Gone are the MegaPixel wars.
It’s now all about who can out-zoom who.
Who's zooming who...?
Apple really should have added a super-wide-angle lens instead of a telephoto lens first. Super-wide-angle lenses are so much more useful than telephoto lenses.
Agreed. See comment after next quote.
Super wide lenses are only useful for front facing selfie cameras with 4 or more people in the frame. I cannot think of a reason for ultra wide rear facing except for taking distorted pics of small interior spaces.
Apple's 2x telephoto has come in handy many times when I cannot physically get closer to a subject but a 3x or 4x would be even nicer.
Telephoto lenses are great for snapshooting and documenting things... ...e.g., I was here.... ...we were there.... ...I got this present... ...here's the baby (puppy, kitty, sweetheart, screenshot from my PC)... ...here's the invoice.... ....here's the product in the store... ...which admittedly is most of what most people shoot.
Wide angle lenses are far more useful generally in fine art photography and for many particular applications - and for their superior depth of field. The compressed perspective of telephoto shots flattens reality, so there's always some kind of distortion in photography through any lens (for those pointing the abberations of WA shots). But if I were a sports photographer (in most sports) I of course would be highly prejudiced toward telephoto lenses.
All of these choices are great but I really think the smartphone camera battles are all played out. They all look good enough. For those of us that really need high quality photos, a dedicated DSLR or mirrorless is much better. Everything else is just about convenience.
It's a meme by now, but true: the best camera you have when a photo op comes up is the best camera for the purpose you have with you at the time. I'm a dedicated "grab shooter" and seldom want the rest of my experience in a place to be hampered by transporting and carrying around pounds of equipment.
And the new age of phone-based photography (and in cameras in general) the "battles" are just beginning. Happily, though, even at this stage, this approach has garnered me some of the favorite shots I've ever taken.
I thought it looked a little fishy. "10x optical zoom." Get out of here.
It's not "true" optical zoom to be sure, but it's also not what we've thought of as "digital zoom" in the past exactly either, and with other innovations like systems for amplifying low light scenes by taking a series of shots and building a best pixel map (which follows on HDR shooting in a more sophisticated way), plus other tricks like Apple's bokeh, etc., etc. it's more accurate to say we've entered - or are least entering - the age of "computational photography."
Chromatic aberration and purple fringing for everyone!
True, optical zoom is overrated. To much noise.
Since these are not moving element optical zoom lenses, their artifacts will exist, but will largely be different. And I'm wondering what applications most of the folks getting persnickety about using phone rigs for "real photography" have for the pictures they take. Pros are figuring out ways to use these tools - just as artists still use $5 pin hole cameras. Reality isn't necessarily overrated, but capturing "reality" is not exactly what photographers do - and all photos are stylized abstractions of reality......