Apple Takes Early Step Towards iPhones With 'Above 12-Megapixel' Rear Cameras

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple reportedly has booked production capacity for "above 12-megapixel" camera lens modules at a new factory being built by smartphone lens maker Largan Precision in Taichung, Taiwan, according to DigiTimes.

    [​IMG]

    The report, citing "market rumors," claims Largan is the only supplier that can meet Apple's minimum yield rate. The new factory is reportedly designed to accommodate monthly production of 600 million lens modules.

    Largan will allegedly start production in October 2017, suggesting the camera lens modules could be destined for future iPhone models released in 2018 or later, rather than the so-called iPhone 8 this fall.

    It is widely rumored that the iPhone 8 will have a vertically-aligned dual-lens rear camera, with optical image stabilization for both the wide-angle and telephoto lenses, but no credible rumors have surfaced about its quality.

    Apple improves its iPhone cameras each year, so an increased megapixel count of some kind is certainly still possible this year.

    Apple's latest iPhone and iPad models, including the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, 10.5-inch iPad Pro, and 12.9-inch iPad Pro, are all equipped with 12-megapixel rear-facing cameras and 7-megapixel front-facing cameras.

    Keep in mind that megapixels don't always matter, as even a TV or monitor with 4K Ultra HD resolution of 3,840×2,160 pixels only has roughly 8.3 megapixels, which isn't enough to display a 12-megapixel photo at full resolution.

    Nevertheless, if this rumor is accurate, then perhaps we'll see an iPhone with a 16- or 18-megapixel rear camera or higher in the future.

    Article Link: Apple Takes Early Step Towards iPhones With 'Above 12-Megapixel' Rear Cameras
     
  2. macduke macrumors G4

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
  3. DBZmusicboy01 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    #3
    The iPhone Edition BETTER have a much better camera than the iPhone 7
    I mean a $1000+ should
     
  4. CmdrLaForge macrumors 601

    CmdrLaForge

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Location:
    around the world
    #4
    More dynamic range and a much improved low light and high ISO would be my preference. Those are areas in which the iPhone is absolutely lacking compared to cameras with larger sensors and for sure more pixels don‘t help in this regard, quite the opposite.
     
  5. Keirasplace macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Location:
    Montreal
    #5
    What does it have to do with this?

    My Canon G16 has 12MPx and its a much better camera that any smartphone on earth so this is kind of a non sequitur.
    If they can keep the noise down in such small pixels that's OK, otherwise its useless. Getting more Mpx of noise is not giving you more actual info.
     
  6. Sunny1990 Suspended

    Sunny1990

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2015
    #6
    A 18-megaxiel camera is going to be awesome, specially with a wider aperture. Morepixels produce better low light photos and the more pixels you capture, the more you can crop out.
     
  7. fyun89 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    #7
    I agree with higher dynamic range and low light iso performance
     
  8. KavalierMalta macrumors member

    KavalierMalta

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Location:
    Malta
    #8
    Looking forward to this year iPhone 8/X edition camera!! The iPhone 7Plus camera was a huge step forward.
     
  9. meaning-matters, Sep 4, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017

    meaning-matters macrumors 6502

    meaning-matters

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    #9
    More pixels -> smaller pixel -> less light -> lower voltage -> more noise -> worse images.

    Also the relative low quality of minuscule lenses puts a limit on the sensor resolution.

    Ways to lower noise:
    1. More light -> slower shutter speed or wider aperture.
    2. Backlit sensor -> chip structures no longer obscuring light path.
    3. Binning -> combining pixels either on-chip, in readout electronics, or in software.
    4. Cooling -> could be done with a Peltier element.

    1 and 2 are already done.
    3 could be an option to get lower noise low-light images, but it reduces the final pixel count.
    4 Would be 'cool' to have a tiny Peltier element in our iPhone. But because you'd need a vacuum sensor chamber to prevent moist buildup, this is rather impractical.
     
  10. swingerofbirch macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #10
    For me, possibly due to having shakier hands than most, better optical image stabilization would make the most improvement in my photos. I didn't often get great pictures with my iPhone 5s and I thought OIS in the iPhone 7 would change that. I didn't realize there are varying levels of OIS. My Canon S110 (a point and shoot) works much better for me and is only 10 megapixels.
     
  11. jz- macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    #11
    More pixels at the same sensor size tends to produce worse low light photos
     
  12. Piggie macrumors G3

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #12
    I would still like to see more actual units/lenses/sensors being used individually and them combining data to achieve a higher quality finer result.
    This may be stupid, but what would it be like if you had 3 units right nest to each other, with 3 sensors, each just capturing seperatly red, green and blue light?
     
  13. Michael Scrip macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Location:
    NC
    #13
    I'd rather have larger pixels and fewer of them to capture more light.

    It's scary to cram 12,000,000 pixels in a sensor the size of my pinky nail.

    :p
     
  14. solipsism, Sep 4, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017

    solipsism macrumors 6502a

    solipsism

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #14
    That's why he wrote "better camera" and not "more megapixels."
     
  15. CaTOAGU macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #15
    Completely agree, I was hoping Apple would stay out of the megapixel race and focus on image quality.
     
  16. macs4nw, Sep 4, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017

    macs4nw macrumors 601

    macs4nw

    #16
    Not necessarily. However larger pixels, as in a larger sensor, can dramatically improve low-light (or high ISO) performance.
     
  17. macduke macrumors G4

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #17
    Agree. If I were to single out any one feature that I'd want all of that extra budget to go towards, it would be that camera because it's always in my pocket. They've come so far and I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of improvements they can bring with a high-end model. Although I can't help but think that we won't see anything substantial until next year aside from maybe laser auto focusing and improvements to portrait mode.
     
  18. Techman82 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    #18
    You expect apple to use 1/2 sensor now with the new iPhone and bigger pixels and aperture for the price of the new iPhone, they've used 1/3 senors for a while now without upgrading
     
  19. recoil80 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    #19
    This.
    No need to pack more MP in the iPhone, we need better low light pictures. I'm quite happy with my the pictures I take with my iPhone but there is room for improvement in low light, and I hate using the flash even if their dual tone is good so I really want to take my pics without it whenever possible.
    And I'd say dual camera should be standard, even on the 4.7 model. We already pay a premium price for that, it is a shame we have to pay $100 more and have a bigger display just to get the dual camera
     
  20. Relentless Power, Sep 5, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017

    Relentless Power macrumors Penryn

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #20
    I don't disagree that the dual camera would be appreciated for both iPhone models. But that's what gives the Plus model the separation of having the more premium features for the larger model. I think if Apple included the dual camera on the 4.7 iPhone, it would partially take the exclusivity factor Away from the Plus model, being Apple Wants the consumer upgrade to the larger, more expensive model.

    In retrospect, look at last year How Apple
    marketed the iPhone 7. Almost all of their marketing went directly towards the dual camera in the iPhone 7 Plus. I didn't see any marketing geared towards the 4.7 iPhone. Apple wants the consumer to see the full potential of what the Plus model can offer with the dual camera. But it's also a favor if someone wants a larger 5.5 iPhone as well, which Apple tries to compel those to do.
     
  21. armhol macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #21
    Doesn't 600 Million lens modules per MONTH seem a little excessive considering the amount of iPhones sold? This is still a massive amount if iPads are included.
     
  22. jsamuels macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Location:
    Roma
    #22
    Thought the same thing. 600 million per month equals 7.2 BILLION annually.
     
  23. mabhatter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    #23
    So what you're saying is that we might want that 512GB model if we have photogenic cats and want to take lots of pictures?
     
  24. iDento macrumors 6502

    iDento

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    iCloud Servers
    #24
    12 is more than enough but more megapixels won't hurt either.

    What I want to see is more Optical Zoom, I know it's physically difficult for such a thin device but Apple have too much cash and engineers to do everything even if it is impossible! :p
     
  25. Wowereit macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    Apple is most likely not the only customer.
     

Share This Page

155 September 4, 2017