iPhone 11 Camera question- Digital 2x zoom quality on standard lens vs. the Tele lens?

[jm31828]

I had read a few iPhone camera reviews, of both the 11/11Pro and of course the 12/12 Pro.

Interestingly, as the photographer described the lenses, in a couple reviews they mentioned that using the standard lens and just zooming in digitally to 2x provides equal or slightly better results than using the tele lens, given the fact that the standard lens has a far better sensor.

Has anyone found that to be true in the real world? I have a regular 11, so of course no tele lens- I have not done much of that digital zoom when taking pictures, and have never used a pro version so I would have no way to really compare.

I was just curious what others had found in this comparison, as it might help in deciding this time around if the Pro version is needed (I do find that 2x would be so much more helpful when really trying to just use my phone instead of my dslr when going out on hikes).

 

[Honza]

Bump. I would love to see actual photo comparisons. Obviously you lose some pixels, but in most cases the resolution should be good enough for most purposes.

My 12 Pro is still on backorder and I'm resisting some urges to just go buy a 12. I use the telephoto on my X quite often, but wonder if it's really worth it.

 

[mg51015bb]

I was going back and forth between 12 and 12 pro, a big reason being the telephoto. Ended up getting both and did a few comparisons. In good light where the telephoto lens is used, its definitely a better picture. Text is pretty grainy on the 12, whereas the pro did well in terms of clarity.

If it’s low light, the pro will just use the wide lens so there’s no difference there. Since I have a pup and often need quick clandestine shots, the telephoto is helpful for getting that clarity. If I was mostly taking set pictures of people and could move forward, the 12 would be fine.

 

[jm31828]

I was going back and forth between 12 and 12 pro, a big reason being the telephoto. Ended up getting both and did a few comparisons. In good light where the telephoto lens is used, its definitely a better picture. Text is pretty grainy on the 12, whereas the pro did well in terms of clarity.

If it’s low light, the pro will just use the wide lens so there’s no difference there. Since I have a pup and often need quick clandestine shots, the telephoto is helpful for getting that clarity. If I was mostly taking set pictures of people and could move forward, the 12 would be fine.

So when the regular lens is used with 2x digital zoom, do pictures look pretty good?

 

[alFR]

So when the regular lens is used with 2x digital zoom, do pictures look pretty good?

As good as / better than the tele in low light, in bright light the tele lens is better.

 

[Lotuskid]

Some examples in low light between the two lenses, the wide cropped in digitally to match the tele. To me the wide cropped looks better than the tele in the cat shot but the tele looks better in the coaster shot. This was low light so perhaps a challenging situation for the lower aperture lens.

keep in mind that the background compression won’t be the same between the two even with cropping and also that you won’t be able to use portrait mode at the zoom range on the 12 if you’re lacking the lens for it.
I went with the 12 pro in order to have the flexibility I’m used to coming from an 11 pro and other iPhones with the zoom lens option

 

[jm31828]

Some examples in low light between the two lenses, the wide cropped in digitally to match the tele. To me the wide cropped looks better than the tele in the cat shot but the tele looks better in the coaster shot. This was low light so perhaps a challenging situation for the lower aperture lens.

keep in mind that the background compression won’t be the same between the two even with cropping and also that you won’t be able to use portrait mode at the zoom range on the 12 if you’re lacking the lens for it.
I went with the 12 pro in order to have the flexibility I’m used to coming from an 11 pro and other iPhones with the zoom lens option

Thanks for sharing! This is rally positive for those of us likely not splurging for the pro- I don't see much of any difference in the example shots you posted here.

 

[mg51015bb]

Thanks for sharing! This is rally positive for those of us likely not splurging for the pro- I don't see much of any difference in the example shots you posted here.

Here’s a couple other comparisons, IMO in the pics above the subjects are so close that it doesn’t really impact anything.

 

[Lotuskid]

Here’s a couple other comparisons, IMO in the pics above the subjects are so close that it doesn’t really impact anything.

Great point both of my shots focused on a subject just a few feet from me. Here is another pair I took a few days ago. The tele I find is sharper and retains more detail but shows a lot of purple fringing, and has a warmer white balance. The zoomed in wide lens is noisier. Here the tele to me is the better shot and the subject was further out so a case for how the tele aka ‘normal’ 52mm lens can come in handy. But it does seem like the differences are relatively minor

 

[MrJM]

Here’s a couple other comparisons, IMO in the pics above the subjects are so close that it doesn’t really impact anything.

Think your tv needs a clean.

 

[jm31828]

Here’s a couple other comparisons, IMO in the pics above the subjects are so close that it doesn’t really impact anything.

Thanks, those are good! Honestly besides one of them having better exposure, they look almost the same quality!

 

[mg51015bb]

Thanks, those are good! Honestly besides one of them having better exposure, they look almost the same quality!

Yeah the exposure is probably user error hah. The telephoto shot looks less noisy and it’s easier to read the “digital” below Apex. Not a huge difference unless you peep closely but it’s something I would have a hard time ignoring since I’ve seen the difference.

 

[jm31828]

Yeah the exposure is probably user error hah. The telephoto shot looks less noisy and it’s easier to read the “digital” below Apex. Not a huge difference unless you peep closely but it’s something I would have a hard time ignoring since I’ve seen the difference.

Yeah, for sure. If you blow them up to 100% I know some details would come to light.

For those of us who like doing landscape photography- mountains views and things like that- I suspect these very subtle differences would not even be noticeable.

 

[Robbosan]

I tested this before i sold my 11 pro v 12. I took a photo with 11 pro tele and then zoomed 2 x with the 12, couldn't see any difference.

 

[jm31828]

I tested this before i sold my 11 pro v 12. I took a photo with 11 pro tele and then zoomed 2 x with the 12, couldn't see any difference.

Oh nice, so you didn't feel you were really missing out on anything then when moving from the 11 pro to the regular 12, huh?

 

[Robbosan]

Oh nice, so you didn't feel you were really missing out on anything then when moving from the 11 pro to the regular 12, huh?

Nah, was a clean swap money wise, lighter and i wanted black was never a fan of SG back, bit bigger screen.
Call quality is better and speakers too.

 

[johnnylarue]

I had considered starting a thread about this myself—thanks, OP!

My findings largely echo what’s been posted here: the main Wide lens acquits itself nicely at 2X. But there are noticeable differences if you’re using them for semi-critical applications—ie the way distance is compressed and flattened by the longer lens makes for more natural and slightly less “iPhone-y” portraits.

It also allows you to take closeup photos of people without having to get up right in their face with your phone, which is also pretty important for portraiture. (For many human subjects, the closer a camera is to their face, the more uptight they feel.)

And last, it bears mentioning that the resolution of the digital zoom also increases with the Tele. The difference becomes quite a bit more pronounced at 4X zoom, where the Wide lens begins to suffer detail loss from the 4X cropping, whereas the Tele lens is only being cropped at 2X.

Long story short, the differences are minor enough to only matter to photographers, but to photographers they can be pretty significant.

 

[RRC]

I tested this before i sold my 11 pro v 12. I took a photo with 11 pro tele and then zoomed 2 x with the 12, couldn't see any difference.

Did exactly the same! If there is a difference, it's very slight. Maybe if zoomed right in on a larger display you could tell a difference but at least on the phone and social media there seems to be very little difference.

 

[fatTribble]

I thought when you zoom past 2x it switches lenses for you. I have an 11 Pro. When I watch the digital zoom increase it switches to the 2x lens when I reach a 2x digital zoom.

 

[RRC]

I thought when you zoom past 2x it switches lenses for you. I have an 11 Pro. When I watch the digital zoom increase it switches to the 2x lens when I reach a 2x digital zoom.

I think you are correct, however even when you compare 1.8x and the 2.0x telephoto just before the switch over, the quality isn't noticeable enough (to me at least).

 

[imp3rator]

Nice tests

 

[johnnylarue]

Nice tests

Thanks for posting. Not the most in-depth or scientific comparison—for starters, not a single mention of dynamic range, which was a glaring advantage of the 12P. Also would have been nice to see some night/low light shots.

All told, when the kid managed to find good light, I thought the pics from phone looked pretty darned good.

 

[jm31828]

I had considered starting a thread about this myself—thanks, OP!

My findings largely echo what’s been posted here: the main Wide lens acquits itself nicely at 2X. But there are noticeable differences if you’re using them for semi-critical applications—ie the way distance is compressed and flattened by the longer lens makes for more natural and slightly less “iPhone-y” portraits.

It also allows you to take closeup photos of people without having to get up right in their face with your phone, which is also pretty important for portraiture. (For many human subjects, the closer a camera is to their face, the more uptight they feel.)

And last, it bears mentioning that the resolution of the digital zoom also increases with the Tele. The difference becomes quite a bit more pronounced at 4X zoom, where the Wide lens begins to suffer detail loss from the 4X cropping, whereas the Tele lens is only being cropped at 2X.

Long story short, the differences are minor enough to only matter to photographers, but to photographers they can be pretty significant.

Yep, but as long as we stay at 2x or less on the digital zoom, we should be mostly in

Thanks for posting. Not the most in-depth or scientific comparison—for starters, not a single mention of dynamic range, which was a glaring advantage of the 12P. Also would have been nice to see some night/low light shots.

All told, when the kid managed to find good light, I thought the pics from phone looked pretty darned good.

Yeah, my thoughts, too! Some of his regular camera shots had terrible dynamic range, whereas the phone looked great. Obviously we'd need to see them up close to see if there were other issues- but in those specific shots, the phone looked superior.

To me those kinds of urban types of shots are where the iPhone would shine, and be every bit as good as a DSLR. I think out in nature doing landscape photography is tougher, where a DSLR pulls ahead- at least from my experience. I would have loved to see more varied examples in his review since he is obviously some sort of photography expert, and so he would be a great one to do these tests and talk about the differences in these other environments.

 

[johnnylarue]

Yep, but as long as we stay at 2x or less on the digital zoom, we should be mostly in

Yeah, my thoughts, too! Some of his regular camera shots had terrible dynamic range, whereas the phone looked great. Obviously we'd need to see them up close to see if there were other issues- but in those specific shots, the phone looked superior.

To me those kinds of urban types of shots are where the iPhone would shine, and be every bit as good as a DSLR. I think out in nature doing landscape photography is tougher, where a DSLR pulls ahead- at least from my experience. I would have loved to see more varied examples in his review since he is obviously some sort of photography expert, and so he would be a great one to do these tests and talk about the differences in these other environments.

My take: no matter how good phone cams get, there is no substitute for holding a viewfinder to your eye and having access to tactile controls. When I use a camera, I’m immersed in the process of taking a photo. When I use a phone, I’m “taking a picture with my phone”, because I’m looking at the same screen I look at when I’m shopping or posting on this forum. It’s not ergonomic to hold, and it consequently lacks that sort of synergy that exists between a well designed instrument and its user that a dedicated camera can provide.

So as far as getting “in the zone” and losing yourself in the act of taking a photo, a phone is an inferior instrument because it was primarily designed to do other things. It’s an amazingly capable gadget to have with me all the time, though, and to your point regarding landscape photography: I’m not unimpressed by some of the early landscape shots that were trotted out in some of the early 12Pro reviews. Apple have really dialed in their sky algorithm in particular—that’s something my “real” cameras can’t do without a lot of hassle. I’m personally not gunning for National Geographic or anything, so there’s a lot to be said for being able to snap a quality pic of an epic landscape from the middle of a hike using a gadget that weighs virtually nothing and takes up virtually no space, even if the act of doing so is less than satisfying.

 

[jm31828]

My take: no matter how good phone cams get, there is no substitute for holding a viewfinder to your eye and having access to tactile controls. When I use a camera, I’m immersed in the process of taking a photo. When I use a phone, I’m “taking a picture with my phone”, because I’m looking at the same screen I look at when I’m shopping or posting on this forum. It’s not ergonomic to hold, and it consequently lacks that sort of synergy that exists between a well designed instrument and its user that a dedicated camera can provide.

So as far as getting “in the zone” and losing yourself in the act of taking a photo, a phone is an inferior instrument because it was primarily designed to do other things. It’s an amazingly capable gadget to have with me all the time, though, and to your point regarding landscape photography: I’m not unimpressed by some of the early landscape shots that were trotted out in some of the early 12Pro reviews. Apple have really dialed in their sky algorithm in particular—that’s something my “real” cameras can’t do without a lot of hassle. I’m personally not gunning for National Geographic or anything, so there’s a lot to be said for being able to snap a quality pic of an epic landscape from the middle of a hike using a gadget that weighs virtually nothing and takes up virtually no space, even if the act of doing so is less than satisfying.

Yep, good point. For me, it is why I still always carry my backpack with DSLR and lenses with me when I go on hikes, because my phone will never replace it for good landscape shots.
The phone works great for pics of kids, and maybe playing around with some other types of shots- but that is about it.