Apple iPhone 14 Pro is beaten by 13 year old M43 camera

[Dlee13]

Some comments from the creator of this video as per SAR:

1) As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments in the video, the 48MP ProRAW is not better than RAW. It's actually worse because there's aggressive processing happening that cannot be undone by the user. If you go to minute 12 of the video you can see that I'm using the 48MP ProRaw file. There's so much processing happening that the details on the wood are completely lost. I've shot the scene with both the 48MP ProRAW and 12MP RAW. With the exception of the text, the 12MP RAW file is actually better than the 48MP ProRAW. Because we can control the ISO, noise reduction, and pretty much everything else in the image.

2) The flower macro shots were actually using the macro lens of the iPhone. It's just impossible to get the GF1 equivalent no matter how hard you try.
On the PCB shot I also chose the lowest ISO the iPhone can handle. And I have some strong lights to light everything. So everything you see on the image is the best case scenario. Things would actually be worse for the iPhone if I didn't adjust for these things.

3) I zoom into 300% because it's easier to see for the audience. Youtube has some pretty bad compression even in 4K videos so if I compared everything at 100% you wouldn't be able to see anything. On my monitor it's very easy to spot these things at 100%

 

[Jostian]

Some comments from the creator of this video as per SAR:

1) As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments in the video, the 48MP ProRAW is not better than RAW. It's actually worse because there's aggressive processing happening that cannot be undone by the user. If you go to minute 12 of the video you can see that I'm using the 48MP ProRaw file. There's so much processing happening that the details on the wood are completely lost. I've shot the scene with both the 48MP ProRAW and 12MP RAW. With the exception of the text, the 12MP RAW file is actually better than the 48MP ProRAW. Because we can control the ISO, noise reduction, and pretty much everything else in the image.

2) The flower macro shots were actually using the macro lens of the iPhone. It's just impossible to get the GF1 equivalent no matter how hard you try.
On the PCB shot I also chose the lowest ISO the iPhone can handle. And I have some strong lights to light everything. So everything you see on the image is the best case scenario. Things would actually be worse for the iPhone if I didn't adjust for these things.

3) I zoom into 300% because it's easier to see for the audience. Youtube has some pretty bad compression even in 4K videos so if I compared everything at 100% you wouldn't be able to see anything. On my monitor it's very easy to spot these things at 100%

Great video, no surprises, I know many want the flagship phones to be better, but the truth is that especially jpegs are way worse due to huge over processing. The iPhone 14 Pro Max jpegs are pretty poor, with almost no difference to previous models, GSMArena says something similar in their review. The ProRAW and RAW from phones are way better options but they themselves are quite processed with no ability to intervene.

 

[_vlad]

Some comments from the creator of this video as per SAR:

1) As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments in the video, the 48MP ProRAW is not better than RAW. It's actually worse because there's aggressive processing happening that cannot be undone by the user. If you go to minute 12 of the video you can see that I'm using the 48MP ProRaw file. There's so much processing happening that the details on the wood are completely lost. I've shot the scene with both the 48MP ProRAW and 12MP RAW. With the exception of the text, the 12MP RAW file is actually better than the 48MP ProRAW. Because we can control the ISO, noise reduction, and pretty much everything else in the image.

2) The flower macro shots were actually using the macro lens of the iPhone. It's just impossible to get the GF1 equivalent no matter how hard you try.
On the PCB shot I also chose the lowest ISO the iPhone can handle. And I have some strong lights to light everything. So everything you see on the image is the best case scenario. Things would actually be worse for the iPhone if I didn't adjust for these things.

3) I zoom into 300% because it's easier to see for the audience. Youtube has some pretty bad compression even in 4K videos so if I compared everything at 100% you wouldn't be able to see anything. On my monitor it's very easy to spot these things at 100%

Great video, no surprises, I know many want the flagship phones to be better, but the truth is that especially jpegs are way worse due to huge over processing. The iPhone 14 Pro Max jpegs are pretty poor, with almost no difference to previous models, GSMArena says something similar in their review. The ProRAW and RAW from phones are way better options but they themselves are quite processed with no ability to intervene.

Plus - 48RAW is a multistack - sometimes has problem with double/triple lines of moving subjects (especially edges and blurred areas). I would say that GCAM has less problems of this type (based on what i´ve seen so far on the forum). But otherwise and fair to say it is very good - probably best at 24 MPix downsampling, when visibility of extra NR is partly eliminated.

 

[Shellblower]

I think the comparison can be done but there are some things that are pretty obvious and you would not even need to do a test for these.

It is pretty clear that sensor size is important when it comes to low light. (It does not make sense to use the high res mode of the iPhone to get more details when there is not sufficient light)

It is also petty clear that the optics used with the GF-1 are way better than those of a phone camera.

Well ... I think it would have been more interesting if he would have used the 48MP ProRaw in well lit situations rather than in the low light situations. One cloud also downscale the 48MP to the pixel count of the GF-1 and see what happens if done properly.

 

[tashley]

Well ... I think it would have been more interesting if he would have used the 48MP ProRaw in well lit situations rather than in the low light situations. One cloud also downscale the 48MP to the pixel count of the GF-1 and see what happens if done properly.

I completely agree. I've been shooting with the Pro for a couple of weeks now and when the shooting conditions are optimal I would go as far as to say that up to about a 24" print, for many subjects (especially those without a great deal of high frequency detail) most viewers would not easily see a difference between the phone and a 'real' camera.

For ref: I know people will disagree and demand proof etc, and I do have a thread nearby in which I posted some RAWS, but I also have other shots which I would very happily print and sell and I really doubt anyone would notice. My purchasers tend to be high end fine art types and editions prints at that size unframed will go for about £700 in pretty good galleries. However I would note that most clients who are buying art rather than specifically photography are ore interested in the image itself than in extremely close up examinations of the technical excellence or otherwise of the print, and I very much sell to that crowd, rather than to people who are experts in photography in particular. Anyone who knows what the zone system is might spot the difference...

 

[Corius]

How is your camera at making phone calls?

 

[Bob A L]

How much of a big deal is it if you have to blow up to 300% to see it. Most likely phone photos will never be viewed at even 50% (6 mp).

 

[valsan]

How much of a big deal is it if you have to blow up to 300% to see it. Most likely phone photos will never be viewed at even 50% (6 mp).

This, when M43 gets compared with bigger sensor then they say nobody zoom in

 

[Dlee13]

How is your camera at making phone calls?

Don’t recall seeing Sony or Canon’s marketing claiming that your ILC can replace a smartphone

 

[Dlee13]

Some comments from the creator of this video as per SAR:

1) As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments in the video, the 48MP ProRAW is not better than RAW. It's actually worse because there's aggressive processing happening that cannot be undone by the user. If you go to minute 12 of the video you can see that I'm using the 48MP ProRaw file. There's so much processing happening that the details on the wood are completely lost. I've shot the scene with both the 48MP ProRAW and 12MP RAW. With the exception of the text, the 12MP RAW file is actually better than the 48MP ProRAW. Because we can control the ISO, noise reduction, and pretty much everything else in the image.

2) The flower macro shots were actually using the macro lens of the iPhone. It's just impossible to get the GF1 equivalent no matter how hard you try.
On the PCB shot I also chose the lowest ISO the iPhone can handle. And I have some strong lights to light everything. So everything you see on the image is the best case scenario. Things would actually be worse for the iPhone if I didn't adjust for these things.

3) I zoom into 300% because it's easier to see for the audience. Youtube has some pretty bad compression even in 4K videos so if I compared everything at 100% you wouldn't be able to see anything. On my monitor it's very easy to spot these things at 100%

Great video, no surprises, I know many want the flagship phones to be better, but the truth is that especially jpegs are way worse due to huge over processing. The iPhone 14 Pro Max jpegs are pretty poor, with almost no difference to previous models, GSMArena says something similar in their review. The ProRAW and RAW from phones are way better options but they themselves are quite processed with no ability to intervene.

 

[logatom]

Hi,

Can anyone share a RAW file from iPhone 14 Pro/Max (not proRaw) for evaluation? I'd like to see how it lends itself to postprocessing in PS.

thanks in advance

 

[PhotoFactor]

Some comments from the creator of this video as per SAR:

1) As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments in the video, the 48MP ProRAW is not better than RAW. It's actually worse because there's aggressive processing happening that cannot be undone by the user. If you go to minute 12 of the video you can see that I'm using the 48MP ProRaw file. There's so much processing happening that the details on the wood are completely lost. I've shot the scene with both the 48MP ProRAW and 12MP RAW. With the exception of the text, the 12MP RAW file is actually better than the 48MP ProRAW. Because we can control the ISO, noise reduction, and pretty much everything else in the image.

2) The flower macro shots were actually using the macro lens of the iPhone. It's just impossible to get the GF1 equivalent no matter how hard you try.
On the PCB shot I also chose the lowest ISO the iPhone can handle. And I have some strong lights to light everything. So everything you see on the image is the best case scenario. Things would actually be worse for the iPhone if I didn't adjust for these things.

3) I zoom into 300% because it's easier to see for the audience. Youtube has some pretty bad compression even in 4K videos so if I compared everything at 100% you wouldn't be able to see anything. On my monitor it's very easy to spot these things at 100%

Great video, no surprises, I know many want the flagship phones to be better, but the truth is that especially jpegs are way worse due to huge over processing. The iPhone 14 Pro Max jpegs are pretty poor, with almost no difference to previous models, GSMArena says something similar in their review. The ProRAW and RAW from phones are way better options but they themselves are quite processed with no ability to intervene.

Plus - 48RAW is a multistack - sometimes has problem with double/triple lines of moving subjects (especially edges and blurred areas). I would say that GCAM has less problems of this type (based on what i´ve seen so far on the forum). But otherwise and fair to say it is very good - probably best at 24 MPix downsampling, when visibility of extra NR is partly eliminated.

Yes, Google is better at processing than iPhone in my understanding.

 

[Sal Baker]

Some comments from the creator of this video as per SAR:

1) As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments in the video, the 48MP ProRAW is not better than RAW. It's actually worse because there's aggressive processing happening that cannot be undone by the user. If you go to minute 12 of the video you can see that I'm using the 48MP ProRaw file. There's so much processing happening that the details on the wood are completely lost. I've shot the scene with both the 48MP ProRAW and 12MP RAW. With the exception of the text, the 12MP RAW file is actually better than the 48MP ProRAW. Because we can control the ISO, noise reduction, and pretty much everything else in the image.

2) The flower macro shots were actually using the macro lens of the iPhone. It's just impossible to get the GF1 equivalent no matter how hard you try.
On the PCB shot I also chose the lowest ISO the iPhone can handle. And I have some strong lights to light everything. So everything you see on the image is the best case scenario. Things would actually be worse for the iPhone if I didn't adjust for these things.

3) I zoom into 300% because it's easier to see for the audience. Youtube has some pretty bad compression even in 4K videos so if I compared everything at 100% you wouldn't be able to see anything. On my monitor it's very easy to spot these things at 100%

In the video the author also concluded that in most shots the differences were insignificant and were probably caused by old profiles and not the iPhone. Both cameras have features the other doesn’t.



Sal

 

[jacktsai]

The comparison started off with macro photography by arming the GF1 with a dedicated macro lens, then proceed to claim the GF1 destroyed the iPhone. By similar logic, I can claim a $20 USB microscope destroys a GF1 with a macro lens when trying to photograph a grain of salt.

Let's compare apple to apple here, we should be comparing the iPhone to a GF1 with a kit lens or a compact wide angle prime.

The biggest leap of the iPhone 14Pro compared to its predecessors/competitors is its 48MP ProRAW mode. Yet, it's also the very thing the comparison video choose to ignore/bypass. The comparison zoomed into the images at 300% and yet choose to handicap the iPhone by limiting it at 12MP. How about upscaling the 12MP GF1 image to 48MP to match the iPhone's native sensor resolution? iPhone's 48MP ProRAW is readily available on the native camera app, yet the comparison choose to show the 48MP mode as unusable by showing a 3rd party app crashing.

It has been shown repeatedly on this forum and Youtube that the iPhone 14Pro with its 48MP ProRAW mode is capable of matching/exceeding modern APS-C cameras in most situations. Bokeh aside, iPhone 14Pro 48MP ProRAW destroys a GF1 in effective resolution, dynamic range, and noise.

Comparison with Ricoh GR III written by JT26:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66536729

Comparison with Sony A7RIV by WoodWorks:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66483923

Comparison with heavy weights like Sony A1 and Z9 by Jared Polin:

 

[tashley]

I have posted a link to a gallery with a load of them in this forum on the front page.

 

[WoodWorks]

The biggest leap of the iPhone 14Pro compared to its predecessors/competitors is its 48MP ProRAW mode. Yet, it's also the very thing the comparison video choose to ignore/bypass.

Exactly! And this "comparison" is just yet another of many that deliberately ignore the 48 MP sensor tech on the new iPhone main camera. There are so many "reviewers" with serious cases of untreated Apple Derangement Syndrome that it's almost comical.

 

[logatom]

I saw it, downloaded it and even thanked you for the effort. But, unless mistaken, I believe these are proRaws and not regular RAWs. Please let me know.

thanls

 

[geepondy]

Well stated. My thoughts in comparing my Iphone 14 Pro with my Panasonic GX9 with the Panasonic kit 12-60 lens.

-at 12mm, Panasonic noticeably superior than iphone 12 meg. Not unexpected with a bigger 20mp sensor.

-at 12mm, Iphone 48M easily outresolves the Panasonic. I'm amazed by the difference. Maybe I could see slightly better contrast on the Panasonic image but that could possibly exposure differences

-at 77mm (iphone 3x optical lens), the Panasonic is much superior. The iphone photo just breaks apart more easily when blown up. This is the weak point of the phone camera setup in my opinion. Probably next year, Apple will add a big mp sensor to the 3x zoom as well, doing their best to make me feel my then one year old phone is a piece of crap.

-Apple touts the macro as being superior to the 13 pro but I agree with the video, it's still pretty soft when compared to a dedicated macro lens or even the Panasonic 12-60 which focuses pretty close. Also disappointing is the minimum focusing length of the main lens is much longer than previous iphones so once you get close at all, you'll have no choice but to switch to the wide lens.

The comparison started off with macro photography by arming the GF1 with a dedicated macro lens, then proceed to claim the GF1 destroyed the iPhone. By similar logic, I can claim a $20 USB microscope destroys a GF1 with a macro lens when trying to photograph a grain of salt.

Let's compare apple to apple here, we should be comparing the iPhone to a GF1 with a kit lens or a compact wide angle prime.

The biggest leap of the iPhone 14Pro compared to its predecessors/competitors is its 48MP ProRAW mode. Yet, it's also the very thing the comparison video choose to ignore/bypass. The comparison zoomed into the images at 300% and yet choose to handicap the iPhone by limiting it at 12MP. How about upscaling the 12MP GF1 image to 48MP to match the iPhone's native sensor resolution? iPhone's 48MP ProRAW is readily available on the native camera app, yet the comparison choose to show the 48MP mode as unusable by showing a 3rd party app crashing.

It has been shown repeatedly on this forum and Youtube that the iPhone 14Pro with its 48MP ProRAW mode is capable of matching/exceeding modern APS-C cameras in most situations. Bokeh aside, iPhone 14Pro 48MP ProRAW destroys a GF1 in effective resolution, dynamic range, and noise.

Comparison with Ricoh GR III written by JT26:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66536729

Comparison with Sony A7RIV by WoodWorks:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66483923

Comparison with heavy weights like Sony A1 and Z9 by Jared Polin:

 

[sarbos]

This video (in spanish) talks about the the Iphone 14 pro versus the 13 pro camera with some comparations with the Sony A9II.

It says Iphone 14 pro is good but the A9II is better (as one can expect) but not so much better for most of the situations, check this image:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66508086?image=0

 

[paolop23]

Well stated. My thoughts in comparing my Iphone 14 Pro with my Panasonic GX9 with the Panasonic kit 12-60 lens.

-at 12mm, Panasonic noticeably superior than iphone 12 meg. Not unexpected with a bigger 20mp sensor.

-at 12mm, Iphone 48M easily outresolves the Panasonic. I'm amazed by the difference. Maybe I could see slightly better contrast on the Panasonic image but that could possibly exposure differences

-at 77mm (iphone 3x optical lens), the Panasonic is much superior. The iphone photo just breaks apart more easily when blown up. This is the weak point of the phone camera setup in my opinion. Probably next year, Apple will add a big mp sensor to the 3x zoom as well, doing their best to make me feel my then one year old phone is a piece of crap.

-Apple touts the macro as being superior to the 13 pro but I agree with the video, it's still pretty soft when compared to a dedicated macro lens or even the Panasonic 12-60 which focuses pretty close. Also disappointing is the minimum focusing length of the main lens is much longer than previous iphones so once you get close at all, you'll have no choice but to switch to the wide lens.

thanks for sharing. it reflects well what i've seen so far.

I'm thinking about buying the new iphone 14 around black friday and since im not sure if its worth to get the more expensive iphone 14 pro, i am very intersted in a comparison of 48MP pro raw vs 20MP raw from a MFT sensor.

Would you please share a comparison at 12mm, i does not have to scientific. The video linked by the OP seemed pretty biased to me also.