I hear that some Android models have 200MP cameras as my roommate is a big Android person boasts about his. Personally I think this is a stupid move on androids end. Apple is smart with the next gen iPhone Pro being like 40MP? Shooing a 200MP image will be a huge file that will take a long time to send. If you have not noticed 5G is not available everywhere and images often have to be downsized when sent. If I wanted a huge MP image I would shoot with my Canon.
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 13 Pro Max 200 MP cameras?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pixel count alone doesn’t really mean anything.
Absolutely true. Before I started using iDevices (2017-ish) I used a Galaxy Note 4 that had a 16 mp camera. My first Eye Phone was a 2016 SE which had “only” 12mp — and the SE’s camera was not well regarded, compared to other iPhones of the day (6 & 7). But the SE’s pictures were so much better than the Note 4 - it was like Apple was on a different planet. Since then, the camera’s mp is the last thing I look at when “phoneshopping”.
I am waiting for gigapixel cameras. Then you just take 1 photo of the whole world at once, and crop in on the bits you want later on.
So what exactly makes Apple ‘smart’ if the next generation iPhone has a ‘40 megapixel’ camera?
So you’re essentially saying that just because they have a lower pixel camera, makes them understand the industry better over the competition?
Regardless, all these smart phones from Samsung and Apple take outstanding photos, but in the end, the consumer doesn’t care what type of camera it is, they care about the results.
Which I hope is apple since they make better phones than that Android virus.
Well, you didn’t answer my questions, so there’s that.
And I have no idea what you mean by ‘android virus’, as that sounds a bit ridiculous.
And ‘better’ is a very subjective term when discussing the differences of a smart phone, as a user isn’t choosing the hardware, they’re choosing the platform based off iOS or android.
It’s why I prefer 12MP images. Hence on my Canon I shoot at 10MP when the camera can do 20MP. I prefer smaller images.
Specially as monitors barely are reaching 8K right now and if you do get one 8K monitor, it'll be an arm and a leg. Hence, we won't enjoy any over 10MP photos on our displays.
There's actually gigapixel photos on a page called gigapixel.com
Android phones use of the 100+mp sensors so far have resulted in a smaller photo, something called pixel binding, if I remember correctly. So in theory they take in more information in the photo and then squeeze it to a better photo, usually also around 12mp.
Mp do matter but not that much. Sensor size is a bigger deal. 14 pro Line 48mp the bigger deal Is More the massive sensor improvement
My 8 year old Sony ILC cameras (a6000 and a7) only have 24MP each and either will easily blow a smartphone toy camera out of the water. No comparison. Claiming 200MP is just a gimmick. A tiny sensor with tiny lenses equals very little light entering the camera, which means garbage photos in anything but highly lit areas. You can scale down the size of sensors and lenses, but you can’t scale down a photon. You can only capture so many photons with a tiny camera. No in-camera processing or BS rhetoric will change that. Add to that the fact that Apple’s cameras are terrible as far as usability goes, and you are much better off with a bigger camera with much better controls and flexibility. I fail to see why anyone, other than a selfie snapper, would ever get excited by smartphone “cracker-jack box” toy cameras. They are okay for selfies and photos in bright locations that will be viewed on small screen phones. They suck for photos you want to print out are take in low lighted locations. Even the professional studio produced videos shot with iPhone 13 Pro Max cameras for Apple look like garbage.
Thank you for your bashing of all cameras. However, one small detail you missed in all this:
The average person don't need $500+ camera arrangements. They just need a good point-and-shot which is where all those "cracker-jack box" toy cameras excel. As per professionals, they use those types of cameras already.
I would not say they are garbage as smartphone cameras serve their purpose. They just are not as nice as a standard camera. I have a Canon and I see what you are talking about. However unfortunately I rarely see anyone using anything other than a smart phone at events and in public. Not sure how Apple compares to Android cameras, but I prefer apple anyways.
Google hired away 3 top people who developed the Apple silicon chips. or they bought the company these 3 started. or it could be Qualcom . So at least Android shall soon catch up in ARM chip power and energy efficiency.
Competition is good. there are lots of things I like about Android. And some for iPhone. mostly that iPhone just works better with Macs.
Competition is good. there are lots of things I like about Android. And some for iPhone. mostly that iPhone just works better with Macs.
My take: Pretty much every smartphone (and certainly every iPhone) on the market today is capable of capturing excellent photo and video, and I think most people have it in them to get quality captures. Don’t fret too much about megapixels (unless you’re a pro or an enthusiast).. and hang on to the good stuff. Someday soon the AI will be so good that you’ll be able to enlarge those 8-12MP shots to sizes equal to many more MP and it’ll look 💯 You’ve got an amazing creative tool in your pocket. Get inspired and have fun.
it can have 2000mp...its kind of irelevant into a phone
binning pixels is your friend
physics are the limits
No matter how much megapixels a phone have... Nothing will come close to Huawei's camera on their flagship. Its on another level.