I don’t know, it seems I can
I moved a little taking the screenshot but the Apple logo 2cm away in my Magic Mouse was tack sharp. I recorded just fine afterwards
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 13 Pro iPhone 13 Pro main camera softness, less sharp than older iPhones
- Thread starter coso
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t know, it seems I can
I moved a little taking the screenshot but the Apple logo 2cm away in my Magic Mouse was tack sharp. I recorded just fine afterwards
I don’t know, it seems I can
I moved a little taking the screenshot but the Apple logo 2cm away in my Magic Mouse was tack sharp. I recorded just fine afterwards
You are with the 0.5x lens. It does not work with the 1x
BTW, here’s one of the articles on the S9’s dual aperture: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9298290460/galaxy-s9-dual-aperture-feature . It shows exactly the same issue; that is, (comparative) softness at f/1.5.
I wonder why Apple, who definitely were aware of the issue (see the much more agressive sharpening in the 13 Pros than in previous models) hasn’t added an additional aperture to the wide lens for good lighting conditions. There would have been enough space for that both vertically and horizontally: Currently, the wide optics is shorter than the tele one - see for example the iFixit shot at https://www.dpreview.com/news/72785...reveal-larger-cameras-bigger-battery-and-more (“The lenses used in the new iPhone 13 Pro camera modules are a bit taller than last year's models”). The possible size increase in any dimension would NOT have caused the camera bump to grow even more. Bad, Apple, bad…
I wonder why Apple, who definitely were aware of the issue (see the much more agressive sharpening in the 13 Pros than in previous models) hasn’t added an additional aperture to the wide lens for good lighting conditions. There would have been enough space for that both vertically and horizontally: Currently, the wide optics is shorter than the tele one - see for example the iFixit shot at https://www.dpreview.com/news/72785...reveal-larger-cameras-bigger-battery-and-more (“The lenses used in the new iPhone 13 Pro camera modules are a bit taller than last year's models”). The possible size increase in any dimension would NOT have caused the camera bump to grow even more. Bad, Apple, bad…
LOL, no-one stated the issue "destroys every single image". We just don't want a (slight!) downgrade in the image quality, that's all.
Maybe it all comes down to depth of field in close ups, in my examples. I photographed a business card on the table, and the text on the corner which was 1-2mm raised from the surface is ever so slightly "doubled". Like the bananas in the upper right part of @LFC2020 picture, which is basically bokeh
Sharpness in landscapes is sometimes better in the 8, sometimes better in the 13, there's a little softness yeah and I think that is the trade off of the 1,5 aperture
Sharpness in landscapes is sometimes better in the 8, sometimes better in the 13, there's a little softness yeah and I think that is the trade off of the 1,5 aperture
This is definitely not bokeh but "double vision". Must be caused by fusing images.I was referring to this
and the photo exhibits the same issue elsewhere as well - very ugly. I think it's either stacked images or probably the IS "wobbling". It's not traditional camera shake as for example on the left side there are no such issues.
Take any lens you like, it can be Ziess, Leica, Canon L, Nikon VR or Contax it doesn’t matter, you can plot a graph of resolution against FnO(and focal length assuming it’s a zoom).
You will always see a difference when you change the FnO.
Usually, there’s a sweet spot around about F8-but not necessarily- although for sure it’s never going to be the best resolution at 1.5 on any zoom.
I think that’s all you are seeing here. There’s a slight difference in resolution- not sharpness which isn’t really the same thing- at F1.5 to F1.8 and also a slightly different DOF so in some of the pics presented here and you can see, some of the image in the foreground is slightly softer because of that too.
There used to be a really good database where you could examine the resolution of objectives agains FnO and focal length but I have no idea where it is now or if it's been maintained but this will give an example of the kind of thing.
It's a good quality Nikon prime but even it is pretty soft at the open end.
There's a danger or pixel peeping here and getting bogged down in worrying about detail you would never usually see.
Yes the processing is going to be different but mostly you are going to get better results in a wider range of situations with the 13 and from what I've seen from some of the images here, the colour rendition and white balance are excellent giving a pleasing image which is natural and not over sharpened.
If you don't like it however that's your opinion and you are of course perfectly entitled to it, these things being subjective but I really doubt there's anything wrong with the 13.
You will always see a difference when you change the FnO.
Usually, there’s a sweet spot around about F8-but not necessarily- although for sure it’s never going to be the best resolution at 1.5 on any zoom.
I think that’s all you are seeing here. There’s a slight difference in resolution- not sharpness which isn’t really the same thing- at F1.5 to F1.8 and also a slightly different DOF so in some of the pics presented here and you can see, some of the image in the foreground is slightly softer because of that too.
There used to be a really good database where you could examine the resolution of objectives agains FnO and focal length but I have no idea where it is now or if it's been maintained but this will give an example of the kind of thing.
It's a good quality Nikon prime but even it is pretty soft at the open end.
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS lens test
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens test, reverse mount for macro photography
www.coinimaging.com
There's a danger or pixel peeping here and getting bogged down in worrying about detail you would never usually see.
Yes the processing is going to be different but mostly you are going to get better results in a wider range of situations with the 13 and from what I've seen from some of the images here, the colour rendition and white balance are excellent giving a pleasing image which is natural and not over sharpened.
If you don't like it however that's your opinion and you are of course perfectly entitled to it, these things being subjective but I really doubt there's anything wrong with the 13.
I guess you're right. This was the first photo I took with the 13 before I returned it. It's a live photo on the 0.5 camera. Out of interest I changed the key photo of it. There's quite a difference. I would love something half way between the two. Looking on the phone screen, at a sensible zoom and not pixel peeping, the better image is obvious.
Here’s a comparison I made with my 13 pro and max. In almost all scenarios the max is sharper, weather thanks in Marco, portrait etc. these too were take. In same lighting and settings. The 13 is not bad, just washed looking. The max is super crispy.
Attachments
You mean the PM delivers better IQ than the plain Pro? How come? They're supposed to have exactly the same hardware?
BTW, DPReview's 13 Pro review is out. They don't discuss the sharpness issues. Their biggest criticism is about the Cinematic mode, of course, which is - according to them - not ready for the prime time.
(LOL, it's worth pointing out again that Tim Cook stated in his iJustine interview that Cinematic mode is on par with pro Hollywood cameras...)
(LOL, it's worth pointing out again that Tim Cook stated in his iJustine interview that Cinematic mode is on par with pro Hollywood cameras...)
I am doing some tests during the day.
Under normal daily light conditions and standard settings there is no difference between a stock camera app photo and Halide.
Compared to my old Android Mid Range 12MP phone, the iPhone photos are better: more details in low light conditions, but I think they have a little bit too much contrast with the dark and should instead use a little bit of sharpening.
At night everything changes:
-The Android mid range 12MP phone just sucks
- Halide doesn't use the weird filter making the photo look like a painting
This is instead an iPhone 12 vs 13
Under normal daily light conditions and standard settings there is no difference between a stock camera app photo and Halide.
Compared to my old Android Mid Range 12MP phone, the iPhone photos are better: more details in low light conditions, but I think they have a little bit too much contrast with the dark and should instead use a little bit of sharpening.
At night everything changes:
-The Android mid range 12MP phone just sucks
- Halide doesn't use the weird filter making the photo look like a painting
This is instead an iPhone 12 vs 13
I just upgraded from the iPhone X to the iPhone 13 Pro Max. I am so disappointed. The only reason I updated was to have a better camera and I got the complete opposite. Every photo I take, the phone automatically applies a 'HDR' or overly sharpened & overly processed effect. Doesn't look realistic at all. It makes some photos look almost cartoon like. There is no option to turn off 'Smart HDR' like there is in past models. How could apple miss something so huge?! I will be switching back to an older model if Apple isn't able to fix this.
I returned the regular 13 and I think I'm going to stick with my X. I really don't like the processing effects I was seeing on the 13 that I returned. I took a photo of the TV and the face looked almost cell shaded. I've been really happy with the X, and often choose to leave my main camera kit at home because I'm happy with the quality of the X for snaps when I'm out and about. My 13 wasn't giving as consistent results.
Last edited:
i think you didn't understand what I said.
The major problem is not the softness for the major aperture (that like I said, I'm totally fine with it) it's the fact that there's a clear bad filter applied to every photo.
Filter not present on the older models, so the theory for now is that the filter is a way to cover that little bit of sharpness missing this year.
I'm not saying that the sharpness of the lenses is a big problem, I'm saying that the filter is.
And the filter is real, I did several test and it's just there.
I'll post everything as soon I'll be home today