All jokes aside, the Iphone 7's camera is a real problem for the consumer ILC

So the answer is... uh... that is... ;)

"The iPhone 7 Plus uses machine learning to recognize people's faces, do a depth-map of their position, and then artfully blur out the background behind the people you're photographing. This feature, called Depth (because it simulates extra shallow depth), will be available as a software update and won't ship immediately with the phone."

Yes, I'm sure this will look just like an 85mm f/1.4. As long as you're photographing a human face. Sorta.
This is the first time I'm hearing that that is the de facto standard- particularly for smartphone users who don't even know what an 85mm f/1.4 is.

Look, I like ILCs and am not getting rid of my A7II any time soon.... but if you're scared, say you're scared :-D because you're not making a lot of sense or being very objective right now.
Scared of what exactly?
I'm a professional photographer and the least of my worries are that people with iphone7's are gonna be competition for me when it comes to any paid work.

Good luck trying to shoot a wedding/sports/theater/commercial event with an Iphone 7.
What you want to be scared of though is that because of the reduction in sales of all ILCs, because of products like this iPhone, your products, i.e. professional level ILCs or DSLRs may well become considerably more expensive for you to buy simply because the manufacturers are making less cameras overall. Now I doubt your customers are going to want to pay you any more than they currently do just because your tools have just got more expensive. But perhaps you are good enough that you can charge whatever you like and your cost of sales is irrelevant?
 
c8553c785826496faa2e2b0bac01c56c.jpg
The funny thing is that with a very little effort they could have made the blur more believable.
My guess is that hair directly in front of a distant background is difficult to do accurately, so the computer logic recognizes this situation and just blurs out that hair, regardless of whether the hair is at the same depth/distance as the (unblurred) face or not. So, you get blurred hair with a sharp face.
I am talking about the distant background. They used something like Gaussian blur instead of Lens Blur (blur with a disk). I guess they would need a few people who actually know photography.

Here is an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh#/media/File:Faux-bokeh-comparison.jpg
I agree that doesn't look right either. :-)
Another fake thing is that the specular highlights in the background are too dark. They are blurred by software from blown point like highlights. Lenses do not clip in cases like these because the light spreads over a larger area.
But who cares? Certainly not the target market. You guys sound like the argument as to whether clockwise or anticlockwise rotation of a starting handle is best. Meanwhile the guy in his Prius says "What? I just press the start button!"
 
I have been preaching the power of camera arrays as another hatchet blow smartphones would deliver to the consumer standalone camera, and lo and behold, Apple has finally made good on its potential:

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2016/09/07/apple-announced-real-time-collaboration/#gref
Apple is also working on implementing shallow depth of field (called it!) but using a much more clever implementation than predecessors like the Huawei P9 or HTC One M8. Using details from both lenses, the camera uses machine learning in order to create a 3D depth mask of people’s faces. That allows it to tell how much it should blur out the different subjects of an images.

In the samples Apple showed, the photos looked much more believable than what Huawei has achieved so far, closer to a photo from a DSLR or Mirrorless camera. You get a live preview of the depth-of-field effect, too, but no word on if you can adjust focus after a shot has been taken, however.
This approach is brilliant and demonstrates how well Apple knows its market and can focus on what matters to them, while not bothering with what doesn't. 15 stops of dynamic range? For what? 8 bit JPEGs that will get hit with filters anyway? Diffraction concerns and the pursuit of sharpness? For what? Viewing in web browsers and on 5" smartphone screens?

This is really scary for the bottom of the ILC market in the casual consumer realm, because for what this market wants this Iphone will deliver BETTER photos than a Costco DSLR kit. An 18-55 3.5-5.6 is not delivering impressive background blur or subject isolation in portraits, and that is something photography civilians associate with "good photos". I personally would pony up for something like this over something like an RX100 any day.

Will this or any cameraphone replace a prosumer setup? Not any time soon, I think... but this DEFINITELY takes a huge bite out of the consumer camera market, probably all the way up to APS-C, for anyone who isn't pixel peeping or pushing and pulling regularly in post. And I only imagine it getting worse- imagine a setup with different cameras to capture each RGB channel, or a wider range of focal lengths, etc. What a time to be alive :-D
This is bad news for consumer P&S and DSLR, but great news for photography. There hasn't been any real innovation in the field for a while. About time! I see a lot of people expressing sadness over the decline of DSLRs. Don't be sad. Were the cavemen sad when they invented matches, rendering fire stones obselete?
Did cavemen invent matches? :-D
There is a distinction between the gear and the craft. Consumer P&S and low end DSLR may be dead soon, but who cares. If you want to shoot with one, there will be plenty floating around eBay. For everyone else, there are the exciting new possibilities brought to us by new technology.
 
As long as I'm breathing and have some level of independent thought and mobility, I will likely be taking pictures.
That's largely what the camera industry is worried about. What happens when you and your age group are no longer taking pictures with your 'enthusiast' products? Who will be then?
I'm at the point where as long as I can take the sort of photos I want to take, at the level of image quality I consider acceptable, I don't care that much about the shutter box.

Right now, phone cameras still suck compared to my E-M10. And the smartphone ergonomics is just awful. I assume they will get better eventually. Olympus will have to get better as well if they want to keep my business.

If they feel pressured to keep up with and surpass the smartphones . . . Good!

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
I think this is the Nokia resurrection from the dead! :-D

I hope it happens too.
 
I personally have no interest in fake depth of field blur-I know all art is artifice, but I don't deliberately lie--
What about distortion correction ?

Anyway, I wouldn't want to rely on something like this for "photography" (meaning stuff I do for my hobby) but if I were out and about with my phone and wanted to snap a candid of someone, I wouldn't be bothered. I use an HDR feature on my favorite camera app pretty regularly (though I like it because it does a pretty good job producing a natural result) ... still, a "lie" in the sense that it's using computation to do something the sensor can't do on it's own.
but if I can use those two cameras as two independent primes I am already a big fan.
True - hadn't thought about that - I was just thinking it will be interesting to see how well the interpolated zoom works. But I suspect I'd shoot 90% of the time at one extreme or the other anyway (it's not like 28 & 56 are extreme to begin with). Many moons ago, as a kid, I had a 110 camera with a slider to go from wide to tele - not a zoom, but a change in lens elements or a doubler or something. It's kind of a neat alternative to a slower, subpar zoom.
No iPhone for me, of course-- the 'coyote household is an Android household-- but here's hoping for a twincam Nexus the next time we're due for a replacement.
I have an iPhone now. And no upgrade any time soon. Even if I did, the 'Plus' is too big, so I wouldn't be getting the dual lens camera. And I'll see how the whole headphone jack issue shakes out before getting another iPhone (I have a nice pair of headphones I wouldn't want to replace, but they're big enough that I wouldn't mind using an adapter with them).
An adapter comes packed in the box.

Sal
 
If you buy a camera, you don't have to pay $ 100 or more a month to use it.
You don't have to have cell service to use the smartphone camera, and of course, a standard camera can't make a phone call or text. :)

Sal
 
I figured you could add two and two together.

Sony lost one of their largest customers, Sony also has been struck by a natural disaster.

What does Sony have to be happy about?
Where did you get Sony lost their biggest customer? You're saying Sony won't be making sensors for Apple no more?

--
Too legit to quit.
Well they lost a huge part of Apples business this year.

But you're missing the point - what does Sony have to be happy about?
 
Aside from my previous post about focal lengths and quality, I don't believe that artificial background blur will ever be 100% reliable or effective. It depends on a computer perfectly calculating the depth/distance at every point in the image. I somehow doubt that this can ever be done with 100% accuracy. So, you'll inevitably have problems in at least some images, where they just won't look right.

I believe the results will always be better with pure optics than with digital fakery, but it's entirely possible that the iPhone results won't be pleasing at all in most circumstances. Time will tell.
It doesn't have to be 100% reliable or effective. Just good enough to be convincing for web viewing.

And it sounds like they've developed a kind of light field algorithm, which means they at least have a sense of how far each point in the picture is. If that's not enough to replicate or even possibly outperform pure optics (i.e. no onion bokeh), it's definitely close ;-) If there's anyone who can crack this egg, I would bet it's Apple.
c8553c785826496faa2e2b0bac01c56c.jpg

Even at these small dimensions, it looks off to me. The hair on the sides looks far more blurred than the face, yet the hair on the top of the head doesn't look blurred. I don't think this is actually using accurate depth/distance data, but rather some faulty computer logic, possibly combined with some inaccurate and questionable depth data.

What happens when you have more than one person in the image or the person is at a different distance to the camera? What happens when you have any of a host of possible scenarios that the computer cannot adequately interpret.

Even their idealized pics at web size aren't that impressive, IMO.
The funny thing is that with a very little effort they could have made the blur more believable.
My guess is that hair directly in front of a distant background is difficult to do accurately, so the computer logic recognizes this situation and just blurs out that hair, regardless of whether the hair is at the same depth/distance as the (unblurred) face or not. So, you get blurred hair with a sharp face.
I am talking about the distant background. They used something like Gaussian blur instead of Lens Blur (blur with a disk). I guess they would need a few people who actually know photography.

Here is an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh#/media/File:Faux-bokeh-comparison.jpg
It's just a guess, but I do know that hair can be difficult to isolate properly when editing on a computer, so perhaps this is a way of dealing with it.
At this point with the 2 cameras it's all about the software. Apple said the software is not yet finished. They also said the cameras APIs have been made available to third party app makers.

Apple probably didn't want to slow down milliseconds processing spec for something that takes more processing calculations, and slower response time. I would look for "True Lens Blur" type apps soon. Those who care about accurate blur wouldn't mind the extra milliseconds needed.

Sal
 
One thing I notice looking at dual lens or simulated bokeh on phones is that none of the samples are scenes where you've got a gradual transition, there all very close protraits where the subject is all in focus and the background very out of focus.

Personally I think DOF control is most effective when it gives you a gradual transition as the transition itself helps get across a sense of depth.

MtGcVDc.jpg
 
This sort of rant is getting pretty old.
 
As long as I'm breathing and have some level of independent thought and mobility, I will likely be taking pictures.
That's largely what the camera industry is worried about. What happens when you and your age group are no longer taking pictures with your 'enthusiast' products? Who will be then?
It seems to me, that basic human behavior isn't changing, merely the economic choices we make to support that behavior is changing. People will still want photos to commemorate the good times with their loved ones, to document and memorialize where they've been, and what they've done. Even to try and create art.

The "camera industry" SHOULD be worried! The consumer has more choices than ever before. The "Camera Industry" will either get competitive and offer viable choices that the "Smartphone Industry" can't or won't offer, or it will die.

While I prefer my 'enthusiast product' to the current crop of smartphone cameras, all I really care about is the pictures. So it's all good to me. Ultimately I just want to take pictures. I don't think I'm alone in this. There are huge numbers of people who don't define themselves by the gear they use.

Maybe you you should consider the possibility that this is not an issue with just two sides, but an issue where people fall into a spectrum of behavior and thought.
I'm at the point where as long as I can take the sort of photos I want to take, at the level of image quality I consider acceptable, I don't care that much about the shutter box.

Right now, phone cameras still suck compared to my E-M10. And the smartphone ergonomics is just awful. I assume they will get better eventually. Olympus will have to get better as well if they want to keep my business.

If they feel pressured to keep up with and surpass the smartphones . . . Good!

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
But of course it is a terminal decline. The day a 3-camera or 4-camera smartphone gives me the same IQ as my DSLR, in such a small and light package, you can bet I'll happily leave that brick and its big lenses at home!

Actually I already do leave it at home most of the time, I haven't even re-charged the battery for months, and it is 6 years old and I really don't see why I would buy a newer model. So that's that. No news here.
DSLR is certainly going to suffer, especially at the lower end, which is sad for me because it's great ergonomics and superb image quality for what amounts to change money.

I take a lot of pictures with my smartphone. I edit them on the phone. I post them shortly after taking. I see all these advantages. Once I can get it to take decent quality "normal prime" and "portrait" focal lengths without cropping I may not miss the DSLR much but for one thing: ergonomics. I need a firm grip and I need a viewfinder that I can stick to my eye on a sunny day. I don't want to spend big bucks on a pro-grade battle tank that will weigh two-three times my current cheap-ass setup (D3200+35/1.8) just because the latter no longer exists in the market.
 
As long as I'm breathing and have some level of independent thought and mobility, I will likely be taking pictures.
That's largely what the camera industry is worried about. What happens when you and your age group are no longer taking pictures with your 'enthusiast' products? Who will be then?
It seems to me, that basic human behavior isn't changing, merely the economic choices we make to support that behavior is changing. People will still want photos to commemorate the good times with their loved ones, to document and memorialize where they've been, and what they've done. Even to try and create art.
Sure, memories of events and loved ones I have no problem with but what is changing are the numbers of people who want to "create art".

In truth a large number of cameras are sold to enthusiasts not because they want to create art but because they love bits of glass, metal, plastic and electronics. The only 'art' many of these people will produce is a shot of a brick wall to demonstrate how wonderful their new toy is. And that's OK because it keeps a whole lot of manufacturers and dealers in business but perhaps it shouldn't be confused with photography?
The "camera industry" SHOULD be worried! The consumer has more choices than ever before. The "Camera Industry" will either get competitive and offer viable choices that the "Smartphone Industry" can't or won't offer, or it will die.
Exactly.
While I prefer my 'enthusiast product' to the current crop of smartphone cameras, all I really care about is the pictures. So it's all good to me. Ultimately I just want to take pictures.

Maybe you you should consider the possibility that this is not an issue with just two sides, but an issue where people fall into a spectrum of behavior and thought.
Indeed there is a spectrum. On DPR we are perhaps at one end and perhaps the camera phone user could be considered at the other. But arguably the camera phone user is rapidly occupying the middle ground as well and that process is likely to continue as camera phones continue to improve. What can the camera manufacturers do about it? At this stage I'm not sure they can do much.
I'm at the point where as long as I can take the sort of photos I want to take, at the level of image quality I consider acceptable, I don't care that much about the shutter box.

Right now, phone cameras still suck compared to my E-M10. And the smartphone ergonomics is just awful. I assume they will get better eventually. Olympus will have to get better as well if they want to keep my business.

If they feel pressured to keep up with and surpass the smartphones . . . Good!

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
Aside from my previous post about focal lengths and quality, I don't believe that artificial background blur will ever be 100% reliable or effective. It depends on a computer perfectly calculating the depth/distance at every point in the image. I somehow doubt that this can ever be done with 100% accuracy. So, you'll inevitably have problems in at least some images, where they just won't look right.

I believe the results will always be better with pure optics than with digital fakery, but it's entirely possible that the iPhone results won't be pleasing at all in most circumstances. Time will tell.
It doesn't have to be 100% reliable or effective. Just good enough to be convincing for web viewing.

And it sounds like they've developed a kind of light field algorithm, which means they at least have a sense of how far each point in the picture is. If that's not enough to replicate or even possibly outperform pure optics (i.e. no onion bokeh), it's definitely close ;-) If there's anyone who can crack this egg, I would bet it's Apple.
c8553c785826496faa2e2b0bac01c56c.jpg

Even at these small dimensions, it looks off to me. The hair on the sides looks far more blurred than the face, yet the hair on the top of the head doesn't look blurred. I don't think this is actually using accurate depth/distance data, but rather some faulty computer logic, possibly combined with some inaccurate and questionable depth data.

What happens when you have more than one person in the image or the person is at a different distance to the camera? What happens when you have any of a host of possible scenarios that the computer cannot adequately interpret.

Even their idealized pics at web size aren't that impressive, IMO.
The funny thing is that with a very little effort they could have made the blur more believable.
The great thing about software based stuff like this is that they can, with a quick firmware update :-D

To nitpicky old men on DPR, of course it won't be good enough. No toy phone ever will. But for the other billion or so folks on this planet who can afford smartphones this is a revelation
Revelation? You can do better with an unaltered iPhone shot in post, IMO. This looks like cheap, amateurish editing.
The target audience doesn't know or care what "post" is. Once Apple ads start telling them how much they want it, it will become important.

Sal
 
Of course smartphones at this point take photos which are "good enough" for frat boys documenting their latest strip-club outing, or college girls making "duck lips" poses, or by people who think it's "cool" to have a photo shown from one's arm stretched seemingly from the moon and back--yes, for all that, it's fine.

For real art, though? Give me a break.

I don't care what the dictionary says, I don't care what the hipsters say, or the mass market, or the latest trend, it has always been the case, and still is the case, that there is a difference between the "snapshooters," which is probably like 97% of everybody, and people who call themselves "photographers" who are either working professionals or serious hobbyists/enthusiasts striving to get something of high quality.

Quality matters, and people who call themselves "photographers" don't go around shooting with a fruit phone, not when you have so much available that's of such high quality and, in the case of something like a Panasonic LX100 or Sony RX100, so small and portable. Why would you do that? "Because the phone is always with me." Please, is "lugging" a Panasonic LX100 is too much for you, and you call yourself a "photographer," you're lazy. Period.

Don't even start with those nimrods who were commissioned by National Geographic to travel to somewhere like Sedona or the Grand Canyon and actually used a phone instead of a real camera. Are you kidding me? What kind of moron does a thing like that? That's just stupid, and if I had my way not only would it be scolded, it would be forbidden LEGALLY. I'm serious.

Snapshooting being a wide-open endeavor, have at it, but artistic photography doesn't need to be "liberated," it needs to become more exclusionary, much like high-end golf courses. To that end, serious photography, I think, should become a licensed endeavor. If you call yourself a "photographer" but go around being all lazy and pathetic using a PHONE when you have so much available to you which gives better results, your license to practice photography will be revoked and you will be driven out of business. I'm totally serious.

Soccer moms, drunk college frat guys yelling "WHERE'S THE BEER!!!!!" at a strip club, teens making "duck lips" poses, people acting silly and taking selfies from their arm, fine, have at it, I have no problem with any of it, but there is still a place for taste and discrimination of quality and making an effort towards compelling results, and that is done with a CAMERA by people with a BRAIN in their head.
 
Of course smartphones at this point take photos which are "good enough" for frat boys documenting their latest strip-club outing, or college girls making "duck lips" poses, or by people who think it's "cool" to have a photo shown from one's arm stretched seemingly from the moon and back--yes, for all that, it's fine.

For real art, though? Give me a break.

I don't care what the dictionary says, I don't care what the hipsters say, or the mass market, or the latest trend, it has always been the case, and still is the case, that there is a difference between the "snapshooters," which is probably like 97% of everybody, and people who call themselves "photographers" who are either working professionals or serious hobbyists/enthusiasts striving to get something of high quality.

Quality matters, and people who call themselves "photographers" don't go around shooting with a fruit phone, not when you have so much available that's of such high quality and, in the case of something like a Panasonic LX100 or Sony RX100, so small and portable. Why would you do that? "Because the phone is always with me." Please, is "lugging" a Panasonic LX100 is too much for you, and you call yourself a "photographer," you're lazy. Period.

Don't even start with those nimrods who were commissioned by National Geographic to travel to somewhere like Sedona or the Grand Canyon and actually used a phone instead of a real camera. Are you kidding me? What kind of moron does a thing like that? That's just stupid, and if I had my way not only would it be scolded, it would be forbidden LEGALLY. I'm serious.

Snapshooting being a wide-open endeavor, have at it, but artistic photography doesn't need to be "liberated," it needs to become more exclusionary, much like high-end golf courses. To that end, serious photography, I think, should become a licensed endeavor. If you call yourself a "photographer" but go around being all lazy and pathetic using a PHONE when you have so much available to you which gives better results, your license to practice photography will be revoked and you will be driven out of business. I'm totally serious.

Soccer moms, drunk college frat guys yelling "WHERE'S THE BEER!!!!!" at a strip club, teens making "duck lips" poses, people acting silly and taking selfies from their arm, fine, have at it, I have no problem with any of it, but there is still a place for taste and discrimination of quality and making an effort towards compelling results, and that is done with a CAMERA by people with a BRAIN in their head.
If you're a "photographer" then your viewpoint is absolutely fine. I might even agree with you.

But it assumes people will always want to be "photographers". Some will I imagine. But some people still ride in horse drawn buggies. The question is how many and will it be worth most of the current camera manufacturers catering for that number?
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to work out why are sneering at half the population and dissing everyone who chooses not to use a 'proper' camera?

Your outlook is very old fashioned.

You don't get it do you - people take very few photographs to PRINT and mount which is where high IQ is required. ( pro's 'togs excepting)

You really can take top drawer photos with a mobile phone and view them happily on a TV, PC, or mobile device - and the sharing and connectivity is key to this.

--
Stupidity is far more fascinating than intelligence. Intelligence has its limits...
 
Last edited:
You don't get it do you - people take very few photographs to PRINT and mount which is where high IQ is required. ( pro's 'togs excepting)
Not true.
You really can take top drawer photos with a mobile phone and view them happily on a TV, PC, or mobile device - and the sharing and connectivity is key to this.
Also untrue.

A lot of people don't seem to "get" a simple truth - the more powerful gear isn't just about better IQ, it's about acceptable IQ in a far, far wider range of shooting conditions.

My cell phone produces acceptable IQ in good light around 30mm equivalent. Everywhere else, it's virtually useless. My ILCs produce acceptable IQ from 8mm to 4,500mm and in light ranging down to less than 1/100,000th of sun light.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top