We aren't discounting anything. We acknowledge engineering achievements. Some of us would rather see those achievements not be compromised to satisfy apple's efforts to make a 2 dimensional phone.
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 6 Camera May Feature Electronic Image Stabilization, Bigger Pixel Size
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We aren't discounting anything. We acknowledge engineering achievements. Some of us would rather see those achievements not be compromised to satisfy apple's efforts to make a 2 dimensional phone.
Let's be honest, Apple has some huge achievements when it comes to engineering. The A6 and A7 processors, the packaging of the iPhone etc all are excellent. But when it comes to Cameras (smartphone cameras) Sony (who also makes the iPhones camera sensor) and Nokia are ahead!
Furthermore: putting a camera into a piece of paper is a huge achievement, nevertheless most of us would probably go with thicker but multiple times better camera
That is an asinine way to look at cropping.
4K screens are not far away at all. That right there undermines your garbage above.
There is a world outside the web and your mothers basement! In fact justifying resolution requirements based on the default web resolutions is again asinine. The values you have above are lowest common denominator values.
Well that is nice, the only thing that is important to you is the "display". Consider this, display technology has improved remarkably since the Apple 2 days and will continue to do so in the future. Your digital photos are memories that you want preserved it would be nice to see those images displayed in high quality on the displays of the future. This should be so obvious that I'm not certain why anyBody would want to settle for a marginal quality camera today. It is like saying you don't need a high quality image because your dot matrix printer can only manage 100DPI. I'd go so far as to say that the importance of a high quality image has nothing to do with the output device.
You won't be printing many posters with a 12MP camera.
I really think you mis the point, the output device should have zero consideration when it comes to justifying a sensors mega pixel count. Many pictures end up only existing on the cell phone but you wouldn't expect to have a sensor with cell phone LCD resolution would you? The number of mega pixels achieved in a camera must be balanced against other performance metrics.
Given that, if you value your photos a 6MP camera these days should be seen as a bare minimal resolution. The fact is output technologies are advancing rapidly as such you will want those pictures to be able to take advantage of future technologies because let's face it many are unique and as such can never be taken again. A picture of a new born, for example can't be retaken ten years latter to make up for the fact that you had a crappy 2MP camera. Not unless of course you want to wait 9 months and then spend 18 years paying for it. The same concept apple is for many moments in ones life where you can't go back. So to sit here and underestimate the importance of the pixel count is foolish. What is important is find a calmer that hits the right balance between pixel count and other performance parameters, this is what Apple has been doing well. That is they find the best balance of technologies to deliver the results they want in a thin iPhone body.
That's an oversimplified point of view. If one can increase pixel number without decreasing sensor sensitivity it's a great things for phone cameras. Phone cameras do not have optic zoom and higher pixel count allows for meaningful cropping. BTW that's what Samsung has done with GS5 camera. They developed new camera sensor (ISOCELL) that does it.
Biggerp ixel size makes digital image stabilization harder, and nothing beats optical image stabilization and on a camera with a big enough sensor to deliver quality. Selling "the megapixel myth" I rarely bought into, especially as pros use RAW mode instead of JPG with predefined compression settings...
----------
Very true. Higher pixel density leads to more electromigration between pixels, resulting in unwanted noise.
A good, big sensor does render "the megapixel myth" a truism, but depending on usage, one will want 12MP or far more. Especially for large print to be seen from a relative distance...
Optical zoom is, always, by far preferable to digital cropping, especially if the sensor is subpar...
----------
Very true. Higher pixel density leads to more electromigration between pixels, resulting in unwanted noise.
A good, big sensor does render "the megapixel myth" a truism, but depending on usage, one will want 12MP or far more. Especially for large print to be seen from a relative distance...
Optical zoom is, always, by far preferable to digital cropping, especially if the sensor is subpar...
Delivering a thinner phone with the same (or greater) size camera sensor is a great solution to a non existent problem. Nobody (but Apple) wants a thinner phone.Most people would benefit greatly from having a same (or thicker) phone with better battery life, larger camera sensor and optical image stabilization.
BTW, is not the article's title a little bit misleading? "iPhone 6 Camera May Feature Electronic Image Stabilization"? I thought iPhone has had EIS for quite a while. What this statement actually tells us is not what the phone will have (EIS) but what it will not have namely OIS (optical image stabilization).
You haven't even seen the phone yet.
Like your keys, pens, pencils, gum balls and everything else you carry in your pocket. When I see comments like this I just have to laugh at the stupidity of the comment. ######. Besides there are other things that cause bulges in ones pants that you can do nothing about, so why get worked up over a speculated bulge on an iPhone you know nothing about.
well, as far as its not getting any bigger in size then i am fine, what am i saying, we getting a 4.7" iPhone 
+1
couldn't have said it better!
Doesn't matter - big image sensor and small body are just impossible.
Honestly I understand the desire for high quality cameras as I've owned many over the years from Nikon Maymia and a couple of others. The problem is when you buy an iPhone you are getting a device that has a primary function of being a cell phone with the camera being tacked on feature. I've seen more than a few responses to my comments that seem to imply that people want a DSLR when it comes to the iPhone. I don't think this is Apples intention at all, they want a camera that delivers great results to the largest number of users possible.
Now this doesn't mean that the iPhone camera app can't be improved but I highly doubt that Apple has any intentions of adding traditional camera controls to the device. So if people are looking for shutter speed control and other similar features advanced photographers use then you will likely be out of luck. Mind you there have been times where yes I could have used such control, but I don't expect it out of a cell phone camera that is trying to leave traditional photography behind.
I see Apples attempts here as being more a case of trying to think different when it comes to cameras and the users they have of that camera. They are in no way trying to deliver a professional quality camera in the sense of the composition control such cameras gives one. Really how far should we take this, should we demand that Apple add shift and tilt features to the camera?
I look at it this way Apple has improved the camera and the camera app with every release of the iPhone, sometimes significantly. Has it always improved in the way I want - nope but on the other hand they have added features that I didn't even consider useful in a cell phone until they arrived (HDR for one). It really appears that Apples mission here is to evolve the camera, as a feature, in ways that don't look towards the past. That unfortunately leaves many old school photographers behind and maybe limits the capability if the camera a bit these days.
Ahead by what measure. I see a lot if claims about one camera or another being "better" but is this the result of objective testing? I really doubt it. Like I said in another posting I've owned many cameras over the years, probably more than a dozen most of which where "pro" quality and each and everyone of them had its own niche and usefulness. Frankly I wouldn't be so bold as to try to say one is or was better than another as they all had different features and usefulness.
This is also a refrain heard again and again in this thread, that is cell phone XYZ is multiple times better that iPhones. While I highly doubt that,let's put this out there: is that really all that important as iPhone sells really well. More so are these cameras that are in theory many times better all that good outside of ideal lighting conditions?
I think the big problem here is people wanting a DSLR in a cell phone not realizing that Apple has no intention of making such a camera. Understand what the iPhone and its camera is and you will realize it is a pretty good offering that draws in many users.
You're really confusing basic features like the ability to shoot sports in lower-than-ideal light with advanced / pro-only features.
Yes, as I've pointed out above, the camera support in iOS lacks a lot of essential features. Again: it's not possible to shoot a runner if it's not a sunny day when, while keeping the ISO at base ISO, the automatic shutter speed selection would select, say, 1/500s shutter speed. This, as opposed to what you've stated ("So if people are looking for shutter speed control and other similar features advanced photographers use then you will likely be out of luck."), is in no way an "advanced" feature.
It's really a basic requirement to be able to either directly or indirectly (via specifying the ISO or selecting a "sport" scene mode) "dial in" high shutter speeds. This is entirely impossible on the iPhone.
And the list continues: there's no way to have
- proper(!) exposure compensation
- configurable ISO (as I've explained above when talking about shutter speed / sports shooting)
- manual white balance
- manual focus
Again, I really recommend my posts here in the MR forums on iPhone photography. I've published a lot of articles and posts on exactly these questions.
I disagree, a camera of photography geek would benefit but not most iPhone users. I've been around for a long while now and saw the photography world go through a number of point and shoot camera solutions, a market that cell phones effectively destroyed. Without a doubt iPhone shoots far better pictures than any of these cameras.
Is it perfect? No it is far from perfect compared to more advanced cameras but as a point and shoot replacement it is awesome. That is what many here are missing this isn't a replacement for a DSLR but rather a far better point and shoot. If you are an advanced photographer it certainly has its shortcomings, even then a professional realizes that every camera has its shortcomings.
Yeah the article was written by an idiot and was confused.
----------
Do you work in the optics industry? It is foolish to call something impossible! There are multiple possibilities that Apple could implement to get to where they want to go. It is just a matter of design and expense. Mechanical integration is an important element in getting to smaller devices.
Image quality can be quantitively, objectively measured (in some cases, with a single number): resolution, dynamic range, chromatic aberration. So can be essential features like manual shutter speed / ISO / WB / focus / etc.
And yes, there have been several cameraphones delivering much higher-quality images than any iPhones; most importantly, the Nokia 808. This has also been proved by the DxO measurements - again, all-quantitive, all-numeric measurements, not just some subjective "I think this phone has a better camera than that one".
You can't really mean the iPhone sells better because it's better in every respect...
Yawn... what we want is more essential features, even if "only" via the API. See the list above. Those features are either all(!!!) offered on competing platforms (CameraPro on Nokia handsets running WP8), or "only" the majority of them (all competing OS'es, even dead ones like Samsung's Bada). You can shoot sports in even bad light with them - unlike with an iPhone. That's pretty much a handicap, don't you think?
----------
Absolutely wrong (as with most your camera-related remarks, I'm afraid). The P&S market is pretty much dead simply because smartphones with cameras (that is, converged devices) offer convenience, not because they have vastly superior IQ.
Actually, many P&S cameras have OIS. Something the iPhone sorely lacks. This alone means they have the chance of taking significantly better shots in low light. Many have manual controls and all of them have scene selectors. Even the latter is painfully missing from iOS (unlike every other smartphone OS). P&S cameras, therefore, are much better suited for shooting sports in low(er) light than an iPhone. And the list continues...
While I do agree there are some things an iPhone does better than most P&S cameras (semi-HDR, sweep pano, video), it's still it being conveniently converged that people tend to use iPhones for shooting and not a P&S camera. The latter would be another gadget to carry.
----------
I really don't think you know much about optics, photography and the likes. Not even Apple can beat the laws of physics. Photography; designing sensor + lens combos etc. are heavily physics-based. You just can't decrease the size of any of these without sacrificing IQ. No one can, not even the "almighty" Apple.
----------
It has had EIS for videos since the 4S and some kind of (limited) EIS for still shots since the 5s. The latter, as I've pointed out above, is, as has been proved by the DPReview folks too, pretty inferior to the OIS-based stabilizers of Nokia, HTC and LG. (So much for Apple's alleged "superiority" and lead WRT technology...)
Sony is probably one of the best companies that produce image sensors. (That's why you can find Sony sensors in many Nikon cameras like the D800)
but take a look at dpreview and/or dxomark to see for yourself (and here is the Nokia
I think anyone who had physics in school isn't expecting DSLR quality from a smartphone camera
I think that the average iPhone user would profit the most from a bigger sensor and OIS. Both is important for Point and Shoot in Low Light
No but I had physics in school
I did the math here
If I made some mistakes I am sorry, but right now with the CMOS sensors and optics of the next years there is just no way to put a big (talking 1/2.3", 2/3" or even larger) sensor into a really small device. (you could probably go UWA, but there are a lot of other problems resulting from that).
----------
If I knew you were writing this, I could have saved myself a bit of time
Taking pictures must not be your strong point, because the camera on The iPhone is amazing and always has been.
This is complete garbage!
In the context of iPhone and the market it is after shutter speed control is an advanced feature. Get over it, the vast overwhelming majority of iPhone users are not photo geeks. Frankly I consider myself a photo geek but yet I can recognize that Apple isn't after this market.
If you are trying to do sports photography with an iPhone, or any cell phone, you have grabbed the wrong camera.
Oh that is nice, now we are into self promotion. Consider this, why would people read your posts if it is pretty obvious that you don't get it? Seriously, you really can't seem to grasp that the target market doesn't care about white balance, ISO numbers and the like.
Beyond all of that ISO numbers are a remnant of the silver based photography world. The only reason it is still seen in the digital world as it provided a way to transition people to the digital world.
Shooting sports pretty much requires a zoom lens and a SLR camera so your comments in this rearguard are complete BS.
Come on who really cares, unless you are stand in right on the track you will not get useful pictures of a runner with any cell phone. You are just making up crop a here.
In the context of iPhone and the market it is after shutter speed control is an advanced feature. Get over it, the vast overwhelming majority of iPhone users are not photo geeks. Frankly I consider myself a photo geek but yet I can recognize that Apple isn't after this market.
If you are trying to do sports photography with an iPhone, or any cell phone, you have grabbed the wrong camera.
Again so? Apple decided to to add the capability up until now, that doesn't make the camera a bad device for the intended audience. Who knows why they might add to iOS 8 and the revved camera app, I just don't even see this as being a high priority for Apple.
You really don't get it do you. The market Apple is after doesn't want to be bothered by that stuff. This is a cell phone after all effectively replacing a point and shoot camera. It isn't designed nor intended to replace cameras with professional features.
Oh that is nice, now we are into self promotion. Consider this, why would people read your posts if it is pretty obvious that you don't get it? Seriously, you really can't seem to grasp that the target market doesn't care about white balance, ISO numbers and the like.
Beyond all of that ISO numbers are a remnant of the silver based photography world. The only reason it is still seen in the digital world as it provided a way to transition people to the digital world.
I've seen some very thin point and shoot cameras with astonishingly powerful telephoto lenses. The trick they did was to have a 45 degree mirror right behind the lens. In this way they could use up to the entire length or width of the camera to increase the distance behind the lens.
Couldn't the iPhone do the same thing to increase the focal length in a very thin package?
Exactly. Even the best sensor can't deliver anything if the optics (the "glass") is cr@ppy.
So let's have some links.
I fully realize that optical quality can be measure with instruments, I work on such instruments everyday at work. However buy a camera is not a numbers game for most users.
So what is the point here, one camera, in one set of tests, delivers better images. That doesn't make the iPhone camera bad by any measure.
Didn't say that but since you brought it up iPhone is certainly better in many ways for the majority of people buying it.
Tuff luck.
Nope because I wouldn't be so foolish as to try to shoot sports with today's cell phones.
I've been far more accurate than you.
Again you don't know what you are talking about. Compare the quality of images coming from an iPhone to a 110, disk camera or even a low end 35 mm point and shoot. iPhone delivers vastly superior images.
Now ask yourself why do these latest point and shoots have all of these features. Might it be that the market dried up when cell phones could do as a well as the point and shoots of the time. Even then the point and shoot market is a struggle for camera makers because as I have said repeatedly most people don't care about all the features you are offering up here as being important. All they care about is snapping a picture with the least amount of effort possible.
If any of this stuff you are offering up was even remotely important to most cell phone camera users the point and shoot market wouldn't be the dried up mess that it is these days. This isn't my opinion by the way, I have friends in the business of selling cameras in actual camera stores and frankly they have suffered significantly from the improvements in cell phone camera technology.
Well the other gadget to carry is certainly a factor though it never stopped people before the advent of cell phone cameras. It comes back to the way people want to use those cameras though and frankly most cell phone camera users are not interested in the things you and I are interested in when it comes to photography. The winners here are the cameras that deliver the best results with the least amount of effort on the part of the user.
I work in the optics industry and have for years now. Apple certainly can't beat the laws of physics but that doesn't mean they have hit a real limit on what is possible in a cell phone. There are things they can do just from the mechanical standpoint that could improve the camera. Beyond that there is much research going on with respect to enhanced sensors, meta materials and new optical formulas.
So while Apple isn't endowed with the ability to break the laws of physics there is still much happening in the research world that still fits within those laws.
I'd be the first to admit that OIS would be nice but not at the expense of compromising other features. By the way one of the things I hate about cell phone cameras is their unstable nature in the hands, it isn't like grabbing a SLR where the mass actually works for you. The problem can be so bad that image stabilization doesn't always do the trick.
In any event I still think you mis the point, iPhones superior camera isn't all about specs, but rather the individuals ability to get good pictures with minimal effort.
You're mistaken - as usual. I didn't talk about "just" shooting sports with a tele in a stadium but shooting your friends, your kids while they're running / racing / swimming / playing / anything next to you. A pretty common scenario with iPhone users, isn't it?
Again: I'm not talking about shooting in a stadium with huge teles but shooting from a short distance, where the wide FoV of a cell phone doesn't pose a problem.
Are all people wanting to take a decent, non-blurred shot of their playing kids etc. "photo geeks"? I really don't think so. They would also love taking decent shots. Too bad they can't, "thanks" to Apple's serious lag WRT camera tech.
Look, it's pretty evident you're a typical Apple apologist. I understand you love Apple. Nevertheless, even then you should admit Apple is certainly behind the competition not only in IQ, but also in everyday usability. The competition can shoot sports (running kids etc.) in lower light because they allow for either scene selection or manually bumping up the ISO. The iPhone can't. The competition can shoot sports - the iPhone can't. It's this easy.
Let me point out again that simply selecting a "sports" scene mode isn't a "pro-only" feature - no wonder all P&S cameras have scene selectors. Scene modes are targeted at people that do nothing about ISO, shutter speed, their relation and the like. You're seriously mistaken if you think otherwise.
Well, in this very case, knowledge of at least "if I turn up ISO" or "if I select the 'sports' mode, I will be able to shoot my kid without it getting unusably blurred results" would help even the technically non-savvy. They would also welcome such a feature if it existed in the iPhone. It doesn't.
And, to add insult to injury, the iPhone doesn't even make an attempt at intelligently deciding what kind of subject you're shooting and accordingly heavily increase the ISO (and, consequently, the shutter speed) to avoid blurring. Talk about "engineering marvel" - lol, even many of the 5-year-old, cheap cameras were capable of these "intelligent" modes. The iPhone 5s still isn't. Again, talk about "Apple's being the best"...
I thought of that too. A 1/2.3" sensor is 6.17mm x 4.55mm. Theoretically you could fit it in, but ask the optics guys if that is rly possible
The iphone 5S camera module (with a smaller 1/3") measures 8.6 mm x 7.8 mm x 5.6 mm - so you couldn't get that one in!
Sony is well known for their sensors, I'm not sure what the point here is.
Exactly so why all these comments about features the vast majority if point and shoot users don't care about? This is what I find frustrating, people trying to make this camera into something it isn't.
Which is apparently what this rumor confirms. Well at least half of that. A slightly enlarged pixel would help deliver far better quality in low light. The problem we have is a bunch of people claiming that because the camera doesn't have 12MP of resolution it is some how no good. It isn't that simple, there is more to quality than pixel count even if pixel count is important.
The thread is about a slightly larger sensor in the new iPhone. This isn't an impossibility though it may require innovations we have yet to see in a cell phone. This could include new optical and mechanical arrangements.No but I had physics in school
I did the math here
If I made some mistakes I am sorry, but right now with the CMOS sensors and optics of the next years there is just no way to put a big (talking 1/2.3", 2/3" or even larger) sensor into a really small device. (you could probably go UWA, but there are a lot of other problems resulting from that).
In other words I can't discount the possibility that the report/rumor is correct. It isn't impossible to stuff a slightly larger sensor into that phone.
----------
If I knew you were writing this, I could have saved myself a bit of time
You're right about smartphones all but destroying the point 'n shoot market. People want convergence, and products like the iPhone provide that. They've got a computer, a phone, and a decent camera all in one device.
But the iPhone's camera, nice as it is among its contemporaries, is merely decent compared to even a midrange point 'n shoot. When it comes to quality, you can't beat specialization. That's what point 'n shoots do. They're cameras. They're only cameras. And they're quite good at what they do.