iPhone 15 Pro sample gallery: Do its high-res photos measure up?

“The best camera is the one you have with you.” But this specifically one ruined good taste and art

As an Apple technician said: "An iPhone is not a camera, it is a computer". Now, who wants to shoot with a computer and get artificial unnatural results?

"Now, who wants to shoot with a computer and get artificial unnatural results."

Says someone who obviously doesn't understand how a modern Bayer-sensor-based camera works...

Most people don't pixel peep though. And most don't print. So it's good enough for digital sharing.

@Bebot I don't pixel peep either. I just zoomed 100% and got horrified. Imagine the straight out of the sensor data without all the AI tricks and multiple exposures

90% who use use their phone cameras don’t use their phone cameras the way you do.

“Best tool for the job”… I wouldn’t use a phone to do birding or wild life photography simply because I want the option to crop heavily if that is what is needed. Not to mention AF and all the control options a good camera provides.

However… all those instagramers, and facebookers, etc etc. Well the likes of an awesome A9III, Z8, R5, and so one are all way way over blown? Also takes away that use case of adhoc photography that those people do.

Last but not least… not all of the pictures I or other take deserve the whole process of getting on a PC, editing, and all of that before you share or post it.

Horrified? Really? You must scare quite easily.

I do not think you want full raw from a phone. It is probably not pretty and hard to handle.

The raws here are Apple ProRAW, which is the format used when you choose to shoot in raw in the built-in Camera app. It is a "real raw" file underneath, but Apple takes the additional step of demosaicing the data and then applying its computational photography (including noise reduction and multiple blended exposures) to create the end result. You can use third party apps such as Halide to shoot just in raw, which do need more work when editing. We chose to stick with what the Camera app produces for this sample gallery, since that's what most people will encounter.

@Jeff L Carlson "Apple takes the additional step of demosaicing the data and then applying its computational photography (including noise reduction and multiple blended exposures) to create the end result."
So, it is not a real RAW...
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raw.html

@madeinlisboa I guess it depends on how particular you want to be. ProRAW is a DNG with additional information that Apple and Adobe collaborated on to add to the DNG spec. Yes, the file is not the same as the pure sensor data, but that data is still in there. Does that mean it's not a "real" raw file? Sure if you want to split hairs. But to say "phones don't have real raw" is false; it's just that the Camera app doesn't access that specific data. As I mentioned above, you can use a third-party app to capture just the raw if you want.

Do you mean image #5? The image with a red plank and several green cypresses? It is unsharp at the extreme right but not at the extreme left. But, other than that, it is equally sharp all over. But, of course, the cypresses looks weird, much more weird than normal. The AI probably had some bright idea there.

Yes this one, exactly! Not only the cypresses on left, all left is weird. Decentered lens.

OK, now I see what you mean when I zoom way in and look at the far left and far right edges. I see that on the original HEIC file, too. My guess would be it's an artifact of the image processing pipeline. I don't remember if it was windy, so it could be movement of the cypresses that didn't get entirely frozen during the multiple-image capture process.

However, I'm not seeing "all left is weird" as you describe. Are you looking at the downloaded image file?

Jeff, I think we are only talking different "languages". I guess Viking is referring to that everything is unsharp along the extreme right edge. And yes, it is, so it cannot be the bushes that are moving in the wind. And it would be very strange if this was made by the processing. If this is nothing that can be found in any other image, then I would blame either the shake reduction system or that the user moved the camera. But, if it can be found elsewhere, then the lens is probably decentered.

I was waiting for someone to mention this. Photos, especially landscapes at 48MP all look blurry to me when 100%. Not sure if its the physical limitations of the lens or what but they look pretty trashy IMHO. zoomed out at like 4K or 8MP, whatever, looks tack sharp but you obviously just compress all the detail...

To be fair, the photos are way better than the voice, data, and all associated apps and services that a camera can deliver.

I have a wonderful grip that I attach my phone to when I want to use it more seriously as a camera. It's lightweight, charges my phone as I go and gives me remote shutter possibilities as well. No, it will not provide images as good as a real camera, but I don't care. I get some decent images out of it.

@notwitholding, it's the adonit camera grip for phones. I bought it more for novelty, but I find myself using it quite a bit and enjoy it.

And yet here we are- the better sensor has a crappy screen, and smart phones rule the photography world…

@J0n Sn0w you mean, the crappy point and shoot shots from phones, litter the internet

A phone may not have the best ergonomics but I really don't see how you can say that it's not easy to use. It's exactly the opposite, it's enormously easy to use as there is only one button to press.

Yes, they litter the internet- although I’ve seen equally bad shots done by fullframe photographers 🤣

@lighthunter80 more efficient format, saving space in iCloud or on a device for instance.

I now understand it's a bit early. Instagram does not support AVIF yet. The photos look like psychedelic art. 😁

As far as I know, the main (only?) benefit of AVIF is that is a free format. HEIF has patents and limitations. Regarding image quality at the same compression, they are kind of similar.

I agree on the tendency. Which is why it’s good to explore for oneself a bit more methodically.

But yeah, human nature.

I both agree and disagree. Yes, we see what we want to see. It is very difficult not to do that. But there is a strange behavior in all sample galleries of high end phone cameras: the inconsistency regarding getting the water color effect. Cameras with bigger sensors and bigger lenses do not have that behavior. Sure, phone cameras are really several cameras that is switched between. That might be one reason. But, I try to read the caption regarding what camera that has been used. And still, I get surprises.

One problem with the images above is that they are taken with such different settings. Different cameras are used. Sometimes it is 12 MP and sometimes it is 48 MP and sometimes it is the simulated 28 and 35 mm lenses. And sometimes it is RAW and sometimes some enhancements might be turned off. Too many variables. To really understand, the same image shall be taken with all settings and kombination of settings. Too much work and a boring article.

You are absolutely right. The raws are much better, thanks for pointing that out. But I am not sure what I actually see there. It is a dng file which for some reason my ipad can display. Is there some embedded preview in the dng? The milky way for instance has a terrible artifact at the very bright stars with black areas inside the stellar disk. The raw file still shows it but to a much reduced amount.

@ml6 - do keep in mind that mikyway shot is at 12 MP, not 48MP. Look at the RAW of 48MP with the books on the table. Look at the book behind the first book- you can see *all* the texture of the book. Really quite something.

Shots at night sure will present more challenge for all cameras. Still the 12 MP raw looks rather good I would say.

Keep in mind also that looks like a 10 second exposure... if you don't have something to track the sky the stars will blur a bit.

@RealRaist3d Oh, I overlooked the 12MP. But it doesn’t matter anyway as I was only interested to know what “raw” here actually is. It certainly isn’t the actual data from the chip. The milkyway shot was just an example. And don’t I have to load a dng into something like Lightroom to see anything?

The 48MP raws are indeed amazing and they clearly illustrate the terrible overprocessing and oversharpening the iPhone does - almost always halos around edges and thin lines like telegraph wires. No way to remove them later.

I do think, though, that the phone does a very good job at processing harsh illumination like the leaves in #35. Doing this yourself is kind of hard. Pretty much every outdoor picture shows blue skies with clouds (weather permitting) while cameras tend to produce washed out skies you have to fix yourself in post.

"One problem with the images above is that they are taken with such different settings."

Yes, this was definitely a challenge, and I wanted to get several examples to compare the resolutions. Apple has made things quite complicated just under the surface.

You should check out the RAW file of that shot. Looks amazing and not blown out. Many cameras would also blow that out on that contrast with their JPEG engines.

@RealRaist3d Most “real cameras” are horrible at delivering HDR, unless you use “third party software” like Lightroom 13 and RAW files.

How come?

My Panasonic Lumix S5 has a more or less proprietary HLG stills format, requiring using “special software” to view the result. As if they never even heard about the HEIF/HEIC format.

How come?

No wonder, that smartphones dominate the HDR scene - especially for stills. Even for RAW/DNG formats. Not every phone user is willing or able to invest in an Adobe subscription with associated PC and hard to come by affordable HDR monitors. Especially since most users of modern smartphones already have a near perfect HDR capable screen anyway.

Does it really matter if you only have your iPhone? No, of course not. One of the prints I still get the most compliments on is an 11x14 shot on a 1.1MP Canon digital point and shoot.
it just makes me sad to watch people who don’t understand the fundamentals of picture quality try to say that this iPhone is as good as real camera.

I’m sure in the next 10 years they will surpass anything but 8 x 10 transparencies but for now phones are still second best.

I'm with you, Alex: folks who add-up the numbers and think that 'more is better' may be confusing Quantity with Quality. Happens a lot, yes?

And: a quick note to those having read this Article's Headline and focussed on just the "high-res" part: I suggest that the phrase to notice is "measure up".

To my mind, a photo measures-up far more because of its theme and composition than the number of pixels involved. Many folks would very happy, indeed, to record something memorable with a 5MP Point 'n Shoot Canon, and would never feel that they could have done better with some, snazzy, 'high-res' Creation that might be more at home on a Space Station, peering into a distant Galaxy.

This article is clearly aimed at high res. Sure, 5 MP might float your boat. But, this is not what this article is about. Here DPReview is looking at 48 MP to see if it can give you more than 12 MP.

And then people only pixel peeped the jpegs, and judged the entire camera by that. Which is a bit amusing considering this is dpreview, a land where you very often encounter the "I only shoot RAW" people. :-)

So perhaps then having cameras in the phone is the smallest solution?
How about a Z Fold? They are pretty darn small, and has a 66mm equivalent and a 50MP sensor behind it

I don’t even know what that is :)
I use an ancient iPhone to make phone calls.
I’m not interested in photography with telephones.

I actually enjoy shooting on an iPhone. I grew up with SLRs and DSLRs, etc. I find iPhones liberating in many ways and help spur my creativity.

So your basing your comments on anncient phones rather than current phones?
These phones now contain multiple cameras so perhaps think of them as multi camera devices that do lots of other stuff.
The z -fold is a Samsung that folds in the centre of a portrait style screen. Folds in half.
Makes it super small and fits your pocket. Comes with than near 70mm and 50mp sensor.
You can easily get add-ons that make it more like a camera to hold.
Perhaps evaluate one?

@Ephemeris

"You can easily get add-ons that make it more like a camera to hold."
Why not getting a real one, then??

@madeinlisboa
Cameras that as part of smart phones are indeed real
Not fake
Not fictitious
Not works of the dream world

Moreso you get more than one thrown in for good measure.
So, why not get a real one is tricky to answer when you have a real one.

@Roland - did you check the 48MP raw DNG files?

I don't like to name brands, but I've seen much better photopgraphs from at least two other phones. I'm not against phone cameras, they are what they are, and very practical indeed. But these pics look in general bad for a front line phone .

So, lets talk physics. For small apertures it is diffraction that sets the limit. And the diffraction limit for the subject (e.g. in arcseconds) is only determined by the diameter of the aperture. The sensor in IPhone15 Plus is 8x6 mm, which is approx. 1/4 of a FF sensor (or 1/16 of the area). This means that the f-stop needs to be four times smaller for an iPhone than for an FF camera for the same resolution. So, this is a mapping between FF to iPhone for diffraction. We are assuming a very good lens.

* FF / iPhone
* 2.0 / 0.5 = stellar (impossible for mobile camera)
* 4.0 / 1.0 = very good (unlikely for mobile camera)
* 8.0 / 2.0 = good
* 11.0 / 2.8 = acceptable
* 16.0 / 4.0 = not good
* 22.0 / 5.6 = bad

The full opening for iPhone 15 Plus is f/1.6. So, regarding diffraction the lesn is somewhere in between good and very good on the above scale.

But ... f/1.6 is not a small aperture relative to the focal length. You cannot make that diffraction limited. So, in practice it is probably much worse. And if you stop the lens down you will make it even worse due to diffraction.

Note also that using digital zoom will make it worse. If you zoom 2x for your eq 24 mm lens to make it eq 48 mm, then that is the same as halving the aperture diameter regarding diffraction and your IQ will move from good to not good in the table above.

@Roland - you know what beats theoretical stuff that may be wrong after all? Seeing the DNG's for real, for yourself. Have you done that yet?

They are there. I saw them. Theory needs to match what you can see. Otherwise maybe there's a mistake or not a very good theory.

@RealRaist3d,

I think what I see here and elsewhere confirms the theory quite well.

And, diffraction is not only some kind of theory that needs to be proven, it is for real and we have known that for ages. "Theory" does not in this case mean "assumption", it means "theoretical", which in this case is well proven.

One thing that very nicely shows that the theory is correct is that (almost) all images above are taken with lens wide open. There are no f/5.6 images. Because they would look like crap.

Look at my table above. If you can have an f/2.0 lens on your phone, the images have the potential to be good, resolution wise. And that is what we see. If you try to use 48 MP, then it is not really all that sharp up front. Because the images are only "good". To resolve 48 MP they need to be "excellent".

Then we have the AI generated pictures where the phone tries to go beyond physics. Then it looks only weird up front. Sure, in the future we might have good enough AI so that it can draw 48 MP sharp images that look very stellar and real. But we are not there yet. And the day it happens, we are not making photos any more.

So no, theory holds quite well.

The main camera, in bright light, and without digital crop, can produce decent results. This is as true for the latest Pixel phones as it is for the latest iPhones.

Step out from that comfort zone and things can go downhill rapidly.

@Roland Karlsson - smile - I always get confused when looking at high end camera images. No picture or style is alike. It’s as if photographers do not care one bit about creating exactly similar images from exactly the same vantage points with the same lenses; making comparisons between the images completely impossible ;-)

Sorry; couldn’t resist (can you forgive).

I think number 4 is under water , frozen water .

I have to agree here. The main camera at 24 mm is the best, sporting the largest sensor. I shot the 14 Pro underwater a lot this year and while quite a few images are of good quality (considering the setup), some are strangely rendered, though lighting was roughly similar. I was also surprised that some of the telephoto shots came out quite ok.

I still have not figured out when the aquarelle mode kicks in, and why. Often it does not seem to make sense.

Did any of you check the RAW DNG files? They look pretty darn sharp to me.

To clarify, #4 is shot looking down at water on a clear day. 🍁

Thanks for clarifying Jeff. It looked that way to me but I also thought there was a possibility that it was starting to freeze over.

That’s why I have an 11 pro, it’s a good phone with normal size.

I love HDR with Lightroom. I was at Niagara Falls recently and did the more or less conventional shots there with my Panasonic S5IIx, and in RAW. They were so-so in SD, but when I processed them in HDR they were truly spectacular. it was a bright day, with the sun glistening off the water, and that detailed cloud of mist coming up from the falls reaching for the sky. You need a HD display for this, but I have a good HD display.

I was initially interested in HDR with Lightroom because I shoot HDR video and want to incorporate some still shots in the video. This is always a hassle, and never comes out quite right. But with Lightroom HDR it works perfectly.

@winnegehetoch "That may be true for stills, but it is one of the most poplar professional video cameras where a light weight video camera is required, especially in live streaming. Black Magic now makes an application that turns an iPhone into a fixed lens Black Magic Pocket"

Also iPhone 15 Pros now lets you record video out to SSDs, which is a huge step up in utility. I've had a 15 Pro just a couple of days and I'm already out shooting ProRes video on a SSD. It is really convenient; I shoot the video, and pull the SSD and edit it directly on my computer.

@Charles Hull. Did you not notice, what I wrote?

The iPhone is a competent video camera, especially on “walkabouts”, but lets not kid ourselves. It is not in the same league as 5.9k 12-bit ProRES RAW. The iPhone is more flexible, and easier to carry around, but that’s all.

External recordings are nice to have. I prefer to do the same internally (nothing dangling around) and periodically transfer 100+ GigaByte of data (~ 1000 seconds) ProRES 422HQ to a powered hub with internal NvME disk, topping off the battery power in the iPhone at the same time (typically requiring let’s say 5 minutes).

If I need to do five hours in one go, I still need a tripod, powerbank (or AC power) and all that jazz.

Regards

Viewing on phone screen sure, why even need the latest iPhone.

Not sure I agree. How many big prints can you do and do you live in a country estate to display them all? Or do you make gargantuan coffee table books? I don’t have big issues with ergonomics…. I think it’s only one of those things you notice if you own/try several different cameras. Otherwise, it’s a matter of accommodating to what you have. The person driving the Toyota doesn’t spend his time wishing he had the comfort of a Mercedes…
I personally enjoy the process of ‘perfecting’ my images in post and looking at them months and years later. Like re-experiencing the moment…

The predecessor of the smartphone was the point and shoot, not the DSLR. And when P&S sensors reached 4 or 5 MP in the early 2000s, it was plenty good enough for most people.

Sounds like you need to practice with your canon more.

Sportyaccordy; and even then it's a matter of false pride

@Arek Halusko you are demonstrating the level of disingenuity and hyperbole needed to rationalize $x,xxx camera kits for general photography.

I am not immune, I have an A7III kit collecting dust, but I am running out of reasons to keep it.