"The iPhone 4S. The same phone you know and love, now with an S".
...and like all those people who throw a bookshelf spoiler on the back of a mini-coop know, adding an S to anything gives it more horsepower. That's why the 4S so is so much faster.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 4S Photos Begin Appearing on Flickr, Comparisons with iPhone 4
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"The iPhone 4S. The same phone you know and love, now with an S".
...and like all those people who throw a bookshelf spoiler on the back of a mini-coop know, adding an S to anything gives it more horsepower. That's why the 4S so is so much faster.
I definitely agree with you. However, I think most consumers that aren't photographically savvy and don't normally do editing will enjoy the warmer look of the 4s's photos.
the 4s has good detail, but IMO lacks the depth of the Nikon. Because I don't know the subject, I'm not sure was is oversaturating or undersaturating the image. It appears the Nikon is oversaturating. Do you have a filter on the lense or has there been some after processing?
Something is diffinitely wrong with at least one of these two cameras. The colour is dramatically different in both of these images. I would expect that one would be clearer than the other, but such a contrast in colours lead me to believe that some improper colour processing is done on one or both of these phones.
I suspect it has more to do with the white balance setting and the color of the lighting. Auto white balance on Nikon (I've used Nikons for 6 years) is not very good indoors with tungsten lighting. It is usually only good outdoors for sunny and partly cloudy skies in the open. I think the wb should have been calibrated first.
Noisy
Yes, incredibly noisy. Looks like my D3 at about ISO 12800, and it's only ISO 500. So basically good only for outdoors, full sunlight.
Sweet Jesus, those are horrid photo's are they not?
Did someone load them into Photoshop and run a heavy noise filter over them?
Yes, incredibly noisy. Looks like my D3 at about ISO 12800, and it's only ISO 500. So basically good only for outdoors, full sunlight.
More iPhone 4s Photos
They're also from Flickr, but photos from the iPhone 4s have started popping up here, too: http://www.theproofisinthephotos.com/camera/apple-iphone-4s
They're also from Flickr, but photos from the iPhone 4s have started popping up here, too: http://www.theproofisinthephotos.com/camera/apple-iphone-4s
In the two original pics here the colour of the iPhone 4 looks more natural then the 4S. The 4S looks a bit too saturated. Both have good clarity though.
Colour balance doesn't have an exact answer. The colours of objects that we see in everyday life depend not only on the physical characteristics of the object but also on the frequencies of light reflecting off them and on our brains' perceptions of that light. If you take a "white" object outside on a cloudy day, it will look bluer than on a sunny day; if you take it inside with incandescent lights, it will look yellower. But our brains do a lot of correcting for this: the difference we perceive looking at the same object at different times is much less than the difference if we take an unmodified photograph in each situation and compare them side by side. So how should we colour balance photographs from such different situations? Should they all be identical, corrected to reflect some theoretical ideal of what the colour "should" be? Should they accurately reflect the light that was bouncing around at the time the photograph was taken? Or something else? And let's not forget that we're taking something that existed on a full spectrum and translating it into combinations of only three specific frequencies of light, and then displaying it on a device that cannot actually recreate all the colours that our eyes can perceive. Ultimately, because of the inexact nature of human perception, photography is an art, not a science. There's no "right" answer, only what we perceive as better, and that can change depending on the context.
Getting there
It does seem to give a more pleasing image out of the camera than the 4, at least based on this. What would be good would be some low ISO samples and to see if they can really compare to a decent compact. In photo IQ I'm sorry but this really can't, though I do realize that the ease of use, sharing and even the retina LCD make it very usable. I personally use HDR Pro to make some remarkable HDRs on the fly.
The iPhones seem to have good processing, even if they are still stuck with terribly small sensors. Larger sensor/ zoom lens to come in future iterations, perhaps?
It does seem to give a more pleasing image out of the camera than the 4, at least based on this. What would be good would be some low ISO samples and to see if they can really compare to a decent compact. In photo IQ I'm sorry but this really can't, though I do realize that the ease of use, sharing and even the retina LCD make it very usable. I personally use HDR Pro to make some remarkable HDRs on the fly.
The iPhones seem to have good processing, even if they are still stuck with terribly small sensors. Larger sensor/ zoom lens to come in future iterations, perhaps?
This!
Noise is always a consideration in small-sensor digital photography. I honestly believed the 8MP images would be noisier. However, I like what I'm seeing here.
