iPhone 11 Pro sample gallery (DPReview TV)

They look better than recent Sony $1000 cameras to my eyes. Great color and tone!! Sure you can nitpick but as a whole, these pictures look great. Definitely better than my Nikon D5300 un-edited. DSLRs are so dumb that you need to edit HEAVILY. Whereas smartphones are SMART and you actually use the pic right away!

Oct 9, 2019*permalink

Oak Park Dave

I don't work that hard for everyday images. I convert to dng and batch process to my taste in Lightroom 4. Once you get a look you like it is pretty automatic. You can get a D3500 with the 18-55 and the 70-300 for less than $500 from the New York stores. Add a 35 1.8 and you're still under $700. Add a couple of used sb-26s and use the built in optical slaves to slip the constraints of "available light" photography and you still haven't hit $900! This makes for a far more versatile tool than a cell phone for soccer parent duties. I know it's not what the Apple marketing deparement wants to hear, but the only thing that MIGHT make me consider a $1000 phone is 5G. Until then the iphone that is currently in my pocket is perfectly fine for all my small sensor visual note-taking needs.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Mark Turney

Not making a value-judgement, but in today’s world:

Decent + done now > Perfect + pp/edit later

Oct 9, 2019permalink

I truly agree!

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Oak Park Dave

Mark Turney -
True. Immediate gratification is a major draw. I do use a cell phone at times. I've actually sold a few photos taken with a cell phone because the thing is always in my pocket. Processing an iphone shot for an 8x10 print requires more work than I prefer. :) I will say that the ascendancy of the cell phone at athletic events has reduced a lot of competition. We're still a few years away from the Gigapixel+ sensors needed to match an 20mp APS-C camera with a 300mm lens.

Oct 11, 2019permalink

Based on many comments here...they should rename it....Iphone X Good Enough. ;-)

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Bilbo_bobbins

ha a lot of snobbery here, for most people this is more than enough for pictures they want. Those who use a DSLR like everyone who visits this site, its not. For me, who doesn't need to carry a massive camera, its enough for snap shots.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

martindpr

Overly processed. Very noticeable fakeh for the trained eye. Nice if you're a computer geek/programer. Low pride of ownership for the rest of us who've shot F0.95, F1.2 primes...

Oct 9, 2019permalink

BoredErica

Studio scene with phone pls.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Nikonese

Goodbye Nikon D850.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Oct 9, 2019permalink

JEasley

How do these look printed? I guess that doesn’t matter if you’re shooting with a phone, assuming most will only be seen on a phone via social.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Newton Leonardo

Fake bokeh is visibly detected easily from mars.
Well, actually not - but you get what I mean.. These photos might actually good enough for some people

But not for us who already knew the glory of 35, 50, or 85mm can deliver in portraiture.. now those, are the real deal.

These samples -yes, wonderful people tho- just seems like another childish attempt of annoyingly "better" fake bokeh forced into end user.
For me, they're not good at all.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

XeroJay

So good...Google better have some serious magic in their Pixel 4 if they want to beat this.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Bronto99

I am reminded of that annoying kid who keeps showing off some unimpressive skill over and over again until you want to strangle him. Stop already, it gives me a headache to look at those pictures Apple. Subtlety can be your friend.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Well since you can control the amount of fake bokeh, or even turn it off, you can be as subtle as you want. If looking at these photos gives you a headache, it was kind of stupid for you to click on the article and then look at them. But hey, at least you got to comment. *thumbs-up*

Oct 9, 2019*permalink

Bronto99

Well thumbs up to you too good sir, you really put me in my place with your clever remark and sharp criticism of my viewing habits. Bravo!

Oct 10, 2019permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

*Zing*

You're welcome.

Oct 10, 2019*permalink

createrio

On my way to a 17-day Japan trip I stopped in New York for three days. Bought a planned EOS R with 25-105 and 15-35 and then went to Apple store to see the new iPhones. They had the 11 Pro in stock, so I bought one. Went around the city shooting for two days straight with both devices. At the end of the second day my shoulders were killing me from lugging the camera backpack (I tend to walk around for at least 8-10 hours per day when traveling for tourism). On the evening before the trip, I compared the photos. I was uneasy about the prospect of not taking a DSLR to my first trip to Japan, such a photogenic place, but the iPhone was good enough with the 3-lens focal and the world won’t miss more noise-free shots of Kyoto that much, while my memories won’t be ruined by the constant shoulder pain. So I left the EOS R at a friend’s place and brought only the phone (with Halide and Lightroom apps, plus a laptop for additional processing).

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Temp Username

Do you work for Apple? :-)

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Terrible Photographer

This is where Micro 4/3rds really shines. EOS R lenses so big

Oct 9, 2019permalink

createrio

Yes, it's a big system, the lenses are still very heavy. My purchase was for work since I use EOS full frame and I needed a second body, so I thought I could take it for a spin for this one trip while I'm at it. At one point I was actually contemplating getting an EOS M body with some lenses to use for both work and play, but I didn't find it justifiable.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Terrible Photographer

That 28-70/2 is one of, if not the best zoom lens I’ve ever seen in my life

Oct 9, 2019permalink

walker2000

Good enough for most people.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

KodaChrome25

Among the Troll Gangs, the Fake Bokeh Posse is the meanest lol!

Oct 8, 2019permalink

UllerellU

This is the ridiculous future of photography, which hurts, let's enjoy our cameras and lenses while we can. I don't have to present these images to know that they are overprocessed. I do not know to what extent the democratization of photography has been positive, the world does not need more bad shots and every time I go sightseeing I see dozens of people making horrible shots with their horrible mobiles. For the sake of humanity's future, limiting the number of shots per person is more important than birth control ...

Oct 8, 2019permalink

NJOceanView

Overall I'm pretty impressed. I still wish there were an adjustment for Night Mode to allow even greater boosting of blacks as an option to mimic the Pixel.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

fstopx2

The melt downs over this are entirely predictable. These are nice pictures.

No one but the pixel peeps and measure baters care about the so-called water colors, fake bokeh and other things they worry about. What non-camera people care about is that this camera takes nice pictures which is what it easily does in abundance.

The camera market is going to shrink even further. NOTHING will save it short of a zombie apocalypse.

No one is going to take your camera away because no one cares either.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

capeminiol

What are you trying to say? Zombies like to use system cameras? ;-)

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Alexsfo

Very impressed with these photos and how computational photography dramatically expands dynamic range and low light performance. It also applies to video - HDR 4k/60p from 11 pro is impressive and super stabilized. I am also impressed by how Apple is using telephoto lens to improve depth mapping for wide angle shallow DoF simulation. I am seriously considering upgrading before next vacation.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

Just a clarification: they're using the ultra wide lens to provide stereoscopic information for the main wide camera for Portrait mode. Not the 2x lens. They use the 1x lens to similarly provide stereoscopic information to aid the 2x mode portraits.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

John McMillin

What a sloppy, random presentation, DPR! There are three consecutive photos of the same pedestrian walkway and skyline, for instance. The three lenses results are all jumbled together. There's only one wide-angle photo with straight architectural lines near the edge. That one is very impressive, showing no barrel distortion.

None of your photos show high-contrast scenes in natural light, either. Seattle is lovely, but results from under your soft and gloomy skies just don't relate to those of us who inhabit sunny regions like the Rocky Mountains and the desert Southwest. Therefore your reviews and samples are much less useful to me since you made the move. Even London had a wider range of lighting!

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

There are many backlit photos shooting straight into the sun. In Portrait mode even. Is that not high enough contrast?

I'd love to shoot some epic sunsets with clouds lighting up orange from the rising sun, but we haven't had the opportunity to do that yet.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

sfa1966

If you do get the chance to see a rising sun during a sunset, take a video of it instead. You might make a fortune.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

That phenomenon happens near the poles quite often in summer.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

J Birn

Watch the video these come from first, it'll make more sense to see the examples of how over-captured pictures can be perspective-corrected with the walkway shots and other issues discussed.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

"What a sloppy, random presentation, DPR! There are three consecutive photos of the same pedestrian walkway and skyline"

Those were specifically placed in order to show you the successive corrections...

Oct 30, 2019permalink

so...what so PRO about this camera again? Still watercolor...and still horrible bokeh.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

I agree 100% looks so overprocessed it's embarrassing.. Good enough for snapchat maybe.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

JackM

More like, good enough for wonderful 12x16" prints and not pixel peeping on a 1080 monitor like an idiot.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

cdembrey

From my POV, ALL CREAMY BOKAY is horrible. That's why I use a Tilt and Shift lens on my FF IL Camera.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

jst13

Hey..its a cell phone not a full full frame camera
I got very impressive results during my vacation in the past 5 days.
on my ipad/ and macbook pro 15“ And also on my 27“ Zoll home PC screen and TV I cannot see If the Picture was taken with my A7III or with the iphone 11..no chance you have to Pixel peep to see it

Oct 8, 2019*permalink

https://i.imgur.com/1fHKJxF.jpg

Good enough is not PRO....;-)

12x16 prints...definitely will show all the flaws...no need to pixel peep.

Oct 8, 2019*permalink

JackM

Yeah maybe if you scrutinize them with your nose 12" away from the paper. That's pixel peeping, and not how normal people look at pictures.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

oleg-k

No need to pixel peep, the fake bokeh is absolutely awful

This can only be acceptable to a delusional Apple fan.

Oct 9, 2019*permalink

JackM

Yes, that is a bad result, a failed attempt at computed bokeh. So take another pic with it turned off, or just don't use that feature. My iPhone X is very capable of 12x16" prints in the right conditions. I also have a 5D4 and 5 lenses with red rings. I love it and of course it blows the iPhone out of the water, but to try to hold a phone up to the same standards is foolish.

The phone camera is today's point-n-shoot for snaps of family and friends and casual travel/landscape. What did people do with film point-n-shoots? They printed 4x6"s and threw them in an album or shoebox. Maybe in a year they might print a couple 8x10"s. The fact that a phone is more than capable of this is pretty remarkable. Expecting to see good quality in a 20x30" print viewed from 12" away from a phone pic is unreasonable. Expecting good quality when viewing a phone pic at 100% on a 1080 monitor is unreasonable.

Oct 9, 2019*permalink

G1Houston

The days of entry levels dSLR/ML cameras with a kit lens are numbered ...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Not sure.. if this is all the IQ you get for $1200... Keep in mind this is about 30% more expensive than a Sony A7 with a 28-70mm zoom kit, and you will not have to replace the camera an optics every 5G-network upgrade cycle.

Btw the Huawei P30, Pixel 4, Mi 9 latest Oppo, etc are still better optics/sensors and less expensive than the iPhones but also of course not in par with new dedicated cameras above $500.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Mark Turney

Already there ... but not for the reasons about which people argue. Perception is reality ... so if 99% of the public cannot distinguish the difference between a DSLR/ML image and a “good” cell phone camera, then the perception is that there is no difference.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

cdembrey

@Mark Turney's got it right! If a non-pixel-peeper can't see the difference—then there is no difference. Simple as that.

Measure-bators measure-bate, the world rest of the world trusts their eyes.

Oct 8, 2019*permalink

SDPharm

> if this is all the IQ you get for $1200... Keep in mind this is about 30% more expensive than a Sony A7 with a 28-70mm zoom kit...

For that much money, the Sony doesn't even have a GPS, and I can't even make a lousy phone call...

Sarcasm aside, if you take out all the other functions of the iPhone, its cameras probably cost only $50.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

Only an idiot can't tell the difference between the real bokeh of a camera, natural images, night exposures and this crap.

Oct 8, 2019*permalink

@madeinlisboa

These phones sure make you angry, don't they?

Oct 8, 2019permalink

FW Birds

These photos are seriously impressive. The improvements that smartphone cameras make year after year never ceases to amaze me. Consumers definitely benefit from what is arguably the most competitive market on the planet, and the $ billions of research that goes into this technology.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

No wonder there are billions for research when 90% of the price you pay for a smartphone is to support the camera elements. I wonder how much would they cost without a camera...

Oct 8, 2019permalink

SDPharm

> No wonder there are billions for research when 90% of the price you pay for a smartphone is to support the camera elements.

???

Oct 8, 2019permalink

mario GTI

This is really interesting, but my 3 yers old 7Plus looks as good if not better than those samples here.

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

cdembrey

Internationally celebrated photographer, author and teacher Fred Picker once said: "The only tests that count, are your own tests."

If your passion is flowers, photos of children are useless to you. If you only shoot during daylight, examples shot at night tell you nothing.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

davev8

i think i will stick to a £150 new phone and my second hand EOS M5+11-22 22F2 18-55 M-EF adaptor x2 ..can use all my EF lenses and still £300 quid change from a iphone 11pro

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Akgbkd

Nothing interesting here....would take pixel any day. Even iPhone x had better images.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

lobster roll

LOL

Oct 7, 2019permalink

LMAO

Oct 9, 2019permalink

DualSystemGuy

That edge detection for fake bokeh is truly horrendous - you can see how bad it is even from thumbnails. Might be good enough for social media but it ruins the photo in my opinion.

Google's fake bokeh is still not great but is is a heck of a lot better at detecting backgrounds.

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

I think it's an artistic choice. Both do a good job at segmentation (identification of human subjects), but Google chooses to keep most, if not all, of the human subject in focus, including loose strands of hair. Some people feel this leads to a 'cut out' look, and it's particularly odd when a person behind the subject is also in focus due to Google's attempt to keep faces in focus. iPhone tries to apply a gradual blur at the edges of human subjects, I suppose to try and create a transition. Unfortunately this approach has some severe downsides, where parts of faces or hair will suddenly get completely blurred out, which then just looks like a mistake. See here.

I suppose I prefer Google's approach, just to avoid these sorts of artifacts, which do occur rather frequently. I do wish Google wouldn't keep people behind or in front of the subject in focus, though. Here, iPhone does better.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

For example, see how the iPhone gradually blurs people here, as opposed to (1) keeping all people in focus, or (2) blurring the people behind the main subjects as much as the background further away. That is, the two subjects behind the main subjects aren't blurred to same extent as the back of the kitchen.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

It would be good if they provided options to control the "fake" bokeh more. My main gripe with the current computational photo is that you can neither turn it off (some cameras won't even support real raw from sensors). Nor control or tweak the AI faking algorithm, that is in most cases nothing more than doing post-processing with algos using the faster processors of today ARMs.

And comparing the results of the "fakes" are pretty meaningless from a dpreview standpoint as these qualities will change with each software update to the camera apps in most phones today.

I would really like DPreview to take these cameras more seriously and compare raws more than the faked AI-processing jpegs.

The faking software could always be upgraded on each phone during its lifespan.. The "real" IQ of optics+sensor cannot..

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

@Rishi Sanyal the way you talk things, it seems that you work for Apple and not DPreview ;)

Oct 8, 2019permalink

DualSystemGuy

What I am talking about isn't artistic - it is simply not detecting the edges properly, and starts to blur with a hard edge where it shouldn't. The actual quality of the blur is not that bad (still obviously fake, but acceptable for a lot of people I think), it's the edge detection that appears to be completely useless - it's so bad it almost seems random, and it's so far off it's visible even in the thumbnails. It just isn't consistent.

Google's approach is much more accurate and gradual, which creates a more believable look even though it obviously is still not a replacement for "real" lens blur.

Oct 8, 2019*permalink

Don't get what you're saying, A9RIII. You can control the amount of blur or if you don't like it then simply don't select portrait mode. (Just like not selecting any of the "Scene" modes on the A9.)

Oct 8, 2019permalink

I would prefer to shoot in raw and apply the various "blur" effects in the app after the raw is saved or the post? To me, the process to select beforehand and "burn" the jpeg seems very inflexible and having more effect of position, depth and bokeh would be beneficial rather than just change the amount of overall blur/fake level.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

NJOceanView

Does the 11 Plus still allow after-the-fact "aperture" adjustment like the X apparently did? (I'm still on a 7 Plus until I see DPR's side-by-side 11 vs. Pixel 4 review.) If so, wouldn't just dialing that back help a bit? I use the Focos app which allows it and if need be I go all the way to f/16 and then ever-so-slightly pull back until I notice the artifacts.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

oleg-k

No, Rishi, it's not an "artistic choice", it's just plain wrong. https://i.imgur.com/1fHKJxF.jpg

Oct 9, 2019permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

@A9R. You can change the amount of blur at any time after taking the photo.

Oct 10, 2019*permalink

oleg-k: It's an artistic choice that is more prone to artifacts like that, is what I was trying to say. Just like Google's choice of keeping a range of focal planes in perfect focus is also an artistic choice on its part.

Oct 30, 2019*permalink

Mnweni

The most basic apsc, MFT or even 1 inch sensor is in zero danger.
Saying that the steady advances are evident and it would be good see the computational tricks offered with the bigger cameras.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Given that a good number of the "tricks" come from combining data from multiple sensors/lenses, that could prove to be a bit difficult to achieve from a DSLR or mirrorless single lens camera.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

davev8

but many of the tricks are to mask a tiny sensor so not needed...but having enough computing power to rapidly take many shots at once to improve noise,improve resolution .focus stacking etc would be a benefit

Oct 7, 2019permalink

spider-mario

> Given that a good number of the "tricks" come from combining data from multiple sensors/lenses,

But do they? The fake bokeh does benefit from a depth sensor, and the “uncrop” feature uses data from a lens with a wider FoV, but HDR+ / night mode for example just use multiple frames from one sensor (at up to 30fps according to https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/hdrplusdata.org/fr//hdrplus.pdf ), so simply having a fast enough readout rate should be enough. At least 1" and M43 can probably achieve that easily (a few M43 cameras have a 60fps mode, with even pre-buffering in the case of the E-M1 II).

After all, even the Pixel 3 still has only one rear camera.

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

Why is the face in picture #1 not as sharp as in picture #5 ?
ISO 100 versus ISO 40 ?
If picture #5 is on par with some "real cameras", picture #1 is definitely inferior at the same ISO setting...
And those night pictures at ISO 1600/2000 are a joke, but it was predictable...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

You can't judge based on ISO setting alone. These cameras do all sorts of things, varying exposure from shot to shot, and even (potentially) within the frames making up one shot.

If faces aren't as sharp in similar high contrast situations, assuming no motion blur, it's usually because in the less sharp photo, the camera chose shorter exposures to retain highlights, then lifted shadows (faces). These shadows have more noise, so the denoising algorithm softens detail more so than if longer exposures (more suitable for the faces / shadows) had been used.

Good question.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

"If picture #5 is on par with some "real cameras"". It's all about software tricks, bad programming and pure luck

Oct 8, 2019permalink

DPR should put up a image from a A6500 or some such but swap out the EXIF data to make it appear that it came from an iPhone or Pixel 4.

It would be... instructive to read the comments from those who're preconditioned to see what they think they should see...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

You are not serious...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

I am. I'm willing to bet you'd see nearly the same number of "fake" and "terrible bokeh" comments on that image as you see on these.

Probably a few less if it claimed to be a Pixel 4.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

That sounds like fun. Our readers would hate us though once they'd learned they'd been the subject of an experiment, though.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Lan

@Rishi: LOL, if the comments are representative I'd say your readers already hate DPR (in general) along with everything else in the universe anyway; so I really don't see what you've got to lose? ;) Make sure you post it on Apr 1 though; that way you can deflect at least some of the flack!

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Pretty easy to tell actually...the fake bokeh always horrible around the hair area. ;-)

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Michael Long,
And how many preconditioned people are there on DPR, who think today computational photography does miracles ?
If the bokeh in itself (I mean the blurred background) is rather good on these pictures, I think people who find it "ugly" are, in fact, talking about the artifacts surrounding the subject that is in focus.
Smearing is clearly visible on pictures #9, #11, #13, #28 particularly.
Sometimes, on certain pictures, instead of having a smooth transition around the subject's head, there is a harsh transition. Look at the top right of the girl's head in picture #17.
If you cannot see those artifacts, then you have a problem... or you are preconditioned ;-)
You will never get that with an A6500...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

There have been plenty of sites doing "blind tests" of phones.. iPhones usually come out at the bottom, in these kinds of tests..(Google for example on "MKBHD's Blind Smartphone Camera Test." where mate20 takes the crown and X/XS didn't even make it out of the first round ). I generally like blind tests as there is so much "brand loyalty" and perceived notion when comparing IQ in general.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Easy to spot. Terrible bokeh and obnoxious night photos. Good for daylight selfie freaks though...

Oct 8, 2019permalink

madeinlisboa,
"Terrible bokeh"
I am not so severe. I find the quality of the blur better than what you can get with an actual lens that has a "busy" bokeh.
The main, and yet unsolved, issue is the lack of quality of the transition between the sharp subject and the background, even if it has improved from previous smartphones

Oct 8, 2019permalink

Yeah, please do it!!!!

Oct 9, 2019permalink

DualSystemGuy

It's no secret that tiny, low resolution web-sized JPEGs look largely the same regardless of the camera type. You can do the same comparison with 1" sensors and Medium Format. Show the full size version/original file and 100% of people will be able to tell iPhone vs A6500.

Oct 9, 2019*permalink

Seems to me the next step is to gradually apply the depth map information to the subject leaving the primary focal plane sharp but dropping off a bit on parts of the subject nearer or farther away. That would greatly help to eliminate the cardboard cutout aspect on several of the photos.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

piratejabez

Yeah, the fake DoF transition shown here is surprisingly bad.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

The transition happens too fast on iPhone images, leading to hair around the subject that's drastically blurred. And sometimes parts of the face or hair that shouldn't be blurred because they're in the plane of sharpest focus.

So, I agree. I also wonder how much machine learning Apple is applying in fine-turning the depth maps. Training a neural network with the current depth maps generated as input, and 'ground truth' depth maps of the same scene generated by a more advanced depth sensing instrument (like the 5 Pixel 3 'frankenphone' rig Google used), leads to smoother results without glaring errors, like things in focus that should be blurred. That's still something I see with the iPhone 11, for example here.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Vincenco

The portrait mode "bokeh" is beyond horrible.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

marcio_napoli

I find disgusting a cellphone trying to be what it's not (fake bokeh, etc) and trying to appeal to an audience they're not what they think they are (hint: photographers).

In the fake-everything generation, this fits like a glove. How charming.

Having said all that, the IQ is beyond impressive for a cellphone, I'm being as honest as I can.

For a **cellphone**, it's beyond impressive.

But does it matter? Not at all in my opinion.

Good IQ is irrelevant here.

If you think you can be a "photographer" with this thing, that's a statement of how little effort you're willing to invest.

If all you're investing is carrying around a 100 grams device, with IQ that qualifies as great ***for a very small*** sensor, than awesome, that says it all what one wants to achieve as a photographer, the effort willing to be invested is minimal.

And for those using this, who never said they're photographers anyway, will that "good IQ for a small sensor" serve any further than snapshots and selfies?

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

As my grandpa would say, take your opinion for a long walk off a short pier.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

Imager of

As good as my Nikon D750. Well done Apple.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Then you should change your glasses or computer monitor...or sell your D750 to someone who knows how to use it... ;-)

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Vincenco

Did you take your LSD already?

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Vincenco,
May be he is just joking. Because his profile says "Take a deep breath. It’s just a joke!"...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Vincenco

@Karroly Who said I was serious? I am a joker as well.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Honestly, many of these pics are better than my D5300 un-edited casual shoots.

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Vincenco,
"Who said I was serious?"
Not me...

Oct 9, 2019permalink

Kostasm

Thanks for the review, but it would be extremely nice if you could post some .dng files

Oct 7, 2019permalink

iPhones' default camera app does not shoot DNG. Shooting DNG using, for example Lightroom, circumvents all the computational and multi-frame approaches smartphones embrace, giving you simply the performance of the sensor. That's of academic interest, but not of practical interest.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

I strongly disagree with Rishi on this one... The sensor performance is the core basis all the computational stuff is derived from. This and the optics is the one part that will be a constant on the phone-model.. and will be the same from when you review the phone till it gets to the hands of the user.. the computational parts and "apps" are always subject to change and can be improved by multiple updates on ALL smartphones... So it is not of academic interest at all if you want to know the base potential of a phone, not just an assessment of the version 1 camera-apps post-processing abilities (or lack thereof as in this review samples). firmware fakeography quality.

Added to this many like myself who are into AI post-processing software would rather use the best possible sensor raws-outputs as material for post-processing than an overprocessed fugly JPEG.from our smartphone shots

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

"The sensor performance is the core basis all the computational stuff is derived from."

To me, this is kind of like saying that we should test the apple's used across apple pies, all of which use the same batch of apples. :)

Of course sensors matter, but the ones used across smartphones of one generation are broadly similar, if not exactly the same. If we just tested the sensors, the result would be 'they're all pretty much the same'. That's why I say it's more of academic interest. The camera teams at these companies would want to test sensors to buy the right ones, but all we'd mostly see from DR & SNR testing would be broadly similar performance.

There are some exceptions, of course. Huawei using larger 1/1.7" sensors have a much better starting point. But even then, we know the rough performance increase of 1/1.7" vs 1/2.55" just by comparing sensor surface areas. The real differences in end result are in what each manufacturer's burst mode does with all those Raws.

Oct 30, 2019permalink

Also, the iPhone cameras have faster sensor readout speeds, and I believe use Sony sensors with DOL-HDR (digital overlap HDR: where you can read out both short and long frames from one exposure). While this is certainly interesting (especially to a tech geek like me), what's most relevant practically is the output, since there's so much variation in the algorithms and burst modes across these cameras.

Also, if you want to shoot Raw on phones, I'd say you really only have one option now: Google. All other Raws from smartphones, to my knowledge, are single Raws, while Google's is the result of its burst mode. Hence the Google's Raws are so far and away better than those from any other smartphone that's really the only comparison you need. When and if manufacturers start offering Raw modes that a result of their burst modes, but without any additional processing (other than align and merge), then we'll most certainly compare Raws.

Oct 30, 2019permalink

What a fake blur. Stop trying to achieve what you can't without a proper lens and a large sensor. Good detail in daylight images. As better as a P&S, but much more expensive though. I would never burn my money in these techy things...

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

AshleyMC

“I would never burn my money in these techy things”

Neither would I (and many people I know). But certain techy guys care more about techy things than photography.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

I think Huawei does it much better than Apple and at a better price as well.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

No.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

@AshleyMC that's why they wouldn't buy a phone because of the camera. Probably a Texas Instrument scientific calculator ;)

Oct 8, 2019*permalink

stevevelvia50

Well we all know that, but this is an Apple site!

Oct 9, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Does this phone use ToF?
With a 3D map of distance, the camera can apply variable blur rather than this ugly flat blur that is applied equally to near and far objects.
If it has ToF, I am suprised they are not doing this.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

SHood

TOF won't be coming until next year's iPhone

Oct 7, 2019permalink

It has a depth map without TOF using multiple lenses. And if you look at the woman in the grey sweater standing next to the bush in several shots the leaves on the bush have a definite depth progression between those next to her, just behind her, and those much further away. It's far from "flat".

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Yes, it can generate a depth map using the stereoscopic information from the two lenses. They could also theoretically augment the stereoscopic information with a depth map generated from the dual pixel main sensor, although it has a very short (~1mm) baseline so it's not very accurate. Machine learning approaches can help the camera understand other depth cues, like defocus depth cues and semantic depth cues (objects that appear smaller in the frame are likely farther away), for example.

ToF can help augment the depth maps, so hopefully we'll see some refinement in the next generation.

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

To be clear: iPhones do not currently use ToF.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

AshleyMC

Ugly!

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Alecole

yes, transitions are poorly managed, but until when?

Oct 7, 2019permalink

MAC

distortion...

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Marcelobtp

Some of the background blur effects gave me headache, though some were nice too.
Great photos overall, image quality on good light is itching 1 inch sensors, not there, but not far away, hopefully the OOF areas will get improved with software and AI along the way, compared to smartphone competitors, this is the best yet, i think in 2 to 3 iterations iphones will really be able to do it flawlessly.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Androole

Are you able to control the amount of background blur that portrait mode produces on the iPhone the way you are on other cameras?

Because this is way too much background blur for these images. It makes the subjects look just like cardboard cut-outs.

I understand that it's almost exclusively designed to look good on a 5" screen, but it looks absolutely cartoonish when displayed on a laptop or desktop monitor.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

User1234567890

I think you can do it before the shot, not sure.
Few phones can.

My old (2015) sony does after the shot.
You can adjust to a level nothing in background can be seen.
Also if blur is vertical, horizontal or radial.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Yes you can adjust it either before or after the shot on the iPhone 11 Pro. Or turn it off and revert to the un-bokehfied shot. You can adjust it multiple times in post, or even adjust it on a larger screen if you send it over to your iPad or Mac. The depth data is all saved in the HEIC image file.

I find that for most shots it looks better to dial it back a bit. It also helps make the stray hairs not look so obviously bad. Sometimes the mega-blur can look good though.

Oct 7, 2019*permalink

stevelilly

Yes you are able to change the f/stop (blur) at any time. Using edit.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

I should mention that a number of the photos here were dialed back to F1.4 or F2, since the default wide-angle portraits are F2.8 (simulated, of course). Sometimes F1.4 exaggerates the depth map errors or harsh transitions, so I tried to apply it sparingly. Using smaller f-numbers helps mask some of the obvious errors, so it's certainly an option to stop-down.

Oct 7, 2019permalink

Dialed back to f1.4? That’s more blur than default, not less.

Oct 8, 2019permalink

runbei99

Forget cropping with phone cameras - image detail quickly gets ugly. I put 5 min. max talk time on my iPhone 5S and couldn't care less about phone features. But if I needed a small camera for stills I'd get a used Fuji X-E2 plus 18-55. For compact, inconspicuous video I've pre-ordered the GoPro 8. For everything else it's Canon 6D with 24-105 and 135/2. All set.

Oct 7, 2019permalink