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.
A Look at iPhone 4's Camera Quality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I feel badly for people who rely on their camera phones. The images are crap compared to pretty much any entry level point and shoot.
Hopefully the iPhone camera will be better than the average camera phone. I wish they had made one of the volume buttons as the capture/shutter button. Having to push on the screen does nothing for camera stability.
I'm sure thousands of photos were taken to get the handful on the Apple image gallery.
Hopefully the iPhone camera will be better than the average camera phone. I wish they had made one of the volume buttons as the capture/shutter button. Having to push on the screen does nothing for camera stability.
I'm sure thousands of photos were taken to get the handful on the Apple image gallery.
Most reasonable people will agree that specs are just numbers. It's about the execution of those specs wrapped into the experience. My 3GS takes beautiful pics for a phone and blows my wife's Droid out of the water. I can't wait to see what the iPhone 4 will do for my experience. Apple may be behind in the specs arena but they sure know how to execute once they finally implement a feature that has been absent (cut/paste, video recording, etc.).
People use specs to justify their purchasing decision to others or to feel better about their choice.
People use specs to justify their purchasing decision to others or to feel better about their choice.
The shot of the bridge has a greenish cast (look at the sky).
But anyway, I've gotten some great photos with my older iPhones, the iPhone 4 will be even better. The only big complaint I have about the iPhone camera is the very laggy refresh and shutter release. For people shots you have to kind of anticipate the moment instead of seeing it and capturing afterwards. Hopefully the A4 CPU will reduce the lag.
But anyway, I've gotten some great photos with my older iPhones, the iPhone 4 will be even better. The only big complaint I have about the iPhone camera is the very laggy refresh and shutter release. For people shots you have to kind of anticipate the moment instead of seeing it and capturing afterwards. Hopefully the A4 CPU will reduce the lag.
I have 3 SLR and a Hasselblad, but a tiny camera I can fit in my pocket works for me for non-professional shots.
Have you not used an iPhone? You don't need to "push" the screen.
I doubt they need thousands if it's a professional shoot. Not for those photos anyway.
I think he was just making note that he wants to see how the iPhone stacks up with the new technology against a known good quality device. That's all. I don't think he expects the iPhone to match or beat it.
Right on. Considering how Apple described the photo quality during the keynote and how they are doing the same on the iPhone section of the Apple web site, it will be nice to see how these photos really do compare.
Clearly, some people read into things a bit too much. Clearly, the photos will not come close to what can be captured by my Canon L series lenses but I'd like to see how they "stack up".
I'm interested to know how well this works as well. I don't think it will be any better than the competitor's led flash on their phones. Any flash is better than no flash at all.
However I'm on the brink of upgrading my iPhone 3GS and paying $399 for iPhone 4. The question is, is there really enough difference to upgrade?
Like they say the best camera is the one you have with you, and I always have my iPhone 3GS with me. I have more pictures and videos of my kids on my iPhone then my camera or camcorder. The 3gs camera was'nt good for low-light fast action shots, let's hope the iphone 4 does better with that. Video 720p hd recording has me sold on the iPhone 4. I'm will to pay full price for the iPhone since my upgrade is not up till 2011
I'd say all the product-related announcements are done. WWDC is for the developer community and these developers are more concerned about the iOS, iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch these days versus the Mac and Mac OS X.
This is why I want such tech in an iPod. I make a conscious decision to bring my bulky SLR out with me, it's not always possible too. Whereas my iPod is always on me. Such a camera is also useful for people who just want to take snapshots, which is probably makes up a massive bulk of people buying cameras.
Like they say the best camera is the one you have with you, and I always have my iPhone 3GS with me. I have more pictures and videos of my kids on my iPhone then my camera or camcorder. The 3gs camera was'nt good for low-light fast action shots, let's hope the iphone 4 does better with that. Video 720p hd recording has me sold on the iPhone 4. I'm will to pay full price for the iPhone since my upgrade is not up till 2011
Hey, I'm not alone!
Well, it's not that simple.
I have a Canon 7D and some Sony V1U HD video cameras, but I don't take them with me to the gas station. My wife is not holding them during bedtime-stories. I can't take them into many stores because the manager asks me what I'm doing with professional gear in his store. But my daughter is going to do cute things when it suits her. Not just when I have my SLR around my neck.
I'm a fairly avid photographer with my SLR. And even I have thousands of iPhone photos of my kid playing around and doing funny things. It's either that or not get the picture at all.
So I'm thrilled with this. The camera is actually the main reason my wife is upgrading her 3GS to a iPhone4 this month. We're going to continue taking tons of photos with our 2 iPhones, so having them be even better is a good thing.
So, yeah, I guess you CAN say we "rely" on them. I'm not sure why you feel badly, though. I can't see any alternative to it.
I don't think it's fair to compare a cell phone camera to any decent SLR. If you're going to do comparisions, compare it against a compact digital camera.
Like amac4me, I have to bring up to any noobs reading this that the megapixel rating is not a reliable way of measuring a camera. It's great for marketing, but a really poor indicator of real quality. It'd be like saying that a computer with 4Gb of RAM beats one with 2Gb or that it's 2x better.
My BlackBerry has a 3.1 megapixel camera. My first digital camera had a 3.1 megapixel sensor in it, but there is simply no comparison between the two. My BlackBerry's camera underperforms my nearly 12 year old Nikon Coolpix 990 in every way possible and it's not even close.
I'm still getting great pics from my 6MP Nikon D70S. 5MP in the new iPhone will do me just fine if the software is good.
The bummer is trying to keep the lens protected. You really need a case to keep the lens recessed, otherwise the lens coating (if not the lens glass itself) starts to get damaged from daily handling and your pics start to look foggy.
The bummer is trying to keep the lens protected. You really need a case to keep the lens recessed, otherwise the lens coating (if not the lens glass itself) starts to get damaged from daily handling and your pics start to look foggy.
I rely on my iPhone 3GS because it is one device thats easy to carry around on the go, and does many many things that a camera cannot. I agree with Mr. Jobs; it is an all-in-one devices world.
Just weighing in, briefly.
My old Nikon D70 6 megapixel camera was good enough for me to do a 20 x 30 blowup which visitors think was done with film. It's every bit as clear, indeed, as the shots I blew up from 35mm film (with a Nikon F3. And I'm not a Nikon-snob, I just thought, foolishly, that my old stuff would work when I got a new camera...)
You don't need a huge megapixel count for high quality images. I'm sure sooner or later someone will let us know how good the iPhone is as a camera, but really, it's a phone first. If it can take as good pictures as my $100 Canon A1000, I'd think that would be more than enough.
As for underexposing, that's an endemic problem on my Nikon D70 (DSLR), which also gets the color wrong 9 times out of 10, so iPhone is hardly unique!
My old Nikon D70 6 megapixel camera was good enough for me to do a 20 x 30 blowup which visitors think was done with film. It's every bit as clear, indeed, as the shots I blew up from 35mm film (with a Nikon F3. And I'm not a Nikon-snob, I just thought, foolishly, that my old stuff would work when I got a new camera...)
You don't need a huge megapixel count for high quality images. I'm sure sooner or later someone will let us know how good the iPhone is as a camera, but really, it's a phone first. If it can take as good pictures as my $100 Canon A1000, I'd think that would be more than enough.
As for underexposing, that's an endemic problem on my Nikon D70 (DSLR), which also gets the color wrong 9 times out of 10, so iPhone is hardly unique!
I totally agree. I was initially thrilled when my BlackBerry came with a camera because it meant I could get some photos I would have otherwise missed because it wouldn't have been practical for me to lug aroun an SLR. Unfortunately, the quality is crap and the camera is slow so I only snap an occasional funny pic here and there. My vanity for needing to have good looking pics to show is getting in the way of using what I have at hand.
Well since the photos of this shoot were taken in San Francisco, I would imagine at the Japanese Tea Garden.