One size does not fit all, as we can see with the current 17 lineup - some people don’t care about good camera setup at all and prefer their devices to be as slim and light as possible (Air). At the same time, we have people complaining about how ugly Pro 17 camera modules have become. It’s hard to please Apple customer lot, LOL, and the more model choices we have, the more difficult it gets.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 17 Pro Apple needs to make an iPhone with DSLR features
- Thread starter Konvictz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One size does not fit all, as we can see with the current 17 lineup - some people don’t care about good camera setup at all and prefer their devices to be as slim and light as possible (Air). At the same time, we have people complaining about how ugly Pro 17 camera modules have become. It’s hard to please Apple customer lot, LOL, and the more model choices we have, the more difficult it gets.
Remind me why can’t they? As far as I know quite a few governmental bodies use them, just with MDMs and Custom Hardening patch ups.
Precisely. I have returned to the mILC fold. My iPhone 15 Pro will stay my daily driver for a while yet but when it comes time to replace it, something along the lines of the Air will do the job.
Many companies I work with, choose Android phones, partly due to the propensity of Windows based networks, and 2. Some of the inherent 'boundaries' Apple has set. As for Presidents etc, there is concern that they are easy to 'access' by foreign players. Enough said.
iPhone photography is good for « always having a camera available », but even RAW photos taken sans processing in Halide look bad once you blow them up. Pixelation, inferior quality full stop. Again, I am looking at a picture of my dog taken with an 11 Pro - it’s a wonderful photo and it’s hanging on the wall. From a distance it’s totally acceptable - and that’s fine.
However for serious photos - dedicated « real » camera is a must. Not even close and it won’t be for a long time or unless a combination of software / AI starts to change our idea of what a « real » photo should look like.
However for serious photos - dedicated « real » camera is a must. Not even close and it won’t be for a long time or unless a combination of software / AI starts to change our idea of what a « real » photo should look like.
We don’t need professional grade gear in a phone for taking pictures of your sandwich or dog!
I’m from an age where your camera had film and you had to take it to a store to get processed! Never once have I looked at an older photo taken and been disappointed because the pic had too much glare or was washed out! Pictures are all about memories and how they make you feel when you look at them down the line, not how sharp and in focus everything is or how good the HDR was!
I’m from an age where your camera had film and you had to take it to a store to get processed! Never once have I looked at an older photo taken and been disappointed because the pic had too much glare or was washed out! Pictures are all about memories and how they make you feel when you look at them down the line, not how sharp and in focus everything is or how good the HDR was!
Just the lens on that Nikon weighs more than a pound. The Nikon/lens assembly is a theft magnet, and will not fit in any pocket. My Nikons now mostly stay locked up now.
As to your claim of "Good luck getting even 25% of the way there in a phone package," I walked out on my patio and had no butterflies handy, but shot a quick pic of a well-used dog toy. No special apps or edits of any kind, just a RAW snapshot [zoom in to see the Labrador hairs on the toy]. With some effort I could close to replicate your butterfly pic using the iPhone 17 PM; certainly much better than "25% of the way there."
Last edited:
We disagree. I own Nikon's best, but I do want Apple to build [I disagree with your "overbuild" verbiage] "a phone that slips into my pocket so it can approach more (but not all) of the capabilities of a standalone camera system." Frankly the iPhone 17 Pros do just that.
I am sure apple has thought of this
my only conclusion is that they just dont think that the DSLR market is big enough to do it.
and if they went for the true cinematographer market (cameras over 10k), it wouldn't even be called an iPhone anymore so what's the point?
my only conclusion is that they just dont think that the DSLR market is big enough to do it.
and if they went for the true cinematographer market (cameras over 10k), it wouldn't even be called an iPhone anymore so what's the point?
Admittedly it was a ‘Point and Shoot’ rather than Mirrorless/DSLR but Samsung tried this a few years back:
en.wikipedia.org
Never had one so couldn’t even comment on functionality and the overall experience but the fact they didn’t (seemingly) release anything after Galaxy Camera 2 may well have meant there wasn’t a market for them at the time?
Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 - Wikipedia
Never had one so couldn’t even comment on functionality and the overall experience but the fact they didn’t (seemingly) release anything after Galaxy Camera 2 may well have meant there wasn’t a market for them at the time?
I can guarantee you that I've been to far more dangerous places with my Nikon kit than the average person and never had anything nicked.
As for the toy, hmm. I have a 17P. Nope. No DOF there at all. Not sure if this is a troll or not though 😂
I don't want to take mess about with lenses and composition with my phone. I want to be able to pull it out my pocket and take a good quality shot at a moments notice, while I'm 'in the moment'. All iPhones for the past few years have been fantastic at this. No way would I want to attach a lens etc, and hang it around my neck because it will no longer fit in my pocket.
We actually agree regarding building a better phone camera. I've wanted a 1" sensor on a phone for some time, for example. But the original photo and premise posted was in regard to a phone that needed attachable accessories to become more DSLR-like, so fully equipped it would no longer just slip into your pocket. For that I would have little use.
Hypothetical perfect-device-specifications discussions are always fun, because they ignore the ugly reality of engineering constraints and tradeoffs.
One cannot simply swap in a larger camera sensor, and attach a vaguely camera-looking lens, and have it function as a dedicated camera and lens would.
You need a robust lens mount that copes with the torque the heavier lens will place on the phone body. There has to be sufficient depth to secure the connection. The larger sensor will require tons more distance away from the lens. The zoom motor (if equipped) will require lots of energy from the battery to actuate. You'll likely want a physical shutter to avoid some artifacts common to electronic-only shutter, etc etc etc.
It will no longer a "normal cell phone body with a 'real' detachable lens". It will be a "digital camera body with normal cell phone software".
If it was easy to miniaturize a "real" camera to maximize image quality to physical dimension, it would have been done so. The smallest interchangeable lens camera made is the Pentax Q line, and its sensor is barely larger than most point and shoot and its overall IQ is barely superior to those also.
