Dual Camera iPhone 7 Plus Could Offer 'DSLR-Like' Quality, 3D Depth Mapping

[Glassed Silver]

It's like a dSLR.. in that it.... takes pictures... and its "Really good quality"...... Depth of field? No.... Dynamic range? No...... interchangeable lenses? No.... So it's just a .... "Really good" point and shoot................... Yes.. I guess so

Wait, it has "clip on lenses", surely that's almost as good right? /facepalm

You must be a joy to know, calling people who aren't into cameras as much as you 'idiots', your D90 only had 12MP and a max ISO of 3200, in bad light conditions it wouldn't fear much better. The only advantage would have a bit more DOF. It's like a FF D4S owner calling you a noob for using a D90.
[doublepost=1453937206][/doublepost]

dslr quality can mean an old canon 400D, NOT a Full frame 5D3 with a big prime buddy

Yeah, ISO and resolution surely handycap the capabilities of that camera... except no.
ISO 3200 is more than enough to cover a LOT of sceneries where this camera will work a lot better than any smartphone available today and then you have the ability to get great results from a long exposure with a tripod. Long exposures are "doable" on iPhone, too, but they don't come out as great as a SLR shot.
That'd be something that could maybe be worked on, but there will always be a lot of extra hurdles in real-life usage due to the sensor size limitation.
I shoot a lot of photos with my DSLR and my iPhone and trust me: I avoid high ISO ranges (even though I can go fairly high) and still get amazing results that just won't happen on a smaller sensor size.
Why you even mention the 12 MP figure as a reason as to why the D90 isn't much better than an iPhone is astounding.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[DesterWallaboo]

And let me know when the phones can actually shoot RAW photos... lol... not that it will make them DSLR quality. Just a tad more flexible for post.

 

[allenvanhellen]

I think this will be used on the FRONT facing cameras. This is where camera modules have to be super tiny, but we want improved quality and low light performance, especially for video chats, where the Retina Flash can't help. This also might allow for selfies that don't have exaggerated noses and so on (objects too close to the lens). AND it might let people chat easily with funny backgrounds or avatars.
[doublepost=1453942984][/doublepost]

And let me know when the phones can actually shoot RAW photos... lol... not that it will make them DSLR quality. Just a tad more flexible for post.

That would be nice. For now, we can get TIFF files, using apps like Moment App or Camera 645 Pro. The Moment App also lets us shoot in 4k at 24p. Makes a difference not starting off with JPEGS, however, many apps (VSCO cam, etc.) output to lossy JPEGs.

 

[ValO]

You do not need, is if you want.

My guess is that the difference in physical size between the 7 and the 7+ will be smaller compared to the difference between the 6 and 6+.

It is the only way for apple to make the people with the regular 6(s) to upgrade.

I would have gotten a 6S+ but it was just too big, so i went for the regular 6s. Perhaps a 7+ that is a little wider and as tall as the iphone 6(s)?
A 3d touch/force touch home button?
Ambient light and distance sensor integrated in the speaker grill?

 

[AndyDiamond]

I'm one of those people who buys an iPhone FOR the camera.
The better the camera on the phone - it's what we (mobile photographers) want.
Before you start with the "why don't you just buy a real camera" stuff, we choose to shoot with the iPhone because of the apps, the portability and all that stuff - y'know - it's 'mobile'...

So it's important news. However it's been in the works for a couple of years now. As mentioned, these photos are from the 5S days at the time of the acquisition.

What's interesting are products like the Light camera with it's 16 small lenses. it's essentially the same idea except it's a standalone device running (apparently) an Android OS and costs about $1500 (when it eventually hits the street later this year).
That is the kind of tech that needs to be in phones (to make them better cameras). I feel the Light thing might be a little late to the party or at least be overtaken by the phone camera tech (pay $1500 for the Light or go on a plan and get the latest iPhone... go figure).

What is important to note, with mobile photographers, is that in most cases they are not 'coming down' from DSLR tech. So they are not constantly lamenting what can't be done on a phone vs. a Nikon. They use the phone as a camera and work it to the best of their abilities. They are however very interested on 'going up' the tech path, with each new advance in mobile camera capabilities they get better images and capability. At some point the lines between camera phones and DSLRs will merge. Of course there will be 'pro' gear, but that pro gear does not fit with the mobile ethos and will be left to those who wish to use it specifically.


EDIT: and I'd just like to add that it's not always the camera that you use that produces the best images. It's the shooter, not the gear. I've seen horrible pictures shot on iPhones and also fantastic ones. Goes for DLSR or pro gear too. Give someone a $20,000 Nikon kit and that won't automatically make them a pro shooter. Just look at all those amateur photo buffs out there who spend bucket-loads on 'gear' and read all the photo tech mags and 'specs', only to end up shooting crappy 'glamour' photos of chicks in bikinis standing next to Harleys lol.

 

[koruki]

The 400D would still outperform the iPhone for lots of reasons. Everything from depth of field, bokeh, sheer number of photons passing through the sensor, aperture settings, time settings, +/- EV, etc. They aren't even kind of in the same league. Just because one takes digital pictures does not put them in the same class.

It would out perform only if you did a manual set up or use L glass, if you take a base model with a kit lense and put it on P, you wont fear much better. Oh and before you think I'm bias, I own a few full frame bodies and high glass. I'm just a little annoyed people start comparing the iPhone's improvements to top end cameras.
[doublepost=1453944197][/doublepost]

Wait, it has "clip on lenses", surely that's almost as good right? /facepalm



Yeah, ISO and resolution surely handycap the capabilities of that camera... except no.
ISO 3200 is more than enough to cover a LOT of sceneries where this camera will work a lot better than any smartphone available today and then you have the ability to get great results from a long exposure with a tripod. Long exposures are "doable" on iPhone, too, but they don't come out as great as a SLR shot.
That'd be something that could maybe be worked on, but there will always be a lot of extra hurdles in real-life usage due to the sensor size limitation.
I shoot a lot of photos with my DSLR and my iPhone and trust me: I avoid high ISO ranges (even though I can go fairly high) and still get amazing results that just won't happen on a smaller sensor size.
Why you even mention the 12 MP figure as a reason as to why the D90 isn't much better than an iPhone is astounding.

Glassed Silver:mac

3200 ISO MAX, ISO across different sensors are not made the same. The 3200ISO on an A7S is beyond usable, 3200ISO on an old 5D2 is pushing it, on a crop sensor of that age I don't think you want to go there.

The 12MP matters when you go to print or need to crop

 

[LordVic]

If I have to read "DSLR LIKE QUALITY" in regards to a camera that

1. Uses small sensor
2. doesn't have replacable mounted lenses with variety of lenses from 10mm to at least 300mm optical zooms
3. Doesn't allow for manual aperture adjustment
4. Doesn't allow for manual ISO adjustment
5. Doens't allow for mnual Shutter speed adjustment
6. Cannot output to large format memory cards
7. Cannot output decent bit RAW

I'm going to go *******.

Listen, Camera phones are amazing now. They easily replace point and shoots. They are starting to be able to replace larger non-fixed ultrazoom point and shoots.

But in no way, is a Smartphone camera going to be able to replace for photography purposes even a medium format Mirrorless or DSLR. Unless Apple somehow manages to defy the laws of physics.

And everytime Mac Rumors has used this asanine "DSLR QUALITY!" moniker when talking about phone cameras, you KNOW, that whoever has written the article doesn't have a bloody clue about photography.

 

[larpa]

I am surprised that no one hasn't mentioned what kind of augmented reality apps the 3D depth camera would enable. Furthermore, last year Apple both Metaio, a company that focused on mobile augmented reality systems.

Would be very interesting to see Apple enter the field of AR with it's own apps.

 

[LordVic]

The best part is when the idiots who fall for that PR see my pictures (shot with a D90 from 2008) and ask me where I got them printed because they came out so much sharper than their iPhone prints.

But then you have people in the photo forum here who insist their iPhone is as good as an SLR and show side-by-side pics under ideal lighting to prove it. When you suggest they try shooting in dimmer light or compare crops so you can really see sharpness at print resolution, they never seem to notice those posts.

There's nothing wrong with being proud of the shots you take, even if it's with a smartphone, But yes, At the end of th day, the limitations by a smartphone camera are easily trounced by even 10 year old SLR's, even with far lower MPX counts.

There are times when this same argument has come up, and I pull out my old, trusty, and still working Canon Rebel 300D circa 2003 and in most lighting condition the IQ blows the modern smartphone camera. It wont win out on MPX and zoom factor, but I personally prefer getting the shots crop right in the photo taking than post processing (I grew up on film)

But at the end of the day it IS a good thing to have phone cameras improve. I take my phone more places than my DSLR, and on vacations where all i want are snapshots, it's far more convenient. My SLR ismore for "art". my smartphone is for memories.
[doublepost=1453946105][/doublepost]

dslr quality can mean an old canon 400D, NOT a Full frame 5D3 with a big prime buddy

My Original Canon 300D will still produce Better IQ photos than most smartphones. It was the first consumer DSLR. Its APS-C. No full frame here. Pure crop sensor.

At the end of the day, Photography is the Art of Light. Light being the most critical component. The larger the sensor, bigger the lenses, the more light, and the better the image quality.

Will it have the same Details for zoom or crop? sure, higher MPX will win out purely on how many pixels are in the shot. But the sheer volume of light a DSLR can take in will always outperform any smaller form factor.

EG: Photo of a Cat. Taken with the 300D (released in 2003) AT 6mpx with a standard kit lens. Darkened room with only a hallway light in the far left on and the moon coming through a window (Behind me). Otherwise, a situation even todays phones will struggle with.

 

[Yelmurc]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the iPhone 7 has. The camera is a huge selling point for the iPhone and they really need to continue the march.

 

[69650]

Why not just go out and buy a decent standalone camera instead.

 

[Tomal]

if this comes with only plus sized phones, this is not good. I like the regular sized iphones. Apple is pandering too much to Chinese users by focusing only on the bigger iphone. There are countless who likes the regular sized phones. If they do this, I will switch to S7.

 

[alexgowers]

I feel like this is the most valid rumour for iPhone 7 so far. It has backstory, is actually a good product and works, apple have links and seems like a way to get rid of the damned bump!

Other rumours also look promising though i'm not a fan of dumping the 3.5mm jack anytime soon.

I wanna see compatibility with apple pencil (even though it's stupid for a small screen) Much improved cameras, video in wide angle front and back, with 1080p front camera. Also, wireless charging really should be here already, even if a cable is faster and a dock is inconvenient, it should just be in the phone already. It's hard to see what else apple can improve at this stage apart from speed and maybe a few little tweaks.

 

[malexandria]

I don't see the difference in these "comparisons."
[doublepost=1453949536][/doublepost]

I don't see the difference in these "comparisons."

I just want them to fix the Focus and improve the zoom functionality.

 

[DevNull0]

You must be a joy to know, calling people who aren't into cameras as much as you 'idiots', your D90 only had 12MP and a max ISO of 3200, in bad light conditions it wouldn't fear much better. The only advantage would have a bit more DOF. It's like a FF D4S owner calling you a noob for using a D90.

Actually my D90 is useless beyond ISO 800 and not good beyond 400. But it still offers incomparably better low light IQ than my wife's 6S+.

dslr quality can mean an old canon 400D, NOT a Full frame 5D3 with a big prime buddy

A 15 year old SLR will still beat any smartphone on the market, but when you make a marketing claim of "dslr-like-quality", I think it's fair to say you have to compare to a current entry-level model.
[doublepost=1453950084][/doublepost]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I think the general public could care less about taking great looking photos. As long as they can point the camera and get something they are happy with; then I guess that's all that matters and apple knows that.

They don't care for fine-art masterpieces. But when their snapshots consistantly come out too blurry to print they're not going to get something they're happy with.

 

[koruki]

If I have to read "DSLR LIKE QUALITY" in regards to a camera that

Listen, Camera phones are amazing now. They easily replace point and shoots. They are starting to be able to replace larger non-fixed ultrazoom point and shoots.

But in no way, is a Smartphone camera going to be able to replace for photography purposes even a medium format Mirrorless or DSLR. Unless Apple somehow manages to defy the laws of physics.

And everytime Mac Rumors has used this asanine "DSLR QUALITY!" moniker when talking about phone cameras, you KNOW, that whoever has written the article doesn't have a bloody clue about photography.

lol we bringing Medium format into this now too?

 

[LordVic]

lol we bringing Medium format into this now too?

That was unfair of me

 

[sarge]

Who knew there was so much quantum excitation (and so many photo-cum-physicists) on the old macrumors. Someone had better get the word out to Fermilab that they should ease up on the observation of sub atomic particles. Y you might ask? Because physics doesn't need your crummy DSLR!

 

[lk400]

As a photographer, I've found the strength of a photograph and its ability to connect with a viewer has very little to do with the camera that captured the image. Indeed, I have photos from my iPhone that are just as compelling as those from my other so-called "real" cameras.

Good photographs come from a photographer's eye, imagination, life experiences, etc, and ability to compose what's in front of the lens, ultimately creating an image that releases narrative and stirs a viewer's mind.

As a photographer, of course I agree with what you wrote. However, I think the OP was referring to the tired marketing rubbish of calling any claimed improvement in smartphone camera tech as "SLR quality". Ive been capturing photos for 3 decades, a lot of the time on rubbish gear. I have many nice shots from decades ago that I still love. Yet, I wouldn't say those nice shots are high quality from an "image quality" perspective, and I certainly wouldn't call them "SLR Quality". I think its the same point here.

 

[Spincity]

If I see the words "SLR[-like] quality" and "phone" in one sentence one more time...

That's some of the biggest PR bull ever and most of the media outlets chime right in.

Glassed Silver:mac

There is no replacement for grouped glass nor for sensor size. A Sony point and shoot or Cannon with a one inch sensor is going to slap your silly cellphone around, and take it's lunch money. Ditto any ILC on the market.
[doublepost=1453958769][/doublepost]

As a photographer, of course I agree with what you wrote. However, I think the OP was referring to the tired marketing rubbish of calling any claimed improvement in smartphone camera tech as "SLR quality". Ive been capturing photos for 3 decades, a lot of the time on rubbish gear. I have many nice shots from decades ago that I still love. Yet, I wouldn't say those nice shots are high quality from an "image quality" perspective, and I certainly wouldn't call them "SLR Quality". I think its the same point here.

Can you make a good image on an cellphone, sure you can. But it's not "DSLR quality" 16meg pix on a 6s is not 16meg pix on a APSC ILC and it sure isn't 16meg pic on a Sony A7SII. I love my 6s, it's quick, it's fun, and I've just tossed a nice little manual app at it to make it a lot more flexible. But it's not a replacement for a DSLR, no cellphone can ever be. The laws of physics prevent that from ever happening.

 

[Max(IT)]

Everytime I read "DSLR quality" I call it BS ...
BTW the protruding lens has never been an issue for me, since i use a case anyway

 

[LordVic]

Can you make a good image on an cellphone, sure you can. But it's not "DSLR quality" 16meg pix on a 6s is not 16meg pix on a APSC ILC and it sure isn't 16meg pic on a Sony A7SII. I love my 6s, it's quick, it's fun, and I've just tossed a nice little manual app at it to make it a lot more flexible. But it's not a replacement for a DSLR, no cellphone can ever be. The laws of physics prevent that from ever happening.

I'm sure I've read enough posts on MR to believe there are enough blindly loyal Apple fanboys who probably think Apple is not bound by the same laws of physics as everyone else

 

[Max(IT)]

Why do I need to get a phone that's way too big for me in order to get the improved camera?

Physics ....

So friggin annoying...why are they comparing to the 5s instead of the a new 6s. Probably because there is not much of a noticeable difference.

as far as low light images are concerned, there isn't much of an improvements from 5S to 6S tbh.
The iPhone 5S was exceptionally good at that ...

 

[Sinjun]

DSLR-grade is impossible without lenses. No matter how high the resolution or ISO goes a point and shoot can't replicate that kind of depth on its own. Getting tired of seeing this kind of nonsense from people who don't understand photography.

 

[Max(IT)]

You do know that internal components are shrinking in size with every passing day, right?

Not indefinitely and not at that pace ...
When lens and sensor are involved, you still can't win over physics ....

I only care about the selfie camera...

you forgot the /s (I hope....)
[doublepost=1453961378][/doublepost]

5S & S4??? What year is this???

I just think those pictures are from the time Apple acquired the company a few years ago....
[doublepost=1453961686][/doublepost]

There's nothing wrong with being proud of the shots you take, even if it's with a smartphone, But yes, At the end of th day, the limitations by a smartphone camera are easily trounced by even 10 year old SLR's, even with far lower MPX counts.

There are times when this same argument has come up, and I pull out my old, trusty, and still working Canon Rebel 300D circa 2003 and in most lighting condition the IQ blows the modern smartphone camera. It wont win out on MPX and zoom factor, but I personally prefer getting the shots crop right in the photo taking than post processing (I grew up on film)

But at the end of the day it IS a good thing to have phone cameras improve. I take my phone more places than my DSLR, and on vacations where all i want are snapshots, it's far more convenient. My SLR ismore for "art". my smartphone is for memories.
[doublepost=1453946105][/doublepost]

My Original Canon 300D will still produce Better IQ photos than most smartphones. It was the first consumer DSLR. Its APS-C. No full frame here. Pure crop sensor.

At the end of the day, Photography is the Art of Light. Light being the most critical component. The larger the sensor, bigger the lenses, the more light, and the better the image quality.

Will it have the same Details for zoom or crop? sure, higher MPX will win out purely on how many pixels are in the shot. But the sheer volume of light a DSLR can take in will always outperform any smaller form factor.

EG: Photo of a Cat. Taken with the 300D (released in 2003) AT 6mpx with a standard kit lens. Darkened room with only a hallway light in the far left on and the moon coming through a window (Behind me). Otherwise, a situation even todays phones will struggle with.

On a side note, using only standard kit lens (usually very cheap) on a DSLR isn't a great idea when quality and low light are concerned ....
With my 50/f1.4 that photo could have been much better. With the 50/1.2, well, entirely another planet ... (this lens alone costs more than an iPhone 6S+)