Camera Comparison: iPhone XS Max vs. iPhone X

[alexnyc8]

The quality of any smartphone pics will always be limited by the tiny glass and crappy optics - the laws of light physics will always apply and (there is already) very little if any real improvement. (Which is why they universally suck at anything less than ideal lighting). Its also hilarious to watch people take photoes with phones against the sun and using the tiny flash to capture objects meters away from them
As they say any camera is better than no camera (and phones are convenient for just that) however, its crazy to expect high quality pics from them, when compared to a real DSLR or micro 4/3 cameras which will always be superior due to much higher quality (and bigger) glass.
The point is its funny to watch people justify spending $1000 to upgrade from the X (or 7, or 8) for the "better" camera

 

[Khedron]

Forced beauty mode on new iPhones

 

[Amazing Ox Space Monkey]

The quality of any smartphone pics will always be limited by the tiny glass and crappy optics - the laws of light physics will always apply and (there is already) very little if any real improvement. (Which is why they universally suck at anything less than ideal lighting). Its also hilarious to watch people take photoes with phones against the sun and using the tiny flash to capture objects meters away from them
As they say any camera is better than no camera (and phones are convenient for just that) however, its crazy to expect high quality pics from them, when compared to a real DSLR or micro 4/3 cameras which will always be superior due to much higher quality (and bigger) glass.
The point is its funny to watch people justify spending $1000 to upgrade from the X (or 7, or 8) for the "better" camera

It‘s a consumer product for the masses, no matter the outrageous price tag. Given the optics are very limited, all the magick is done by the software. Basically, those who buy the new phone because of the camera pay for the software behind the camera. I guess it‘s perfectly ok if you are a blogger, vlogger, instagramer or the like.

 

[MEJHarrison]

As they say any camera is better than no camera (and phones are convenient for just that) however, its crazy to expect high quality pics from them, when compared to a real DSLR or micro 4/3 cameras which will always be superior due to much higher quality (and bigger) glass.

I say it's crazy to come into a thread discussing cell phone cameras and start tossing around blatantly obvious things like "a real camera is better". Of course it's better! No one is claiming otherwise. We're not discussing the best camera money can buy, we're discussing cell phone cameras. So while what you say is absolutely correct, your post really isn't on topic and adds nothing to conversation. You're just stating the obvious to a group that already understands that.

 

[waquzy]

Forced beauty mode on new iPhones

Just seen this and I am very disappointed. Natural, real life colours were iPhone's forte. This is so sad... hopefully Apple will release a software patch but I doubt it

 

[alexnyc8]

I say it's crazy to come into a thread discussing cell phone cameras and start tossing around blatantly obvious things like "a real camera is better". Of course it's better! No one is claiming otherwise. We're not discussing the best camera money can buy, we're discussing cell phone cameras. So while what you say is absolutely correct, your post really isn't on topic and adds nothing to conversation. You're just stating the obvious to a group that already understands that.

Nah, just slightly teasing people who spent $1000 to upgrade from X to Xs for a "better" camera. Ofourse I can never complete with the "Apple has consumer best interest in mind" and "I upgraded my X to the Xs Max, Where is my Cookie" posts?

 

[Marrakas]

They had 1 year to make a camera better than the Pixel 2, and still didn't manage to do it. I am kinda disappointed.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Just seen this and I am very disappointed. Natural, real life colours were iPhone's forte. This is so sad... hopefully Apple will release a software patch but I doubt it

I hope they fix it with an update, but I doubt it. Subjectively people like what they see, it just looks nice even if it's faked by image processing. Can be easily done with Photoshop, Gimp or any other image processing software. But let's face it, the step from the X to the Xs is the smallest upgrade in the history of iPhones. So how can Apple get people to upgrade? If you want the bigger screen, then the Xs Max is the obvious choice. Same for the step from 7/8 to Xs. But X to Xs, people won't notice a difference. I doubt there'd be a difference between the cameras if both would shoot raw unprocessed images. So, from a marketing point of view, what's better than applying some image processing out of the box, something people like and not let them turn if off? If it could be turned off, people would start to ask why the software feature is not included in the X (or Xr or...), because it could be easily implemented into any current iPhone and the image quality would match. It doesn't require much processing power.

 

[Hustler1337]

Why post a camera review article when we can't really see your comparison samples at or near full-res?

When I view the images in the article at their full size, they're both blurry and difficult to compare.

 

[I7guy]

I hope they fix it with an update, but I doubt it. Subjectively people like what they see, it just looks nice even if it's faked by image processing. Can be easily done with Photoshop, Gimp or any other image processing software. But let's face it, the step from the X to the Xs is the smallest upgrade in the history of iPhones. So how can Apple get people to upgrade? If you want the bigger screen, then the Xs Max is the obvious choice. Same for the step from 7/8 to Xs. But X to Xs, people won't notice a difference. I doubt there'd be a difference between the cameras if both would shoot raw unprocessed images. So, from a marketing point of view, what's better than applying some image processing out of the box, something people like and not let them turn if off? If it could be turned off, people would start to ask why the software feature is not included in the X (or Xr or...), because it could be easily implemented into any current iPhone and the image quality would match. It doesn't require much processing power.

The jump from the “x” to the “Xs” is one of the biggest jumps in iPhone history, bigger than the jump from the 6 to the 6s.
- better screen hdr10
- ip68
- better speakers and stereo
- stereo video recording
- dual sim
- neural processor etc

Of course to be fair that list may not interest you, but that doesn’t mean it’s an insignificant upgrade.

And it’s amazing that people who own the “x” want to upgrade.

 

[icrude]

These cameras all suck, period. When you consider crop factor, that lens ain’t 1.8, but more like F15 in 35mm terms. Who would want that? Until we get a larger sensor, these phone cameras will always suck. Yes they are fine in broad daylight, but that’s it. And they are faking the depth. No thanks. Great camera for soccer moms tho.

 

[Blaze4G]

Smart HDR likely relies on the new Bionic chip as well as the capture of additional image data (possible by the faster chip). It isn't something that could be pushed via software at all.

I disagree. Smart HDR is similar to what Google does with their HDR +. If Google can doing their HDR + since 2016 on the much slower Qualcomm chips, I see no reason the A11 can't.

 

[noraa]

The only change in those pictures is exposure. I'm quite sure you could take same pictures with the X, if you only put in 3seconds of extra work handling the exposure.

Indeed, I meant the best iPhone camera. Poor wording on my part

 

[FFR]

I disagree. Smart HDR is similar to what Google does with their HDR +. If Google can doing their HDR + since 2016 on the much slower Qualcomm chips, I see no reason the A11 can't.

You can disagree, but Qualcomm has nothing to do with that. The pixel has a separate soc called visual core.

 

[Blaze4G]

You can disagree, but Qualcomm has nothing to do with that. The pixel has a separate soc called visual core.

Your point? They have been doing HDR + before the visual core. They even were doing HDR+ with visual core disabled on the Pixel 2. So what is your point exactly?

If the limitation is the processor the A11 should have no problem handling it.

Oh and you're completely wrong. Qualcomm has every bit to do with HDR +. That's why the Google Camera app was able to be ported to other phones as long as they had the same processor as the Pixel. Do the other phones have the visual core? No. So you're wrong.

 

[Phoenix1000]

When I read this article, I really wonder, if somebody is trying to sell me as a customer for being stupid. Maybe I just didn't get it, but the article deals about the comparison of a very tiny sensor of an previous mobile with the little bit bigger - but still very tiny - sensor of the newest mobile. And both mobiles still have very tiny lenses too. The laws of physics tell everybody, who is a little bit interested in photography, that the result will be bad, very bad compared to the excellent quality of the images produced by a DSLR from Canon or Nikon. A few days ago, Tim Cook tells the audience in a morning show, that his new mobile replaces digital cameras ... What? Tim Cook has surely a lot of money on his bank account. So buying a professional DSLR should not be a problem for him. Okay, he has to learn how to use it properly. But once done this - it makes a lot of fun indeed - he should go out and take some photos with his new mobile and with his DSLR and compare the image quality on his 4k OLED TV. It did this and there is now question: Photos taken from mobile look awful, especially in more challenging conditions. And adjusting of bokeh AFTER the photo has been shot utilizing software code to imitate the physics of light doesn't make it any better and is very poor joke in my eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Apple and I have more than ten devices in my Apple zoo at home, but I know about their capabilities and surely also about their limitations. And the continuously repetition of statements about the dramatically improved image quality of the newest mobile for marketing reasons is not appropriate to increase trust and loyalty on customer side - in fact, it leads to the opposite. An Apple iPhone is a mobile and it delivers good image quality for a mobile phone - but nothing more.

 

[NT1440]

When I read this article, I really wonder, if somebody is trying to sell me as a customer for being stupid. Maybe I just didn't get it, but the article deals about the comparison of a very tiny sensor of an previous mobile with the little bit bigger - but still very tiny - sensor of the newest mobile. And both mobiles still have very tiny lenses too. The laws of physics tell everybody, who is a little bit interested in photography, that the result will be bad, very bad compared to the excellent quality of the images produced by a DSLR from Canon or Nikon. A few days ago, Tim Cook tells the audience in a morning show, that his new mobile replaces digital cameras ... What? Tim Cook has surely a lot of money on his bank account. So buying a professional DSLR should not be a problem for him. Okay, he has to learn how to use it properly. But once done this - it makes a lot of fun indeed - he should go out and take some photos with his new mobile and with his DSLR and compare the image quality on his 4k OLED TV. It did this and there is now question: Photos taken from mobile look awful, especially in more challenging conditions. And adjusting of bokeh AFTER the photo has been shot utilizing software code to imitate the physics of light doesn't make it any better and is very poor joke in my eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Apple and I have more than ten devices in my Apple zoo at home, but I know about their capabilities and surely also about their limitations. And the continuously repetition of statements about the dramatically improved image quality of the newest mobile for marketing reasons is not appropriate to increase trust and loyalty on customer side - in fact, it leads to the opposite. An Apple iPhone is a mobile and it delivers good image quality for a mobile phone - but nothing more.

The vast majority of people have no interest in learning anything about photography, therefore the best camera is the one you have available which is usually your phone.

In the past 5 years the advancements in *phone cameras* has been staggering, in a world where most of these photos either go on a social media site to be forgotten or are only ever viewed on another phone screen.

I'm not disputing that actual cameras will always have the leg up on mobile cameras, but the handheld camera that isn't a full blown rig is a thing of the past because cell phone cameras have gotten so good for their intended use case.

 

[FFR]

Your point? They have been doing HDR + before the visual core. They even were doing HDR+ with visual core disabled on the Pixel 2. So what is your point exactly?

If the limitation is the processor the A11 should have no problem handling it.

Oh and you're completely wrong. Qualcomm has every bit to do with HDR +. That's why the Google Camera app was able to be ported to other phones as long as they had the same processor as the Pixel. Do the other phones have the visual core? No. So you're wrong.

Yawn.
Always so agressive, defensive, and inaccurate.

Perhaps they used something else with the pixel, but with the pixel 2 it’s the ipu, everyone knows that.

“Let's delve into the details for you technical folks out there: The centerpiece of Pixel Visual Core is the Google-designed Image Processing Unit (IPU)—a fully programmable, domain-specific processor designed from scratch to deliver maximum performance at low power. With eight Google-designed custom cores, each with 512 arithmetic logic units (ALUs), the IPU delivers raw performance of more than 3 trillion operations per second on a mobile power budget. Using Pixel Visual Core, HDR+ can run 5x faster and at less than one-tenth the energy than running on the application processor (AP). A key ingredient to the IPU’s efficiency is the tight coupling of hardware and software—our software controls many more details of the hardware than in a typical processor. Handing more control to the software makes the hardware simpler and more efficient, but it also makes the IPU challenging to program using traditional programming languages. To avoid this, the IPU leverages domain-specific languages that ease the burden on both developers and the compiler: Halide for image processing and TensorFlow for machine learning. A custom Google-made compiler optimizes the code for the underlying hardware.”


https://www.androidauthority.com/pixel-visual-core-808182/

 

[Kimiimacman]

Having used a X for some months I can say the camera is pretty good all round though a little high in contrast and saturation compared to previous models as some reviews noted but the idea of upgrading to the XS is lost on me especially just for the camera. Sure under certain conditions it can overexpose highlights and Apple’s smart HDR is not the best fix IMO as it does seem to over flatten the image especially faces. For those shots I use either Halide or Darkroom and shoot raw then a quick process in Darkroom on the phone app not on the Mac and I get awesome detail colour and contrast with no clipped highlights although no portrait support of course

 

[Phoenix1000]

The vast majority of people have no interest in learning anything about photography, therefore the best camera is the one you have available which is usually your phone.

In the past 5 years the advancements in *phone cameras* has been staggering, in a world where most of these photos either go on a social media site to be forgotten or are only ever viewed on another phone screen.

I'm not disputing that actual cameras will always have the leg up on mobile cameras, but the handheld camera that isn't a full blown rig is a thing of the past because cell phone cameras have gotten so good for their intended use case.

Okay, if we talk about image quality on social media sites, I think you are right. I don't use these sites and yes, I am really interested in very good image quality, because with the much more staggering advancements in TV technology, you can create stunning image and video quality with professional photography equipment. Timelapse movies from sunset in wonderful locations to be mentioned as an example. And okay, if the future aspiration concerning image quality is determined by the pictures found on social media, I'm some kind of dinosaur who is scared, if companies like Canon or Nikon with their wonderful products will survive. I for my part just bought a new professional DSLR, but that will only be a drop on the dry stone if everybody else only wants to snap some pictures with his mobile ... very sad.

 

[Jayson A]

Love how the photo comparisons are super compressed and low res. Great job MacRumors!

 

[tongxinshe]

Smart HDR could not be given via software update to the X? Annoying. Apple holding back features like usual.

In the keynote Apple explained that SmartHDR needs the computing power that earlier APUs don't have.

 

[Blaze4G]

Yawn.
Always so agressive, defensive, and inaccurate.

Perhaps they used something else with the pixel, but with the pixel 2 it’s the ipu, everyone knows that.

“Let's delve into the details for you technical folks out there: The centerpiece of Pixel Visual Core is the Google-designed Image Processing Unit (IPU)—a fully programmable, domain-specific processor designed from scratch to deliver maximum performance at low power. With eight Google-designed custom cores, each with 512 arithmetic logic units (ALUs), the IPU delivers raw performance of more than 3 trillion operations per second on a mobile power budget. Using Pixel Visual Core, HDR+ can run 5x faster and at less than one-tenth the energy than running on the application processor (AP). A key ingredient to the IPU’s efficiency is the tight coupling of hardware and software—our software controls many more details of the hardware than in a typical processor. Handing more control to the software makes the hardware simpler and more efficient, but it also makes the IPU challenging to program using traditional programming languages. To avoid this, the IPU leverages domain-specific languages that ease the burden on both developers and the compiler: Halide for image processing and TensorFlow for machine learning. A custom Google-made compiler optimizes the code for the underlying hardware.”


https://www.androidauthority.com/pixel-visual-core-808182/

Aren't you tired of being incorrect?

The visual core in the pixel 2 was NOT enabled upon release in October and the Pixel 2 was still able to do HDR +. They enabled it in February 2018, 4 months after. Everyone knows this except you.

The Google Camera App does NOT even use the visual core even when it was enabled and up to now it does not. It is used for third party photo apps.

I am tired of schooling you. Can you please educate yourself before you comment on something you know nothing about instead of doing a half attempt at a Google Search and not read?

Here let me help you get started with the link below. Are you going to say this is fake news and continue spewing inaccuracy? Or man up and admit you're incorrect?

https://www.androidpit.com/google-camera-app-still-ignores-the-pixel-visual-core

The link you posted even said the visual core was not enabled yet at the time of publication but still does HDR + and that the nexus 6p, and pixel did not need it to do HDR +. But as per usual you don't read and choose to post a link without even reading it. How sad.

 

[NT1440]

Okay, if we talk about image quality on social media sites, I think you are right. I don't use these sites and yes, I am really interested in very good image quality, because with the much more staggering advancements in TV technology, you can create stunning image and video quality with professional photography equipment. Timelapse movies from sunset in wonderful locations to be mentioned as an example. And okay, if the future aspiration concerning image quality is determined by the pictures found on social media, I'm some kind of dinosaur who is scared, if companies like Canon or Nikon with their wonderful products will survive. I for my part just bought a new professional DSLR, but that will only be a drop on the dry stone if everybody else only wants to snap some pictures with his mobile ... very sad.

I'm in a weird position on this. I don't like social media (I don't care at all about what your meal looked like, why post it?), but from a business perspective that's where all the activity is.

I think Nikon and Canon will be around, but their main business strategy will probably shift as they start to introduce new bells a whistles to their professional cameras in terms of algorithms for capturing photography or introducing their own custom silicon to enhance their professional lines in some way.

Like it or not, unless you're going to shoot with film, I think computational photography will be the norm (with a whole spectrum within that class) in the very near future.

 

[Phoenix1000]

I'm in a weird position on this. I don't like social media (I don't care at all about what your meal looked like, why post it?), but from a business perspective that's where all the activity is.

I think Nikon and Canon will be around, but their main business strategy will probably shift as they start to introduce new bells a whistles to their professional cameras in terms of algorithms for capturing photography or introducing their own custom silicon to enhance their professional lines in some way.

Like it or not, unless you're going to shoot with film, I think computational photography will be the norm (with a whole spectrum within that class) in the very near future.

In terms of what marketing from social media providers, big internet enterprises etc. is telling their customers, I agree. For the vast majority, snapping pictures with a mobile phone will be sufficient, because the results will only be watched on a small mobile screen. But is anybody seriously thinking, that he can differentiate the picture quality taken from an iPhone X or iPhone 8 or iPhone 7 ... from the picture quality of an iPhone XS / XS Max when watched on a little iPhone screen? No way. So why pay a lot of money for a new iPhone with a better camera, when picture quality basically stays the same, when watched on a small screen?