This device reminds me a bit of the 7 Plus (minus adding extra RAM)...The first time another lens was introduced, but it isn't quite the quality desired, leaving the obvious room for next years inevitable upgrade of a better ultra wide lens...
This is a really nice photo!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....
Choose to willfully ignore it and posts it thinking it's a great shot.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?
I think the ultra wide camera takes stunning photos. I am very pleased with the 11.View attachment 865342
I'm not a professional photographer either. That's why I don't walk around Six Flags with a DSLR with multiple lenses. I am able to use the camera in my pocket to take a photo that looks like that. It's something that would otherwise not be captured. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one in your pocket. Think about where we are in 2019 compared to 10 years ago, as far as phones, cameras etc. We live in amazing times. And its only going to get better. For me, that photo is amazing, sorry.I am not a professional photographer or anything. But how is this supposed to be amazing? I find it quite unreastic and not true to life.
It is also lacks alot of details based on my amateur eyes.
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.
IMO the problem with the ultrawide is its poor 12 megapixel resolution. You can get nice shots but if there's anything wrong with the framing you have almost no room to edit afterwards.
Based on what 2019 standard? What camera do you feel it should be competing with?but the quality just doesn’t hold up in 2019.
He has to find something to be disappointed with. It's the best reviewed iPhone this generation, so...Based on what 2019 standard? What camera do you feel it should be competing with?
I’m saying you’re wrong for feeling how you feel I’m just curious what you’re comparing it to.
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....
[automerge]1569983889[/automerge]I've been having fun with the ultra-wide. Sure, it's a bit soft but it also makes shots like this one possible. I've never had a camera that could take a shot like this before and now I have one in my phone, on me all the time.
Win win all around.View attachment 865653
Sure is! And it was 37 degrees (almost 100F) on the weekend, so was very refreshing!looks like Barton Springs
I don’t understand. The 11 has the exact same ultra wide camera as the 11 Pro. So if you are not happy with the ultra wide of the 11 Pro, you won’t be happy with the 11. And it is bad compared to..?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.
Some people like looking photos at pixel level. I don’t get it myself as I prefer looking at the picture itself instead of the pixels, but some people seems to enjoy the pixels more than the actual picture.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.
key Biscayne? lolI've been having fun with the ultra-wide. Sure, it's a bit soft but it also makes shots like this one possible. I've never had a camera that could take a shot like this before and now I have one in my phone, on me all the time.
Win win all around.View attachment 865653
I’m not going to argue with people, if you think the ultra wide angle is great, excellent enjoy it. I just think people should know of the drastic difference in image quality between the cameras. That’s all.
To some people it picture can’t be good unless it’s taken with a camera with the best specs available.The composition of some these shots is fantastic.
Do you know if the forum software compressed the jpgs? If so your observations are not valid.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.
Do you know if the forum software compressed the jpgs? If so your observations are not valid.
I’m not going to argue with people, if you think the ultra wide angle is great, excellent enjoy it. I just think people should know of the drastic difference in image quality between the cameras. That’s all.