iPhone 13 Pro Is the f/2.8 on the telephoto really a problem?

[tis]

Anyone claiming to have a true DSLR should know that an iPhone doesn’t come close. All the digital processing in the world can’t make up for those tiny lenses. The minor yearly upgrades to iPhone cameras are also just that; minor. People make a big deal out of Apples marketing claims, and willingly fork out $400-500 extra every year for a tiny camera bump. It’s not rational at all.

Year after year people claim to care so much about picture quality, which is their rationalization to upgrade, but can’t be bothered to buy a true DSLR. It’s quite a contradiction.

 

[Sammy in SoCal]

Anyone claiming to have a true DSLR should know that an iPhone doesn’t come close. All the digital processing in the world can’t make up for those tiny lenses. The minor yearly upgrades to iPhone cameras are also just that; minor. People make a big deal out of Apples marketing claims, and willingly fork out $400-500 extra every year for a tiny camera bump. It’s not rational at all.

Year after year people claim to care so much about picture quality, which is their rationalization to upgrade, but can’t be bothered to buy a true DSLR. It’s quite a contradiction.

The best camera is the one you carry on you most of the time

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

Anyone claiming to have a true DSLR should know that an iPhone doesn’t come close. All the digital processing in the world can’t make up for those tiny lenses. The minor yearly upgrades to iPhone cameras are also just that; minor. People make a big deal out of Apples marketing claims, and willingly fork out $400-500 extra every year for a tiny camera bump. It’s not rational at all.

Year after year people claim to care so much about picture quality, which is their rationalization to upgrade, but can’t be bothered to buy a true DSLR. It’s quite a contradiction.

Spoken like someone who isn’t a photographer haha, we love real cameras but the convenience of your phone being a camera is unmatched. A good photographer can take fantastic photos with any camera, smartphones included.

 

[Menneisyys2]

I used to be a sports photographer. I used. Cannon 200 L 2.8 and a Cannon 400 L 2.8.

It’s the perfect aperture for telephoto lenses.

Additional brightness can never do any harm (you can always stop down to 2.8), unless it severely increases the lens size.

 

[matejphoto]

Spoken like someone who isn’t a photographer haha, we love real cameras but the convenience of your phone being a camera is unmatched. A good photographer can take fantastic photos with any camera, smartphones included.

Agreed. Sure, I can take my Eos R on a hike with my kids. But it is cumbersome and makes me being less present for my family. With a phone I snap a picture in 5sec (time from pocket out to back into the pocket).
As far as wasting $500 for incremental upgrades: my kid will be 6 years old only once, totally worth it to pay for any increase in quality I can get. If i was 18yr old and in hight school the $500 would sure look different.

 

[Royksöpp]

Anyone claiming to have a true DSLR should know that an iPhone doesn’t come close. All the digital processing in the world can’t make up for those tiny lenses. The minor yearly upgrades to iPhone cameras are also just that; minor. People make a big deal out of Apples marketing claims, and willingly fork out $400-500 extra every year for a tiny camera bump. It’s not rational at all.

Year after year people claim to care so much about picture quality, which is their rationalization to upgrade, but can’t be bothered to buy a true DSLR. It’s quite a contradiction.

I agree. It really grinds my gears how people act like they are suddenly going to turn into Avedon or Annie Leibowitz just from buying a new phone. Most of the pictures featured in Apple's Shot on iPhone campaign are from older phones. The number one camera on Flickr is the iPhone 7! It really doesn't matter what hardware you have.

 

[Beards]

Shooting on an iPhone 13 Pro at telephoto is only a problem if you are going to do prints over A4 and larger….
As the majority of iPhone shots taken are viewed either directly on a screen or printed 6/4 or 7/5 you are not going to notice a humongous difference between phone and camera…
I have Fuji cameras (X100T and XT4 with lens) but I only use them when I know the shots taken will go direct to large size print.

 

[tis]

Spoken like someone who isn’t a photographer haha, we love real cameras but the convenience of your phone being a camera is unmatched. A good photographer can take fantastic photos with any camera, smartphones included.

You are playing semantics. The point is that if someone really cares about picture quality, they wouldn’t be looking at an iPhone camera to provide it. No one is arguing the convenience. The argument is that the continued yearly rationalization to pay Apple another $500 for a TINY camera upgrade is ridiculous. Keep last years phone, and buy a DSLR for the times when you feel like using it. Otherwise, I don’t want to hear about you needing a better camera because you care soooo much about picture quality. I’d bet that in a blind test, you couldn’t pick which phone took a picture.

 

[TrueBlou]

Spoken like someone who isn’t a photographer haha, we love real cameras but the convenience of your phone being a camera is unmatched. A good photographer can take fantastic photos with any camera, smartphones included.

I wondered how long that would take I totally agree with you though. I have several nice cameras, but I certainly don’t always have one with me. My phone on the other hand, is with me every waking moment of my life these days. And for that, I’m really sort of glad. I’ve managed some beautiful shots over the years with it that I would otherwise have missed out on.

People forget that photography is an art, a good end result is far more than mere technology. Yes, our DSLRs/Mirorr-less and even pocket cameras are technically far superior to any mobile phone. But all of the quality sensors and optics in the world are no good to anyone, when they’re at home in our camera bags.

As for the subject at hand, no it’s not a problem. The vast majority of people who use iPhone cameras likely won’t know the difference regardless. All they care about is getting a nice picture when they press the button on their phone.

Unless you’re actually in the market for a new phone, the camera upgrades don’t matter. I’d argue that they’re far from the most important aspect you should be looking at anyway.

Certainly any improvement is welcome, why wouldn’t it be. But until they add a periscope lens, or a vastly different sensor. The changes are incremental at this point.

 

[tis]

I wondered how long that would take I totally agree with you though. I have several nice cameras, but I certainly don’t always have one with me. My phone on the other hand, is with me every waking moment of my life these days. And for that, I’m really sort of glad. I’ve managed some beautiful shots over the years with it that I would otherwise have missed out on.

People forget that photography is an art, a good end result is far more than mere technology. Yes, our DSLRs/Mirorr-less and even pocket cameras are technically far superior to any mobile phone. But all of the quality sensors and optics in the world are no good to anyone, when they’re at home in our camera bags.

….and the additional $500 you are giving Apple this year, for a phone that takes pictures .0001% better than the phone you currently have in your pocket, would be more useful being invested than given to the most valuable company in the world.

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

You are playing semantics. The point is that if someone really cares about picture quality, they wouldn’t be looking at an iPhone camera to provide it. No one is arguing the convenience. The argument is that the continued yearly rationalization to pay Apple another $500 for a TINY camera upgrade is ridiculous. Keep last years phone, and buy a DSLR for the times when you feel like using it. Otherwise, I don’t want to hear about you needing a better camera because you care soooo much about picture quality. I’d bet that in a blind test, you couldn’t pick which phone took a picture.

You do realize people pay thousands of dollars just for a lens on a good FF system right? Spending 300$ a year to have the newest phone sensors/optics is nothing in the realm of photography gear. Your argument goes against spending any money on better camera gear, not just smartphones.

Better gear doesn’t make you a better photographer, but better low light performance is really useful to me and something that helps me capture my life. I put a lot of value on that, even if it’s not a drastic improvement.

 

[TrueBlou]

….and the additional $500 you are giving Apple this year, for a phone that takes pictures .0001% better than the phone you currently have in your pocket, would be more useful being invested than given to the most valuable company in the world. Use your brain.

Your argument is moot in regards to me. I see no real value in upgrading from my 12 PM, to any of the 13 lineup. So I won’t be upgrading this year. Perhaps use your brain to get all of the relevant data on a subject, before you attack someone with offensive comments.

 

[tis]

You do realize people pay thousands of dollars just for a lens on a good FF system right? Spending 300$ a year to have the newest phone sensors/optics is nothing in the realm of photography gear. Your argument goes against spending any money on better camera gear, not just smartphones.

Better gear doesn’t make you a better photographer, but better low light performance is really useful to me and something that helps me capture my life. I put a lot of value on that, even if it’s not a drastic improvement.

You do realize people pay thousands of dollars just for a lens on a good FF system right? Spending 300$ a year to have the newest phone sensors/optics is nothing in the realm of photography gear. Your argument goes against spending any money on better camera gear, not just smartphones.

Better gear doesn’t make you a better photographer, but better low light performance is really useful to me and something that helps me capture my life. I put a lot of value on that, even if it’s not a drastic improvement.

The value of full sized camera lenses has nothing to do with paying Apple a yearly salary for a phone that’s 95% identical to the one you overpaid for last year.

Nonetheless, some people are bad with money, and some aren’t. Some people end up incredibly wealthy, and some don’t.

Enjoy your new phone that takes pictures indistinguishable from last years model.

 

[TrueBlou]

The value of full sized camera lenses has nothing to do with paying Apple a yearly salary for a phone that’s 95% identical to the one you overpaid for last year.

Nonetheless, some people are bad with money, and some aren’t. Some people end up incredibly wealthy, and some don’t.

Enjoy your new phone that takes pictures indistinguishable from last years model.

I’m sure some people will also be taking into account the new displays, better battery life and improvements to video recording.

I’d hate to think people would upgrade for the changes to still photography alone.

Perhaps some will, but who are we to judge what people should and should not do with their money - we have wives for that 😂😂😂

 

[DSTOFEL]

I didn't say it was long, I said it was longer. They are size restricted and these cameras are already much larger in size compared to the previous models. Judging by the new size I'd imagine the glass quality is going to be substantially better and we will be seeing nicer images beyond sensor improvements.

I’m suspect that f/2.8 indoors is going to work as well indoors in portrait mode for example and that the iPhone won’t just switch to the brighter main lens and crop in. We’ll see soon I guess.

 

[MhaelK]

Most telephoto usecases are in good ligthing conditions so quality of the lens and sensors is of more importance. It is very hard/expensive to make good telephoto-lens with low f-Aperture, and not worth it for most people.

 

[matejphoto]

….and the additional $500 you are giving Apple this year, for a phone that takes pictures .0001% better than the phone you currently have in your pocket, would be more useful being invested than given to the most valuable company in the world.

The amount of improvement is clearly subjective but for me going from Xs to 13pro I expect a significant bump in quality all around.
I think the upgrade in the phones is a bigger bump than going from Canon crop to canon full frame.
I think most people will have hard time telling the difference between Canon M with 32mm f/1.4 vs Canon R5 with 50mm f/1.2.
Side by side you will probably able to tell. On their own probably not. Both will look amazing. Yet clearly a lot of people are still buying full frame to get that extra 10-20% in quality.

 

[iBug2]

Shooting on an iPhone 13 Pro at telephoto is only a problem if you are going to do prints over A4 and larger….
As the majority of iPhone shots taken are viewed either directly on a screen or printed 6/4 or 7/5 you are not going to notice a humongous difference between phone and camera…
I have Fuji cameras (X100T and XT4 with lens) but I only use them when I know the shots taken will go direct to large size print.

If you want everything in focus, yes an iPhone photo viewed on an iPhone may not be too different than a photo taken a pro MILC or DSLR.
However, no amount of A.I. out of focusing will match the shallow DOF of an actual camera and lens combo.

For landscape where everything is in focus, I sometimes take the same picture with my iPhone 12 Pro and my Nikon Z7. Yes, even on an iPhone screen Z7 photo is better and it's easily visible. But if I'm going to use an actual telephoto or F1.8 Lens on my Z7, you cannot get that photo with an iPhone. No way, no how.

 

[ericthered926]

….and the additional $500 you are giving Apple this year, for a phone that takes pictures .0001% better than the phone you currently have in your pocket, would be more useful being invested than given to the most valuable company in the world.

It is costing me a grand total of $215 (with tax) to trade in my 12 Pro for the 13 Pro Max. It would be $110 if I did the 13 Pro. I'd be dumb not to do that... I get a (according to you) .0001% better camera, better battery, 120hz screen, and I lose less money than I would long term. I'm excited for the camera improvements even if they are marginal, especially for macro and photographic styles. And the upgrade from 2x to 3x zoom will be nice (depending on the image quality based on the aperture change). Believe it or not, not everyone just shells out $500 a year just because.

 

[lkalliance]

Apple isn’t going to make something with less quality.

Generally true, but they did say that the iPhone 13 Pro camera system was rebuilt from the ground up. Perhaps this is one area they had to trade off to get the other advantages that the new setup offered?

 

[lkalliance]

If you want everything in focus, yes an iPhone photo viewed on an iPhone may not be too different than a photo taken a pro MILC or DSLR.
However, no amount of A.I. out of focusing will match the shallow DOF of an actual camera and lens combo.

For landscape where everything is in focus, I sometimes take the same picture with my iPhone 12 Pro and my Nikon Z7. Yes, even on an iPhone screen Z7 photo is better and it's easily visible. But if I'm going to use an actual telephoto or F1.8 Lens on my Z7, you cannot get that photo with an iPhone. No way, no how.

I agree, and I don't have a camera as advanced as yours. With my Canon Digital Rebel 4i, and a kit zoom lens, I can get better photos. But the gap has closed enough to where I expect the 13 Pro to be able to take on a significant portion of the photography I use the Canon for. If I want to do capital-P Photography (hah, in my case), I'm grabbing the Canon, but I'm hoping that when I'm out and about if I see something to shoot where I really wish I had my good camera, that a 13 Pro will get me a very good shot.

 

[lkalliance]

Agreed. Sure, I can take my Eos R on a hike with my kids. But it is cumbersome and makes me being less present for my family. With a phone I snap a picture in 5sec (time from pocket out to back into the pocket).
As far as wasting $500 for incremental upgrades: my kid will be 6 years old only once, totally worth it to pay for any increase in quality I can get. If i was 18yr old and in high school the $500 would sure look different.

This rings very true to me. I have learned over the years that if I'm going to go somewhere where I think I can get good photography of those close to me, or of some fun activity, then either I bring my DSLR and shooting is my activity, or I leave it at home and whatever it was I was going to shoot becomes my activity. I'm either doing, or I'm shooting, and if I try to do both I don't feel I get the benefit of either. Those are the situations I would like to improve my camera over my current SE 2020.

I agree. It really grinds my gears how people act like they are suddenly going to turn into Avedon or Annie Leibowitz just from buying a new phone.

Do people really say this?

Shooting on an iPhone 13 Pro at telephoto is only a problem if you are going to do prints over A4 and larger….
As the majority of iPhone shots taken are viewed either directly on a screen or printed 6/4 or 7/5 you are not going to notice a humongous difference between phone and camera…
I have Fuji cameras (X100T and XT4 with lens) but I only use them when I know the shots taken will go direct to large size print.

When I have my DSLR I have my zoom lens on at least 90 percent of the time. I'm sitting here in my home office, and through the sliding glass doors to my left is a collection of birdfeeders. If I see something interesting enough to shoot, there is no way I am going to get it without the DSLR. The telephoto lens on an iPhone can make up at least some of that.

 

[Royksöpp]

Do people really say this?

They way they gush on and on about the cameras, they might as well. An improved sensor isn’t going to turn someone into a pro overnight!

 

[fathergll]

2.8 is kinda a default in the professional world. Sure not for fixed with lenses, but with zooms and actual tele lenses.

Thats F2.8 on a 36X24 full frame sensor. That has nothing to do in real world terms in terms of DOF and light gathering since F2.8 on a full frame sensor is still far bigger because the sensor is multiple times larger than the iPhone. I don't know the math but probably you would need an iPhone at around F0.4 to be equal to F2.8 on a full frame camera.

F2.8 on the iPhone 13 Pro Max is almost certainly going to perform poorly outside of using plenty of light. Snazzylabs even mentions this as a most likely issue with the new 2.8 lens. Personally I would rather Apple use a 56mm like the 12 Pro did and try and get that to use a large of aperture as possible.

 

[tis]

It is costing me a grand total of $215 (with tax) to trade in my 12 Pro for the 13 Pro Max. It would be $110 if I did the 13 Pro. I'd be dumb not to do that... I get a (according to you) .0001% better camera, better battery, 120hz screen, and I lose less money than I would long term. I'm excited for the camera improvements even if they are marginal, especially for macro and photographic styles. And the upgrade from 2x to 3x zoom will be nice (depending on the image quality based on the aperture change). Believe it or not, not everyone just shells out $500 a year just because.

Don’t omit the details. Fill us in on how you are now stuck in a contract with a service provider, who’s up charging your service costs to pull money from you in another fashion, all while making you think you aren’t paying for your new shiny phone.