[HN Gopher] iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
___________________________________________________________________
iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
Author : robflaherty
Score : 230 points
Date : 2022-11-01 18:19 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lux.camera)
(TXT) w3m dump (lux.camera)
| nicolashahn wrote:
| These pictures are fantastic. For anyone but professionals the
| reasons to buy a DSLR or mirrorless are virtually gone.
| nop_slide wrote:
| I disagree and as a n00b/amateur I recently picked up my first
| "real" camera, a Fujifilm x-t20. I've managed to take some
| amazing photos that simply wouldn't have turned out as good on
| my iPhone 12.
|
| I was sick of the smudgy look that happened often on the iPhone
| when the lighting wasn't perfect, and also there is a unique
| "look" that the Fuji mirrorless cameras spit out due to their
| x-trans sensor[1]. In my short 2 weeks with the camera I've had
| a ton of fun and gotten some great shots.
|
| While no doubt the 14 pro is amazing, your statement isn't
| true.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor
| emkoemko wrote:
| that smudgy, painting look on phones is the phone trying to
| remove noise in the image
| nop_slide wrote:
| Yes I'm aware, and my point is that it doesn't happen with
| a better sensor/camera and the lack of "smart" processing.
| Even my small compact point and shoot would take sharper
| photos in the same lighting than my iPhone 12. As mentioned
| in the article the processing the iPhone does has seem to
| become more aggressive as well.
| k2enemy wrote:
| The author clearly knows a lot about photography, so I don't
| think this is a mistake in the article... When did "depth of
| field" begin meaning the opposite of what it traditionally meant
| in photography?
|
| For example: _A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit
| more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really
| can't expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows
| some nice blurry figures in the background._
|
| For as long as I can remember, depth of field referred to the
| range of distance that is in focus. So more depth of field would
| mean more things in focus and less subject separation. And
| "distance to subject" and "field of view" equal, a larger sensor
| results in less depth of field.
|
| But in the article it is clearly the opposite. This isn't the
| only place I've noticed the change in meaning either.
| [deleted]
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Because "depth of field is when blurry"
| Tepix wrote:
| You're right, he should have written shallow depth of field.
| thfuran wrote:
| I'd guess that Photoshop et al. are the cause, with virtual
| depth of field effects.
| numlocked wrote:
| Perhaps it's technically inaccurate but seems easy to read it
| as:
|
| " A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of
| field _effect_ ".
|
| Eg referring to the visual effect of shallow DoF, not the DoF
| itself. Because the following sentence is unambiguous about his
| intent, I'm inclined to not be overly pedantic here and let us
| slide.
| namdnay wrote:
| I think it stems from the "depth of field effect" tool in post-
| processing, which then caused people to call the visual effect
| "depth of field" (instead of "shallowness of field" i guess)
| cdevroe wrote:
| I think you're right. The point they were trying to make is
| that there is more separation between the subject and the
| background. So, in a way, an _improved_ DOF if not a _greater_
| or _shallower_ DOF.
|
| Maybe?
| solardev wrote:
| Coming from a Pixel 5 to the iPhone 14 Pro, I gotta say I'm
| pretty disappointed. The pictures are mediocre at best, and just
| plain bad in dim light especially.
|
| Google's computational photography is years ahead. The latest
| Pixel has better sensors too.
| user_7832 wrote:
| As a Pixel 5 user I don't really have any complaints about the
| cameras. If you pixel peep it definitely shows up, and I
| suppose the 48MP would be better, but gcam (Google camera) is
| probably one of the best pieces of software on android.
|
| Having said that, I would love to see a large sensor camera
| with gcam esque chops. It's not too hard to run into the
| limitations of the small sensor.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| One problem that Apple actually considers a hard won feature is
| color inaccuracy. They like to do default images look very
| instagram-ish, which may be what many folks like to see but
| they are pretty far from reality, more than most. Skin
| smoothing is another topic on its own.
|
| Maybe I am very biased by almost a decade of full frame
| shooting basically everything, but I like photo representing
| what I actually see with my own eyes at that moment.
|
| When talking about Pixels, when I saw some non-ideal light
| samples from latest one, it was pretty clear neither Apple nor
| ie Samsung (which I own and love, S22 ultra) are in same league
| in many aspects of photography. But Pixel 6 had some pretty
| annoying issues from user reports. On the other side it costed
| (and v7 still does) significantly less from day 1.
| fumar wrote:
| Do you have examples to share? I am interested as I shoot with
| film, mirrorless, and on iPhones.
| nurblieh wrote:
| Coming from the Pixel 6 Pro, I feel the same. The camera is
| comparatively very slow with even daytime indoor lighting. Half
| the photos I take of a child at play end up in the trash due to
| blur. Hoping to find out that I'm just "holding it wrong".
| anotheryou wrote:
| Lol, nothing is better about the dark skyline image. It's a
| blurry noise canceled mess with bad white balance.
| keepquestioning wrote:
| Reality Distortion Field.
| Kukumber wrote:
| To me that's a downgrade, it should be smaller, not bigger
| [deleted]
| foldr wrote:
| The size of the sensor isn't as important as people think it is.
| What really matters is the diameter of the aperture (the absolute
| diameter, not the f number). Consider a cone of light for a given
| angle of view hitting a small sensor close to the aperture and a
| large sensor further from the aperture: o
| < aperture of a given diameter /\ / \
| ---- < small sensor (less area, more light per unit area)
| / \ / \ -------- < large sensor (more
| area, less light per unit area)
|
| If you compare typical shooting apertures for DLSRs and camera
| phones, they're not radically different. Say you are shooting a
| 50mm lens at f8 on a DSLR. That's an aperture of 6.25mm. A
| typical smartphone camera will have an aperture of around 3-4mm.
| In this scenario, then, the DLSR is getting about 3 times more
| light (or ~1.5 stops).
|
| Of course you _can_ use much wider apertures on DSLRs, but their
| use is more limited given the shallow depth of field that
| results. If you 're shooting e.g. landscapes, then you're
| probably not going to use apertures much wider than f8 anyway.
| azalemeth wrote:
| This is related to the conservation of Etendue [1] in an
| optical system, which is basically a statement of conservation
| of power: you rightly point out that radiant flux is determined
| by the source and constant - and for that reason, the primary
| numerical aperture or f-number of the lens is ultimately what
| really matters - assuming, as you point out, that you want to
| use the narrower DoF that arises (in which case SNR scales as
| the square root of sensor area).
|
| However, sensors get noise from different sources: and while
| you're right to point out that you might be up against photon
| shot noise, read noise goes down with pixel area: so, as long
| as pixel area scales with sensor area, and that scaling is
| performed by uniformly scaling the pixel, the larger sensor is
| intrinsically "a little bit better". Quoting shamelessly again
| from wikipedia [2]
|
| > The read noise is the total of all the electronic noises in
| the conversion chain for the pixels in the sensor array. To
| compare it with photon noise, it must be referred back to its
| equivalent in photoelectrons, which requires the division of
| the noise measured in volts by the conversion gain of the
| pixel. This is given, for an active pixel sensor, by the
| voltage at the input (gate) of the read transistor divided by
| the charge which generates that voltage, CG = V_{rt}/Q_{rt}.
| This is the inverse of the capacitance of the read transistor
| gate (and the attached floating diffusion) since capacitance C
| = Q/V. Thus CG = 1/C_{rt}.
|
| As capacitance is proportional to area, pixel area matters here
| - read noise is proportional to it linearly. In low-light
| conditions, read noise dominated most cellphone sensors (mostly
| for the above).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Read_noise
| Wolfegard wrote:
| sys32768 wrote:
| I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos
| look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime
| lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body.
|
| If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have
| a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing
| to it?
| stavros wrote:
| Try photographing at night with short exposures.
| fassssst wrote:
| Just shoot your mirrorless in RAW and process them later.
| Lightroom gives great results, but you can also use Apple
| Photos to get similar color processing as your iPhone photos.
|
| The mirrorless photos will look much better on a laptop or
| bigger screen but about the same on a phone.
| sys32768 wrote:
| Thanks for the tip on Apple Photos. Had not tried that.
| 323 wrote:
| For the same reason you can't upload to Instagram from your $2k
| camera - they know how to make hardware.
|
| But the idea of enhancing filters or social media features is
| completely alien to them.
| m463 wrote:
| I've noticed it's getting easier and easier to take photos with
| the _SUN_ in the frame than when digital sensors first came
| out.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| What settings are you shooting? How do you edit your images?
| sys32768 wrote:
| On my Z5 I can use the built-in Landscape mode, and on the Z6
| I can use auto or manual.
|
| Autocorrect RAW in Adobe Photoshop looks good. And certainly
| on a 4k monitor the DSLR images reveal more detail.
|
| My post here has me realizing I need to take iPhone and DSLR
| shots side-by-side in the same place with the same lighting
| and begin to compare them in-camera and in post-processing.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| What aperture are you shooting at? You probably already
| know it, but for landscapes you'd be looking at f/5.6 or so
| unless you're hurting for light.
|
| Popular notion is that at f/11 only will diffraction start
| to affect you, but with modern high resolution cameras
| diffraction starts to creep in as early as f/9, so f/5.6 is
| generally best unless you really need the deeper field.
| You're probably going to be fine at 24MP, though.
| emkoemko wrote:
| "What aperture are you shooting at? You probably already
| know it, but for landscapes you'd be looking at f/5.6 or so
| unless you're hurting for light."
|
| this is bad advice.... shoot on a tripod and set your f
| stop to get the DOF you need or do a focus stack, f/5.6
| would work if your shooting a distant landscape but having
| anything in the foreground f5.6 would not be enough, i
| usually stay at around F10 any higher i don't like because
| diffraction starts to reduce image quality and if i need
| more DOF i just focus stack
|
| for ISO set it to 100 or what ever your cameras base ISO is
|
| then adjust your shutter speed until you get correct
| exposure
| [deleted]
| GoToRO wrote:
| Good looking != captures reality.
|
| iPhones apply filters to make the photos look more vivid and to
| make them "ready to share". If a professional camera would do
| that, it would not be professional.
| astrange wrote:
| It doesn't do that unless you turn on vivid photographic
| styles. It's tuned pretty much like a dedicated camera.
|
| This does annoy many people who then switch to Snow/BeautyCam
| to actually take their pictures since they want to look
| prettier.
| GoToRO wrote:
| By default, the pictures they take have nothing to do with
| reality. You can check it yourself by comparing the picture
| on the screen with the scene you pictured. Try it with some
| clouds f.e. This was my experience.
| pyfork wrote:
| I dn, all the pictures of my friends and family and dog
| look pretty close to reality. I'm not sure I care if a
| cloud is slightly different, to be honest.
| shishy wrote:
| I doubt those iphone photos look the exact same as the nikon
| ones on a large display (i.e. anything bigger than an
| iphone...) It has not been the case for me.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Obviously you don't look at close detail on computer, which is
| very strange for seemingly such a power photo user. Phones
| these days are good but not yet _that_ good if you don 't do
| some beginner mistakes with camera. Maybe Pixel 7 pro based on
| samples I saw, but definitely not ie iphone 13 pro max.
|
| What people often mean by similar statements is they like
| default phone processing compared to 0 in the camera, and there
| is enough detail due to tons of light and due to landscapes
| being generally easiest scene to shoot.
|
| As for why they are not comparable, also a very strange
| question from seemingly experienced photo shooter - compare
| software development department and budget in Apple vs Nikon,
| who is a tiny player we all love (have D750 since it came out
| and carried it everywhere up to 6000m), they use very
| specialized CPUs which are very good for 1 thing only (basic
| operations on raw sensor data and potential jpeg
| transformation), and various ML and stacking transformations
| aren't simply available there at performance required. The
| whole construction of camera and processing hardware isn't
| around snapping 30 pics and combining them together under 1s,
| pre-taking pictures before actually hitting shutter etc.
| reedf1 wrote:
| It really won't beat modern fast lenses. Try a lowlight
| situation. You will not be able to beat a larger aperture for
| light collection, it's simply how many photons you can catch.
| sfmike wrote:
| Apple and photography processing at this point is like TSMC and
| chips. They probably have a great deal of algorithmic knowhow
| that is in house and they're doing things that no one else is
| quite getting close to at any of the big camera brands. Maybe
| just Pixel phones have some clue in's on some of the post
| processing hacks. I'd guess in the dark ex apple helped
| consult.
| jsmith99 wrote:
| The Nikon photos will be under sharpened because it's so easy
| to apply sharpening in post, and the amount of sharpening is
| very dependent on the size and format of your desired output.
| Also, in ideal conditions (medium sized, evenly and brightly
| lit, static subject a moderate distance away) practically all
| cameras will give good results: try comparing in less ideal
| circumstances like a darkish area indoors.
| JALTU wrote:
| Nikon and Canon and all the other camera companies, Japanese,
| German, or otherwise, are not software companies and have a
| pretty awful track record for even the basic software in their
| camera interfaces. Post processing is something they could not
| or would not get involved in.
|
| Apple ate their lunches and then some. While I'm an old-school
| photographer who thinks a great SLR camera is the photographic
| equivalent of driving a Porsche, I don't miss carrying pounds
| of gear around. (OTOH I HATE the Ux of iPhones for
| photography.) I digress. The camera biz is a classic biz school
| study in humans being human.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| A landscape photo is the easiest thing for any camera to
| capture. Focus is at infinity and no depth of field means the
| lens can be literally a greasy pinhole and still get sharp
| shots. You're probably taking photos in direct sunlight so
| again the camera has to do very little work and is flooded with
| light.
|
| Try taking a portrait photo in iffy lighting, like at a
| concert, wedding, sporting event, etc. Something that really
| needs a fast and sharp lens.
| asciimov wrote:
| Targeted audience doesn't demand the feature.
|
| If a users needs are being met by an iPhone then they shouldn't
| worry about dslrs.
|
| If a users needs aren't being met by the dslr gotta wonder is
| it the technology or the skill of the user?
| pb7 wrote:
| Do they look the same when zoomed in/at 100% zoom? Phone photos
| look great on small screens but show weaknesses on desktop.
| pcurve wrote:
| Yep. Dslr and large sensors count when it comes to making
| every pixel count without introducing artifacts
| TedShiller wrote:
| iPhone 13 photos will look just as good as a Nikon photo on
| your iPhone. As soon as you view the iPhone photos on a monitor
| or print them out, everything falls apart.
|
| iPhone photos are excellent as long as viewers are only seeing
| them on iPhones.
| foldr wrote:
| I wouldn't necessarily assume that the optics are superior.
| Smartphone lenses are pretty sophisticated. Also, their smaller
| size and far greater production numbers open up manufacturing
| techniques that wouldn't be practical for DSLR lenses.
|
| _Edit_ : Apologies for commenting on downvotes, but I'd be
| genuinely curious to see some objective evidence that the
| optics of a typical DSLR lens have a superior design. Of course
| it is true that larger lenses for larger sensors _tend_ to be
| superior because they do not need to resolve as many lines per
| mm and they do not need to be machined as precisely (all else
| being equal). But does anyone know of any actual lab tests that
| make relevant comparisons? I am a bit tired of people just
| assuming that DLSR lenses are higher quality than smartphone
| lenses, even though the cost of modern smartphones, and the
| enormous disparity in the number of units sold, makes it far
| from obvious that this should be the case.
| pb7 wrote:
| I didn't downvote but I imagine at least someone did because
| the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't
| capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality. This
| is why cameras have started trending to be larger rather than
| smaller. Only so much you can do software-wise before you hit
| physical limitations.
| foldr wrote:
| >the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors
| can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar
| quality.
|
| This is not really true to a very great extent once you
| take depth of field into account. At least, it would be
| helpful if you could indicate what it is exactly that you
| take the laws of physics to imply in this context. I made a
| comment here that's relevant:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540
|
| I took 'superior optics' to be a claim of greater
| sophistication or higher quality, but perhaps that is not
| what was meant, and the poster was merely referring to the
| difference in size.
| adrr wrote:
| Never got why camera manufactures never followed the phones.
| Like Live photo,and automatic hdr. Can we get rid of the
| shutter?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Can we get rid of the shutter?
|
| That's a challenge, I think. Take an R5 (only because I'm
| most familiar with it).
|
| 47 megapixels, 12 bpp 211.5MB, maximum shutter speed of
| 1/8000. In other words, you need to be able to pull data off
| the sensor (and to be clear, there's parallelization
| available, I just don't know what) at a global rate of
| 1.6TB/s.
| adrr wrote:
| They have global shutter sensors around the 12 megapixel
| level. They could split the sensor up into different
| processing paths. Do these 200 megapixel phone camera
| sensors have really bad rolling sensor issues? They are
| using electronic rolling shutters like your R5 when in
| silent mode or whatever canon calls it now.
| [deleted]
| FireBeyond wrote:
| What 200 mp phone camera sensors? The iPhone 14 is closer
| to a 12MP digital camera (quad bayer 48 million sensors).
| And from what I recall, 8 or maybe 10 bit. So in
| comparison to the 211MB of sensor data coming off the R5,
| there's 36 to 45MB of data coming off the phone camera.
| And I believe the 14's max shutter speed is 1/1000, so
| there's up to 35 times less data needing to be read off
| the sensor (45GB/s versus 1.6TB/s)
|
| And I'm sure there is multiple processing paths - I just
| don't know the fine details about how that raw data is
| slurped off the sensor.
| adrr wrote:
| https://semiconductor.samsung.com/image-sensor/mobile-
| image-...
| emkoemko wrote:
| i am glad they don't but in any case what is live photo?
| automatic HDR? well shoot a bracket +- certain EV ? get rid
| of the shutter? would need a global shutter unless you like
| rolling shutter look, phone sensors are tiny they can have
| fast enough readout vs a 35mm or larger
| kybernetyk wrote:
| The Nikon does minimal post processing. The iPhone throws a
| metric shit ton of algorithms at the image data to make it
| passable. For normal people the iPhone output is good enough -
| though it often looks very over-processed.
|
| Nikon just expects you to handle that post processing part that
| your iPhone is doing for you. In exchange you get way more
| control over the final image.
|
| Both devices are aimed at different people. I myself have an
| iPhone 13 pro and a Nikon Z6ii. I tend to take snapshots with
| my iPhone because getting out the Nikon + playing around with
| sliders in Capture One is just too much hassle for a snapshot.
| Now would I take the iPhone and do a landscape photo where I
| hiked 6 hours to the photo location at 3 a.m. in the morning?
| Probably not. ;)
| MurrayHill1980 wrote:
| Because deep down, it's not what they do. They are optics and
| camera hardware companies. In the race between physics and
| software, they are on the physics side. This is evident in the
| entire user experience. They keep missing the boat with the way
| people actually use photography today, and don't even seem to
| care much. There's not much evidence they have the kind of
| research expertise that Apple, Google or Adobe built in signal
| processing and image processing, either.
|
| See also https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news-
| archives/nikon-201... and
| https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news-archives/nikon-201...
| majormajor wrote:
| Mine don't (iPhone 13 Pro Max, Fuji XT-2 and various lenses).
| They do in daylight, sure, but things like sunrise/sunset or
| unusual colors throw them off like crazy.
|
| Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the
| texture effect, almost.
|
| They also suffer a bit zoomed in.
|
| The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone
| cameras but it has its limits.
|
| On good camera hardware there's very little that all that post-
| processing would add outside of extreme-high-ISO-noise, IMO.
| Which - would it be nice? Sure. But you can find software and
| stack exposures manually and such for those situations too.
|
| And a lot of the other smart stuff gets fooled too easily.
| sys32768 wrote:
| This is true. I should have added "in good light".
|
| The DSLR images also retain much more detail in cropping.
| ghaff wrote:
| And even moderate optical telephoto lenses are pretty
| powerful tools as well--especially in poorer light.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I hate when you get one of those amazing sunsets where the
| whole sky changes color, but the phone auto-correct
| removes/corrects the color tone.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| You can shoot in raw on iphones now to prevent this or fix
| it later.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Thanks, but now doesn't do me any good then
| andrewia wrote:
| I think it's processing power and engineering effort. I got a
| Sony RX100M2 for my mom and it has the same computational
| photography techniques that Google released the following year
| (https://ai.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high-
| dyn...). But Sony's image stacking is only in "Superior Auto"
| mode, and is only used when necessary. Google's implementation
| does a lot of advanced work, including selecting and blending
| parts of the photo depending on motion, that Sony doesn't do. I
| assume Sony's imaging engineers have less expertise in advanced
| processing, and didn't have the resources to implement the
| features that Google did. Sony also has to devote engineering
| resources to other features - a lot of their sales are to
| photographers that will edit in post (RAW), and later,
| videographers. So features that are only in "auto" mode may
| have limited budget.
| paxys wrote:
| Because Nikon's target audience (photographers) don't want that
| "fancy post-processing" done by their camera.
| packetlost wrote:
| Try zooming in, even a little bit. You'll notice squiggly
| oversharpening artifacts pretty quickly. Yes they probably look
| _fine_ on a phone screen, but blow them up at all and they
| start to show their weaknesses
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| The oversharpening on the iphone is so frustrating! I like
| the utility of the basic camera app, but the pictures look so
| weird. I guess I should explore alternative apps.
| sp332 wrote:
| I think Nikkor assumes that you would use software to do the
| post processing. It gives you something a lot closer to what's
| coming from the sensor, so you can choose which $XXX image
| editing suite you want to run it through. The iPhone knows the
| vast majority of people won't do that with their photos, so
| they can go all-out, but you're stuck with their specific
| result baked in to your photo.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| Apple has always been about making the choice for it's users.
| Jobs always thought giving users too many options was
| problematic.
| pwinnski wrote:
| Not just Jobs! There is no end[0] to research[1] showing
| that many options is terrible[2], and "too many options" is
| terrible by definition.
|
| 0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/07/3
| 1/br...
|
| 1. https://mediaroom.iese.edu/new-research-shows-why-the-
| human-...
|
| 2. https://bigthink.com/thinking/choice-analysis-paralysis/
| tshaddox wrote:
| That's a bit silly in this context. It's not like the
| person's intentions aren't fairly clear when they decided
| between buying an iPhone or buying a $3000 DSLR setup. Is
| it really so evil that Apple "decided" the person who
| bought the iPhone probably wanted the pictures to be
| heavily post processed instead of raw data from the sensor?
| NavinF wrote:
| I don't see how that's relevant. You can tap the RAW button
| in the iOS camera app to switch between the two choices,
| both of which looks great. Most DSLRs only have one option
| because the second one (in-camera JPEG) looks like crap.
| They can barely do auto focus/wb/iso/shutter/aperture let
| alone postprocessing.
| lemonberry wrote:
| While in training at my first restaurant job I asked a
| party where they would like to sit in the dining room. The
| owner pulled me aside and said to never give people a
| choice. They'll get confused and think that there's a
| "best" table and that their dinner could suffer if they
| feel like they didn't get it.
|
| I don't know if it's "real" or not but between work and my
| personal life I've got decision fatigue. Help make
| decisions. Especially about non-important ones that feel
| important at the time.
| m463 wrote:
| Fascinating.
|
| It seems like some table choices are better for the
| customer, some are better for the server. As a customer I
| like to be away from the other tables and the server
| wants everyone together in a noisy clump.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| I absolutely loathe those setups in some tiny restaurants
| where they line up 2 person tables in a row with 6-12"
| between tables so you can hear the stranger next to you
| talking more clearly than your partner across the table.
| Nothing else triggers my unbearable social anxiety like
| it. I've gotten seated at _those_ when there 's, like, an
| entire half of the restaurant empty.
| isolli wrote:
| Yes, I remember that campgrounds in the American Rockies
| let you choose your spot, while in the Canadian Rockies
| they assign you one. And I realized we were simply
| happier in Canada!
| enw wrote:
| It's definitely real! At least as far as my N=1 dataset
| is concerned. I dislike having to pick a seat when
| they're all kind of the same. Just tell me where to go, I
| have to make enough decisions at other times in life.
| c5karl wrote:
| Circuit City stores, back when they had entire walls of
| VCRs and tape decks and receivers, all of which were "on
| sale" (ahem), instructed their salespeople to always give
| customers definitive advice in their price range. "Oh,
| this Sony is the absolute best tape deck." Once people
| had reassurance that they were making the right choice,
| even from a total stranger, they'd open their wallets.
| But not before.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| By the way I know this is not your point, but there are
| excellent editing options for zero dollars! Which, I suppose
| X=0 is valid for your comment.
|
| https://www.rawtherapee.com/
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Well, put bluntly, the reason is that you probably are not
| using the Nikon properly. So, your photos are not coming out
| that great or as you hoped. Don't take this personally, I also
| have my limitations using cameras properly. But I understand
| I'm an amateur when it comes to this and that I'm part of the
| problem. I try to learn to do better. I try, and sometimes it
| works out nicely and I get a really nice shot. Landscape
| photography is tough to get right. You really need to
| understand your camera and lenses to make that work.
|
| The point of such a camera is not the in camera processing,
| which most pro users would not use on principle. Instead it's
| gaining a lot of control over setting up the shot properly with
| a lot of control over all the parameters that matter to achieve
| a look that matches what you want, intentionally. And then you
| finish the job in post processing. There's reason these things
| have so many buttons and dials: you need to use them to get the
| most out of the camera. And the point of owning such a camera
| is having that level of control. The flip side is that that
| makes you responsible for the intelligence. That kind of is the
| whole point. If that's not what you wanted, you bought the
| wrong camera.
|
| The iphone has a very limited set of controls. You actually
| have very little control over it. Nice if that's what you want
| and the AI is awesome. But it's also a bit limiting if you want
| more. Of course it's very nice when that's the camera you have
| and you want to take a shot quickly by just pointing and
| clicking. Nothing wrong with that. I have a Pixel 6 and a Fuji
| X-T30. I use them both but not the same way.
| berkut wrote:
| Do the jpegs (or hief?) look as good on a 27-inch monitor, or
| just on the phone screen?
|
| Capturing non-raw in my experience (iPhone 6S, now have 13
| mini) the jpegs are _heavily_ de-noised, and really don 't look
| that good 1:1 on a large monitor: on the iphone screen they
| look very good, as they're downsampled.
|
| The article mentions the 'watercolor' effect since the iPhone
| 8, but I definitely had the issue with all the jpegs taken on
| my iPhone 6S since 2015...
|
| DNGs however DO look very good, so clearly the sensor is
| capable of pretty nice images.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I guess the physics of the problem are really against these tiny
| cameras, but even so the bokeh on the caterpillar macro shot is
| surprisingly painful. Is there anything they can do about that,
| optically or computationally?
| MBCook wrote:
| A real macro lens on a DSLR is like that. You could stop the
| lens down for more to be in focus, but then because you're
| getting close to a pinhole camera you need a TON of light.
|
| Maybe the iPhone would do better in studio conditions, I don't
| know.
|
| But it's a very tough problem.
| jeffbee wrote:
| No? If I took that photo with my 100mm f/2.8 EF macro,
| everything behind the caterpillar would just be vaguely
| green. There's be no structure to it at all. I mean it would
| be _way_ out of focus. The DoF even at f /11 would be ~1cm.
|
| The problem with the photo in the article is the structure of
| the background is quite apparent and all the details in the
| background have been multiplied into hexagons which is very
| distracting.
|
| Directly comparable macro photograph of a moth. https://www.s
| lrphotographyguide.com/images/butterflymacro.jp...
| MBCook wrote:
| Oh, I thought you wanted _more_ depth of field.
|
| My mistake.
| oldstrangers wrote:
| Would be curious to see what they think of the Pixel 7 Pro
| camera. Video is still worse, but picture quality overall seems
| to be slightly (but noticeably) better than the iPhone 14 Pro.
| dont__panic wrote:
| I believe the Pixel Pro phones also recently migrated from 12MP
| to 48MP, between the 6 Pro and the 7 Pro. I wonder if this
| blogger is already looking into the Pixel? They mentioned that
| it takes a couple of months to come to a conclusion on a new
| phone camera, and the Pixel 7 has only been out for a month-
| ish.
| beezle wrote:
| You won't see one. All their past postings appear to be
| iPhone/pad camera reviews and they make two apps for the same.
| As a result, I am a little queasy about their objectivity too.
| anamexis wrote:
| I don't see an issue, given that they don't intend to do an
| objective comparison to other (non-Apple) smartphones.
| simlevesque wrote:
| Why is "huge" not in the title ?
|
| edit: it's fixed now
| atarian wrote:
| character limit is my guess
| dang wrote:
| Because it's huge in clickbait. I've put it back in the title
| above.
| mastax wrote:
| The HN game:
|
| - Was it editorialized by the submitter?
|
| - Was it changed by dang to de-clickbait it? (probably not in
| this case)
|
| - Did one of HN's title filters remove some words?
| xeromal wrote:
| That is strange. lol
| m348e912 wrote:
| Probably unintentional, but enough to get flagged for
| "editorializing" the title.
| city17 wrote:
| The funny thing is that for all the amazing technological
| improvements discussed, all the pictures in the article actually
| show that A. having a photographer who knows how to frame things,
| and sees the right moment to capture an image, and B. having a
| subject worthwhile photographing, are way more important than
| having a top tier quality camera.
| alberth wrote:
| > "I think the 12 MP shooting default is a wise choice on Apple's
| part, but it does mean that the giant leap in image quality on
| iPhone 14 Pro remains mostly hidden unless you choose to use a
| third party app to shoot 48 MP JPG / HEIC images or shoot in
| ProRAW and edit your photos later."
|
| This, 100%.
|
| The massive difference in image quality is when shooting in RAW.
| That's when you actually get the 48MP. The picture are fantastic.
|
| But that's not the default. The default is 12MP.
|
| That's why reviewers are so torn on this camera system. If the
| default was a 48MP picture, everyone would be praising the camera
| system. But when the default is 12MP, it's par for the course.
| m348e912 wrote:
| The iPhone 14 has a fantastic camera. It's a noticeable
| improvement from previous models and takes fantastic photos that
| rival or surpass many SLR cameras on the market. If Apple had
| taken another leap and included usb-c port it would have been
| enough for me to upgrade. For now, I wait.
| thefounder wrote:
| The EU will force them switch to USB on the next iPhone so
| better start saving :)
| sbierwagen wrote:
| Every iPhone release since the 11 I've been waiting for them to
| add support for Wifi 6E. So far not yet...
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Phones don't rival or surpass DSLRs or any proper digital
| camera.
|
| They just have lots of fancy processing that makes quick snaps
| look better than the same amount of effort on a camera.
| mc32 wrote:
| Yeah, it's hard to compare 35mm full frame sensors with
| miniscule camera sensors. As you said the magic is their
| processing which compensates for that.
| scrumbledober wrote:
| it is hard, but it's getting a little easier with the
| larger cameras
| mkaic wrote:
| Until that same fancy processing is available on a DSLR, I
| think the comparison OP is making is valid. At the end of the
| day, what I as a consumer care about is "is photo look 1.
| pleasing, 2. accurate to my perception, and 3. easy to
| create?" and in those regards, the iPhone absolutely
| outperforms every DSLR I've ever used.
| bosie wrote:
| Couldn't you take those photos and apply it back on the
| computer? Yet when i try to do HDR with 5 shots in
| Lightroom, it takes 10s of seconds or even minutes. It
| seems computer haven't caught up either?
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Take a photo with your iPhone and very quickly tap the
| thumbnail of the new image that appears in the bottom
| left. You can watch it progressively process the image.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| I didn't say a phone camera isn't better for the average
| consumer... I use my phone camera far more often than my
| actual camera...
|
| But there's no world in which it's technically superior to
| a real camera, especially one with in-camera processing or
| in the hands of a professional with access to and skill
| with professional post-processing software.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| The OP didn't say it was technically superior as a camera
| - they said it produced better photos. Which you can
| argue it does, with all the fancy post processing. The
| statement was only about the final result, which for the
| eyes for whom most peoples photos are presented to are
| excellent.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Idk man.
|
| If I zoom out from parsing word by word...
|
| ...feels like I'm saying a Keurig "rivals and surpasses
| espresso machines" because it can produce a better
| espresso than an arbitrary espresso machine in arbitrary
| hands.
|
| Yeah, true. Not very meaningful though.
|
| There's probably a McDonald's hamburger analogy here
| that's better, but, here we are.
|
| My challenge to an ambituous reader looking to comment:
| make that one work too.
| foldr wrote:
| >real camera
|
| A minor and pedantic point, but could we stop with the
| idea that smartphone cameras are somehow not 'real'? They
| are enormously sophisticated imaging devices that
| comprehensively outperform, for example, the 35mm film
| SLRs that many photographers were using in the 90s. An
| iPhone 14 enables you to take technically superior photos
| to the photos that professional photographers were taking
| only a couple of decades ago.
| cthalupa wrote:
| >They are enormously sophisticated imaging devices that
| comprehensively outperform, for example, the 35mm film
| SLRs that many photographers were using in the 90s.
|
| I'm not so sure about that. I'm impressed by what
| smartphone cameras do these days, but the Nikon F100
| snuck into the 90s and beats the pants off my iPhone 14
| Pro's camera, while still being very much in the
| hobbyist/prosumer price range.
| foldr wrote:
| Have you done any side by side comparison shots? Even
| with a high quality scan, you're unlikely to get the same
| resolution and dynamic range from a 35mm negative. And
| that's leaving aside the obviously vast differences in
| convenience and flexibility. (I'm old enough to have used
| 35mm SLRs, and I have absolutely no nostalgia for that
| era.)
| appletrotter wrote:
| Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals.
| It's more work, for a reward.
|
| Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small
| on phones to gather enough light to look decent.
| turbo_fart wrote:
| With google night sight you can basically take pictures
| in the dark.
| speedgoose wrote:
| The sensors are small but the software is good. Night
| photography is easy on a recent smartphone and you don't
| even need a tripod.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I've tried it with an iPhone 13 and an older camera with
| significantly worse low light performance than any camera
| from the past 7 years, and even if I disable the built-in
| image stacking, the mirrorless camera with an f/1.4 lens
| is incomparably better. I could properly expose my
| backyard with nothing but light pollution handheld.
|
| Newer cameras can even film video with nothing but
| moonlight.
| MBCook wrote:
| I always wonder what a one-off joint Apple DSLR/mirrorless
| could be. If they provided the smarts for a Sony or Canon or
| Nikon, just how good could the pictures be?
|
| Too bad we'll never know.
| adrr wrote:
| Raw photo off DSLR is very bland looking till you process it.
| No one is using raw information off a sensor as a final
| product and you need "fancy" processing to make it decent
| looking.
| slowhand09 wrote:
| Its not a phone. Its a camera with comms and apps
| capabilities.
| criddell wrote:
| Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on
| computational photography? Seeing what Apple and Google get
| out of tiny sensors in a phone makes me wonder what would be
| possible on a big camera with a better sensor.
| biftek wrote:
| There is computational photography happening on cameras but
| I think it's mostly opt in features.
|
| Olympus and Panasonic can take 80-100MP shots by shifting
| the sensor a small amount and stitching multiple shots
| together. This can even be done handheld on the newer
| models. I imagine phones will get this eventually (maybe
| some do already).
|
| Then there's all the subject detection auto focus available
| on basically every camera nowadays.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on
| computational photography?
|
| Not sure about the current state of the art but I do know
| Fuji has had some pretty fancy in-camera processing for
| years now.
|
| When I was more into photography however it seemed the
| 'culture' was more into post-processing with computer
| software for reasons.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The computational photography for those is done on a
| computer.
| astrange wrote:
| Where it has more power, but lacks info like how the OIS
| was moving as the pictures were taken, so isn't
| necessarily as good.
|
| And none of those products have nearly the sales of a
| smartphone to sustain R&D. Similar to how the headphone
| dongle of an iPhone is much cheaper and yet better
| quality than most audiophile equipment.
| cthalupa wrote:
| I would consider myself barely passable in skills
| compared to the average hobbyist photographer and have
| never seen in-phone computational work that I would take
| over what can be done manually in Lightroom, or if you
| want to go the automatic route, with Skylum's offerings.
| criddell wrote:
| A phone can do on-camera stuff or capture RAW and let you
| mess with it on your computer. Are there any big sensor
| cameras that give you those same options? I'm not aware
| of any and it baffles me that the camera companies feel
| so little need to innovate. I kind of wish Apple would do
| a dedicated big-sensor camera.
|
| Also, are you saying you could reproduce any of the on-
| phone stuff easily on your computer? I'm thinking about
| the astrophotography modes, portrait modes, live photos,
| and low light features.
| [deleted]
| emkoemko wrote:
| innovate what? what pro needs in camera processing? when
| you can process on a computer that is way more powerful
| and better UX for processing a large number of images?
| criddell wrote:
| The consumer market is a pretty big part of most DSLR
| sales. There really aren't all that many professional
| photographers, relatively speaking.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| To be clear, it's the iPhone 14 Pro models that have the 48MP
| camera (with telephoto) described in the article. The non-Pro
| iPhone 14 camera is said to be improved somewhat over the
| iPhone 13 (slightly faster lens, software magic, etc), but it
| is not the high-end system in the iPhone 14 Pro.
| willis936 wrote:
| The 48 MP bayer mode is indeed impressive, but it does not
| increase the spatial frequency response. I recently used it to
| document some color transition errors on LG OLED displays and
| even with the 48 MP "RAW" mode there are artifacts from the
| limited spatial resolution. One of the images properly captures
| the display sub-pixel layout, but that is taken closer to the
| display. Enabling/disabling "RAW" did not change the spatial
| resolution of the photos.
|
| https://imgur.com/gallery/amP2lR4
| coder543 wrote:
| If you take a photo of a subject that is closer than 7.8
| inches, you're no longer using the main camera on the 14 Pro.
| It automatically switches to the ultrawide camera and crops in
| to show the same field of view. I suspect that is happening to
| you in some cases, but you're unaware, based on the fact that
| you didn't mention anything about this limit.
|
| The 48MP camera has the same _color_ spatial resolution as a
| 12MP camera, but it has 48MP of monochromatic spatial
| resolution. Humans aren 't as sensitive to color resolution as
| they are to spatial resolution in general. This is why the "2x"
| mode on the 14 Pro look great compared to what you might expect
| based on your comment. The 2x crop only has "3MP" of color
| resolution, but the 12MP of spatial resolution from the 2x crop
| makes it perfectly usable.
|
| For your specific use case, the ultrawide camera may work fine
| as a "macro" lens, depending on the size of the pixels you're
| trying to capture. A real macro lens on an interchangeable lens
| camera would obviously do better.
| jxramos wrote:
| I've been playing block the sensor with that little IR lidar
| thing or whatever it is beside the lenses same size as the
| flash but is a dark spot. I was trying to photograph some VVT
| solenoid channels with illumination creeping out the ports
| and it got the camera into a cycle of switching lenses. I
| covered the sensor and the toggling ceased so I could focus
| the photo and get a good image.
| coder543 wrote:
| Much better to just go in and turn on Settings -> Camera ->
| Macro Control
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Note that in the real world it's going to have much less than
| 48MP of monochromatic spatial resolution due to aberrations.
|
| Even if the lens was operating at the limit of physics, you'd
| get a 2 micron first ring of the airy disk at 500nm, which is
| bigger than the size of the pixels. It can help a bit to have
| pixels smaller than the smallest detail the lens can resolve,
| but at the same time the lens isn't operating at the physical
| limit, so there is probably only a small increase in spatial
| resolution.
| willis936 wrote:
| Ah that would be my problem. I took zoomed photos to avoid
| lens distortion. The ultrawide would have been a better
| option.
|
| This wasn't meant to be a nice dataset, it was just something
| I quickly tried to document my observation to a single other
| human. I would have been more careful if I expected to share
| it more widely.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| I think if you disable automatic Macro Mode in the camera app
| settings and make sure it's off when you take the photo
| (flower icon that appears should be grey not yellow) it
| avoids this. Though it seems like the other cameras can't
| actually focus at this distance.
| stetrain wrote:
| I've been using the Halide app to take most of my daylight
| shots in 48mp HEIC mode (which has the benefit of being 5-15kb
| per photo).
|
| The main advantage to me is that the result is much less
| affected by Apple's always-on edge-sharpening processing. The
| effective "resolution" of the processing artifacts is higher.
|
| In previous iPhones if you take a photo of a bunch of leaves on
| a tree it's almost like it tries to draw a little sharpened
| outline around each one, which looks like a watercolor mess if
| you zoom in at all and doesn't capture what your eye sees.
|
| With the 48mp compressed shots I find landscapes and trees look
| much more natural and in general you can crop and zoom into
| photos further before the detail is lost in the processing
| mess.
| NavinF wrote:
| Why does that happen? Is it because there's a physical
| antialiasing filter in the lens?
| coder543 wrote:
| Quad Bayer: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4088675
| 984/Quad_Ba...
|
| The 48MP sensor still has 48MP of monochromatic resolution,
| but it only has 12MP of effective color resolution. You'll
| still see fine details, but the colors are not as high
| resolution as the details. This is rarely a problem, given
| the way the human eye processes color.
| willis936 wrote:
| I'm not an optics expert, but I expect that the physical
| system's spatial bandwidth is much higher than the sensor's
| bandwidth. That is to say, if there were more light sensing
| elements I think the spatial bandwidth would be higher.
|
| I don't think the artifacts are directly from aliasing but
| rather an artifact of software interpolation.
|
| It anyone knows better please correct me.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| This is generally not the case here, if the lens was
| physically perfect it could not resolve two points closer
| than two pixels as per the Rayleigh criterion.
| cthalupa wrote:
| Unfortunately, it still takes crappy concert photos. The
| combination of low light, crazy lighting, etc., still wreak havoc
| on the images.
|
| Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have
| a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is
| allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the
| policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line
| arguing with them about it.
|
| (I'm also not one of those people that is taking pictures [and I
| never record video] the whole show, I just want a handful of high
| quality shots to help me remember the show)
| jibbers wrote:
| What is the thinking behind the "no detachable lens cameras"
| rule? I can't wrap my head around that choice.
| adrr wrote:
| No professional photographers. I was told at a hotel that i
| couldn't use my mirrorless camera on their property by their
| security and that was the reason.
| MBCook wrote:
| I would guess to prevent professionals from taking pictures
| "for free" instead of getting contracts with the bands/venues
| and paying fees for the privilege.
|
| Or maybe they just annoy other patrons.
| cthalupa wrote:
| I have managed to get a press pass for some shows and bring
| my a7r3, nice lenses, etc. I've never been asked to pay any
| sort of fee for the pass.
| MBCook wrote:
| That's good to know. That was my "everyone is greedy
| these days" part of my guess.
|
| Was it hard to get the press pass? Maybe it's just to
| stop people avoiding that process.
| cthalupa wrote:
| It varies. A couple of times I just sent an email and
| they told me when/where to pick it up. Other times they
| wanted to see my work - a few of these, a personal blog
| with basically no traffic was enough to pass muster, a
| few, they wanted to see me working at some sort of actual
| publication (digital was fine, but it needed to be more
| than "cthalupa's concert blog")
| fortylove wrote:
| I'd guess it's to avoid professional photography equipment
| that can take up a lot of space (think zoom lenses)
| cthalupa wrote:
| There's a few primary reasons
|
| 1) Historically, some bands have been concerned about their
| image and felt that professional-looking photos that painted
| them in a bad light, whatever that meant in reality, would be
| more damaging than amateur photos. I don't hear this as much
| today, but 15 years ago it was frequently given.
|
| 2) Concerts with a lot of standing room near the stage
| already get quite crowded. Someone showing up with a bulky
| dslr (or even prosumer grade mirrorless) body and a 200mm
| lens is going to take up quite a bit of room. Prior to the
| advent of half the damn crowd keeping their phones in the air
| recording the show for the entirety of it I would also say it
| obscures vision and annoys people, but now it's really not
| any worse than that
|
| 3) They don't want someone to try and hold them liable if
| something goes wrong and some expensive camera body or glass
| gets broken.
|
| On the times I've been able to bring my full camera gear in
| without a press pass, I stick to as small of a lens as I can
| and avoid being near the front of the crowd. Thankfully, even
| quite a ways back from the front of the crowd, a 50mm prime
| lens will still take some fantastic photos on a real camera
| vs. what you get with a smartphone. I understand why the
| rules are in place, though, and I don't really have a problem
| with them in general.
| jakobdabo wrote:
| A good reason to own a Ricoh GR IIIx (or Ricoh GR III, which
| has a 28mm equiv. lense instead of 40mm on the "x" version). It
| looks very simple and non-professional, but the picture quality
| is comparable with the latest Fuji X100 series cameras.
| cthalupa wrote:
| Thanks! I'll have to check it out. I've got an RX100 VII that
| I picked up for this purpose a few years ago, but haven't
| been particularly impressed with the concert results.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Since my wife bought a Canon 90D for shots that matter I have
| since "meh"d about camera phones.
|
| I wish I could just have a simple dumb phone with a calendar,
| GPS, and texting, and it doesn't cost 1400 bucks.
| naet wrote:
| You can have that. Just don't buy a new model "pro" iPhone...
| kwanbix wrote:
| Any cheap Android phone offers all that for 200 or even less.
| 2c2c2c wrote:
| i did a point and shoot picture of a cat while a group of friends
| and I were sitting on the floor of a halloween party bathroom
|
| later, when sharing the photos, i realized we could distinctly
| see my partner and I in the reflection of the cat's eye. the CSI
| enhance memes are real :-)
| chasd00 wrote:
| > sitting on the floor of a halloween party bathroom
|
| i feel there is more to this story
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| -- anyone else find it annoying how protruded the lens is? --
| EA wrote:
| Yes, it is a minor annoyance and actually seems to be counter
| to Apple's historical product design
| MBCook wrote:
| You're not wrong at all. My 12 Pro was much better, but still a
| bit annoying.
|
| But optics can't beat physics. Better cameras need more space
| for lenses and sensors. They could make the whole phone
| thicker, but haven't done that yet.
|
| The trajectory seems unsustainable. We'll see what happens I
| guess.
| stetrain wrote:
| As long as it's smaller than a smartphone plus an RX100 taped
| together I consider it a net win.
| chasd00 wrote:
| yeah not a fan, my iphone12 mini is bad enough. I get that
| taking a photo and posting it to instagram is 95% of the use
| case for the iphone but i still don't like the way the camera
| lenses protrude.
| SebastianKra wrote:
| Since the iPhone 11, the primary stated purpose of the Pro
| variants has been photography.
|
| For users less interested in photography, the regular iPhones
| have a more subtle camera array.
| bydo wrote:
| Only marginally. The iPhone 14 non-Pro has the (also
| enormous) camera system from the 13 Pro, only with the
| telephoto lens removed.
| brookst wrote:
| Well this detailed camera review conclusively proves that I am a
| mediocre photographer who doesn't go anywhere interesting. Thanks
| a lot, lux.camera. Thanks a lot.
| [deleted]
| pj_mukh wrote:
| "To review this camera we went to these most interesting, most
| beautiful places."
|
| Okay...but how does it perform taking pictures of my toy dog in
| suburb-town USA?
| stingrae wrote:
| Coming from a iPhone 12 to the 14, the aggressive switching
| between lenses is pretty annoying in close and far shots. The
| lens shift screws up framing and hits at unpredictable times.
| kooshball wrote:
| can't you turn that off?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Not in the stock Camera app, no, but other apps let you
| specifically control which lens is being used.
| CharlesW wrote:
| You can turn off automatic macro switching:
| https://support.apple.com/en-
| us/HT210571#:~:text=You%20can%2....
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| Same. As a casual Camera user / not an enthusiast, I find the
| camera experience on the 14 pro unpleasant and a downgrade from
| the 12 pro.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Using something like Halide[1] gives you more control - once
| you pick a lens, it stays picked.
|
| [1] Other camera apps are available, etc.
| sangeeth96 wrote:
| Agreed. I thought mine was broken when I received it but alas,
| this is how it is. Was hoping a software update would fix the
| framing issues.
| efields wrote:
| I have a Genius Bar appointment I've rescheduled twice to
| discuss this, but it sounds like i really have no reason to
| believe there's anything "wrong" with my phone. I do hope
| software fixes can help, but maybe there's just some
| expectations in my head I need to recalibrate.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-01 23:01 UTC)