Where's the source for this information? Doesn't seem to be on Apple's page.
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 X Camera Overview: Portrait Lighting, Video Improvements, Front-Facing Portraits and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where's the source for this information? Doesn't seem to be on Apple's page.
Read the very first post of this thread! The one written by MacRumors, it's there.
It's impressive just how far smart phone camera quality has improved over the past 10 years. The other day I was showing someone pictures which were taken in low light with my iPhone 3G. Very grainy. Similar pictures today are much less grainy and, of course, much sharper.
Having said that I disagree with the first sentence of significant improvement with each new release. IMO a few models were just slightly, if at all, better than the model they replaced. Furthermore I think camera quality became good enough for most people several generations ago. This is not to say manufacturers should stop trying to improve on them. A lot of incremental improvements add up over many generations.
Having said that I disagree with the first sentence of significant improvement with each new release. IMO a few models were just slightly, if at all, better than the model they replaced. Furthermore I think camera quality became good enough for most people several generations ago. This is not to say manufacturers should stop trying to improve on them. A lot of incremental improvements add up over many generations.
So true. Yes, these are not DSLRs but smart phone cameras these days are more than capable of capturing an amazing shot.
I am really happy with the tones and clarity of the shots. I have a Pixel 2, and while it takes awesome shots, the tones are not as true to life. The wood in this shot (naked eye) more matches what the iPhone captured in Portrait mode, than what the Pixel 2 represents. With regards to the background blur on more complex shots, you can really see the machine learning working hard (and missing things) on the pixel 2, where the iphone looks more realistic to what my SLR will capture. Things that should be out of focus actually are, versus, having random bits of the frame in focus. This shot doesn’t represent that as well.
can you please show side by side example? if you have time that is..
[doublepost=1510148639][/doublepost]
I am really happy with the tones and clarity of the shots. I have a Pixel 2, and while it takes awesome shots, the tones are not as true to life. The wood in this shot (naked eye) more matches what the iPhone captured in Portrait mode, than what the Pixel 2 represents. With regards to the background blur on more complex shots, you can really see the machine learning working hard (and missing things) on the pixel 2, where the iphone looks more realistic to what my SLR will capture. Things that should be out of focus actually are, versus, having random bits of the frame in focus. This shot doesn’t represent that as well.
the Pixel advantage is much less noise reduction, sharper.
Such a drool worthy phone. I'll grab the X2 I guess, hoping there may be a slight price drop but doubtful...
[doublepost=1510149228][/doublepost]
It looks good, apart from the masking at the top of your dog's body, kind of looks like I did it in Microsoft Paint.
The rest of the photo? Looks gorgeous!
[doublepost=1510149228][/doublepost]
It looks good, apart from the masking at the top of your dog's body, kind of looks like I did it in Microsoft Paint.
The rest of the photo? Looks gorgeous!
Sadly, if you went from your 6S back to a 6 it would be a jump in quality!
[doublepost=1510150221][/doublepost]
New ball game for cellphones, but if you really have a few high end cameras with good glass then you know they're vastly superior at capturing images than even the best cellphone, right?
Certainly less convenient, though.
Agree, smartphones will not catch up to DSLRs anytime soon. Dynamic range and noise are two areas where they can't compete. Also, iPhones apply too much noise reduction even in good lighting. try taking a photo on your X or 8/8+ and zoom in to pixel level. There's simply too much noise reduction going on.
The color-tone is hard to go by, since we're talking about uncalibrated displays, I'll assume you're right about the color looking better on your screen. To me (on a macbook pro calibrated with a colormunki photo), in the bottom shot, the wood looks straw colored and natural, while in the top shot, it's a garish, unnatural orange. I would say the bottom looks natural, the top heavily oversaturated.
But, looking at the actual details the wood grain is pretty blurry in both shots. In the bottom one, I see more of the rough grain texture, and the holes are a bit more distinct. The top one has more overall fuzziness that makes it harder to focus on. Neither is a decent shot though.
FWIW they aren’t raw images, they feature whatever compression SmugMug has at that resolution. They were also both taken in low light, as this was a test for how well these cameras cope with such shots handheld.
I have 7yo Canon cameras with OIS L lenses that struggle to get shots like this, handheld, in low light, at the same ISO / shutter speed. IMO, the shots are quite good considering the conditions I did my test.
Regardless of your calibration and opinion on the color, the reproduction on the iPhone’s photo is closer to real life. This is a treated and stained wood beam within a building. The Pixel’s shot is washed out, the wood is actually is as orange and garish as you stated when commenting on the iPhone shot.
As far as monitor color reproduction, It looks similar on my iPad Pro 10.5, my iPhone 7, and iPhone X. While I have not calibrated my displays manually, or myself, I think it was reported that the iPhone X and iPad Pro are very accurate displays. Granted, we don’t know about the camera’s ability to capture reality.
All said, I find the AWB on the Pixel to favor cool, where the iPhone tends to favor warm, while also taking shots that look more color accurate. The pixel will pull in more detail where the iPhone will wash out highlights in scenes where HDR is used heavily to balance.
So with such terrible pictures how did they get DxO ranking so high almost beating everyone?
What models are the Canon cameras and why would you be using the same ISO / shutter speed with them as you would (wood?) the iPhone camera?
i really have NO idea. $$$?
i mean, you can see for yourself how much noise reduction is there.
maybe they test it shooting RAW?
My two oldest cameras I still run are a 7D MK1 and a 60d. The reason? Because I enjoy and want to compare the devices and sensors.
Sample pics of my first shots with the iPhone X. I'm coming from the 6S Plus, and I can say a lot of ground has been made over the last 2 years. Straight of the camera, no edits other than crops for straightening:
I think it's unreasonable to say the dSLR's struggle to get shots comparable to a phone camera if you're going to use sub optimal settings for the dSLR's.
I disagree.
Why is it unreasonable to have an SLR set manually to the settings the phone is using to capture the images? The camera has bigger sensors, with (usually) larger photo receptors per pixel. They are different devices, for different purposes. You are also ignoring that these are older SLR cameras.
I am not saying a phone is an SLR replacement, not one bit.
Because the two cameras use drastically different sensors. You mentioned one of the prime differences between a dSLR and a camera...the ability for the dSLR to gather more light for a given exposure setting. All else being equal the dSLR sensor is going to capture more light than the sensor in a phone thus over exposing the shot.
Older dSLRs take very good pictures. I have a 40D which, 10 years later, continues to take excellent pictures. Being old doesn't mean bad.
i have been happy so far with the x camera. i'm coming from a 6.
my wife has a 7plus and i can see the difference in our 2 phones.
what i have never liked and still don't like is the amount of noise reduction. it ruins alot of pics in lower light that i could have improved by simply taking them into lightroom. i wish we could shoot raw on phones one day. i would jsut tend to use it more in lower light conditions.
it is deff a better camera i feel. we were at a wedding this weekend and the pics i took without the flash were better and i know i will be avle to clean them up easier in lightroom. i can see myself using the camera more now.
it's flash in low light is still crazy bright. i'm so used to having a bounce on my external flash of my camera. idon't even like the internal flash on my DSLR's. its just what i'm used to.
but i do like this camera better. once i get more used to it. i didn't know anything about the live mode and the changes you can make by swiping up so thanks for that tip.
is there anyway to control noise reduction on the camera?
my wife has a 7plus and i can see the difference in our 2 phones.
what i have never liked and still don't like is the amount of noise reduction. it ruins alot of pics in lower light that i could have improved by simply taking them into lightroom. i wish we could shoot raw on phones one day. i would jsut tend to use it more in lower light conditions.
it is deff a better camera i feel. we were at a wedding this weekend and the pics i took without the flash were better and i know i will be avle to clean them up easier in lightroom. i can see myself using the camera more now.
it's flash in low light is still crazy bright. i'm so used to having a bounce on my external flash of my camera. idon't even like the internal flash on my DSLR's. its just what i'm used to.
but i do like this camera better. once i get more used to it. i didn't know anything about the live mode and the changes you can make by swiping up so thanks for that tip.
is there anyway to control noise reduction on the camera?
I have a Sony A7RII (42 MP) camera with nice Zeiss glass and so forth. And yes, for sure it takes nicer photos. Meaning slightly dynamic range with more natural color/tone transitions, far more detail (it's got 4x the pixels, and when you downsample that you get an amazing 20 MPix image), better glass, the works. The noise level is lower, too.
However, it's a lot, and I mean a LOT closer than you think with the 8/X for well lit shots. The portrait mode is getting better and better, and on an iPad I have shown side-by-side images to clients who actually can't tell the difference between the two cameras. In the hands of a skilled photographer, the iPhone can do a pretty stellar job these days. It's not caught up to modern DSLR/Mirrorless ILCs, but it's caught up to DSLRs from 10+ years ago. And that's pretty amazing.
The quality of the X is within spitting range of say the 1" Sony RX100 - a well regarded prosumer $1,000 pocket camera. And that's stunning, because both have Sony chips and the RX100's is so much larger. Whatever Apple (and Google) are doing in the ISP engines for these cameras is remarkable. Truly remarkable.
TL;DR, is the iPhone X designed to replace a DSLR? Nope. Can it in some cases? Yep. Machine learning and dedicated processing hardware is leading the way in getting decent, sharp, well balanced photos from tiny **** sensors.
And I don't usually carry around my A7RII. But I always have the iPhone. And more and more often, I leave the A7rII home; to be used on only paid jobs.
PS: For video the iPhone X is much closer to say, a Sony FS5 (a $5,000 S35 pro video camera) in 4K which is extra truly remarkable. It has a decent DR range and good bitrates. I have used the iPhone (7+, 8+) for b-roll cutaways on paid shots that had Sony FS7s and Canon C300's on them. No one can tell, even in 4K. The cameras are getting that good.
However, it's a lot, and I mean a LOT closer than you think with the 8/X for well lit shots. The portrait mode is getting better and better, and on an iPad I have shown side-by-side images to clients who actually can't tell the difference between the two cameras. In the hands of a skilled photographer, the iPhone can do a pretty stellar job these days. It's not caught up to modern DSLR/Mirrorless ILCs, but it's caught up to DSLRs from 10+ years ago. And that's pretty amazing.
The quality of the X is within spitting range of say the 1" Sony RX100 - a well regarded prosumer $1,000 pocket camera. And that's stunning, because both have Sony chips and the RX100's is so much larger. Whatever Apple (and Google) are doing in the ISP engines for these cameras is remarkable. Truly remarkable.
TL;DR, is the iPhone X designed to replace a DSLR? Nope. Can it in some cases? Yep. Machine learning and dedicated processing hardware is leading the way in getting decent, sharp, well balanced photos from tiny **** sensors.
And I don't usually carry around my A7RII. But I always have the iPhone. And more and more often, I leave the A7rII home; to be used on only paid jobs.
PS: For video the iPhone X is much closer to say, a Sony FS5 (a $5,000 S35 pro video camera) in 4K which is extra truly remarkable. It has a decent DR range and good bitrates. I have used the iPhone (7+, 8+) for b-roll cutaways on paid shots that had Sony FS7s and Canon C300's on them. No one can tell, even in 4K. The cameras are getting that good.
Last edited:
True the creative side is (by far) the most difficult, but also the most important. A less technically perfect photo that’s well composed will always be better than a pin sharp boring one. Yes, ideally in most cases a photo should be sharp and well composed, but the composition is by far the more important of the two.
Is the iPhone 8 Plus I own as good as my Leica M 240? Of course not, but as a sensible chap once said, the best camera is the one you have with you. Personally I have no problems with the iPhone camera if I don’t feel like carrying the Leica kit around with me.
Here’s one from a short while ago - portrait mode.
