Looking at all these interesting comparison photos, something occurred to me again... I had both the iPhone 4 and 5. Am I the only one who often had the feeling that the iP4 made better photos (more detailed, richer in colour, higher contrast, etc.) under many circumstances than the iP5?
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.
Comprehensive Comparison Shows Camera Improvements From Original iPhone to iPhone 6s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 6S clearly has more detail than all of the others. I have an iPhone 6 Plus, shame she doesn't include those in the test as well as the iPhone 6 because there are subtle differences between the two models.
Some iPhone 6 pictures in her test look better than the 6S but overall the 6S seems the better camera.
Some iPhone 6 pictures in her test look better than the 6S but overall the 6S seems the better camera.
Fanbois have said years that apple will never release camera over 8MP as that is the best you can put to a phone.
In reality Apple just kept it in the closet so they have enough new features for future S release.
When you look at those photos in the enlargements it's all about how many MP's you have. Less mp's = blurry picture.
In reality Apple just kept it in the closet so they have enough new features for future S release.
When you look at those photos in the enlargements it's all about how many MP's you have. Less mp's = blurry picture.
the one thing that really look bad is the CU on the eyes of the model...
the 6S really looks like it has water color filter, almost to a drawing degree.
while all the other previous phones don't.
i would definitely preferred the real noise underneath..
i guess it looked very bad if they decided to do THAT.
i mean, come on, wtf is this??
the 6S really looks like it has water color filter, almost to a drawing degree.
while all the other previous phones don't.
i would definitely preferred the real noise underneath..
i guess it looked very bad if they decided to do THAT.
i mean, come on, wtf is this??
I'm guessing the photographer took these shots all at the same time with these phones, not years apart with each iteration of the newer phone. You need the same lighting conditions to produce an accurate assessment.
-----------------------------
Edit: clicked on the link and visited the website. Yeah, duh... of course she did.
I didn't like the comment with the coins though. 6s "more contrast"? Uh, NO!?!? It has LESS contrast -- if you did that in grayscale you'd see that the 6 had more contrast than the 6s! Just by looking at it you can tell! The 6s produced a muddy photo with less definition.
-----------------------------
Edit: clicked on the link and visited the website. Yeah, duh... of course she did.
I didn't like the comment with the coins though. 6s "more contrast"? Uh, NO!?!? It has LESS contrast -- if you did that in grayscale you'd see that the 6 had more contrast than the 6s! Just by looking at it you can tell! The 6s produced a muddy photo with less definition.
Last edited:
And, just for fun, here is my gallery from 1997 of photos taken with Apple's QuickTake 200 digital camera, released over ten years before the original iPhone. 640x480 pixels saved to a 5V SmartMedia card. (Indeed, the camera was built for Apple by Fujifilm.)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/albums/72157652635206020
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/albums/72157652635206020
The iPhone 6 looks the best, also performs the best in low light and I swear they've had trench isolation for years, they're just going on about it now like it's new.
Tbh though the iPhone's camera isn't impressive, it's a 1/3 sensor with an f2.2 aperture and they've sacrificed pixel size for resolution. Apple's automatic software is good, but the likes of Samsung and some others have caught up there so Apple cannot rest on their phone being the best automatic shooter any more.
Still the most disappointing thing though is the lack of manual settings, no RAW and the tiny sensor. I wish they would just stick a bigger camera bump on the back, they can easily make it look sexy and impressive.... unlike the little pathetic nipple they have now with the ugly antenna band design that just looks wrong for some reason.
Tbh though the iPhone's camera isn't impressive, it's a 1/3 sensor with an f2.2 aperture and they've sacrificed pixel size for resolution. Apple's automatic software is good, but the likes of Samsung and some others have caught up there so Apple cannot rest on their phone being the best automatic shooter any more.
Still the most disappointing thing though is the lack of manual settings, no RAW and the tiny sensor. I wish they would just stick a bigger camera bump on the back, they can easily make it look sexy and impressive.... unlike the little pathetic nipple they have now with the ugly antenna band design that just looks wrong for some reason.
Funny how Google just announced two Nexus phones with 12mp cameras and the 1.5 pixel size the iPhone 6 had... what I expected from the 6s but sadly Apple sacrifice sensor size for thinness and they refuse to have a camera bump, they just want a pathetic looking nipple thing.
I see. Many thanks.
I guess this makes my decision to buy a new iPod Touch way easier! (since it no longer has Sapphire Crystal on the lens, which I was worried about not having..)
the one thing that really look bad is the CU on the eyes of the model...
the 6S really looks like it has water color filter, almost to a drawing degree.
while all the other previous phones don't.
i would definitely preferred the real noise underneath..
i guess it looked very bad if they decided to do THAT.
i mean, come on, wtf is this??
well you're cropping the photo
But I have a problem with the color tone in her face. If you examine the lighting in the background, her face should not be this yellow. It looks like she has a pancake of makeup, which we know isnt the case.
then also Examine her lip color between the 3gs--4-->6s. There's a yellow color bleed going on.