After much excitement about the ultra wide angle camera, It's a complete failure. The image quality compared to the standard camera is pretty awful, and if you combine the lack of OIS, and the F2.4 the camera is dead in low light. It also doesn't work in night mode. If you're planning on getting the PRO model for the Ultra Wide Camera, I would skip it and get the regular 11.
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.
iPhone 11 Pro iPhone 11 Pro Ultra Wide Camera
- Thread starter Miltz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Couldn't agree more.
In the few days that I had to play with my iPhone 11 Pro (before ultimately returning it), I played around with both the wide lens and the telephoto. Personally, I thought both were useless because of the amount of image quality loss.
The wide lens was "cool", but the photos were too grainy compared to regular camera. I felt cheated. It was marketed as something truly special and I fail to see why. Image quality was horrible. Not much else to say.
In before being told that we're doing it wrong
In the few days that I had to play with my iPhone 11 Pro (before ultimately returning it), I played around with both the wide lens and the telephoto. Personally, I thought both were useless because of the amount of image quality loss.
The wide lens was "cool", but the photos were too grainy compared to regular camera. I felt cheated. It was marketed as something truly special and I fail to see why. Image quality was horrible. Not much else to say.
In before being told that we're doing it wrong
Maybe it's just me, but I really like the ultra-wide. Yeah, it doesn't support night mode but that's fine.
The telephoto is great, though.
The telephoto is great, though.
I think the ultra wide camera takes stunning photos. I am very pleased with the 11.
Although I don’t use the Ultra-wide lens all that much, I’ve never yet been disappointed when I do. As far as it not having Night Mode capability, I don’t miss it that much as most of the photo’s I’ve taken in Night Mode have not required it.
One thing I definitely like about it is the fact that it is not a “Fisheye” lens. I’ve seen some photos where there was some slight Fisheye effect seen at the edges, but not much. I was afraid when I first read the rumors of an ultra-wide lens that it would be a Fisheye lens, and I’m very happy that it is not.
One thing I definitely like about it is the fact that it is not a “Fisheye” lens. I’ve seen some photos where there was some slight Fisheye effect seen at the edges, but not much. I was afraid when I first read the rumors of an ultra-wide lens that it would be a Fisheye lens, and I’m very happy that it is not.
I was in the same boat as disliking most of the ultrawide photos, but gradually I'm realising that it is good for certain moments (too many people celebrating in the same room, landscape photos etc..). For the normal photos I enjoy the stabilisation and enhancement which apple does with 3 lenses.
Ultra wide is probably just an added advantage..
Ultra wide is probably just an added advantage..
Last edited:
In low light environments, the OPs comments are true.
For outdoor daytime shots and well lit indoors, I completely disagree. I’ve found myself using the ultra-wilde more and more, and been very impressed with the image quality. I agree it doesn’t compete with the other two lenses, but it certainly not a “complete failure” as the OP suggests. For landscape shots, it’s fantastic.
Here’s a photo I shot over the weekend using the ultra-wide....
For outdoor daytime shots and well lit indoors, I completely disagree. I’ve found myself using the ultra-wilde more and more, and been very impressed with the image quality. I agree it doesn’t compete with the other two lenses, but it certainly not a “complete failure” as the OP suggests. For landscape shots, it’s fantastic.
Here’s a photo I shot over the weekend using the ultra-wide....
Attachments
Funny you should post these. While the content in the photo is beautiful, the photos themselves look poor. They clearly lack detail and are grainy. Do you not see that or do you choose to ignore it?
Surely if you're going to crop it to any large extent, you'd just use the other lens?
Of course for serious cropping. But even just cropping to 16:9 and slight straightening/reframing reveals noisy images.
Like the rollercoaster picture posted above looks nice zoomed out in Safari, but zoom in even a tiny bit and you see the trees and rollercoaster are pixelated and full of noise.
I've shot a few ultra-wides since getting my Pro and I have to agree that while the content of the photos look good, the quality is quite poor. However, for me the ultra-wide is more of an add-on feature and as long as the wide and telephoto lenses are doing good work I'm okay with it.
I didn't check it as all I can see is a 2.7MB file. Is that the full-res version? I have a 6S so this is all still pretty cool from where I'm sitting!
Umm, considering the 11 and 11 Pro have the same Ultrawide and Wide cameras, not sure anyone is getting the Pro over the 11 for that reason..
Though in general I somewhat agree re the UW camera. As a standalone camera option it feels subpar compared to the Wide. Though I have gotten some excellent use out of it already (a lot of specific photos for work) and it gives an additional option for portrait mode which has worked beautifully.
Gotta say, this updated camera setup is the sole reason I'm upgrading from my iPhone X.
The ultra wide is pretty weak w/rt to detail, so you do have to be careful with it, especially if you take a normal photo and add some of the ultra wide data to it.
It’s basically zooming in on the ultra wide image data to match focal length, transforming, and doing a photo merge.
if you add in-focus data, it’s pretty obvious where the ultra wide data starts.
it’s probably just fine if you're adding in bokeh or low detail edge context, though.
It’s basically zooming in on the ultra wide image data to match focal length, transforming, and doing a photo merge.
if you add in-focus data, it’s pretty obvious where the ultra wide data starts.
it’s probably just fine if you're adding in bokeh or low detail edge context, though.
Can’t help but feel people have unrealistic expectations.
Im not aware of any phones with ultra wide lenses which are as good as their main lenses pound for pound. That’s not the point of the lens in the first place.
Im not aware of any phones with ultra wide lenses which are as good as their main lenses pound for pound. That’s not the point of the lens in the first place.
The photo of the building is the perfect example of how grainy the ultra wide lens is. Maybe you cannot see it, but it was extremely noticeable for me. These are NOT good examples.
I didn’t get the 11 pro for the ultrawide (I returned my iphone 11) i got it for the 2x optical and especially for up close macro shots using Up to 2x. The stabilization during video recording is superior to the iphone 11 as well using the 3rd lens!
I don’t know that I give a rat’s ass about grain when the step back view is fun and enjoyable? If you want to pixel peep, have at it, but in the meantime, those who enjoy the use of the lens can go ahead and continue enjoying it
If that degree of sharpness is of any importance to you, then grabbing a true DSLR with wide lens can be your thing. I’ll take the convenience and casual quick photo taking that it enables me to do while enjoying the standard wide lens and the telephoto lens which I’ve always found enjoyable to use.