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 Rumored to Include 10+-Megapixel Camera with f/1.8 Aperture and Improved Filter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again: with a small sensor, that really won't be an issue. In addition, the AF of iDevices have always been pretty good.
----------
Well that takes the shine off it.
If you need shallow DoF, get a DSLR or an ILC with a bright lens. It,s simply impossible to achieve the same with small-sensor cameras at the usual normal focal lengths (28-30 mm equiv) even with bright lens like the rumoured f/1.8.
Yes, f/1.8 won't get to those high-end compacts in terms of out of focus blur / bokeh because the sensor is still tiny.
I think it could be somewhat visible in macro shots though. Still, f/1.8 vs f/2.2 is not a huge difference when it comes to bokeh. Probably often imperceptible.
As for noise, the f-stop difference is 2/3 f-stops, so the iPhone 6 output (ignoring any other improvements to optics) should noise-wise perform at e.g. ISO ~1300 as how the iPhone 5s does at ISO 800. Or need only ~1/40 secs for the same exposure as the iPhone 5s would need 1/23 secs for, given identical exposure settings otherwise. Assuming I'm doing this math right.
All in all, incremental but welcome changes. Probably not all too visible, but sure, slightly lower risk of perhaps especially shaky shots in poor light and probably less noise visible especially in dark environments (I think this should be noticeable, it's almost a full f-stop after all).
Edit: 2/3 f-stop difference, not 1/3... Fixed the math too
I think it could be somewhat visible in macro shots though. Still, f/1.8 vs f/2.2 is not a huge difference when it comes to bokeh. Probably often imperceptible.
As for noise, the f-stop difference is 2/3 f-stops, so the iPhone 6 output (ignoring any other improvements to optics) should noise-wise perform at e.g. ISO ~1300 as how the iPhone 5s does at ISO 800. Or need only ~1/40 secs for the same exposure as the iPhone 5s would need 1/23 secs for, given identical exposure settings otherwise. Assuming I'm doing this math right.
All in all, incremental but welcome changes.
Probably not all too visible, but sure, slightly lower risk of perhaps especially shaky shots in poor light and probably less noise visible especially in dark environments (I think this should be noticeable, it's almost a full f-stop after all).Edit: 2/3 f-stop difference, not 1/3... Fixed the math too
Last edited:
The sensor size is so tiny that depth-of-field is going to be quite large regardless of aperture. In fact, I think f/1.8 on an 8x crop sensor (iPhone is around this, maybe slightly smaller) is something like f/11 or greater on a full frame sensor when it comes to DOF.
Yeah, I believe you're right. I was hoping to match my old 35mm SLR with a 50mm lens @ f1.8.
Was a nice thought while it lasted.
It just needs an SD card slot, NFC, host USB support, easily removable battery, barometer, FM radio, iris scanner, wireless charging, a stylus, a 6" display, HDMI port, and micro USB charger.
Apple obviously has no idea how to make a phone that anyone would want!
Apple obviously has no idea how to make a phone that anyone would want!
kidding right?
every research tells us that more than 5.5" screen will not be portable for every pocket.
considering that Canon and Nikon are probably the two leaders in Digital imaging and sensor tech,
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they know this already
on a different note:
I've been taking pictures with SLR's most of my life. I love playing with shallow depth's fo field. But this is the first time I've ever heard the term Bokeh.
Learn something new everyday.
32GB better be the basic storage capacity if they're bumping up the megapixels.
Would rather they left them alone, tbh, and focused on the sensor/glass.
Would rather they left them alone, tbh, and focused on the sensor/glass.
Agreed! 32GB should be the standard.. Have 32/64/128GB options if they're bumping Megapixels and of course if they plan on doing "4K" video in the future Cause 4K files are no joke It eats up my Harddrive.
If they do plan on releasing two screen sizes I think the smaller ones will have 16gb-64gb and then the bigger ones will be 32gb-128gb. Who knows..?
My gut is telling me they are going to keep pumping out the 16gb iPhone because it is the "best" selling model and it is yet another way for them to save some money and if you do want more standard space you fork over that astronomical $100 for a measly 16gb which is probably at least 90% profit for them.
Megapixels do matter and will provide a better quality picture provided the sensor improves as well.
I also hope that 16GB iPhones disappear in the next iteration, but likely will not, because it's an easy forced upgrade and additional $80 of margin for apple. My next phone will be 64GB, so that's easily another $160 of margin they will fleece out of me unless my iPhone4 breaks and I go android before the 6 comes out.
I suspect that Apple is combining the two. Remember the "Megahertz myth" form the 1980's? I think Apple knows better than to brag about MP on a camera. I find that the improved camera is the main reason I jump on every new iPhone.
==
The cameras are great. As they say, "the best camera is the one you have with you"
If true, my iPhone 4 is history. If it's not true, my iPhone 4 is also history.
Megapixels don't matter, at this point in a cell phone sensor more megapixels = more noise and worse pixels. People comparing megapixels in cell phones to megapixels in Nikon and Canon dSLRs are comparing matchbox cars to real cars. For most journalists and consumers it's just a big number they don't understand but they want it to be bigger because why not?
Larger pixels are better pixels. Pixels are like buckets, the more they can hold (what they're holding is electrons generated by photons) the better -- more dynamic range. The sensor in a dSLR is huge, if those pixels are buckets, cell phone pixels are like thimbles. Wanting more megapixels is wanting a smaller thimble. But it's worse than that, reading out a pixel creates a certain amount of noise, no matter how big or small the pixel is. If it's a small pixel that holds less, that means a very low signal to noise ratio, and overall more noise in the image the more of those pixels you have.
I'm a scientist who designs cameras for other scientists, and the main thing they ask for is bigger pixels. And more of them, so basically bigger cameras all the way around. (I can show you a great 111 Mpix sensor, but it's the size of a bathroom tile.) A cell phone is pretty much the opposite of all of that, consumers demand crappier cameras because they've been misled by journalists who have been misled by marketing types who won't listen to the engineers anymore. I used to go to an imaging conference (that's happening this week actually) where there were entire days of talks about cell phone sensors that boiled down to "how bad can the image get before the consumer will notice" and "what kind of processing can we do to the images so the consumers won't notice how crappy the image is getting as we add more megapixels?" But that conference got too depressing (and too irrelevant to building good cameras) so I don't go anymore.
Larger pixels are better pixels. Pixels are like buckets, the more they can hold (what they're holding is electrons generated by photons) the better -- more dynamic range. The sensor in a dSLR is huge, if those pixels are buckets, cell phone pixels are like thimbles. Wanting more megapixels is wanting a smaller thimble. But it's worse than that, reading out a pixel creates a certain amount of noise, no matter how big or small the pixel is. If it's a small pixel that holds less, that means a very low signal to noise ratio, and overall more noise in the image the more of those pixels you have.
I'm a scientist who designs cameras for other scientists, and the main thing they ask for is bigger pixels. And more of them, so basically bigger cameras all the way around. (I can show you a great 111 Mpix sensor, but it's the size of a bathroom tile.) A cell phone is pretty much the opposite of all of that, consumers demand crappier cameras because they've been misled by journalists who have been misled by marketing types who won't listen to the engineers anymore. I used to go to an imaging conference (that's happening this week actually) where there were entire days of talks about cell phone sensors that boiled down to "how bad can the image get before the consumer will notice" and "what kind of processing can we do to the images so the consumers won't notice how crappy the image is getting as we add more megapixels?" But that conference got too depressing (and too irrelevant to building good cameras) so I don't go anymore.
Last edited:
It'd make sense even now. No wonder both Nokia and Google (with the latter, "only" will) offer RAW.