in, the picture is still sharp as it pixelates.

So more pixels won't give you more room to crop, you'll just have more blurry pixels.
 
J

jasonbogen

macrumors member
Mar 15, 2006
62
3
darkslide29 said:
With every day that passes, I regret reserving the 6 instead of the 6 plus! But with the 3-4 week shipping window, it is too late! I lack the patience to wait another month.

Maybe next time with the 6s or 7.

Although I am sure if I had bought the 6 plus, I would be wondering if I should have gotten the 6 instead.

These first world problems! Can't take them!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was torn, but went to AT&T this morning and got a 6 plus mostly because of the OIS. Really didn't want that big of a phone, but I am already thinking I will be glad I got it. Love having the screen real estate and to me, since I haven't used a camera or camcorder in a couple years and take lots of pictures and video, this was the most important feature improvement next to the big screen. Glad I changed my mind.
 
L

LincolnsiPod

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2009
654
95
This is why I'm finally ditching my compact:

I've owned Canon compacts for a few years now, starting with the Powershot S90, S95 and lately the S120.

The biggest strengths of these cameras have been their low-light no-flash qualities, despite having a small sensor, but after upgrading to the S120, I've never been happy with the color tones, (I think it was the switch from a CCD to a CMOS sensor that did it). I realize these can be adjusted, especially when you play with RAW images, but the postprocessing tended to take up way more of my time than I'd like.

I thought about Sony's awesome RX100 cameras, but again, it's another thing to lug around, and these cameras are actually a bit bigger. Canon has finally come out with their own one-inch sensor compacts (the G7 X) but at cursory glance of the sample images, I'm not as impressed as I thought I'd be.

Apple finally seems to have balanced the tradeoffs in the direction I'm looking for, which is faster autofocus, better low light shooting, optical stabilization for the Plus, and color tones that are very pleasing to my subjective eyes. The downsides I see so far are soft images (but then again I struggled with this on the Canon no matter how hard I tried to master focusing), grainy textures that will present itself on large displays (reducing the likelihood that I can use images as wallpaper backgrounds) and the lack of optical zoom. Although, it occurred to me that I can purchase add-on lenses to expand zoom and apertures on Amazon (they seem to get good reviews too).

As far as point and shoot goes, I think I can finally ditch my compact and the aggravating habit of juggling between my iPhone and Canon (which included the extra step of wirelessly uploading photos from my Canon to my iPhone for postprocessing and social media sharing).

It'll never match DSLR quality of course, but considering all the tradeoffs I think I will be pretty happy with an iPhone Plus. :)
 
StoneJack

StoneJack

macrumors 68020
Dec 19, 2009
2,433
1,527
LincolnsiPod said:
This is why I'm finally ditching my compact:

I've owned Canon compacts for a few years now, starting with the Powershot S90, S95 and lately the S120.

The biggest strengths of these cameras have been their low-light no-flash qualities, despite having a small sensor, but after upgrading to the S120, I've never been happy with the color tones, (I think it was the switch from a CCD to a CMOS sensor that did it). I realize these can be adjusted, especially when you play with RAW images, but the postprocessing tended to take up way more of my time than I'd like.

I thought about Sony's awesome RX100 cameras, but again, it's another thing to lug around, and these cameras are actually a bit bigger. Canon has finally come out with their own one-inch sensor compacts (the G7 X) but at cursory glance of the sample images, I'm not as impressed as I thought I'd be.
Click to expand...
Nikon p310 (which I have) and its more recent Nikon p340 are excellent low light compact camera with very fast f1.8 lens.
 
L

lockerc18

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2012
553
209
LincolnsiPod said:
This is why I'm finally ditching my compact:

I've owned Canon compacts for a few years now, etc
Click to expand...

I have a Canon T2i, which is a lot better camera than I am a photographer. Not a compact, no. Not by a long shot. (Punny.) But as much as I like this camera, it's one reason why I am getting a 6 Plus (on order). I like the quality of the Plus camera, especially in low light situations. The T2i is great at that, but it's tougher to fit in my pocket.
 
L

LincolnsiPod

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2009
654
95
StoneJack said:
Nikon p310 (which I have) and its more recent Nikon p340 are excellent low light compact camera with very fast f1.8 lens.
Click to expand...

Just judging by the samples makes me suspect I'd probably like this camera better, but it still comes down to juggling two things. :)

lockerc18 said:
I have a Canon T2i, which is a lot better camera than I am a photographer. Not a compact, no. Not by a long shot. (Punny.) But as much as I like this camera, it's one reason why I am getting a 6 Plus (on order). I like the quality of the Plus camera, especially in low light situations. The T2i is great at that, but it's tougher to fit in my pocket.
Click to expand...

I also find postprocessing is just so much easier directly from the iPhone. I save original photos for editing on my MacBook, but I have a suite of photo apps on the phone that does such a great job postprocessing that it becomes a fun experience, whereas postprocessing on Aperture (or Photoshop) is often tedious and frustrating. You have to really be skilled and have a love of the craft to utilize the professional tools effectively, and I'm just not that guy.
 
msandersen

msandersen

macrumors regular
Jan 7, 2003
217
31
Sydney, Australia
StoneJack said:
Nikon p310 (which I have) and its more recent Nikon p340 are excellent low light compact camera with very fast f1.8 lens.
Click to expand...
People always forget the crop factor, and the compact camera makers deliberately muddy the waters, even lie at times, in this respect. The Nikon p340 has a crop factor of 4.6, which makes the minimum 35mm equivalent aperture f/8.2 and going up to f/25 on the long end, which isn't all that fast. Same goes for all compacts and camera phones. Smaller sensors, smaller lenses capturing less light.
.
 
acearchie

acearchie

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2006
3,264
104
msandersen said:
People always forget the crop factor, and the compact camera makers deliberately muddy the waters, even lie at times, in this respect. The Nikon p340 has a crop factor of 4.6, which makes the minimum 35mm equivalent aperture f/8.2 and going up to f/25 on the long end, which isn't all that fast. Same goes for all compacts and camera phones. Smaller sensors, smaller lenses capturing less light.
.
Click to expand...

The maths doesn't work out on this one. You don't convert aperture up to 35mm equivalent.

Focal length yes but not aperture.

Due to sensor size depth of field will be different but light capturing abilities won't be.

If you put an iPhone lens in front of a 35mm sensor (albeit impossible) it would still be an f2.2 lens.
 
X

xyion1

macrumors regular
Oct 26, 2007
140
47
acearchie said:
The maths doesn't work out on this one. You don't convert aperture up to 35mm equivalent.

Focal length yes but not aperture.

Due to sensor size depth of field will be different but light capturing abilities won't be.

If you put an iPhone lens in front of a 35mm sensor (albeit impossible) it would still be an f2.2 lens.
Click to expand...

It most certainly would not! Have you seen the size of the f2.2 aperture for a 35mm camera? Its bigger than the entire iPhone camera lens.

Aperture is calculated by focal length / iris size. So Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is a 70mm focal length / 25 mm iris = f/2.8. The iris of the iPhone lens is tiny...how tiny? Well it has a focal length of 4.12 mm (29.7 35mm equiv) / 2.2 aperture = 1.87mm iris size - much smaller than 25mm! Even on the low end, 24mm/2.8 = 8.6mm iris.

Don't believe me? Check out this picture - that lens is 2 inches in diameter, and is stopped down to f 5.6 - f 2.2 would be larger than that.

Also, ISO changes based on sensor size as well - which is why a full frame ISO 800 can be cleaner than a APS-C ISO 800 (because the crop-factor makes it about ISO 1800 equivalent on a full frame), and way cleaner than a cell phone ISO 800 (which would be MUCH higher based on sensor size). To calculate equivalent ISO is roughly crop factor squared (so 1.5 CF = 2.25 multiplier, and 52x for the iPhone which has a 7.21x crop factor to 35mm). That is, ISO 100 on iPhone = ISO 5200 on full frame - ISO 800 on iPhone works out to ISO 41600 equiv on full frame. Its all about how much light hits the sensor...smaller sensor equals less light because there is less area for the light to fall.

I _really_ dislike the misleading marketing done for many compact camera & lenses which omit these facts...remember sensor size matters if you're trying to compare to a 35mm full frame for aperture, focal length, and ISO.
 
Last edited:
acearchie

acearchie

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2006
3,264
104
xyion1 said:
It most certainly would not! Have you seen the size of the f2.2 aperture for a 35mm camera? Its bigger than the entire iPhone camera lens.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the physical properties of the lens. It's f2.2 whatever sensor you put behind it however, whether the image circle covers that sensor is a different question entirely!

If you are trying to say that an iPhone at 1/50 f2.2 ISO 100 would produce the same exposure as a FF DSLR at 1/50 f22 ISO 100 then I completely disagree! From your previous post that seems to be what you are implying!

Also, can you further explain your thoughts on ISO? That completely makes no sense to me as I have always perceived ISO to be down to the strength of the internal brain of the camera. Take for instance some of the first DSLRs. Very noisy at ISO 400 yet the iPhone 6 is quite clean at this ISO. Some FF sensors are cleaner than others so it can't be a standard calculation.
 
APlotdevice

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,145
3,861
acearchie said:
Also, can you further explain your thoughts on ISO? That completely makes no sense to me as I have always perceived ISO to be down to the strength of the internal brain of the camera. Take for instance some of the first DSLRs. Very noisy at ISO 400 yet the iPhone 6 is quite clean at this ISO. Some FF sensors are cleaner than others so it can't be a standard calculation.
Click to expand...

The way ISO sensitivity works on digital cameras is by adjusting the signal gain. Basically each photo site creates electrical signals as light hits it, which is then amplified as necessary. The more amplification is used, the more you start to see electrical noise in the signal. Smaller photo sites collect less light overall, which means a weaker signal, and thus more amplification is needed in the same lighting condition verses a larger sensor.

Now improved sensor and processor technologies can and have reduced the amount of signal noise over time, however a larger sensor will always have less noise than a smaller one when all else is the same.
 
Last edited:
X

xyion1

macrumors regular
Oct 26, 2007
140
47
acearchie said:
I was talking about the physical properties of the lens. It's f2.2 whatever sensor you put behind it however, whether the image circle covers that sensor is a different question entirely!

If you are trying to say that an iPhone at 1/50 f2.2 ISO 100 would produce the same exposure as a FF DSLR at 1/50 f22 ISO 100 then I completely disagree! From your previous post that seems to be what you are implying!

Also, can you further explain your thoughts on ISO? That completely makes no sense to me as I have always perceived ISO to be down to the strength of the internal brain of the camera. Take for instance some of the first DSLRs. Very noisy at ISO 400 yet the iPhone 6 is quite clean at this ISO. Some FF sensors are cleaner than others so it can't be a standard calculation.
Click to expand...

Photographs are based on the amount of light gathered on a piece of film (or electronic sensor). Currently the standard is based on 35mm film and most things are converted to a 35mm / full frame equivalent and we mainly look at 3 variables: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and manipulate these so the camera light meter shows proper exposure.

Shutter Speed - this does not vary on the sensor size - 1/50th of a second is always the same.

Aperture - this is based on iris diameter and the focal length. A = F/d(iris). We know that the iPhone has a focal length of 4.12mm and max aperture of f/2.2. This would make the iris diameter = 1.87mm - the physical the size of the hole. For a full frame lens, such as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. We know the focal length of 24mm and aperture of 2.8mm, which would result in an iris diameter of 8.57 mm, the physical size of the hole. If you took the iPhone iris and put it in front of a 35mm sensor, the math says it would roughly be the equivalent of an f/16. We can calculate this by saying: 29.7mm equivalent focal length (field of view) / 1.87mm hole = f/15.88 = f/16. Also, f/2.2 x 7.21 crop factor = 15.862 so the math works both ways.

ISO - this is a decades old standard, which is quite frankly very confusing. I view it as this - if you had 3 cameras with 3 sensor sizes and wanted to take a picture with the same amount of gathered light and noise keeping the shutter and aperture (iris size) the same what would the ISO setting be? Ultimately the way it works out, is its roughly the (crop factor)^2. That is, a APS-C camera at ISO 355 has the same amount of noise as a full frame at ISO 800. Look at iPhone EXIF, you'll see ISOs in the 30s & 40s...no full frame can get that low! But set all 3 cameras to ISO 800 and see which image is "cleaner"...the full frame will win all day long.

So, with regards to the amount of light for an iPhone 1/50 f/2.2 ISO 100 would be about the same as a full frame 1/50 f/16 ISO 5200. Again, notice iPhone EXIFs are usually much lower than 100, which is why pictures in good light aren't noisy. Also, image processing can play a huge part and the iPhone image processing is fantastic.

Please remember when you are comparing EXIF data & gear that the sensor size matters for aperture, ISO, and focal length. My beef is with the companies that multiply the focal length but not the aperture. Even the fantastic Sony RX100 is not a f/1.8 35mm equivalent, its an f/5 35mm equivalent...you have to look at the physical diameter of the iris!
 
Moonlight

Moonlight

macrumors 65816
Jul 9, 2002
1,131
2,356
Los Angeles
iPhone Camera test

Here is a test I did last night of all of my iPhones cameras in very low light with no flash. I have a 3GS, but it was being an ass, so it didn't make the test.

As you can see, the first iPhone camera was, well not great. The 4 has a nice sharp pic with realistic noise, but it is dark and muted. The 5 has great color, but is slightly blurry and the noise is a mess. The new 6 has the best of the 4 and 5. Sharp, real noise, AND great color. I am very impressed.

Feel free to download this image and look at it up close yourself in photoshop.
 

Attachments

  • iPhonecameratest.jpg
    iPhonecameratest.jpg
    855 KB · Views: 116
L

LincolnsiPod

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2009
654
95
Moonlight said:
Here is a test I did last night of all of my iPhones cameras in very low light with no flash. I have a 3GS, but it was being an ass, so it didn't make the test.

As you can see, the first iPhone camera was, well not great. The 4 has a nice sharp pic with realistic noise, but it is dark and muted. The 5 has great color, but is slightly blurry and the noise is a mess. The new 6 has the best of the 4 and 5. Sharp, real noise, AND great color. I am very impressed.

Feel free to download this image and look at it up close yourself in photoshop.
Click to expand...

NICE work! When I get my phone I'm going to do a similar test with my Canon S120 in low light conditions and compare the differences. If the 6 shines as it seems to here I'll be handing my Canon off to my parents. :D
 
L

LincolnsiPod

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2009
654
95
I found this review really instructive: http://www.imore.com/iphone-6-vs-iphone-6-plus-camera-comparison-6-plus-actually-better

Open the images in a separate tab and check the darker areas, and you'll see the difference in the noise.

What's interesting was in at least one example, the iPhone 6 capture a shot at 800 ISO while the Plus captured the same shot at ISO 200 because of optical stabilization (OIS), so it seems apparent that due to OIS the Plus is more capable of taking low light shots at lower ISO rates without suffering from camera shake.
 
haruhiko

haruhiko

macrumors 604
Sep 29, 2009
6,529
5,875
heisenberg123 said:
unless I am way off OIS helps most with taking photos if you have a jittery hand it helps stabilize so if you have steady hands or use a tripod of some kind OIS will not show any huge differences
Click to expand...

Rephrase: "If you don't need optical image stabilization, optical image stabilization will have no use for you."

;)

----------
Parasprite said:
How I feel being stuck on 4s right now:

Image
Click to expand...

I focused on the pixels. Focus Pixels FTW!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom