coolbreeze2
macrumors 68000
X on the left, XS on the right...
[doublepost=1537543751][/doublepost]Here's a nice bokeh-d up snap of my dog....
Huge difference!
iPhone XS OMG the camera! (Share your iPhone Xs Images)
- Thread starter bbates123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Huge difference!
ToddH
macrumors 68040
I did a little photo walk today and compared the Xs, X, and my Pixel 2 cameras today. I have only limited time with my iPhone X, as I am going to give it to my mom to replace her iPhone 6.
Overall, I like the camera for both photos and videos, over the X, and in some cases the Pixel 2. Here are some of my shots and commentary. on them
In late afternoon light all 3 phones do well at pulling out details from a well lit scene. Overall I prefer the X and Pixel 2 images over the Xs in this case. In these shots I did not touch to focus or set exposure, I just pulled out the cameras and took the pictures.
Different scene, but the same tactic, take out the phone, take a picture. Here you can see the added computational photography come into play with the Xs over the X. Notice how the trees over the bridge in the iPhone X shot are completely washed out as compared to the Pixel 2 and iPhone Xs.
2X zoom on all 3 cameras. Amazing how well the Pixel 2 stacks up to the iPhones while having a single fixed lens. This gives me strong hopes that the Xr will do quite well with a single lens. Overall in this shot, I like how the Xs pulls out more details in the lower light, all without blowing out the highlights above the path.
3rd shot is Pixel 2 without watermark
Portrait mode
While this mode is intended for taking pictures of faces, perhaps animals and other beings, I often use it (on my Pixel 2) for pictures of plants, beer, car parts, and other items where I want good depth of field. Overall, I have never been happy with portrait mode or effects on the iPhone X. It always tended to have poor edges, and do a bad job of locking focus.
Final Thoughts
The Xs had far more keepers in my testing today than did the X, though for me, the winner is still the computational effort the Pixel 2 puts into these types of portrait style shots. That said, none of these do as well as my Sigma 1.4 on my full frame camera. There really is no replacement (yet) for a good Film, DSLR, or Mirrorless camera and good glass to go with it.
Overall on the Xs Camera, I like it better than the X, and in some cases it is better than the Pixel 2, and other places falls behind. My biggest issue with the Xs is how it tends to over compensate for low light by bringing up the shadows too much in some of my examples. If that could be toned down a little, it would be far more appealing in my opinion.
Video
To be edited later, I am putting the Xs above both other phones. Really good focus, exposure control, OIS, and (finally) stereo audio Make this the best ever iPhone for video (IMO).
PBz
macrumors 68030
At 2.8 I would think the depth of field would be thinner. It captured both players well, including the legs. I’m more wide to normal so not experienced with how zoom lenses affect depth of field.
View attachment 786567 Here’s another at 400mm (fixed lens). Like I said, different cameras for different applications.
PBz
macrumors 68030
Will be at the stadium watching these teams play Sunday. Great photo!
It could have been anywhere from f/2.8 to f/4. I don’t remember. But it was overcast so I’m guessing it was wide open.
[doublepost=1537589030][/doublepost]
Very true. Not sure why point and shoot cameras still exist. Do they?
Last edited:
PBz
macrumors 68030
Was a great shot. Great clarity of the players with nice bokeh.
PBz
macrumors 68030
That helps. Thank you. My only lenses are 16/27/35. Amateur.
PBz
macrumors 68030
My boys are young but I can’t wait to get a big zoom to capture them playing sports.
Not an expert on the matter too but I know a bit of optics from just watching YouTube.
From what I understand at a fixed aperture
1) The farther the camera from the subject, the larger the DOF and therefore a close up and especially macro will have an extremely narrow DOF
2) The farther the subject from the background, the background becomes more out of focus (unless the aperture is very narrow but this doesn't help at all in macro photos)
3) The more telephoto the lens, the shallower the DOF so the background becomes more blurry and gets "closer" to the subject but this only applies to a fixed distance from the camera to the subject when compared against a wide angle lens. However, if you adjust your distance from the subject to keep the same composition, you'll find that there is little difference in DOF between telephoto and wide angle
4) The plane angle also affects DOF (when shooting on a flat surface at an angle): you'll have the most DOF when the camera is perpendicular to the subject while you'll have the narrowest DOF when you shoot at an extremely acute angle
An good example of #4 is the two photos I posted here on this thread BTW. As you can see from there, when I take a picture at an extreme angle against the plane, the DOF becomes very shallow while the same bokeh slider at f/2.8 close to 90 degrees from the plane generated a wider DOF.
With that in mind, since the camera has some distance to the subject (more distance from the subject = larger DOF) because of that, even at f/2.8 it has enough DOF (maybe 1-3 meters) and the background just blurs more and more as you widen the aperture yet the DOF doesn't become as narrow as much
View attachment 786577
If you want a zoom lens, I used to shoot with a Sigma 100-300 f/4 lens. I’m not sure if they make them anymore, but it was a great lens. Here’s a shot with a Canon 1.4 extender.
If you want a zoom lens, I used to shoot with a Sigma 100-300 f/4 lens. I’m not sure if they make them anymore, but it was a great lens. Here’s a shot with a Canon 1.4 extender.
Packers1958
macrumors 68000
Buy the iPhone for the camera. It's absolutely worth the upgrade.
robertpetry
macrumors 6502
PBz
macrumors 68030
I agree.
View attachment 786581
Long lens with fast aperture, maybe f/2.8 or so, plus close to subject equals major bokeh. Short lenses too. Think 50mm f/1.8, close subject.
This was shot with a 50mm lens at 1.8 if I remember correctly. I was very close to the subject.
Long lens with fast aperture, maybe f/2.8 or so, plus close to subject equals major bokeh. Short lenses too. Think 50mm f/1.8, close subject.
This was shot with a 50mm lens at 1.8 if I remember correctly. I was very close to the subject.
View attachment 786588 Last one. I was relatively close to the ******* subject. 400mm lens, wide open at f/2.8. Another thing to understand is that when you have a vast distance between the subject and background, the bokeh will be very soft (with a wide aperture). If you’re shooting this same shot with the ******* right in front of a background, there will be little to no bokeh, depending on on how close you are to the subject.
