iPhone 7 Plus real-world sample gallery

Are there raws hiding somewhere? There were studio raws. But the link just seems to be jpgs.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

You don't need RAW if you do it right with JPGS.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

FLruckas,

You don't know of what you write.

And the more you post the more your ignorance shows, amongst other issues.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Gios

If you are a good photographer you don't need RAWs.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Gios:

You have no idea of what you write. Are you proud of your ignorance?

Oct 1, 2016permalink

@Gios

He has no clue.

He just likes to put people down.

Have you seen his portfolio?

It's laughable.

The trees with green cast to them....

The lake with no color.

Pffft.

This guy is a serial narcissist.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas:

WB.

"lake with no colour"? Not familiar with lakes and land I see.

"portfolio"?

"green cast", looks to me like there's some problem with your computer. See the WB point.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

If the pictures in your galley are an example of your work....

You should run to an Apple store and buy a phone.

They'd instantly be much better.

You could start by uploading the samples from the phone.

How could you be so ignorant to not even know what images are in your own gallery on DPR?

Are you proud of your ignorance?

:-)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

WB. Learn about it. I'm well aware of the images in my gallery.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

With all due respect....

They really s**k.

Insert uc.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

"respect" isn't your thing, you've lied, you've posted anti-Semitic tripe.

So get a better monitor.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

You should donate your camera gear to charity.

Get a phone that doesn't take pictures.

And find a new hobby.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

I'm fine with my gear, I suggest you fix your monitor.

As for "hobby". That's your imputation.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Even cat pictures would have been better.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

I think that would depend on a number of things.

And it still wouldn't solve your monitor trouble.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

If B&H is closed today.

Why are you posting?

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

Not clear what B+H has to do with anything here.

Spell out your issue.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Even if they're closed today you could go by and drop your camera gear in their donations bin.

That would solve your issue.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

"donations bin"?

"my issue"?

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

You don't play dumb very well......

Based on your images......
It's hard to believe ......
You're giving anyone advice about photography....

Yet you come in here and put people down.

You don't like it when
someone stands up to you
and treats you like you treat other people.

:-)

Oct 2, 2016*permalink

FLruckas:

I stick mostly to commenting on gear, not really the same thing as photography.

If you don't like my images, don't look at them.

It's you who doesn't like being challenged and responds with attacks.

Oct 2, 2016permalink

Bull poo!

:-)

Oct 2, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

Gear is not the same as photography, if you think they're the same, you have more to learn than I'd already posited.

And yes, you posted anti-Semitic garbage yet again.

Oct 2, 2016permalink

Richard Franiec

I guess is O.K. for intended target market and at iPhone screen sizes.
A lot of "Nutella" as they often say at Sigma forum about Bayer sensor.
But most of the users of this device won't be scrutinizing pictures at the pixel level.
And this is the point which validates enthusiast and high end cams existence.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

dharmagreg

What was everybody expecting, medium format quality? For 99.9% of what people will use the camera for it will do the job.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

@M1963 - it's incredibly easy not to click on a piece of content you're not interested in. It's also very, very easy not to type a comment to that effect.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

dharmagreg:

No one was expecting medium format quality.

But people who care know what the Nokia 808 and Panasonic CM-1 can produce.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

The way the image quality of smartphones is hyped up, especially iPhones, you can hardly blame people for expecting medium format quality.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Exactly and that is why compact camera sales are declining because most don't need/want them anymore.
I really feel sorry for the camera specialists because they need volume to stay in business but given the huge decline in demand for compact cameras and prints there is little left to pay the bills with.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

BTW, I don't own a mobile phone, smart or otherwise...

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Franco:

Except a 2010/11 Panasonic LX5 is still vastly better for image quality than this garbage.

That certainly qualifies as a compact camera.

I think you mean a more limited definition of "compact camera", a category that really hasn't sold well for years.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

@M1963

Barney and HowaboutRAW are related, I think.

One is just the more cranky one.

One is obnoxious and the other is cranky.

Can you pick which one?

Barney could choose to practice what he preaches and not whine about people whining.

He too could ignore and click though.

HowaboutRAW is out of control.

He can't control himself.

That's not our problem.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

Everybody knows phones have killed the compact camera market.

The market has spoken.

Slither back under your rock.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

Saying something like are you proud of your ignorance is a put down.

If you can't see that you're like him.

He insults me non stop.

If ignore were available in news, which I've asked for many times he'd be on ignore.

In the meantime, he's not going to go unchecked.

I am not hot, so I don't need to cool down.

I see your point of view.

I don't agree with it.

That's the way it is sometimes.

But I don't expect some to respond to everything Isay incessantly.

That is being badgered.

That's what HowaboutRAW does.

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

Nick Brundle - Photography

The iPhone 7 and 7+'s cameras are crap for image quality compared to the compact LX5, which released in the fall of 2010. Let's not forget the excellent Canon S90, S110, etc.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

@M1963 - Must agree with Mr Britton on this one. Why comment on an article when it doesn't interest you? Go somewhere else if it's below your standards and save us from your pathetic comments.
Your avatar is of Boris Karloff who's real name was William Henry PRATT.
"Pratt" could sum up your profile.
Again no link to any photo's or website in your profile. Wonder why?

Oct 1, 2016permalink

@Nick Brundle....

Barney is too sensitive.....

The Black Eyed Peas song plays in the background..Where is the Love...

Right at the part where they sing ..... practice what you preach......

I do think that M1963's comments look like his avatar most of the time.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

HowaboutRAW
you are confusing what you see and what other photo enthusiasts see and want with what the average person does see and want. I have sold cameras for decades and what I see now is that the average person could not care less that a Pana LX5 (or whatever) takes better photos because the quality they get out of their phone is good enough. No matter how much you go on about phones being crap ,reality is that they are not for Mr Average . Again I don't have a nor use a mobile phone.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FrancoD:

"care" is a different matter, and not real relevant to my point.

The LX5, or an S100, remain significantly better cameras for stills' image quality than this latest iPhone.

I'm not saying "phone [cameras] are crap", I'm saying this "iPhone 7's camera is crap", there's a big difference.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

@FrancoD

If you want to figure out HAR you're gonna need Dr. Phil on speed dial.

:-)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Great. Place yourself outside an Apple shop and tell the customers going in to buy an iPhone that they should buy the LX5 instead. I am sure photo retailers in your area will appreciate your efforts.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FrancoD:

I'm not talking about sales, I'm talking about image quality.

The photo retailers near me of course don't sell the LX5, new at least.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

Try dealing with your own issues, instead of dealing out prescriptions.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

That nose of yours just keeps getting longer and longer.

;-)

Oct 2, 2016permalink

FLruckas:

Again, slipping in the anti-Semitic trope.

It's going to bite someday.

Oct 2, 2016permalink

https://dvd.netflix.com/Search?v1=Pinocchio

Last time I checked Netflix was still renting Pinoccchio.

Longer and longer....

:-)

Oct 2, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

Still with the anti-Semitism.

Netflix is more subscription to than rental of.

Netflix has/stocks the racist "Birth of a Nation", and yes Netflix should stock that movie. You do know that the story of Pinocchio is not original to Disney?

Oct 2, 2016*permalink

Sam Santana

Jesus! what's this site come to when the Senior Editor lashes out to a reader because he questioned the location of an article, not the quality of it, not the opinions expressed within nor did he say it wasn't interesting or worthy of publishing. The comment wasn't offensive to the OP nor to dpreview, in fact it was appreciative that dpreview had in fact created a side-site to cover this type of news and only questioned the decision not to continue with it so I honestly don't see how Barney can justify his response to it.

"M1963
Except that this is a website for photography enthusiasts who demand a little more in the way of image quality. By the way, DPR had done well in creating the Connect microsite; I wonder why they shut it down, because it was the place where this gallery ought to be."

Oct 3, 2016permalink

@Sam

Barney is kinda thin skinned.

He's lashed out like this many times.

It's not new.

I even sent him a private message about it.

He seems like a nice guy but it seems also like it's really easy to upset him.

The other "editors" tend to be more moderate.

So I wouldn't paint DPR with the Barney brush.

At least not just yet...

;-)

Oct 3, 2016*permalink

So raw you're

October 2016 "even if you can't follow the point."
October 2016 "I'm well aware of"
October 2016 "Are you proud of your ignorance?"
September 2016 "And again you posted a significant error."
September 2016 "the more your ignorance shows"
September 2016 "Yes I've visited Seattle. And I stand by my comment."
September 2016 "Here's the link if the hyphen has you stumped:"
September 2016 "Not news. Look up by way of example"
September 2016 "you're clearly no interested"
September 2016 "In other words, and to quote you: "wrong"."
September 2016 "but it's not news."

denying these are your comments?

Oct 3, 2016*permalink

dharmagreg

Hmm, 27 responses and only 3 are related to my original comment.

Oct 3, 2016permalink

M1963:

I think you can figure out the anti-Semitism in the story FLruckas references continually.

Oct 3, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

Yes, I've visited Seattle, and I stand by my comment about the light. It's the kind of thing that's relevant when looking at samples shot in the Seattle area with very high end lenses like this new Nikon 105mm.

You've often posted things that are wrong and ignorant, and you've decided (not above) that insulting my photographs is now your preferred approach. It's not a method that worked out well for...

Oct 3, 2016*permalink

So, raw, when you make these deragatory comments they're about photography?
And everyone else has an "agenda?"
Clever.
Not!
You made ALL of those comments.
You need to man up and own ALL of them.
There is something wrong with someone who needs to talk to people the rude and obnoxious way you do.
You even drive people in these forums to swear.
This doesn't bode well for you.
You could do better.
This is a wake up call.

Oct 4, 2016*permalink

FLruckas,

I rarely comment on photography, I comment on gear. There's a huge difference, learn it.

You're not one to go pointing out ersatz failures by others given your repeated use of an anti-Semitic trope.

Oct 4, 2016permalink

If yer not gonna talk about photography....

Ya might as well get a dog.....

And never take it for a walk.....

:-)

Oct 4, 2016permalink

FLruckas,

This is a gear website, not really a photography website. Learn the difference.

Oct 4, 2016permalink

If you're not gonna talk about photography then why are you fighting with people over PS and PSE?

Oct 5, 2016permalink

Sam Santana

How do I turn this crap off??? I don't care about your personal issues so take it elsewhere you two! give each other your emails and get nice and cosy in private.

Oct 5, 2016permalink

Sam:

FLruckas is not a party I'd share emails with.

Oct 5, 2016permalink

FLruckas:

If you can't see how those PSE 15/14 comments regard gear, you don't know what "gear" means.

Oct 5, 2016permalink

2eyesee

Portrait Mode seems to work pretty well if that's all it's intended for - blurring the backaground when you have a clearly separated foreground.

However, it simply can't cope with more complicated scenes like #15. Here you see a stem completely cut off by blur and some weird blurring around the bud at the bottom of the image as the most obvious problem areas.

I hope DPR do some comparisons with true shallow DOF you get with large sensor cameras to highlight its limitations.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Everlast66

Really?!? There isn't a single image of a cat?

Sep 30, 2016permalink

barrym1966

Cats could move which would make the camera look bad!!

Love how low light makes everything yellow 😂

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Lars Rehm

That's got to do with the street lighting in Madrid, ends up yellow on virtually cameras I have tested here...wonder what that stuff is...

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Noogy

I think his comment had a bit of sarcasm :)

Oct 1, 2016permalink

piratejabez

There are different kinds of street lights... tungsten, flourescent, mercury, sodium, etc... Sodium lights are known for their yellow cast on the color spectrum.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Jaythomasni

No this time on its rats.. tracking shot of rats with iPhone...you get low light performance and tracking on one shot..

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

NoMirror99

When in Madrid do a custom WB on the yellow lights. Problem solved.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

gianstam

No, something must be wrong. The 320 ISO shots would not be so ridiculously bad

Sep 30, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Shocked to be frank, as I reckoned it would have improved somewhat in the 6 years since my Nokia N8. At least in jpeg, it most certainly has not, no.Arethere perhaps RAW files available, as the difference may be huge- as on a G4 LG?

Sep 30, 2016permalink

thejohnnerparty

All things considered, it does a pretty good job - especially in daylight. I would say that the camera isn't up to P&S but it is close enough in most cases. Hey, if you can get a shot and don' t have to carry a camera, that is worth something. I still like cameras, but this is certainly much better than no camera at all!

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

Image 14 shows when portrait mode works. For lots of people, this image will be an example of "good enough". Image 15 and image 9 show when it doesn't work, but for different reasons.

In image 15, have your eyes trace up the stem to the rosebud just to the left of the central subject - the blur looks very unnatural there. I'm assuming there was an error or lack of data in the depth map. Hopefully the algorithm is still a work in progress.

Image 9 shows a problem that is inherent with artificial blur, even if you were to do it in Photoshop while working with a RAW file (even from bigger sensors). Due to the low-light-high-iso situation captured within the image, there's naturally a lot of noise in the image. With the background blurred like that, the difference in grain between the subject's face and the background are distracting and jarring to me. I'd feel the need to add grain to the background in this image.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Seems like you're pixel peeping; we're talking web/social-media images here.

Anyway, this is nitpicking at what is really the herald of the end for a lot of pro photography.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

I wouldn't call viewing the image scaled to roughly 2.8MP (the most resolution that fits my web browser at this aspect ratio on my monitor) pixel-peeping. Image 15 looks very good at this size. If I was pixel peeping, I'd mention the smeared details and mush that's typical with small format sensors.

I may not notice the grain differences while viewing on a smartphone, I'll give you that. And viewing on a smartphone/Instagram is what most people do these days.

The iPhone 7 Plus is *not* the herald of the end of pro photography, haha. It might prove be the herald of the end of the entry-level ILC market, however.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

ceremus

I agree, I think when the light is good and the camera can use a low ISO the portrait effect will work perfectly well for most of anyone. But when you introduce noise with a higher ISO and artificially blur the background, the clearly uneven result makes the subject look like a cardboard cutout.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Seems like really good color and detail from main wide angle lens during the daytime. I think it has a nice lens and the extremely low ISO options (20!) seem to really help.

Low light shots look very noisy compared to high end Androids.

The longer focal length lens seems much weaker. Must be the larger crop factor and slower aperture.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Kevin Barrett

Not bad, Not great. Keeping this all in context, it's a pretty good result for first gen. I expect that the bokeh will get better in subsequent releases. If I were to buy an iPhone today, it would probably have to be the single lens 7. I'm not convinced that the dual cameras are entirely baked at this time.

My ideal phone today would be an iPhone 7 with the Galaxy 7 lens and imager.
Hanging on to the 5s for another year, it's still makes and receives phone calls just fine.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Timbukto

Yes if Samsung goes with a dual lens concept it will be better just due to larger optic/sensor stack which seriously becomes a constraint with the f/22 equivalent iPhone tele. I used to think the Samsung camera bump was ugly, but by the time you put on a nice case it becomes recessed again anyhow. And the larger optic stack can put it in a much sweeter zone for quality, say perhaps a f11 equivalent would make a massive difference.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

DualSystemGuy

Wow, even by ISO 80 the image is completely destroyed by NR or whatever processing they are doing (image 3,6,7 etc.) Very disappointing from a quality perspective, They all look like pastel/water paintings to me. I know it's just a smartphone, but it's a very expensive one and it's shocking how bad it is. Even the ones taken in bright sunlight are extremely soft. The higher ISO shots are barely unusable. Many other phones have both cleaner high ISO shots, and clever HDR modes to blend exposures and drastically reduce noise.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

turvyT

Thanks Lars, nice colors, and cool dpr Madrid-Seattle connection (really blue skies (phones) vs. really cloudy ones (cameras)). Not the worst bokeh I have seen in my life. With objects, flowers, it works; with people, too rough the transition between in focus and out of focus. After that strange studio scene, this device seems to work.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

jkokich

If you don't like the shots, don't buy the phone. I think the shots look great.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

ondrejbobek

Low-light pictures with zoom are not from tele-lens (as says the description). It's just a cropped image from wide-angle lens (see aperture and focal length).

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Lars Rehm

that is true. It appears when you zoom in low light the camera decides to use digital zoom rather than optical...because light levels are too low to achieve a sufficiently fast shutter speed with the F2.8 aperture of the longer lens.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Lars Rehm

to your original point, they were taking at tele setting, but not with the tele lens...which is a decision made by the camera app. I'll change the wording.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

farhadvm

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Dylthedog

How many of the folks here laughing at the quality (or lack there of) listen to MP3s? Same deal. People trade quality for convenience and then lower quality becomes normal.

Don't underestimate the power of 'good enough' for the general population. There are probably plenty who still enjoy vinyl and CD's (we all love our art, right?), but convenience is a real winner as MP3s have demonstrated.

Try saying 'bokeh' to the average person, let alone explain what a good one looks like.

This is just another chip away at our love, our art, for the masses. The saddest thing is I'll be using it I expect...

Sep 30, 2016permalink

otto k

Um, no.

While phones are advancing and already nicely cover most of users' needs in not challenging light, comparison to mp3 is deeply flawed. MP3 is JPEG. We all (most?) use jpeg (mp3) even if we shoot raw (flac and the like).

Sep 30, 2016permalink

maboleth

Yes, and I dare you to tell the difference between goodly edited 8bit JPG 12 and a tiff, for example. Nonexistent, both in print and on the screen.

But I got what Dylthedog tried to say - mostly, convenience is above the superior quality. In fact, if we talk about the music, the current trends are not doing quality a favour, but loudness. Loudness war is STILL around.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

MP3s at 196kbps encoded with a modern encoder, in joint stereo and vbr, pass double-blind tests as indistinguishable from FLAC and CD (and also 24bit 192Kbps playback, which can actually be worse if the amp isn't up to it).

FLAC and the rest are just a waste of space. Amazon was forced to 320kbps and other formats because of this enduring myth.

Nevertheless, a typical 128kbps MP3 does have dreadful audio quality. And I woulddn't trust an MP3 from an unknown source. But if I'm encoding my own CDs then I encode to mp3 for flexibility.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

And if you doubt me you can conduct a double-blind test yourself; all the tools for it are available on the web and it's not difficult.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

jeffwunder

If you can't tell the difference between 192k mp3 and a good 24bit flac then you need better pair of headphones. Generally over $1000.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

"If you can't tell the difference between 192k mp3 and a good 24bit flac then you need better pair of headphones. Generally over $1000."

This kind of thing has been accounted for. (And I use etymotics, btw).

Do a double-blind test and you'll see there is no difference between well encoded mp3s and FLAC. But sure, 'well encoded' is the catch, and at least FLAC guarantees you won't be tripped up.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

James Wages

@jeffwunder But if my $1001 headphones cannot differentiate between a 320 MP3 with VBR and a good 24b FLAC, do I then need to step up to $10,001 headphones?

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Edward Greenberg

Very good analogy. Recently I offered my Cd player to my son-in-law who comes from a family of professional singers, and he declined noting that he has no use for it. He also takes product shots with his iphone. I fear this is the future.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

jeffwunder

@James Wages Ah! You want a Sony MDR-R10.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Dylthedog

@otto k, I understand your point, MP3 and JPEG are both lossy compressed media files.

What I was pointing out is the knock-on effect on gear. All cameras now shoot JPEGs, but how many people buy high quality CD players and proper amps now? MP3 (and variants) have wiped that stuff out for all but enthusiasts.

Apple's 'blurred background' filter or whatever it is will do the same to cameras, for the masses. For many people buying a camera, that is the look they want. Now their phone will do it, many just won't take that next step. Not everyone of course, but I'm willing to say it will be a decent number, and that will further hurt an industry that's already struggling, hurting us down the line.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

" But if my $1001 headphones cannot differentiate between a 320 MP3 with VBR and a good 24b FLAC, do I then need to step up to $10,001 headphones?"

I realise you're not asking me but save your self a fortune: go to a hifi shop with $10,000 headphones and do a double-blind test. You won't be able to tell the sources apart.

Also, 24bit 192Khz FLAC is also indistinguisheable from CD or a well encoded MP3. The human ear has definite limits, and they were reached a long time ago. 24bit is only useful to sound processing for avoiding the noise floor and dynamic range when applying equalisations and sound effects. Double-blind tests were the reason that SACD failed. Meanwhile, a 192Khz file (even if 16bit) can cause issues with amps and introduce audio artifacts, ie, degrade the audio.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

The MP3 myth, and related, are caused by a phenomena called 'expectation bias' and the fact that our audio memory is extremely short (like 2 seconds). Sure, once the brain has abstracted the music then the result is a long memory, but we're not computers and it seems we don't store audio.

And for good headphones. Assuming a transparent amp then speakers and headphones are the final audio problem which is as yet not completely solved and where you should chuck the money. ($10,000 amps vs $1000 don't pass double blind tests, so it's merely a matter of wattage). However, you can save a lot by judicious equalisation. Taking in to consideration Fletcher–Munson curves, bass and treble usually need a boost, especially if you want to hear very low bass (which are otherwise masked by higher bass). Some people buy headphones with supposed flat bass, but that doesn't account for Fletcher–Munson curves. Even better to fine tune the equalisation. See the Accudio app for iphone.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Lan

Not a fan of the fauxkeh.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

I'm a bokeh nut and I think it looks great.

Pity it's married to a subpar smartphone camera setup.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Lan

@The Name is Bond: To each their own! I think the fauxkeh is reasonable; but some of the transitions from in focus to bokeh are mangled. The peach coloured rose is a mess:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5295996936/iphone-7-plus-preview-samples/2963043148
The stem of the bud to the left of the rose itself is particularly bad. For simple scenes it works OK, but for complex ones... FAIL!

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

xanderross

SLRY ? Even my old Lumia 920 is doing better photos... It's that DXO says it's one of the best camera phone ? please tell me it's a joke...

Sep 30, 2016permalink

I can't see anything that beats the 6/6s series for image quality, so I'm not sure how it scored that high at DxO.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

dlb41

These look good on my phone as long as I don't zoom in. The portrait mode is fine but I always like to see what's going on in the background. They're great for social media, though 8×10s will be fuzzy.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

zackiedawg

The results as far as I can see from these samples seem to be very similar to what was produced by various P&S and phones with the 'background defocus' app or scene function. I had seen this on some older Sony P&S models and from a distance or for viewing on a phone screen, the results were usually OK, but as soon as any closer inspection was made, it was often missing fine edges like hair, or had strange transitions, parts of the subject that were close yet still blurred, and bits of background sharper. Despite the 2-lens setup, this doesn't seem to be that much different or any better - it's still badly blurring/softening edges around the face & hair. I won't bother comparing to large sensors, long lenses, or fast glass - just comparing to P&S cameras w/background defocus', the results don't look different...maybe with some firmware updates they can strengthen the depth perception of the two lenses - but hair and fine edges are likely always going to be a problem.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Yeah, I get the same kinds of errors using the Google Camera app on my single lens phone. Works good if the scene is really simple, but otherwise it is kind of comical.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Terry Breedlove

Loving the Bokeh effect for portrait shots intended for my social media work. Going to upgrade to the 7 plus even though I already have a 6s plus. I want that two lens capability as well.

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Model Mike

It seems good enough that it could be a half serious tool albeit in rather specific conditions (low ISO, low scene DR). It's not going to make me throw away my GR (nothing would!), but it's another dent at the low end.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Seems like people want this to fail, and it also seems like the IQ plays right into their hands.

Basically, if Apple didn't market it the way they did these images would probably be received more favourably, but the implication that the iPhone could compete with DSLRs was always going to be a tough ask.

Of course there's going to be a difference, but the fact is that this is technology bridging the gap and for a lot of people that's going to be enough to not have to carry around a separate camera.

For me, the iPhone 7 is enough when I can't be bothered to bring my cameras with me, and that's great.

When people pay for photography they're gonna need more or better, but when it's convenience and snapshots and the like the iPhone is pretty unbeatable. It's what most people use as a camera so any improvement in spec and features is welcome, surely?

Sep 30, 2016permalink

Mr Birk

Please... it's never going to be substitute for at real camera. The fact that the aperture is fixed and sensor small means it's never going to do the job. If this rings your bell, you have extremely low demands for your camera IQ.

If you want something small, lightweight, good IQ... get an RX100 or something a like.

Sep 30, 2016permalink

ybizzle

A nice affordable compact camera like the Leica M with a 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH will go a long way in supplying you with superb IQ that your phone will never match. It's light, simple, portable, and discrete. What more do you need in a camera?

Sep 30, 2016*permalink

Mk7

That's funny. Leica M costs more than my car. The lens does too!
Mr Birk:
"Please... it's never going to be substitute for at real camera."
Um... it all ready is.
"If this rings your bell, you have extremely low demands for your camera IQ."
Millions and millions of people do, apparently.

Oct 1, 2016permalink

ybizzle

MK7 it's all relative. If I was driving a $500 car, the iPhone 7 would cost more. Not sure what your point is here. A used Leica M is much cheaper than say a Nikon D5 or Canon 1DXII with similar top end lens setup. Plus it's smaller and much more portable, just like any mobile phone!

Oct 1, 2016*permalink

HaHA.

Mr Birk - didn't really get the point, but thanks for coming back to me. Why get an RX100 when I've got a camera on my phone that's great for quick snapshots. If I want to up the quality I would have probably brought along my XT1, XT2, X100T, or one of my Nikons.
The point is that for most people the camera on their iPhone is good enough and now they don't have to buy a RX100 and carry two things. See?

Mk7 - You're in the wrong market. There aren't many people thinking that they should really be thinking of a Leica M instead of bringing along their iPhone to the beach, but if you did ask them they would also explain to them that they're not interested in that kind of photography. Are you suggesting that anybody who has bought a 'real' camera doesn't use their iPhone, or do they just reach in the bag and pull out a Leica every time there's an IG moment?

Oct 1, 2016permalink

Mk7

Just like any phone? when was the last time you saw someone slide that overpriced Leica dinosaur into a pants pocket? Even if I were to go tha route, I'd take an Rx1R II all day. But why even bring up cameras that are out of reach for the average American, let alone the average Earthling?
The fact is, for the way most people use most photos these days, the quality difference between phones and "real cameras" is not big enough to justify carrying a "real camera," even for big moments.
People like us have higher standards and still carry cameras, but we are a rapidly shrinking minority.

Oct 2, 2016permalink

MK7 is right.

The trend towards decrying a camera phone is, by now, irrelevant. In fact, it's impossible to suggest that using a Leica, Nikon, Sony, Canon, Whatever (Camera A) over a Phone Camera (Camera B) will produce better photographs one way or the other.

Yes, if one was to point Camera A with Summicron whatever at a cat, and at the same time and from the same location one uses Camera B to capture the same sleeping cat, then it might be apparent that Camera A's rendition is more pleasing to the eye, or sharper, or more natural, or whatever your pleasure with pictures is. It might be more of that.

But if that renders the Camera B picture useless then it follows that there should be no point in using Cameras B for any photography.

If you don't own Camera A and it's not worth the £££ it costs to buy the thing just so you can grab a throwaway snapshot of the cat, you're stuffed.

Oct 2, 2016permalink

You're unable to use camera B (which you own) because you just don't think you should - the quality of the picture could never be as authentic or real as the picture that camera A can produce, so the picture of the cat can't exist.

In this situation, which camera would produce the better photograph? Camera A can't compete with Camera B in this scenario because Camera A is a pointless purchase for (made up statistic) 90% or people who take photographs. Whether that makes that demographic a "photographer" or not is merely a point of view, & nobody wins that argument.

What doesn't work is when brand loyal "real" photographers claim ownership of photography itself, presumably because they have some kind of secret knowledge that the average Joe can't possibly know.

They're usually Leica owners, & they usually do things like misquote Henri Cartier Bresson in an attempt to further mystify their aloof & elite out of context understanding of "what makes a good photograph"

It 'aint a Leica.

Oct 2, 2016permalink

Sid911

As expected - the daytime shots are really nice. But the night shots are poor and the fake bokeh thing, I am just hoping they are still refining their algorithms and its not an end product. Because if it is - its meh!

Sep 30, 2016permalink

ybizzle

Tired of these small sensor camera phones. Panasonic had it right with the CM1. Too bad the overall experience of that phone was a let down. We need to up the sensor size in phones to increase the image quality.

That being said, the image quality is no better or worst than the top end phones from the last couple years.

Sep 30, 2016permalink