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.
Apple Takes Early Step Towards iPhones With 'Above 12-Megapixel' Rear Cameras
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's sad because Apple used to be the other way around too. Honestly it's only a matter of time till Apple falls.
Top two uses for "more pixels":
- Stabilization - a super smooth "SteadyCam" mode would be awesome. But would this use lots of CPU/GPU/sensor power? Apple want to deliver simple and awesome, no futzing.
- Better VR-360/180 capture w/stabilization - while I doubt Apple would make a OEM product like a lens adapter this would help the ecosystem and the ability to capture content for VR/AR
So... What's the maximum ISO that produces a respectable image on iPhone 7?
Is it less than 100? I'll bet it's less than 100.
I haven't really looked at iPhone pictures lately, but iirc, ISO 400 was really nasty. On my D7000 (old, if not obsolete, APS-C sensor), ISO 400 tends to be the last of the "clean" ISOs. It does depend on which lens I'm using, though. Garbage In, garbage out..
More pixels DO NOT better low light pictures. Proper exposure, iso, and aperture do. Since most camera phone's can't swap lense (you can buy add on but not fully swap out) , you are pretty much stuck with aperture. That leaves exposure and iso. Well iso is how sensitive the sensor is to light, the problem with high iso is that where you grain or noise comes from. I leave my is at 100 when I shoot at night. So that leaves exposure, or shutter speed. This is how long the camera allows light in. I know if your phone doesn't allow you to change shutter speed, there are plenty of apps out there that will. The issue with the shutter being open for long enough to capture enough light is that the camera cannot move the tiniest fraction. When it is even slightly vibrated the image blurs. You gotta set the thing in concrete and still set a timer cuz pressing the capture would vibrate. More MP means the larger you can print. There are calculations online if you wanna look em up, off the top of my head, my 13mp phone can do 13x10 in pro quality (300dpi) or, 20x15 (ish? I can't remember) in 200 dpi, which is better than most will even be able to spot. So, tripod your phone. I post my train of thought but I was chilling reading the talk of iPhone and thought, my ZTE zmaxpro cost me $79 , has fingerprint scanner, a 13mp phone, and I literally just shot the image I'm posting last night or night before. Cell phones take GREAT night pictures! Don't believe me? Feel free to check out my IG- joshuaholliday
Cheers, hope some of the info helps
[doublepost=1504660049][/doublepost]
Then drop down Abit from the 40% profit margin, and offer your loyal fan base the best you can. I personally don't see paying half the price points people she'll out for iPhones, but I also don't hate, I respect the loyalty, I just wouldn't do it
Attachments
I've shot 50,000 photos in the last six months. Literally over that, but 50,000. All large sized files that could print at 300dpi and ask for more. (I don't say that like I'm amazing, I just mean In calculations terms) plus all my video stuff is 4k, large large long exposure files etc... I had 115gb free storage through Google drive... I've used SIX. 6GB. At this rate, I could shoot forever and never have to worry about storage till I'm dead.
I'm curious the real user stats, who uses 1tb. I'm a DJ also. A HUGE song library can hit 1tb after years of downloading everything. I have a hard time believing, unless you are shooting massive multiple projects in 8k 7 days a week. 1tb is hard to hit. Peapole hear mp and gb the etc and think, more is better. They never stop to think.. well I ever have 1tb of cats and porn? I'd be surprised lol
[doublepost=1504670596][/doublepost]
He's right about ONE thing.... 3200 iso would be utterly garbage on ANY DEVICE, unless you have a crazy aperture, and have calculated your shutter correctly.
Listen, photography on a 2mp Nokia or a $10,000 Nikon pro camera still has the same "tripod" basis of an image. They have to balance out.... Again, I keep my iso at 100 so to avoid noise and distortion and grain, I use a much much longer shutter speed. Sometimes 1.5 seconds, which is a long time to have an exposure to light, other times I need to go much higher... 4 secs... 6, 15, 25,60? It's understanding how the 3 work together and how to trial and error untill you have the image you want. It takes time, study, and lots of failures. Read a few simple articles on the "tripod" of photography, one is the size of the pin hole light passes through, one is how sensitive it is to the light, one is how long it allows the light in. Photography is capturing light. That's it.
*Wanted to correct myself... PHOTOGRAPHY is not just capturing light. That's what a camera does. Photography is much more. I
Last edited:
I'd like to add cropping to that list. I do that a lot due to the limitations of the fixed focal length lens. (Which I think makes sense overall.)
However, higher frame rates makes stuff like multi-exposure HDR capture work better.
One way forward may be using multi exposure capture for high resolution images akin to what Olympus and Pentax already offers a viable option even hand held.
There are advantages with going either way.
Make the battery thicker and reduce some mm in height or width to make room for more components.
They are managing to put the dual camera on the new iPhone that is really close to the 4.7'' in terms of width and height, so it is possible.
Curious as to what they're going to make smaller internally on the new iPhone. Because right now the internal space is being used.
I read they're making the battery with an L shape, so maybe they're distributing the internal space differently.
They started to put this kind of battery (they called them terraced) on the Mac, now they're putting them on the iPhone. It make sense, so they can put battery in every possible place they have available
More pixels does not equate to better low light photos. Bigger pixels or better sensor tech does.
[doublepost=1504690016][/doublepost]
More pixels = more noise only if the pixel size is smaller (ie don't increase sensor size) or the sensor tech does not improve.
It's extremely low. Respectable, outdoors, 250, max. Indoor, with average household lighting, I'm not sure a respectable image can be produced. The sensor just isn't that good for average household lighting and below.
This could have been a far more promising camera, if they didn't skimp on the OIS on this camera. Anyone whose use telephoto lenses knows that as you "zoom" in on things, any motion / shake tends to become that much more noticable. Without OIS, many of the shots I've seen using the zoom lense has far less sharp edges than a normal camera cropped with OIS.
Yes, that's what I picked up on as well ...
multiply by 12 months = 7.2 billion units/year ... versus world population of 7.5 billion.
Given that Apple sells ~60 million (iPhones + iPads) per quarter, this "600 million" rate looks more like an annualized production number, not a monthly one.
---------------
And on the 12MP camera itself, a sensor that small is pushing into diminishing returns on the factor of image quality.
Sure, I know that there's clueless "Specs!" fanboys (especially with Android) but "Enough Already!".
I hate to suggest it, but Apple could shift paradigms by selling a higher-priced "Photographer" iPhone model which has a *lower* MP camera which offers a better S/N ratio.
-hh
It will be 4 cameras on the plus plus model this year. 16 cameras on the iphone 9 plus pro
sports photography.
need to freeze action + relatively "slow" supertelephoto lens + lighting conditions dictated by the needs of the athletes instead if the needs of the photographers.
If ISO's in the 3200 to 12800 range are relatively clean, it's useful. And the top of the line "full frame" cameras promise that. This is many more stops beyond what a iphone can do (depending on one's tolerance for noise and grunge)
Oh no! I entirely forgot that. OIS is only on the wide angle lens? Yikes.
Sounds like you'd want decent lighting when using the telephoto lens in order to guarantee a cleaner shot (faster shutter speed), else it's a gamble.
yeah, in tests of digital crop on the Pixel's camera vs actual zooming in on the iPhone's 2nd camera, the digital crop has shown that due to the OIS, it provides a much cleaner and more consistent image. Proving that just throwing a "zoom" lense on a crappy sensor doesn't actually make for better image.
image stabilization of some sort is a must for zoom photography.
Pixel size is largely as far as noise is concerned, not only theoretically, but also demonstrably in currently available sensors. Total amount of captured light which depends on aperture and sensor size is what matters. Smaller pixels at a given sensor size do have more noise per pixel, but that's irrelevant. What matters is noise for the entire image.
This is an introductory article to sources of noise in dpreview. It's pretty accessible. The myth that lower resolution brings better IQ simply needs to die.
I never said lower resolution brings better IQ. I said bigger pixel sites gives better lower noise and hence better IQ.
If you read their article, it states there are 3 things that affect how much light is available and it is light available that determines noise. Sensor size is one of them.