Here are a couple that I took today. The quality isn't perfect because my hands were shaky and there was poor light, but I still think they turned out awesome.
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.
Post Pictures taken with your 3GS
- Thread starter harry20larry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obvious thing nobody has mentioned
Has anyone noticed that nearly all the excellent shots are when the iPhone 3GS is in macro mode? Now I will be first to admit that having a macro camera in your pocket is brilliant, especially for shots of writing, notes, print, book pages, etc. But as a snapshot camera, especially snapshots of people's faces or of places, the 3GS camera is noticeably *WORSE* than the original iPhone camera in the 2G and 3G. I've done lots of tests now. My first tests were posted here http://www.ehmac.ca/ipod-itunes-iphone-apple-tv/77662-iphone-2g-3gs-cameras-compared.html. I did more tests, thinking it might be the lighting. Here are the results.
First 2G camera in the shade on a nice bright sunny day:
Below is the same 3GS shot:
Notice the way better resolution on the 2G camera. Especially click and enlarge to full size and look what happens to the guy's beard, or the leaves in the tree behind in the 3GS shot. Noise like crazy. Why? Note that the 3GS shot is 1.14MB and the 2G shot seems to get *MORE* detail in 670K. Kind of remarkable.
I then tried the same shots in full sun. First 2G:
And below is the 3GS shot:
Here, the 3GS is arguably better, though the 2G shot gives much more detail in the background. In the 3GS shot half the face is in darkness. The 2G still gives more and better total information (examine the background) though the highlights are horribly blown out in the 2G shot.
Here's my point: It looks like the 3GS is the better camera for macro photos and for shots in excellent light. But if you want a camera that captures more information in less bits, the old 2G (or 3G) camera was clearly a better camera. I hope the third generation of iPhone cameras leapfrogs the 3GS one and gives the best of both worlds. A lot of people on this thread are gushing about the new 3GS camera. My point is: the 2G camera was better in many ways. (But I must confess: the macro shots are great. I tested those too, but there's no need to put them up here as there are tons of these up here already.) I just wanted to prove that for people and faces, the old 2G was a better camera. Think: you can still get one now for only $99.
Has anyone noticed that nearly all the excellent shots are when the iPhone 3GS is in macro mode? Now I will be first to admit that having a macro camera in your pocket is brilliant, especially for shots of writing, notes, print, book pages, etc. But as a snapshot camera, especially snapshots of people's faces or of places, the 3GS camera is noticeably *WORSE* than the original iPhone camera in the 2G and 3G. I've done lots of tests now. My first tests were posted here http://www.ehmac.ca/ipod-itunes-iphone-apple-tv/77662-iphone-2g-3gs-cameras-compared.html. I did more tests, thinking it might be the lighting. Here are the results.
First 2G camera in the shade on a nice bright sunny day:
Below is the same 3GS shot:
Notice the way better resolution on the 2G camera. Especially click and enlarge to full size and look what happens to the guy's beard, or the leaves in the tree behind in the 3GS shot. Noise like crazy. Why? Note that the 3GS shot is 1.14MB and the 2G shot seems to get *MORE* detail in 670K. Kind of remarkable.
I then tried the same shots in full sun. First 2G:
And below is the 3GS shot:
Here, the 3GS is arguably better, though the 2G shot gives much more detail in the background. In the 3GS shot half the face is in darkness. The 2G still gives more and better total information (examine the background) though the highlights are horribly blown out in the 2G shot.
Here's my point: It looks like the 3GS is the better camera for macro photos and for shots in excellent light. But if you want a camera that captures more information in less bits, the old 2G (or 3G) camera was clearly a better camera. I hope the third generation of iPhone cameras leapfrogs the 3GS one and gives the best of both worlds. A lot of people on this thread are gushing about the new 3GS camera. My point is: the 2G camera was better in many ways. (But I must confess: the macro shots are great. I tested those too, but there's no need to put them up here as there are tons of these up here already.) I just wanted to prove that for people and faces, the old 2G was a better camera. Think: you can still get one now for only $99.
Awesome pic, did they get rid of the solstice? Or is it hidden behind the trucks
The Solstice [Autobot Jazz] was killed in the first movie.
WOW!!! Those 3GS pictures look really dark and not natural like 2G. Apple WHYYYY?!?!?!?!?!?!? Why are you doing this to us?
What a FAIL by Apple if this is true. Who cares about macro shots. I myself like to shoot faces and places more and I want them to look at least decent, but those 3GS compared to 2G photos don´t.
Are you sure the settings were exactly the same shooting those photos?
Those 3GS pictures look really dark and not natural like 2G. Apple WHYYYY?!?!?!?!?!?!? Why are you doing this to us?What a FAIL by Apple if this is true. Who cares about macro shots. I myself like to shoot faces and places more and I want them to look at least decent, but those 3GS compared to 2G photos don´t.
Are you sure the settings were exactly the same shooting those photos?
WOW!!!
What a FAIL by Apple if this is true. Who cares about macro shots. I myself like to shoot faces and places more and I want them to look at least decent, but those 3GS compared to 2G photos don´t.
Are you sure the settings were exactly the same shooting those photos?
My god, shut up. The camera is awesome. Buy a 3GS and take your own pictures, and then you can judge it's quality. Some of the shots on mine are fantastic, especially for a PHONE.
What you are seeing is differences in metering. In this case the 3GS would actually have an advantage if the photographer would have used the "touch to focus/meter" option. Simply touching the screen in an area that contained varying amounts of the shirt vs the face would have metered this one more properly. As it looks, it evaluated just the face and thought there was plenty of light, darkening the picture too much. This can happen even in DSLR cameras depending on what metering mode you are using. In photography, knowledge always beats technology.
Not FAIL, but a choice by Apple
I would not say Apple "FAIL"ed with this new camera, because the camera's macro shots are amazingly good, and they have tons of uses. In Japan or Korea for instance, there's this whole public 2D bar-code reading activity with phones that goes on that we don't even know about in North America. I would imagine the new phone can handle bar codes easily, but the old iPhone's camera could not. I was just pointing out that this thread has a lot of fine looking macro shots and the few shots of people and places are kind of crappy. People are not mentioning this fact. I think people should know going in, that getting a new 3GS iPhone, or upgrading from the 3G, they are going to sacrifice good snapshots, in return for lots of amazing close-ups of flowers.
I would not say Apple "FAIL"ed with this new camera, because the camera's macro shots are amazingly good, and they have tons of uses. In Japan or Korea for instance, there's this whole public 2D bar-code reading activity with phones that goes on that we don't even know about in North America. I would imagine the new phone can handle bar codes easily, but the old iPhone's camera could not. I was just pointing out that this thread has a lot of fine looking macro shots and the few shots of people and places are kind of crappy. People are not mentioning this fact. I think people should know going in, that getting a new 3GS iPhone, or upgrading from the 3G, they are going to sacrifice good snapshots, in return for lots of amazing close-ups of flowers.
I tried using the "touch to focus/meter" and took lots of pictures. The ones I'm showing are *THE BEST* of the bunch. It could be that I need more practice with the 3GS. That is true. However, there is *MORE* going on here than simply metering. The new camera is using a different algorithm for its speed setting, the ISO number (e.g. 100, 200, 400, 800) and also for the way it creates jpegs. Even though it captures more pixels, the resulting images are much more grainy, or noisy than the original 2G camera. Other posters have speculated that these problems will be fixed in a 3.0.1 OS upgrade (or something like that), because it's all just software. That is the most optimistic position to take, and I hope he's right. But what if it's just the hardware? It would be great if someone who knows about these little mini cameras could speak to that.
thanks for ruining this clean, awesome thread
+1 thank you.
on a side note...i do have a question about macro, how close can you get? does it go into macro mode on its own? all my close-ups still seem blurry, at least more blurry than the photos in this thread. thanks, and keep the nice photos coming!
taken at the Nationals stadium...from the bar...after a few drinks (probably why it's a little blurry)
WHY does every firefighter think they need to have a picture of their firetruck on them at all times?
My brother...jeez, he takes pictures of EVERYTHING.
All the 3GS camera needs is an exposure compensation slider. I would use the volume toggle for that function.
Any more manual control than that would have to be done in a Camera Settings menu beforehand (IMO)
I dunno man, I'm getting great results no matter what I'm shooting. All depends on where you place the focus.
I dunno man, I'm getting great results no matter what I'm shooting. All depends on where you place the focus.
nice capture.
I'm looking forward to my 3GS. I was a bit underwhelmed with the 3G camera even accounting for the fact that "its a phone camera".
Anyone know the focal length? I'm guessing somewhere between 30-35mm wide judging from the pics, since it almost looks wide-angle sometimes.