This photo comparison is making me want an iPhone 6 Plus!

[bentleyjackson]

Just saw this online and everyone is saying that the iPhone 6 and Plus are so similar in the camera department but if you look at both photos and download them and compare, the difference is so BIG! I am thinking a lot about selling my 6 and getting a Plus just for the camera now. The video is the same, but photos are different right?

https://bgr.com/2015/02/06/iphone-6-vs-iphone-6-plus-camera/

 

[sunking101]

The photos are different. The angles aren't the same and therefore the lighting is all different. I dare say that there isn't very much between the two cameras, the OIS only coming into play in very low light.

 

[0928001]

The photos are different. The angles aren't the same and therefore the lighting is all different. I dare say that there isn't very much between the two cameras, the OIS only coming into play in very low light.

100% agree. The low light is where OIS takes advantage.

 

[Visa Declined]

The photos are different. The angles aren't the same and therefore the lighting is all different. I dare say that there isn't very much between the two cameras, the OIS only coming into play in very low light.

There is a big difference between those two photos. Look at the back wall, look at the lighting. Many of the photos I take are in low light, I might even go as far as to say most of my photos are taken in low light. I would be regretting it if I bought the iPhone 6.

 

[sunking101]

There is a big difference between those two photos. Look at the back wall, look at the lighting. Many of the photos I take are in low light, I might even go as far as to say most of my photos are taken in low light. I would be regretting it if I bought the iPhone 6.

The two photos are different and thus cannot be compared. They aren't identical.

 

[617aircav]

Oh please next time they would be comparing the six plus with the 6 plus S and say the same thing.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

The two photos are different and thus cannot be compared. They aren't identical.

Absolutely correct. Check out the following (identical) photos for comparison purposes:

iPhone 6, no OIS

iPhone 6+ with OIS

On paper, OIS should allow you to hand hold at a reduced shutter speed but this doesn't always happen depending on how much direct light there is even in low light conditions. Other comparison photos may have the moving subjects blocking the incoming light so you see a bigger difference as illustrated in the following examples:

iPhone 6, no OIS

iPhone 6+ with OIS

That said, OIS imparts only a minor improvement in a wide angle lens. That's why Canon and Nikon include OIS in their zoom lenses but not wide angle lenses. Clever marketing by Apple, although those minor improvements do matter to professional photographers.

 

[Newtons Apple]

If you depend on OIS when lighting is low, take several images as OIS can actually introduce some blur in rare circumstances. If the subject is important, several images will make sure you got a perfectly sharp one.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

If you depend on OIS when lighting is low, take several images as OIS can actually introduce some blur in rare circumstances. If the subject is important, several images will make sure you got a perfectly sharp one.

OIS can only correct for blur on the camera side, but not the subject side. Moving subjects will create blur with or without OIS.

 

[Newtons Apple]

OIS can only correct for blur on the camera side, but not the subject side. Moving subjects will create blur with or without OIS.

LOL! Thanks for that little photo lesson.

OIS can also introduce blur. I am not talking moving objects.

 

[cymolia]

Always go for the biggest and the baddest, you can always downgrade. Love my 6 plus, its what i always wanted in a device

 

[Newtons Apple]

Always go for the biggest and the baddest, you can always downgrade. Love my 6 plus, its what i always wanted in a device

I bought both and went back and forth from the 6 to the 6+. The 6+ seemed so big at first but after third time of switching back and forth the 6 now sits in a drawer with therest of my older iPhones.

The 6+ does it for me. I have to agree that the camera takes better images on the 6+, but both are great.

 

[lordofthereef]

I've been schooled before on how and why the 6 and plus should be the same on this forum. That's simply not my experience. Maybe we are always constantly and unintentionally putting the plus in more favorable conditions than the 6. I find we end up keeping a lot more of the photos taken by the plus than the 6 though.

Maybe it's voodoo. Maybe it's science. Maybe I have a magic 6 plus. Despite my other gripes about how the 6 (and even the 5s) outperform my 6plus, the camera isn't one of them.

 

[meistervu]

Maybe it's voodoo. Maybe it's science. Maybe I have a magic 6 plus. Despite my other gripes about how the 6 (and even the 5s) outperform my 6plus, the camera isn't one of them.

May be it's the placebo effect. If you think you wield the magic sword, you are fearless.

 

[cymolia]

I bought both and went back and forth from the 6 to the 6+. The 6+ seemed so big at first but after third time of switching back and forth the 6 now sits in a drawer with therest of my older iPhones.

The 6+ does it for me. I have to agree that the camera takes better images on the 6+, but both are great.

Not a big camera guy, but what sealed the deal for me was the battery, oh man i dont know if any device , apple/windows/android has come close to the 6+ . I dont know what apple did but they did something right because this thing gets ridiculous battery life

 

[lordofthereef]

May be it's the placebo effect. If you think you wield the magic sword, you are fearless.

It's entirely possible. I just took some low light pics in the bathroom with both devices side by side. I will upload them when I have a moment. For whatever reason I cant drag on drop on the 6 plus in windows -_-

 

[sunking101]

Not a big camera guy, but what sealed the deal for me was the battery, oh man i dont know if any device , apple/windows/android has come close to the 6+ . I dont know what apple did but they did something right because this thing gets ridiculous battery life

Apple had a device with a big screen and big casing, but similar internals to the smaller iPhone 6. They decided to put a bigger battery into the dead space inside.☺️

 

[lordofthereef]

Here are some comparison pics. Tiny "nightlight" in bathroom is all the light we had. HDR set to auto. Flash set to off. All other settings identical.

Please note that these both went through flickr as full quality uploads as well.

Should be 6 on left, plus on right. If you mouse over the photo the formate is as follows:
6.x is the standard 6.plus.x is the 6 plus.

 

[lordofthereef]

Final shots

Interesting, too, that the plus takes larger (file size) photos in every case.

 

[FieldingMellish]

That said, OIS imparts only a minor improvement in a wide angle lens. That's why Canon and Nikon include OIS in their zoom lenses but not wide angle lenses. Clever marketing by Apple, although those minor improvements do matter to professional photographers.

I disagree with your comment as to what Nikon and Canon chose to do when it comes to optical image stabilization. It took Canon and Nikon a long time to furnish OIS in the first place and the best place to $tart was with the rigorous requirements of long lenses. (For Canon, first in 1995 with its 75-300mm zoom lens) OIS eventually trickled down to zooms that include 24mm within its range, which is considered a wide lens.

I have enjoyed shooting Canon at 24mm in low light and not having to haul a tripod around. Same now while shooting a mirrorless Olympus body with OIS in-body that allows use of an ultra-wide at 18mm, again, no tripod to haul around.

I agree that it is clever marketing by Apple because the typical phone photographer will probably never pixel peep, nor print, let alone print large, where one can appreciate the sharpness they've achieved. Comparing pics online like what's happening in this thread does not adequately reveal the differences. And it's already been mentioned elsewhere that the physical constraints of a 1/4 inch thick lightweight phone handheld and with minuscule sensor already introduces constraints that run contrary to the promise of OIS.

Photography and other visual products are inherently about minimal gains that only the committed amateur or professional would gladly pony up to achieve.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I agree that it is clever marketing by Apple because the typical phone photographer will probably never pixel peep, nor print, let alone print large, where one can appreciate the sharpness they've achieved. Comparing pics online like what's happening in this thread does not adequately reveal the differences. And it's already been mentioned elsewhere that the physical constraints of a 1/4 inch thick lightweight phone handheld and with minuscule sensor already introduces constraints that run contrary to the promise of OIS.

Agreed. That's why members claiming a large and noticeable difference right off the bat (i.e., when viewed on the iPhone) are exaggerating.

 

[meistervu]

I disagree with you here. I own a Canon 24-105 IS f4, but I think the reason Canon make this lenses IS is because of the long end, not the 24mm end. I also owns a 50mm f1.4 and I know that for certain situation I could use IS on it. For the 24mm end, I don't think IS make that much of a difference.

I took some shots with my iPhone 6 in pretty dim condition and posted them a while back with full commentary of my thought about them. Basically what I found out was that with proper bracing, I could shoot any scene visible to the naked eyes with exposure adjusted to the naked eyes (so that the photos come out about a bright as I see with my own eyes) without the need for a tripod.

Those scenes were without moving subjects. With moving subjects, the limiting factor is the moving subject themselves, not OIS or tripod.

I disagree with your comment as to what Nikon and Canon chose to do when it comes to optical image stabilization. It took Canon and Nikon a long time to furnish OIS in the first place and the best place to $tart was with the rigorous requirements of long lenses. (For Canon, first in 1995 with its 75-300mm zoom lens) OIS eventually trickled down to zooms that include 24mm within its range, which is considered a wide lens.

I have enjoyed shooting Canon at 24mm in low light and not having to haul a tripod around. Same now while shooting a mirrorless Olympus body with OIS in-body that allows use of an ultra-wide at 18mm, again, no tripod to haul around.

----------

Final shots

Interesting, too, that the plus takes larger (file size) photos in every case.

In the last 2 set of photos, you took the 6+ photos with a larger area of details than the 6 photos, hence a larger file size. The first set of photo is not clear.

 

[FieldingMellish]

I disagree with you here. I own a Canon 24-105 IS f4, but I think the reason Canon make this lenses IS is because of the long end, not the 24mm end. I also owns a 50mm f1.4 and I know that for certain situation I could use IS on it. For the 24mm end, I don't think IS make that much of a difference.

You’re free to disagree just for disagreement’s sake. But you’re incorrect.

Your’re saying that Canon made the 24-105 IS because of the long end and not the 24mm end is preposterous. News flash: Canon made the entire zoom lens an image stabilized lens. What was Canon supposed to do? Suppress image stabilization at some point between the two extreme ends of the included focal length?

And for the 24mm end, you don't think IS makes that much of a difference? It makes a difference. Particularly when you realize that the wide lens essentially condenses a scene and, in doing so, produces diminutive detail within that the photographer just might want to be sharp while not having to carry a tripod around in order to attain it. It’s the kind of result that viewers can appreciate when they see a giant print made and placed on a wall and they get blown away by how much content is clear and crisp when they walk up to the print.

Where all this tends to fall apart is when it's being applied to a phone camera, which by its nature and physical attributes is hamstrung to begin with, so that any hype Apple infers is sort of like a feature without a benefit.

 

[meistervu]

Hmm, I don't follow your logic there. What I am saying is that Canon makes the 24-105 f4 IS because the IS is beneficial at the longer end. I am sure IS is also beneficial at the 24mm end, but to a much less extent. Had Canon offered a 24mm f4 prime lenses, I don't think they would make it IS.

I never thought of a wide lenses as condensing the scene. As a photographer, when I use a wide angle lenses, I don't use it with the idea of cropping a small area and enlarging it later. That is not my style of shooting, and I think that's not how a good photographer shoot, unless for detective work perhaps. Typically I would look at a scene, decide what perspective I want, frame it with the appropriate lenses at a predetermined focal length, aperture, focus point, exposure, ISO setting, white balance.

I don't use a wide angle lenses to capture a photo and then crop an area to enlarge it. There are many reasons for that: (1) you throw away a lot of pixels, (2) it's next to impossible to visualize the composition and background (bokeh, perspective) with a crop like that.

You’re free to disagree just for disagreement’s sake. But you’re incorrect.

Your’re saying that Canon made the 24-105 IS because of the long end and not the 24mm end is preposterous. News flash: Canon made the entire zoom lens an image stabilized lens. What was Canon supposed to do? Suppress image stabilization at some point between the two extreme ends of the included focal length?

And for the 24mm end, you don't think IS makes that much of a difference? It makes a difference. Particularly when you realize that the wide lens essentially condenses a scene and, in doing so, produces diminutive detail within that the photographer just might want to be sharp while not having to carry a tripod around in order to attain it. It’s the kind of result that viewers can appreciate when they see a giant print made and placed on a wall and they get blown away by how much content is clear and crisp when they walk up to the print.

Where all this tends to fall apart is when it's being applied to a phone camera, which by its nature and physical attributes is hamstrung to begin with, so that any hype Apple infers is sort of like a feature without a benefit.

 

[Shanghaichica]

I've never used the 6 so I don't really now how the pictures compare. I'm extremly happy with the performance of the camera on my 6 plus though, especially in low light.

The larger, higher res screen, OIS and the better battery life were all reasons that made me get the 6 plus and they've paid off.

Once you get the 6 plus you know