iPhone 16 Pro Max Issues with ProRAW 48 and stock camera app

[ToddH]

Yes.
17PM stills needs a lot of optimizations at this point. Very poor results with ProRaw.

16PM improved a lot with ios 18.5.

I stepped into a Verizon store at lunchtime, tested out the new 17 pro max orange. Needless to say, I was unimpressed with the image quality. Because it was extremely noisy and mushy inside the store. I thought the new telephoto was going to be wonderful, but probably it will be outside. Makes me appreciate my Samsung Galaxy S25 ultra even more... i'll keep watch and soon as the iPhone improves image quality, I'll upgrade my 16 pro max over to the 17PM orange

 

[zachchen1996]

Unfortunately, it seems that no newer iPhone can match the 14 Pro in 48 MB ProRAW.

I miss my 14 pro max for this very reason. Why is Apple handicapping these newer iPhone cameras?

 

[ToddH]

I miss my 14 pro max for this very reason. Why is Apple handicapping these newer iPhone cameras?

I don't know that's a good question, though. So what are they going to release next year? The same phone? Same aluminum frame, same camera setup, or are they going to finally change the optical design of the cameras? Makes me wonder for this very reason, I moved over to the Samsung S25 ultra. Being so involved with photography, I needed or wanted a much better camera setup that I can control. Come on apple, we know you're more capable of making better phones.... it's funny that every year at the end of their keynote, they say "this is the best iPhone we've ever made."

 

[Artsketch]

I miss my 14 pro max for this very reason. Why is Apple handicapping these newer iPhone cameras?

No one knows for sure. After extensive comparison, I had to switch back from the 15 Pro to the 14 Pro in order to capture the highest possible detail in 48 MP ProRAW in low light conditions at a distance of half a meter in museums. The 16 Pro was also unable to deliver this quality with its main camera. The 14 Pro is so adequate that it makes no sense at all to take a mirrorless camera for this purpose.

 

[miemo]

Updated from iPhone 14 Pro to iPhone 17 Pro yesterday, was a bit disappointed to see less than stellar results from the very first & very quick outdoor snaps yesterday – and then found this thread after some online searching on trying to figure out what might be going on.

Guided by the findings here, did some head to head comparison shots today indoors and to be honest I'm quite a bit shocked by the results. I'd expect to see these kind of night&day differences THE OTHER WAY AROUND, i.e. NOT finding the older model beating the 3 generations newer device! 🤯

So tested 0.5x and 1x cameras on both devices, running native Apple Camera app on both for ProRAW, Halide for ProRAW and RAW (Process Zero) on 17 Pro and chose the 12 MP option for 0.5x camera to level the playing field there. Exported as JPGs without any edits from Lightroom Classic. These are shot hand held so there's a potential for some camera shake theoretically, but none of the images look like motion blur would be causing any of the issues.

Full-sized images at Dropbox – attached for context full view of both 0.5x and 1x shots (downscaled) and then crops from both cameras & both devices.

On the 1x shots cropped from the lower-left corner, the textures both on the fabric of the book and the circular painting edge are almost completely missing on the 17 Pro photos, while super-crisp on the 14 Pro. Don't see any meaningful difference between ProRAWs shot on Apple Camera app or Halide on 17 Pro, i.e. both equally crappy.

On 0.5x shots cropped from the top left corner, the titles on the books on the top row become really messy on the 17 ProRAW shot, while being very decent on the 14 ProRAW – and very noisy but still crisp on the Process Zero RAW from Halide. (Didnt' include the Halide ProRAW shot, again very much 1:1 to Camera app's version).


Granted, I picked the worst possible corners from each image – it's more even situation in the center, but even there there's much more microcontrast and real-life detail on 14 ProRAW shots. Is the camera quality really THIS bad for post-14Pro iPhones???

 

[that be me]

it's funny that every year at the end of their keynote, they say "this is the best iPhone we've ever made."

Apple can continuously say this if they keep holding things back, dumbing things down or keeping things from working at their best.

 

[zachchen1996]

Updated from iPhone 14 Pro to iPhone 17 Pro yesterday, was a bit disappointed to see less than stellar results from the very first & very quick outdoor snaps yesterday – and then found this thread after some online searching on trying to figure out what might be going on.

Guided by the findings here, did some head to head comparison shots today indoors and to be honest I'm quite a bit shocked by the results. I'd expect to see these kind of night&day differences THE OTHER WAY AROUND, i.e. NOT finding the older model beating the 3 generations newer device! 🤯

So tested 0.5x and 1x cameras on both devices, running native Apple Camera app on both for ProRAW, Halide for ProRAW and RAW (Process Zero) on 17 Pro and chose the 12 MP option for 0.5x camera to level the playing field there. Exported as JPGs without any edits from Lightroom Classic. These are shot hand held so there's a potential for some camera shake theoretically, but none of the images look like motion blur would be causing any of the issues.

Full-sized images at Dropbox – attached for context full view of both 0.5x and 1x shots (downscaled) and then crops from both cameras & both devices.

On the 1x shots cropped from the lower-left corner, the textures both on the fabric of the book and the circular painting edge are almost completely missing on the 17 Pro photos, while super-crisp on the 14 Pro. Don't see any meaningful difference between ProRAWs shot on Apple Camera app or Halide on 17 Pro, i.e. both equally crappy.

On 0.5x shots cropped from the top left corner, the titles on the books on the top row become really messy on the 17 ProRAW shot, while being very decent on the 14 ProRAW – and very noisy but still crisp on the Process Zero RAW from Halide. (Didnt' include the Halide ProRAW shot, again very much 1:1 to Camera app's version).


Granted, I picked the worst possible corners from each image – it's more even situation in the center, but even there there's much more microcontrast and real-life detail on 14 ProRAW shots. Is the camera quality really THIS bad for post-14Pro iPhones???

Unfortunately your findings are what I found when moving from the 14 pro max to the 16 pro max. I was really hoping Apple would fix this with the 17 pro, but it seems like they haven’t. How has this issue not reached mainstream coverage? Does no one else care?

 

[ToddH]

Updated from iPhone 14 Pro to iPhone 17 Pro yesterday, was a bit disappointed to see less than stellar results from the very first & very quick outdoor snaps yesterday – and then found this thread after some online searching on trying to figure out what might be going on.

Guided by the findings here, did some head to head comparison shots today indoors and to be honest I'm quite a bit shocked by the results. I'd expect to see these kind of night&day differences THE OTHER WAY AROUND, i.e. NOT finding the older model beating the 3 generations newer device! 🤯

So tested 0.5x and 1x cameras on both devices, running native Apple Camera app on both for ProRAW, Halide for ProRAW and RAW (Process Zero) on 17 Pro and chose the 12 MP option for 0.5x camera to level the playing field there. Exported as JPGs without any edits from Lightroom Classic. These are shot hand held so there's a potential for some camera shake theoretically, but none of the images look like motion blur would be causing any of the issues.

Full-sized images at Dropbox – attached for context full view of both 0.5x and 1x shots (downscaled) and then crops from both cameras & both devices.

On the 1x shots cropped from the lower-left corner, the textures both on the fabric of the book and the circular painting edge are almost completely missing on the 17 Pro photos, while super-crisp on the 14 Pro. Don't see any meaningful difference between ProRAWs shot on Apple Camera app or Halide on 17 Pro, i.e. both equally crappy.

On 0.5x shots cropped from the top left corner, the titles on the books on the top row become really messy on the 17 ProRAW shot, while being very decent on the 14 ProRAW – and very noisy but still crisp on the Process Zero RAW from Halide. (Didnt' include the Halide ProRAW shot, again very much 1:1 to Camera app's version).


Granted, I picked the worst possible corners from each image – it's more even situation in the center, but even there there's much more microcontrast and real-life detail on 14 ProRAW shots. Is the camera quality really THIS bad from post-14Pro iPhones???

Wow.. disappointing for sure. I saw similar results from the display 17 pro max yesterday. Simple shots at 48mp heic looked horrible. The carpet in the store was rendered to mush and unresolved. I did set the camera up in settings before taking photos so I'd get the best quality. The 4x was badd at ISO 500, very grainy and rough looking for 500 ISO. I wasn't impressed. The 1x & .5x optics have remained the same for several years now. The camera optics really need updates badly. I have a 16 pro max and two Samsung S25 Ultra phones. I love the samsung cameras, that 200mp is so amazing. If apple doesn't change the cameras for next year's iPhone, then there's no need to upgrade. It seems the upgrades now are about the chip set and what color. Maybe the camera quality is software related, but it shouldn't be because they are using the same cameras except for the 4x.

 

[Artsketch]

I'm quite a bit shocked by the results. I'd expect to see these kind of night&day differences THE OTHER WAY AROUND, i.e. NOT finding the older model beating the 3 generations newer device! 🤯

Unfortunately details are ironed out, but most people view the images only on small smartphone screens. You can see the differences if you compare identical shots taken with the main camera in 48 MB ProRAW and zoom in on a large monitor. Samsung on the other hand has a worse performance in indoor light conditions.

 

[ToddH]

Unfortunately details are ironed out, but most people view the images only on small smartphone screens. You can see the differences if you compare identical shots taken with the main camera in 48 MB ProRAW and zoom in on a large monitor. Samsung on the other hand has a worse performance in indoor light conditions.

Well, I'm not sure if Samsung is worse in low light compared to other phones, i suppose it depends onn the Samsung phone model being used.. It all comes down to how good of a photographer you are and & how well you know the camera system. Using basic jpeg and pointing and shooting, then, yeah, I can agree with worse image quality in low light. But if expert raw is used and the ISO is set to its lowest setting (if possible) along with the appropriate shutter speed, the S25 Ultra can be adjusted just like a DSLR and produce amazing results and clean details. High ISO is what destroys image quality with these small sensors.

 

[nunolikeapple]

I returned my unit.
I will test a new one next week.

It’s literally a lottery to get a good one and not a “lemon”.

 

[ToddH]

I returned my unit.
I will test a new one next week.

It’s literally a lottery to get a good one and not a “lemon”.

Oh my.. well nowadays it seems to be best to wait a month or two after launch day to get a good one. The launch day models were probably made in mass production really quick therefore there will be lemons. I tried to test one out today, but every store i went to had the 17 pros locked down. I couldn't test the cameras. I saw the sample gallery on the new iPhone & I just didn't care much for the cameras anymore. Especially since the wide 1x & ultra wide .5x cameras are three years old now. I'd be upgrading just for the new design and color, not the camera. So.ill probably pass and use my S25 Ultra, I like the cameras on it better than I do on iphone. What will happen next year? Same phone and cameras but with new colors??

 

[miemo]

Did some additional 14Pro vs 17Pro testing today in good daylight while on a bike ride – the situation is not as bad in plentiful sunlight, so I think a lot of the issue really boils down to overly aggressive noise reduction algorithm on the newer models. Which is sort of hopeful, as it could be remedied with a sw update – if Apple just gave a damn. BUT even in good light, the 14 Pro image looks just a bit crisper.

Lower left corner of a 12MP ProRAW on the 0.5x camera, 200% zoom on Lightroom.

 

[miemo]

On a positive note, the new imaging pipeline Apple has mentioned on the cropped modes really has improved the quality of the 2x virtual camera. Here the 14 Pro image looks overly processed in details, almost like some AI crap – whereas the 17 Pro has produced VERY natural looking result!

So at least there's one team at Apple who knows their ****, we'd just need them to take over the overall ProRAW pipeline altogether! 😅

Center crops of 12MP ProRAWs on the 2x camera, 200% zoom on Lightroom.

 

[miemo]

Unfortunately details are ironed out, but most people view the images only on small smartphone screens. You can see the differences if you compare identical shots taken with the main camera in 48 MB ProRAW and zoom in on a large monitor.

I'd be totally fine with that explanation if we'd be talking about the base model and JPGs, i.e. stuff for the regular consumers.

These results are totally unacceptable for a Pro phone and RAW-files, where the whole point is to let the photographer decide on the amount of sharpenening, noise reduction et al – and to produce stuff that's not just to be used on a tiny screen. Apple seems to understand that angle very well when it comes to video, e.g. with features like Log, Prores and even Genlock which is very much an ultra-pro feature. Somehow the point is very much missed when it comes to stills. Or at least has been, post-14Pro days…

 

[miemo]

Unfortunately your findings are what I found when moving from the 14 pro max to the 16 pro max. I was really hoping Apple would fix this with the 17 pro, but it seems like they haven’t. How has this issue not reached mainstream coverage? Does no one else care?

Yeah it's pretty weird this one thread seems to be the only resource on the whole issue!

One possibility is that this all boils down to the quality control of the devices, and all reviewers are sent double-checked units that actually comply with the designated specs, whereas the rest of us are left with the lottery of either getting a solid unit or a turd, or something in between. This is often the case, at least to some degree, with traditional lenses for traditional cameras – there's quite a bit of variance between different units on how well they actually perform.

But then again if overly aggressive noise reduction is at least partly to blame, then that shouldn't vary between different units as it's software…

 

[rotvaldi]

literally 17 pro max has worst details than 16PM look Yoda eyes

 

[H_D]

Had this very problem when playing with the 17PM indoors in dusky light. Got 12 MP instead of 48 MP with the 100mm 4× lens to my surprise. Turns out, the stock camera app decides to use the 1× lens, probably due to its wider aperture and cropped it to a (terrible) 12 MP shot. Halide in the same situation gave me 48MP ProRAW and ZeroProcessed.

I get that Apple aims for a point-and-shoot solution here, but when ai explicitly set up 48 ProRAW, it should not give me 12 MP from a different lens than the one I chose. Apple basically overwrites every subtle setting I made for the photos. This is not useful when you sell your device more and more as a «pro» tool.

Best workflow at the moment - shooting with Halide or ProCamera and editing the dng in Lightroom. Not quick but the only way to get good 48 MP results with at least somewhat finer control over noise etc.

Every thing that Edits the image while shooting, such as Hipstamatic or Lux etc results in 12 MP. Which is uncool. Love filters should give you HEIC, of course but in 48 or at least 24 MP. In an ideal situation such filters could be xml attached to the RAW and be easily editable afterwards. Especially for subscription-based Apps that would be a plus. I would pay for LUX if I could have a pipeline that mixes ease of use and quick results / preview with a wider range of edits afterwards.

 

[nunolikeapple]

17 pro series still needs a lot of optimizations.. at least in the camera department.

 

[miemo]

17 pro series still needs a lot of optimizations.. at least in the camera department.

Those of you who have had experience with 15&16 Pros previously – how well and how quickly do things get optimized after launch?

 

[nunolikeapple]

My 16PM is much better since iOS 18.5.
I took them only 8 months…
In contrast my 15PM still not delivering.

 

[ToddH]

Yeah it's pretty weird this one thread seems to be the only resource on the whole issue!

One possibility is that this all boils down to the quality control of the devices, and all reviewers are sent double-checked units that actually comply with the designated specs, whereas the rest of us are left with the lottery of either getting a solid unit or a turd, or something in between. This is often the case, at least to some degree, with traditional lenses for traditional cameras – there's quite a bit of variance between different units on how well they actually perform.

But then again if overly aggressive noise reduction is at least partly to blame, then that shouldn't vary between different units as it's software…

Hmm... Well for this very reason I switched to Android, Galaxy S25 Ultra to be exact because I have grown weary of waiting on Apple to deliver an iPhone with fantastic cameras. It should be a no brainer for the pro models!

When the 17 Pro was announced, I was not in awe after realizing the 1x & .5x cameras were unchanged, these have been in use for 3 years now. The optics remain the same even when the sensors may have changed. That's pretty lame. Night mode photos of the night sky always leaves a bright spot in the centerof the image as the edges get darker because of the optical design.

The 4x is a nice change but realistically apple could have used this lens on the 16 pro. Next year...probably same cameras, same frame, but with different colors. I love the cameras on the S25 Ultra, especially that 200mp main camera...wow! I never thought I would use an android phone. Expert Raw is simply amazing.

But after using the iPhone since 2009, it was time to move on and the S25 ultra is a nice change. Its actually quite similar to iOS in functionality. I still have my 16 pro max & I'll keep it for a while since I use it for home kit electronics at home.

After all of the complaints with the 17 pro seen here on these threads, I've opted to skip this year's iPhone. My 16 pro max suffered camera quality issues every time an ios update was loaded. I had to restore the iPhone to get the camera working again & get camera quality back on track. I made an appointment at the apple store after 6 restores & they replaced the camera module, that fixed the issue. I'll keep watching these threads to check if improvements come to the 17 pro series. If so, I'll update my 16 pro max.

 

[nunolikeapple]

update, got the second unit today. (17 PM)

Same results as previous.

Horrible and blurry results from wide camera in proraw 48, with native camera app, this time.

Samples 16 PM vs 17PM, same conditions.

 

[miemo]

update, got the second unit today. (17 PM)

Same results as previous.

Horrible and blurry results from wide camera in proraw 48, with native camera app, this time.

Samples 16 PM vs 17PM, same conditions.

Oh crap, really sucks that even exchanging the unit doesn't bring any resolution to the issue.

 

[nunolikeapple]

As i said, 17 series still needs a lot of optimizations, at least with ProRaw 48. :/
Results so far are unacceptable.

Tried also with a 17 pro from a friend and same results.