Yeah, I'm on a 7 Plus now. Everything looks like a paint by numbers watercolor. It's not bad when the images are small, but they're totally unsuitable for printing or even having as a desktop background on my Mac.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photographer Austin Mann Lauds iPhone X's Telephoto Lens and Size in Camera Review
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I'm on a 7 Plus now. Everything looks like a paint by numbers watercolor. It's not bad when the images are small, but they're totally unsuitable for printing or even having as a desktop background on my Mac.
right... maybe if you're a blind photographer.
And yeah, I own some equipment too, lots of it, doesn't make my opinion better or worse than yours.
There is no such big gap.
[doublepost=1510084522][/doublepost]
We are talking about smart phones here aren't we?
And unless you have a 1 pound camera in your pocket at all time, this is a pointless comment.
Also, quality of shot goes well beyond how sharp the image is.
Most actual pro photographer will agree on that one.
[doublepost=1510084978][/doublepost]
You can shoot raw with third party app (if you're just annoyed by the sharpening and how they do jpg).
In there is good lighting, you can print a smart phone image (but not beyond 8/10 ).
The most up-to-date Apple camera I have (until X arrives) is in the current iPad Pro and you can absolutely forget taking a shot of lights or the moon at night with it while on the EOS pictures are much more “functional”, not just with long shutter durations. On photos from any of our dslr’s, the colours look much more natural, might not be actual colour range but iPhone/iPad photos look kinda messy to me both in colours and clarity, where there are many pixels but noise makes shapes and colours much less clear.
To be fair though, the both are totally different use cases and I like the decent quality of the iPhone which is sufficient for most situations, I also don’t want to always carry my DSLR with me so these mobile cams are very helpful. But the pace with which mobile phone cameras developed has slowed down a lot in the past years and probably always will lag a decade behind pro cameras just due to the compromised nature of their small sensors and because photos aren’t their primary function.
In the photos from the article, I would have expected much more of the background to be discernible and the sky and mountains being much clearer from today’s top smartphone cameras while the tree photo shows the issues of these cameras with nature shots, where many small details and similar colours just look kinda “messy”.
I'll go further and say that 99.9% of DSLR owners don't really need a DSLR either. I respect good photography and recognize that the best tools in capable hands will give you superior results. Understandably though, the democratization of photography thanks to the iPhone has left DSLR owners (most of them being amateurs, though plenty of legitimate professionals as well) feeling threatened. Their expensive equipment is no longer a massive differentiator. I don't think the criticism of this piece comes from a place of reasoned comparison, but from an existential fear of irrelevancy, thus the lashing out at mentioning iPhones and DSLRs in the same sentence. As another commenter mentioned, why would a pro photographer complain about having a 4k capable pocket camera available to them?
