Note: this is another article I've been publishing in my series on the iPhone 14 Pro (Max)'s camera, particularly when it comes to comparing to older models. Please do search for my previous / other recent threads for my other articles. (Note: I've found one of my Nokia 808's; will try to track down the app I used back in the time allowing for shooting at 41 Mpixels (as opposed to the 34/38 Mpixel modes) and will also publish some SERIOUS 14PM vs. N808 tests. Stay tuned!)
===
First: the test images I'll talk about in this article so that you can follow along:
1, The (high-quality) JPEG exports (the site still doesn't support HEIC's) have been uploaded Flickr and can be found in the album at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/albums/72177720302384780 . Again, you MUST download the files to be able to zoom to the pixel level! (Too bad Flickr just can't come up with a decent zooming algo allowing for pixel-level, multi-click zooming, not even for paying Pro subscribers like me.)
2, The original HEIC files in a single ZIP file to https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UEmQ2xmfoBLI9RgcLnar1CduGuPWkzKj/view?usp=sharing , should you want to allow downloading the Flickr files one-by-one. (Note: by the time you read this - prolly years from now - it's possible this ZIP file is gone!)
These files all have a 1/2/3 prefix to show the test set (of the three) followed by the model (iP11 or iP14). That is, compare 1 - iP11 - IMG_8411 to 1 - iP14 - IMG_0549 and so on.
====
In my previous thread ( https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...the-last-three-years-on-the-contrary.2361607/ ), I got mixed results in my good-light panorama tests: while the iP14P(M) definitely handles lens flare better, its oversharpening was definitely more destructive than that of the iPhone 11, while I couldn't disern other areas of obvious impovements on the new models. (And, in addition, I discvovered more stitching errors in the pics produced by the new model. As I don't want to judge / compare the phoens on such small tests with comparatively few comparative images, I didn't list stitching errors as a cons for the iP14.) Therefore, because of the oversharpening, I couldn't wholeheartedly recommend the iP14P(M) for good-light panorama shootings.
Again and again, while the main cameras of the 14PM are certainly vastly(!) better than that of the 11, panorama shooting is such a neglected area of the camera modes that the vastly increased resolution etc. just doesn't make it to panoramas. Everything is destroyed by the massive oversharpening, just like with shooting into regular JPEG / HEIC files. Therefore, pano modes shouldn't be used professionally - instead, get a decent pano head OR a 360 camera with excellent photo quality making using a dedicated pano head not that big a necessity any more. There already are some of these cameras even in the consumer-priced category, unlike back in 2015-2016 when they started to appear on the market (Gear 360 and the likes with their comparatively low-quality stills).
As I had promised in the previous pano-specific thread, I have now also conducted some low-light, synchronized(!) panorama tests to find out whether the massive camera improvements, which do come thru for example in low-light video shooting (see my thread at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ro-max-controlled-comparative-videos.2361410/ ) also result in cleaner, less-smeared etc. panoramas.
===
Smearing caused by noise reduction
And yes, they do, at least when it comes to smearning. In all my tests, in low light, the iP14PM continuously delivered better, cleaner results than the 11 in the very dark areas.
Please check out the following attachment pairs:
1 - dark smearing - 11 - comp
1 - dark smearing - 14 - comp
and
3 - dark smearing - 11 - comp
3 - dark smearing - 14 - comp
The first prefix shows which set they compare (1 / 3) and the name of the model can also be found in the filename.
It's in the 14PM images that I annotated some of the affected, low-contast areas where the 14PM fared considerably better than the 11. Notice the much more prevalent smearing in the 11's images, which essentially resulted in a lot of details to be completely smeared away, unlike with the 14's images. In the latter, the destructive effect of noise reduction isn't as pronounced. The difference isn't huge, however.
====
Dynamic range
What about the dynamic range, you may ask? After all, the 14PM's Quad Bayer sensor is, at least theoretically (when two of the four subpixels are programmed to be "less sensitive" than the other two in 12 Mpixel mode) definitely capable of better dynamic range. When properly utilized, that is.
Interestingly, at least in pano mode, this doesn't seem to be the case. (A major neglection on Apple's part? Again, quad-Bayer sensors, by design, allow for much bigger dynamic range than traditional ones. Dunno...) Highlights have the tendency of clipping equally badly in the iP14PM panos as with those of the iP11. If you check out my thrre pairs of comparison images, you'll see the 14 fares in one of them (2 - dynrange - 14 - comp) better, while in the other two cases it's worse.
Also notice that the first "1" pair (1 - dynrange - 11 - comp / 1 - dynrange - 14 - comp) exhibits stitching errors on both phones. (Again and again: I've moved the two in perfect synchronization - "glued together") The errors (I annotated the two most prevalent ones with arrows in "1 - dynrange - 14 - comp") are significantly more visible in the 14's image. Another neglection / lack of improvements on Apple's part?!
====
Summary
All in all, you really do NOT want to update to the iPhone 14PM from an iPhone 11 if all you shoot are panoramas and don't really need the other features / improvements. Apple seems to have neglected improving the pano mode in any way. Heck, they don't even make use of the (in 12 Mpixel mode) vastly superior dynamic range of the 48 Mpixel sensor.
And, let me emphasize again: this 'do not bother' advice only applies to panorama shooting. Video and (if you do shoot ProRAWs - just don't botehr with HEIC / JPG output!) stills are WAAAY better.
===
First: the test images I'll talk about in this article so that you can follow along:
1, The (high-quality) JPEG exports (the site still doesn't support HEIC's) have been uploaded Flickr and can be found in the album at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/albums/72177720302384780 . Again, you MUST download the files to be able to zoom to the pixel level! (Too bad Flickr just can't come up with a decent zooming algo allowing for pixel-level, multi-click zooming, not even for paying Pro subscribers like me.)
2, The original HEIC files in a single ZIP file to https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UEmQ2xmfoBLI9RgcLnar1CduGuPWkzKj/view?usp=sharing , should you want to allow downloading the Flickr files one-by-one. (Note: by the time you read this - prolly years from now - it's possible this ZIP file is gone!)
These files all have a 1/2/3 prefix to show the test set (of the three) followed by the model (iP11 or iP14). That is, compare 1 - iP11 - IMG_8411 to 1 - iP14 - IMG_0549 and so on.
====
In my previous thread ( https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...the-last-three-years-on-the-contrary.2361607/ ), I got mixed results in my good-light panorama tests: while the iP14P(M) definitely handles lens flare better, its oversharpening was definitely more destructive than that of the iPhone 11, while I couldn't disern other areas of obvious impovements on the new models. (And, in addition, I discvovered more stitching errors in the pics produced by the new model. As I don't want to judge / compare the phoens on such small tests with comparatively few comparative images, I didn't list stitching errors as a cons for the iP14.) Therefore, because of the oversharpening, I couldn't wholeheartedly recommend the iP14P(M) for good-light panorama shootings.
Again and again, while the main cameras of the 14PM are certainly vastly(!) better than that of the 11, panorama shooting is such a neglected area of the camera modes that the vastly increased resolution etc. just doesn't make it to panoramas. Everything is destroyed by the massive oversharpening, just like with shooting into regular JPEG / HEIC files. Therefore, pano modes shouldn't be used professionally - instead, get a decent pano head OR a 360 camera with excellent photo quality making using a dedicated pano head not that big a necessity any more. There already are some of these cameras even in the consumer-priced category, unlike back in 2015-2016 when they started to appear on the market (Gear 360 and the likes with their comparatively low-quality stills).
As I had promised in the previous pano-specific thread, I have now also conducted some low-light, synchronized(!) panorama tests to find out whether the massive camera improvements, which do come thru for example in low-light video shooting (see my thread at https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ro-max-controlled-comparative-videos.2361410/ ) also result in cleaner, less-smeared etc. panoramas.
===
Smearing caused by noise reduction
And yes, they do, at least when it comes to smearning. In all my tests, in low light, the iP14PM continuously delivered better, cleaner results than the 11 in the very dark areas.
Please check out the following attachment pairs:
1 - dark smearing - 11 - comp
1 - dark smearing - 14 - comp
and
3 - dark smearing - 11 - comp
3 - dark smearing - 14 - comp
The first prefix shows which set they compare (1 / 3) and the name of the model can also be found in the filename.
It's in the 14PM images that I annotated some of the affected, low-contast areas where the 14PM fared considerably better than the 11. Notice the much more prevalent smearing in the 11's images, which essentially resulted in a lot of details to be completely smeared away, unlike with the 14's images. In the latter, the destructive effect of noise reduction isn't as pronounced. The difference isn't huge, however.
====
Dynamic range
What about the dynamic range, you may ask? After all, the 14PM's Quad Bayer sensor is, at least theoretically (when two of the four subpixels are programmed to be "less sensitive" than the other two in 12 Mpixel mode) definitely capable of better dynamic range. When properly utilized, that is.
Interestingly, at least in pano mode, this doesn't seem to be the case. (A major neglection on Apple's part? Again, quad-Bayer sensors, by design, allow for much bigger dynamic range than traditional ones. Dunno...) Highlights have the tendency of clipping equally badly in the iP14PM panos as with those of the iP11. If you check out my thrre pairs of comparison images, you'll see the 14 fares in one of them (2 - dynrange - 14 - comp) better, while in the other two cases it's worse.
Also notice that the first "1" pair (1 - dynrange - 11 - comp / 1 - dynrange - 14 - comp) exhibits stitching errors on both phones. (Again and again: I've moved the two in perfect synchronization - "glued together") The errors (I annotated the two most prevalent ones with arrows in "1 - dynrange - 14 - comp") are significantly more visible in the 14's image. Another neglection / lack of improvements on Apple's part?!
====
Summary
All in all, you really do NOT want to update to the iPhone 14PM from an iPhone 11 if all you shoot are panoramas and don't really need the other features / improvements. Apple seems to have neglected improving the pano mode in any way. Heck, they don't even make use of the (in 12 Mpixel mode) vastly superior dynamic range of the 48 Mpixel sensor.
And, let me emphasize again: this 'do not bother' advice only applies to panorama shooting. Video and (if you do shoot ProRAWs - just don't botehr with HEIC / JPG output!) stills are WAAAY better.
Attachments
-
1 - dark smearing - 11 - comp.png -
1 - dark smearing - 14 - comp.png -
3 - dark smearing - 11- comp.png -
3 - dark smearing - 14- comp.png -
1 - dynrange - 11 - comp.png -
1 - dynrange - 11 - comp2.png -
1 - dynrange - 14 - comp.png -
1 - dynrange - 14 - comp2.png -
2 - dynrange - 11 - comp.png -
2 - dynrange - 14 - comp.png
Last edited:
