-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the new iPhone 14 pro max as good as a camera?
- Thread starter LEZ90
- Start date
You can simulate quite effectively the look of several lenses using the app Focos. It’s really well done.
LEZ90
Well-known member
The shots are straight from the phone / cameras and all set to standard / auto. No external processing at all.
Its nothing about the sensor. Its all about apple aggressive processing.
Jostian
Senior Member
Its 12mp images are only so so, the 48mp shots are great, but at the standard 12mp its definitely not the best IQ wise, still way too much processing.I've been reading how the iPhone 14 pro max has the best camera in any phone and its 48mp output is on par with a real camera. So when I took delivery of my own iPhone 14 pro max, I was interested to try it out and compare its 48mp raw photos to the couple of Leica cameras that I own.
48 mega pixels. First I took a photo on the iPhone without zooming and then shot a similar one with my 48mp Leica Q2. When you look closely at the photo, you can clearly see that the clever, computerised trickery to upscale a 12mp sensor to 48 megapixel photo that Apple uses is ok, but its not as good as the real full frame sensor of the Q2.
Zoom. I then went outside and I zoomed the iPhone up to its maximum in 48mp Raw mode and shot a picture of a seagull. I then used my second hand £500 Leica V-Lux to do the same.
Even though the £500 V-Lux is only 20mp it has a 400mm optical zoom and compared to the computerised zoom of the iPhone the difference was massive.
Image quality. OK, so the 48mp from a small sensor is not as good as the real thing and the digital zoom is rubbish, but what about normal photos?
Well the answer is its ok, but…
As I’ve said before on my blog, a quality sharp lens costs a lot of money to make (hence why Leicas are so expensive) so to compensate for this companies enhance their output by using artificial sharpening techniques and fake colour enhancers.
On the top of the images below you can see the iPhone image is overly sharp and the colours are very bright and vibrant - nice but not realistic.
Also its using ‘Portrait mode’ which I can’t stand as it artificially blurs the background and the line where it blurs the image is usually wrong and you end up with a missing ear or something - just look at the chain in the background or the edge of the jacket (its sharp right up to the edge) - you see what I mean.
Compare it to the Leica’s photo on the bottom.
This is more ‘real’ looking. The left image is like you are looking at an on screen photo of a flower basket where on the on the right, its looks like you are looking at the real thing.
Summery Is it as good as a dedicated camera? Not at all.
Upscaling a 12mp camera sensor, is never going to be as good as a full frame sensor, and digital zoom is rubbish compared to an optical lens, even if you have double the pixels to use.
Would I recommend it? For its price (and for those who want to post on Facebook or instagram), the iPhone is very good indeed and is more than capable (video stabilisation is superb) then most peoples needs.
Its the best phone camera on the market, and its does come quote close to a real dedicated camera. But....
--
Jostian
J's Space…. Bits n Pieces for Life!
Technology, Opinion, Sustainability, Poetry & some Photography
jostian.blogspot.com
Thank you, brilliant analysis, a fun read, and made me want to go back to my Fuji XT 2. However, as you noted, 90% of my photos now go on Instagram or Facebook or are sent via message. I haven't printed a photo in years... and I do miss the realness of my camera weight on my shoulder.
_vlad
Senior Member
I agree that when checking with loupe or at 200% mag you can see something. However people normally does not check 1x1,5m prints withe their noses glued to print. In fact I saw one at some exhibition, 2x2,5 m print (roughly) and he inspected the details from 30 cm. Ok it was his choice. The fact is that big billboards are printed in less than 50 DPI and I know of nobody who complains.
And on top of that - folks here concentrate always on something they pick-up for inspection. And mostly they forget that resolution is not everything. When you want really balanced, HQ 48 MPix image, with low chromatic aberations, with uniform sharpness throughout the image (at least to edges if not to corners) with nice bokeh (reasonably smooth, not too busy) it can be hardly ever maintained by small lenses in phones. And I doubt they ever be, because of either lens design or by lens sample variation.
I would say 48MP full resolution is really a torture for phones or for mediocre RC lenses as well.
My take is - downsample to either 12MPix or 24 MPix and they would show-up near perfect.
My 0,02$, YMMV
What is that good for? I don't care what a piece of my photo at 300% looks like. I only care what my photo looks like at the size it will be shared, printed, or viewed at. And I'm not going to print it that big, and don't know anyone that has a 48mp monitor to view it on.
Your needs may vary though, I understand. 12mp works fine for me.
Your needs may vary though, I understand. 12mp works fine for me.
I didn’t say zoom to 300%, you said you didn’t have a screen big enough to see the whole image so I suggested zooming in / click that magnifier tool to see the difference.
The images from the 48mp sensor downsized to 12mp will look much better than 12mp from the iPhone 13, as there’s none of the hard sharpening or 90% less anyway.
I always want to start with the best file I possibly can. Print, selling prints, cropping, getty etc kinda require this
The images from the 48mp sensor downsized to 12mp will look much better than 12mp from the iPhone 13, as there’s none of the hard sharpening or 90% less anyway.
I always want to start with the best file I possibly can. Print, selling prints, cropping, getty etc kinda require this
No no I don’t mean zooming in to 200/300%, and I’m not sure the billboard comment is true anymore but I know it was years back. All about optimum viewing distances which I’ve written about in the past. And at optimum viewing distance of a print you shouldn’t tell the difference between 12 and 48 mp. But of course a lot of people take pleasure in seeing the details in a print up close.
And as mentioned to Bob the 12 output is over processed and it’s fixed if you take a 48mp image and then downsize
--
www.instagram.com
www.gettyimages.co.uk
500px.com
And as mentioned to Bob the 12 output is over processed and it’s fixed if you take a 48mp image and then downsize
--
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
185 Stock Photos, High-Res Pictures, and Images - Getty Images
Explore Authentic, Stock Photos & Images For Your Project Or Campaign. Less Searching, More Finding With Getty Images.
500px
Agree with this. When looking at photos on 5 inch phone screen, wouldn't it be great if the details still hold up zooming in 100%? This will be helpful in group photos or landscape shots. Photos are equally (or sometimes more) enjoyable when looking at a crop.
Those 48mp shots from the new iPhone 14 pro max are very nice!
Jostian
Senior Member
Yip GSMArena's review says the same, the 12mp output is basically the same as last year's in terms of IQ, with the 12mp shots from the 48mp sensor looking almost identical to the 12mp sensor from last year, the 48mp shots are a big step up though. But still, Apple still have heavy processing, Samsung too, but at least they've dialled it back over the last year or so.
Xiaomi just blown both of them in stock 200MP mode, it hold details even on 600% crop, check tech tablets video, main sensor is impressive
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum