thanks was about to reply the same thing - that's like a 2-3 generation improvement
Last edited:
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.
DxOMark: iPhone XS Max is 'Surefire Option' With 'One of the Best Smartphone Cameras Ever'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To be fair, I think that was based on actual side-by-side image comparisons rather than a computer algorithm.
I agree with you.....But the same should be said about Huawei...they didn't pay for they spot just because they have the top spot over Apple.
Stupid millenials... stupid, stupid millenials who don't understand the basics of photography and need their phone/software to do it all. Get a real camera, learn some basics, and enjoy real photography.
?? Seriously? A handful of people have posted before you... almost all to gripe about this or that (why not review the Xs... etc). What posters... who qualify as "all Apple fans" to you... were bragging/gloating about the scores before you sad that. Give it a rest people.
Just read the entire DXOMark article on their site.
I'm NOT convinced !
I want to see a COMPREHENSIVE "technical" analysis comparing Smart HDR vs ALL three of last year's models.
If Smart HDR raises the ISO, then I consider AAPL to have "Broken the Camera" (with the XS, XS Max, & probably also the XR as well) !!!
Instead of capturing 8 + 1 photos @ 120 fps, they should crank it down to fewer photos @ a lower capture rate, OR at least give Users the option (via a Slider) to do so !!!
One photo @ ideal exposure + one @ slightly under (exposure) would have been a better design !
I'm NOT convinced !
I want to see a COMPREHENSIVE "technical" analysis comparing Smart HDR vs ALL three of last year's models.
If Smart HDR raises the ISO, then I consider AAPL to have "Broken the Camera" (with the XS, XS Max, & probably also the XR as well) !!!
Instead of capturing 8 + 1 photos @ 120 fps, they should crank it down to fewer photos @ a lower capture rate, OR at least give Users the option (via a Slider) to do so !!!
One photo @ ideal exposure + one @ slightly under (exposure) would have been a better design !
It's all subjective. The trouble is, neither digital sensors nor film emulsions have the same properties as our human visual systems. Because our eyes constantly shift focus and exposure based on where we place our emphasis (dimly-lit cafe vs. brightly-lit street beyond) our overall, mind-integrated impression of the scene nearly always differs from what a camera would make of the same scene.
Until HDR came along, one exposure setting had to make do for both dim foreground and bright background. A good exposure of the background would typically silhouette the person in the foreground. A good exposure of the person might give use a blindingly bright background with minimal details and no color. Neither of those results matched our minds' impression of the scene. Consider what Ansel Adams had to do in both the field and the darkroom to get his natural-seeming results.
Subjectively speaking, is it important to have every part of the image well-exposed? It's going to depend. It's possible to introduce too much detail into an image. Might the photo have more impact if there was less detail in the background? I'd say yes. However, these are test shots, intended to demonstrate capabilities, rather than artistry. They're wide-angle shots, so they have a lot of depth-of-field. Switching to the telephoto (since when is 50mm-equivlaent considered "telephoto"??) would have changed the depth-of-field, blurring the background a bit. Similarly, I might want the woman in the foreground to be slightly better-lit, to make her more clearly the subject of the photo. Maybe that would make it a better shot artistically, but it makes judging the various technical capabilities of the camera a bit problematic.
HDR is still a new tool, relatively speaking. As with most new artistic techniques, it tends to be used in a heavy-handed manner. It takes much longer for artists to apply the tool with restraint and "taste." Considering those shots are intended to demonstrate what the built-in HDR can do, it's not quite the place for subtlety.
Last edited:
I feel there is too much processing in the cameras ever since they moved from 8MP rear sensors to 12MP rear. When i jumped from the 6plus to the 7plus i was actually disappointed in many of the shots I took because the overprocessing to control noise was way too agressive. I know thats the nature of the beast but i liked the 8MP sensor better for lowerer light. If you had a ton of light there was no issue. But in average to low light, the image held up much better and looked much less processed and natural.
yes..seriously.....There were a lot of people that posted in other threads that when the Note 9 scored well...that Samsung PAID for their score. That DxO was a corrupt company and scores were bought and paid for. Those people now love the new iPhone score on DxO.
I have the Xs Max and love it! I think the camera is great. But i don't need validation of that from DxO....
Then when another phone beats the iPhone score.....i'm not going to claim foul play......
Lol, thanks!
Weird that that statistics classes fill math requirements, but I guess you learn something new every day. =)
Glad that I now know that the Pixel 2 has a camera that is mathematically better, whilst the iPhone XS has a camera that is statistically better...
#TIL
The camera compliment on the P20 pro is actually
40 mega pixel with wide angle lens
20 mega pixel monochrome with wide angle lens
8 mega pixel with telephoto lens.
Really? Is this something new? Smartphone cameras are not designed for photo enthusiasts. What the vast majority of users want is a camera that "takes good pictures." This has been true for as long as there have been consumer-oriented cameras. I can remember the transition from box cameras like the Kodak Brownies and low-end Instamatics, which had no exposure meters, shutter speed knobs, or f-stop rings, to match-needle semi-automatics, to fully-automatic point-and shoots with auto-focus. Until the fully-automatic came along, one truly needed to be a photo hobbyist to take a decently-exposed shot. The typical roll of film was awash with poorly exposed, blurry images. Considering what the consumer paid for a roll of film and the processing thereof... ouch!
In the end, this is all about allowing those "stupid, stupid millennials" (not to mention their children, parents, and grandparents) to get a technically-decent exposure. Something that makes them feel good about using the camera, rather than "stupid" because they can't seem to make the thing work.
Does that mean "real photographers" no longer have a monopoly on technically competent images? Yes. But so what? There's still a difference between technically-competent snapshots and well-composed, well-conceived photography.
What’s staggering to me is that the Huawei Pro with dual sim and better camera and 128 gb cost € 696 and the iPhone XS with 64 gb € 1056 in the Netherlands. They both come from China and they’re both quality built. But Apple is again harvesting as much money on a product as it can with minimal innovation.
No wonder Huawei is getting bigger than Apple over here. More and more people start to realize that the prices Apple is handling isn’t justified anymore.
Big boo for money focusing Tim Cook. I still remember him saying that India was very important to Apple and Apple was there to stay. Apple isn’t competitive anymore. They want to be the Ferrari of the computer industry but with dated motor and handling. Good luck with that.
No wonder Huawei is getting bigger than Apple over here. More and more people start to realize that the prices Apple is handling isn’t justified anymore.
Big boo for money focusing Tim Cook. I still remember him saying that India was very important to Apple and Apple was there to stay. Apple isn’t competitive anymore. They want to be the Ferrari of the computer industry but with dated motor and handling. Good luck with that.
Of course, I never said anything like that. Huawei produced a great camera. I will never support that company, but they make a great camera system for their phone.
Last edited:
It’s the “new” device. It’s like how when the 2nd gen iPad Pro was released ALL reviews were on the 10.5 and how fast it was.
Does Huawei have as many software engineers on the payroll as Apple? Are they maintaining an entire operating system? Do they sink as much in R&D? Are they providing an end to end platform? Etc, etc.
Lol @ your RIDICULOUS “motor & handling” comment too, as Apple’s A12 chip is absolutely & indisputably the fastest/best “motor” available in mobile right now... by a country mile!!!
Especially with the new NPU gaining 800%+ performance improvement over last year.
The counter to this doom and gloom is Apple is doing what it should be doing. I haven’t seen innovation in android in years. Innovation is so overrated, isn’t it?
Market share, a losing metric, is just one way to gauge how a product is doing. Revenue and profits are another. So when you say bigger, in what metric sense of the word do you mean?
But you’re correct about one thing and incorrect about another. Those people who dumped Apple because they feel Apple isn’t competitive are the reason, imo, Apple is only at 1T instead of 2T.
Your incorrect about where the iPhone comes from. Unlike huawei which does come from China, the iPhone comes from California.
Carry on with your confirmational bias.
I really hate the reviewers online that claim the pixel 2 and Note 9 is still a better camera than the XS.I prefer real statistics rather than subjective biased opinions on which picture looks better.
You can see noise on any smartphone camera when you pixel peep and zoom 200% in.
[doublepost=1538592696][/doublepost]
Even in dxo’s rankings, the iPhone X took better still images according to them than the pixel 2.
That is correct...the video "combined" rating is all that brought the Pixel 2 ahead of the X.
lol! For a week. After pixel 3 comes out, DxO is dead to them..
For all those saying the Pixel 2 is better than the XS/XS Max cameras, why does it matter? Especially if you may not even own the XS/XS Max?
It's still a superb camera set and Apple is known for its simple camera app. Plenty of people take photos with their iPhones.
As an XS Max owner, I know I have an expensive device and am satisfied with it. Sure, it would be nice to have the best of everything. Hell, the Note 9 is as expensive as a XS and still has a weaker camera than the XS/Max. Does it matter when the phone makes up for it the cameras' minimal deficiencies with a bevy of hardware/software features?
It's still a superb camera set and Apple is known for its simple camera app. Plenty of people take photos with their iPhones.
As an XS Max owner, I know I have an expensive device and am satisfied with it. Sure, it would be nice to have the best of everything. Hell, the Note 9 is as expensive as a XS and still has a weaker camera than the XS/Max. Does it matter when the phone makes up for it the cameras' minimal deficiencies with a bevy of hardware/software features?