iPhone 18 Pro Rumored to Be More Like DSLR Camera With This Upgrade

[MrRom92]

Not sure exactly how aperture blades make anything “like a DSLR” but I digress.
This will not practically do anything for increased depth of field, unless you are focusing on something in very close range. The tiny sensors in iPhones means that everything is already rather in focus most of the time. Extreme close focusing is practically the only time you ever get even a hint of a blurred background.


What it *might* do is make for better quality photos in sunlight - ie. The sensor is optimized for a particular sensitivity, and instead of adjusting for bright exposures electronically, it would just let less light reach the sensor.

This could also backfire horribly, as again, at such a small sensor size, decreasing the aperture only means that diffraction sets in faster. This would result in a loss of sharpness and resolution. Just the nature of optics and the physics of light.
On 35mm film or -an equivalent full frame sensor, diffraction already starts having a noticeable effect around f/11-f/16. iPhone sensors are much, much smaller than that.


The only scenario where I could guarantee this to be truly helpful is for photographing VERY bright scenes that normally could not be captured on a phone. Like, shooting into the sun. Even shooting the moon at night can be particularly bright and difficult to manage on a phone.

 

[gsmornot]

as a photographer I've watched this evolve and its gotten to the point where your average person just doesn't care. The photos I used to wow people with years ago can now be taken with portrait mode as long as the subject is still and well lit. Not saying the quality is anywhere near what you'd get from a mirrorless or DSLR but that quality mainly translates to large prints, which few people make. most people just view photos on their phones anymore. Sad but true

I still enjoy my mirrorless for the process and the view in the EVF. I preferred my DSLR live view but we change with the times. That said, you're right. Most people are uninterested and a photo is a photo in the end no matter how it was taken. It will mostly be viewed on a phone. I'm ok with that though, it's still enjoyable for me. Agree with you on this.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

More DSLR like. That won't be remotely true unless they bump out the back more.

 

[Berti10]

The main benefit of a variable aperture is for video. In bright daylight, the exposure is quite short, thus every picture is pin sharp. At 24fps that looks very slip-sticky. With longer exposures due to ND or smaller/variable aperture, the single frames become smoother and thus the video much better.

 

[nfl46]

Don’t worry, it will get delayed until the iPhone 19 series. Lol.

 

[DomDomonom]

More bokeh comes from a more open aperture. Closing the aperture will not increase the bokeh effect, it will decrease it. This will only be useful in very bright light situations. That’s really it. Not sure what value it adds unless the sensor gets physically much bigger.

For photos it would likely mean sharper images in well lit scenes and require less artificial sharpening in the image pipeline. I imagine it would also be possible for the portrait mode to shoot one photo wide open and one closed down and use that data to enhance the depth map further and deal with fine detail better like hair.

For videos it would function munch like like an ND filter and mean you could shoot at a lower shutter speed, as the “ideal” shutter speed for motion blur is double your frame rate aka 180 shutter angle. Phones being forced to shoot at higher frame rates is a big contributor to the “phone look”

Pixel peepers and pros like myself would appreciate these, but I don't know they'd market well to general consumers

 

[DomDomonom]

How about "electronic aperture"?

Same way that video camera's have "variable ND", no moving parts, cheaper, smaller and maybe last longer?

Now that would be super cool! Like a electrochroamatic glass with sections to turn black

 

[alexandr]

So does this mean that the 17P/PM won't be getting a noteworthy camera update?

 

[capamac]

f/1.7 on a phone is like f/11 on a 35mm sensor.

 

[MacKid]

More bokeh comes from a more open aperture. Closing the aperture will not increase the bokeh effect, it will decrease it. This will only be useful in very bright light situations. That’s really it. Not sure what value it adds unless the sensor gets physically much bigger.

You're right, which means the only reason they'd want to do this is that they've wanted to make the sensor bigger but have a limitation on how much they can bring ISO down digitally

 

[boootloader]

Does any iPhone shooter ever have situations where the depth of field is too shallow? Because the FF equivalent f-number for DoF is around f/5.6 wide open (because of the tiny sensor). I mean yes, sometimes you want f/8–f/16 but does it really matter for a phone camera?

 

[coffeemilktea]

The iPhone 17's nowhere close to coming out and Kuo's already started the iPhone 18 rumors? Gotta admire that work ethic.

 

[cdsapplefan]

Yeah iPhone pictures are always blurry especially in night time, it does need a bigger sensor

 

[TVreporter]

Apple should launch its own pro camera - surely they have the expertise (or poach them) and try to make a dent in Canon and Nikon’s marketshare.

No iPhone camera will ever be comparable to a SLR.

 

[CharlesShaw]

Apple should launch its own pro camera - surely they have the expertise (or poach them) and try to make a dent in Canon and Nikon’s marketshare.

They could call it Apple QuickTake. And the new CEO could come in and get rid of the excess of product lines.

 

[ThailandToo]

Photography is all about light. Allowing more light by having a bigger sensor is always going to be much better. The iPhone is nothing like a pro level mirrorless camera Canon, Nikon, Sony. Wish Apple made a real camera not attached a tiny cheap camera to a phone. The iPhone can work great with a lot of light but will not have shallow depth of field without a much larger sensor. Anything you see now is digitally rendered.

 

[Herc182]

As soon as I saw the title I knew there would be two main camps responding. “It will never replace a DSLR! NEVER!” And “Android have been doing this for years now. YAWN”
The only advantage a phone has over a dedicated camera system such as an interchangeable lens camera, is its availability. Always in your pocket. Add to that the plethora of apps available to enhance images and you’ve got an unrivalled system. Quality is good enough for 90% of people who use smartphones.
The article itself seems to just repeat the premise of a SLR, to the point of patronising the reader, or perhaps that is the level of intelligence of said reader.
To appeal to the masses, the article should have said “Variable aperture coming to iPhone, attempting to mimic, though not replace, a SLR camera. Aperture is like your pupil - big hole, big blur. Small hole, no blur”

 

[coplt]

Why do people keep saying this? No phone will ever match a DSLR until they get sensors the same size as a DLSR and lenses to match, no AI or algorithm IMO match the real thing.

Also as above, a DSLR only uses 1 lens on its body at a time.

I would add to your comment “the latest generation of dSLRs.” My iPhone has surpassed the photo quality of my older ones other than the ability to swap to more lenses.

It’s really pretty amazing to me what iPhones can do as an amateur photographer.

 

[switz]

The electronics can get smaller perhaps, but the lenses can not get much smaller. A variable lenses would not like a fall from five feet onto concrete which the solid state phone could survive.

The camera in a phone is kind of like the Brownie box film camera of the 50s and 60s. It was simple enough for a kid to use - point and shoot. The photos were okay from the 120 B &W film of the day.

So now they are filming movies with iPhones. Great, that technology is why the iPhone Pro Max is nearly $2,000 with tax and Apple care.

Steve's comment was that one uses the camera they have with them when the iPhone came out. The iPhone has become an expensive status symbol.

I fondly remember when a cellphone was a phone only. Life was simpler and the phone was much lighter and extremely easy to use......

I still do have a Leica V-Lux camera that we used on our seven week trip across seven countries in South Africa. We also used the iPhones we had. Sadly, Leica discontinued that model.

 

[Ruggy]

Exactly. Not sure what the value would be for a smaller aperture.

The sweet spot for resolution in most objectives is about F8, plus you tend to get less aberration at higher F- both chromatic and spherical.
Somewhere between F5.6 and 8 would give the best compromise between diffraction, resolution, aberration and vignetting without having to improve the objective.

 

[vertsix]

The Galaxy S9 had this BTW.

 

[ignatius345]

I would love to see them create an advanced camera system that would require just one lens, instead of the multiple. I know this would prevent spatial videos, but honestly how many people are actually using it?

I don't have a way to view spatial videos, but I try to use them to capture videos of my 5 year old from time to time, anticipating that at some point in the future I may well be very glad I did!

 

[dannyyankou]

I’m happy to hear about improved scratch resistance.

But I wish Apple was able to develop a sapphire screen, like there were rumors to in 2014. I know people overuse “Steve would’ve done blank!”, but Steve really would’ve moved heaven and earth to try to make that happen.

I guess there’s a reason competitors haven’t jumped on that, it’s probably very difficult and expensive. I know sapphire shatters more easily, but maybe they could’ve developed a sapphire infused glass or something. Easier said than done, I know.

 

[JaredJenkinsDesign]

as a photographer I've watched this evolve and its gotten to the point where your average person just doesn't care. The photos I used to wow people with years ago can now be taken with portrait mode as long as the subject is still and well lit. Not saying the quality is anywhere near what you'd get from a mirrorless or DSLR but that quality mainly translates to large prints, which few people make. most people just view photos on their phones anymore. Sad but true

So true, people just don't really care as long as it looks good on their phone/computer which is easy to accomplish nowadays. Heck, I find myself reaching for zoom lenses over more expensive sharper prime lenses nowadays. I can notice the difference but most clients don't seem to care as long as composition, lighting etc are nailed.

 

[ignatius345]

Since cameras have apparently become the driving force in smartphone innovation, perhaps it's time for a camera maker (Sony?) to incorporate a smart phone into one of their mirrorless cameras. Everyone is already accustomed to carrying a large heavy phone anyhow, right?

New mirrorless cameras have a lot of advanced features at this point. I'm using a 5 year-old Olympus and even it has a touchscreen that has a mode where you can literally just tap on the subject on screen and it will autofocus on that and shoot a frame, as well as use that same screen to swipe through your photos. It's not as slick as a phone, but more modern cameras do a lot more. Also, many of them can interface directly with a phone so you can basically get to all the controls using your smartphone if you want to.

The tiny sensors in iPhones means that everything is already rather in focus most of the time.

I've started using the 2x (72mm) lens on my 15 Pro to shoot, moving physically back away from the subject. This yields half-decent bokeh -- optical, not "portrait mode". Also helps with wide-angle distortion on pictures of people. The default 1x lens is I think a 24mm equivalent, which is not fantastic for portraits.

edit: was apparently wrong about the 2x "lens" lol