Other Does the new iPhone 12 Pro camera reach DSLR quality?

[thwi]

If you ask serious photographers, what‘s most important for being able to shoot high quality pics, most of them say:
a) the person behind the camera and
b) glass, glass and more glass!

Even the best sensor is limited by the amount of light which passes through the lenses. Therefore all the optics used in smartphones are still way behind high end DSLR-lenses simply because of their size.

 

[meDANOcine]

And that's before taking into account that for 90 percent of photographs the ones on the phone are vastly superior to the ones on the SLR because the SLR ones don't get taken when the camera is on the shelf at home.

What Jro29 said.

Seriously though, one of my biggest photo-related regrets in life was not having my DSLR around when two humpback whales double-breached off the bow of a boat I was on. Still, I'm happy I have a copy of the grainy photo I took with my phone because it's better than not having one at all.

Like others have mentioned, 'quality' can be defined in many different ways. The pixel-peepers will always insist on DSLRs. These days, is 'quality' a measure of pixels, Photoshop talent, Lightroom mastery, or the capability of the software on your phone? I, for one, am perfectly happy with my iPhone photos, and re-keying live photos has saved more than one family photo that would have been completely ruined on a static DSLR image.

So what does 'quality' mean to you? true-to-reality, pixel count, image contrast, etc? Or is 'quality' a subjective metric that we can't fully define? I would posit that since photography is a form of art, we should probably leave the science out of it at some point. Here are two photos taken seconds apart. One is from an iPhone 8, the other is from a DSLR. Which one is which?

https://flic.kr/p/2jVD397

https://flic.kr/p/2jVD2Vb

 

[v386]

Not possible when you don’t capture enough data to begin with. It’s the certainty of physics. Bigger lenses will capture more data to be processed.

Now if the DSLR manufacturers got hold of the image processing algorithm Apple and Google use then it’d have been a different game altogether but then again, people who use DSLR as their main device to capture shots most likely won’t like some auto processing. They like to craft the pictures the way they want.

Apple’s approach of ProRAW is really good in that aspect but still the size of the lens and sensors is always going to be a bottleneck.

For what it’s worth image processing is as valuable as capturing the data when it comes to the whole photography aspect. If you’re interested to learn then I suggest you frequent the photography forums here.

Also, plugging in my own Instagram here for some phone photography motivations - https://Instagram.com/Akash_nu

Have to disagree. If you aren't worried about fidelity to what was actually present in the real world at a real time, you can produce a 'more perfect' (but inaccurate) image with inferior real world data. By way of illustration, imagine that in the real world you have a piece of graph paper that is 1000 cells by 1000 cells, and there is a line drawn straight from the bottom left cell (0,0) to the top cell that is 666 cells from the left (666,1000). You take a photo of that with a camera that can record 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels and does no processing, and another camera that can record only 3 pixels by 3 pixels, but which analyzes the image and makes inferences about what it is looking at and presents a rendered result that is 10000 pixels by 10000 pixels. The full blown camera will show you a line, full of step jaggies. The camera with the 3 pixel by 3 pixel sensor that it's software detects a 'line' between (0,0) and (2,3) and renders a line at full resolution between (0,0) and (6666,10000) and for bonus points anti-aliases the line. It looks perfect with imperceptible jaggies. This is an over-simplified example and there are of course all sorts of dangers about misinterpreting the data you see etc. Computational photography has tons of different applications and software that does all sorts of things, from detecting lines and edges to focus stacking to de-noising with multiple exposures and on and on, right up to and through processing data to reconstruct images without employing any lens at all (e.g. with a fresnel zone aperture). So with appropriate software, depending on the scene and your tolerance for artifacts that deviate from reality, you can produce a 'better' image with a lesser sensor but different technique.

 

[silvetti]

You really think so?

How can you compare a full sized sensor with the tiny sensor on an iPhone?
I mean, I think iPhone photos look amazing if you are looking at them on your phone etc.
If you zoom in on them you will see the loss of quality quite fast.
You can get more quality with DSLR. Period.

The question was does the iphone 12 reach dslr quality, the answer is no.
Is it getting better? Sure.
Does it reach though? No.

 

[Saturnine]

I’m gonna go a slightly different way to most posters here.

For the record, I shut down my photography business this year but still own some top end cameras like the Sony A7R IV and a Sony XDCAM camcorder.

It’s easy to be snobbish about whether a £900 phone can match the quality of a £6000 camera and dismiss the idea out of hand. It’s also easy to ask how a device the size of a phone, with a tiny sensor could ever get close to something the size or a Canon 1DX Mark 2. It seems like it shouldn’t be possible, right?

While we’re not there yet, I feel that there are fundamental differences in how these devices capture and digitise an image. Phones are vastly superior at the moment when it comes to computational photography. It surely has to be indisputed that they are able to do more with less information (light!) than any other camera on the market.

I don’t think we’re a long way, under ideal conditions, from *some* phones matching the quality of *some* cheap DSLRs with poor lenses. I do believe, however, that Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Fuji and Nikon will be working hard to add computational elements to their devices. Like-for-like a bigger sensor is always going to be “better” but only if the technology is, in fact, like-for-like.

Of course DSLRs are much more flexible than smartphone cameras and will continue to be so. It will be an awfully long time before a single smartphone can take pictures with a 35mm equivalent focal length of 8mm to 1200mm - something most DSLRs can do with the right lenses. Then there’s filters, tilt-shift lenses, performance under challenging conditionals and many other variables where DSLRs are likely to hold a significant advantage for a long time to come.

Ultimately it’s never about which device produces a “better” picture, which will always be subjective. It’s about whether the camera they own and the form factor it comes in is good enough for the user. And does that user know how to work with its strengths and weaknesses?

I don’t personally take it as a given that a DSLR will always produce a better image than a smartphone. Changes are afoot and, just as early digital cameras couldn’t compete with 35mm DSLRs, it would be foolish to say that cameras jam-packed with computational software and a small sensor will always do a worse job than a DSLR.

 

[Eradik]

On a 6" phone screen, sure, people probably won't tell the difference. On a large printout or on a real monitor? Not even close, unless its on Facebook or Instagram which compresses the crap out of pictures.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

No phone camera matches a DSLR and as soon as you start zooming in to an image you’ll see the difference immediately. They are great as a general point and shoot though.

 

[jm31828]

This!



So this is simply not possible. Sorry to say your friends may not have been the right people to ask that question to.

Yes, computational photography has come a long way and yes the phones these days do produce usable pictures for social media etc, but when it comes to the actual quality of these shots a smaller sensor just doesn’t compete with a bigger sensor. This is basic physics.

Anyone who knows what they are doing with a picture will get way more out from a picture shot with even a cheaper DSLR compared to a phone camera.

Would an average social media user care much about it? That’s debatable based on the end result post processing of the said picture.

If you go to the photography forums here you’ll see some amazingly talented people taking some crazy shots with DSLR which is just not possible to achieve on a phone camera.

Having said all of that, personally I’ve sold my DSLR a few years ago and have switched to phone photography to make it a challenge for myself.

The other piece besides the small sensor in the iPhone is the fact that it will never compete with DSLR lenses- the lens alone on a DSLR could be a $500, or even $1000 lens.

 

[John dosh]

Don’t know if this has been mention but really would like peoples take on this. Having watched the add for the iPhone 12 pro on YouTube what really struck me was when they said movie makers can count on this as essential piece of equipment something along them lines. That is a big statement to make if the camera is not up to that level. What do they mean by this? That the camera is movie industry level and that they can purely rely on this camera? Does it mean it is dslr level quality? Really would like to know as such a big statement to make that the camera is an essential for movie makers one of the biggest statements I have ever heard Apple come out with.

 

[mightyjabba]

The question isn't whether they will reach DSLR quality, because barring some revolutionary discovery that is likely impossible (because of physics). The question is whether it's good enough that most people won't care about the difference, and I think that's starting to be true. Personally I still have a DSLR for taking nice photos and I don't see that changing, but I don't carry that around with me all the time, so the better the photos my phone can take, the happier I am.

 

[BigMac3]

Stated another way, you don’t need a DSLR to make a great photo. A National Geographic photographer went coast to coast making photos with nothing more than a very old model camera phone - not even a smart phone. He published a photo book about it.

 

[mj_]

The best camera is the one you have with you. When my wife and I travelled around the world in 2016 I deliberately left my DSLR behind to a) safe weight, and b) force myself to embrace modern technology and foster my creativity. Pretty much what @akash.nu said. The results were staggering to be honest, and I would have never expected the iPhone to do so well. Case in point: we now have a giant 46" x 60" canvas print of a photo taken in Mandalay with an iPhone 6+ depicting the U Bein teak bridge against the setting sun hanging above our bed. Sure, when you get really close you notice some graininess but at a normal viewing distance it looks superb.

I still own my 2008 Olympus E-series Four-Thirds DSRL with various lenses ranging from a 50mm prime lens to a 84-300mm zoom lens but rarely ever use it anymore. Truth be told I don't even remember the last time I took it out, it must've been more than a year ago. Smartphones have evolved tremendously over the past years, and in my opinion the question is not whether they're as good as professional-level DSLRs that costs 10x as much (because they're not) but rather whether they're good enough for what most people use them for.

 

[nburwell]

No pinhole sensor will ever get even close to the quality of a DSLR, as others have said its all about physics and light.

This is basically all you need to know.

 

[jm31828]

The best camera is the one you have with you. When my wife and I travelled around the world in 2016 I deliberately left my DSLR behind to a) safe weight, and b) force myself to embrace modern technology and foster my creativity. Pretty much what @akash.nu said. The results were staggering to be honest, and I would have never expected the iPhone to do so well. Case in point: we now have a giant 46" x 60" canvas print of a photo taken in Mandalay with an iPhone 6+ depicting the U Bein teak bridge against the setting sun hanging above our bed. Sure, when you get really close you notice some graininess but at a normal viewing distance it looks superb.

I still own my 2008 Olympus E-series Four-Thirds DSRL with various lenses ranging from a 50mm prime lens to a 84-300mm zoom lens but rarely ever use it anymore. Truth be told I don't even remember the last time I took it out, it must've been more than a year ago. Smartphones have evolved tremendously over the past years, and in my opinion the question is not whether they're as good as professional-level DSLRs that costs 10x as much (because they're not) but rather whether they're good enough for what most people use them for.

I have always heard this, but maybe I am just not nearly as skilled as some of these photographers. I will go out hiking and take my DSLR (not a fancy one, a Nikon D5300) as well as my iPhone 11. I will take the same shot in regular daylight of a scene with my DSLR as well as my phone- the phone really just does not capture the fine details as well, there is more "mush" in small details vs the DSLR (and I am not talking about expanding to 100% and pixel peeping, I mean just in how the image looks on the computer screen at 22% view that it defaults to in my Luminar or Photos apps). To me it is a pretty night and day difference. I would LOVE to be able to really get by with my phone so I didn't have to lug my DSLR around, but so far that has just not been the reality. Maybe the iPhone 12 will be one more step closer to that?

 

[revs]

The iPhone takes better photos..... because you actually have it with you!

Seriously a SLR is always better. But iPhones are “good enough” and the majority of people won’t see or care about the difference.

I never use my DSLR anymore and should probably sell it. Yea it’s way way better, but it’a not on me when I need it.

 

[Salty Pirate]

Never say never.

One thing I feel confident about DSLR advantages is the glass and a full frame sensor. But put an iPhone in the hands of an artist, they can do magic.

 

[mj_]

I have always heard this, but maybe I am just not nearly as skilled as some of these photographers. I will go out hiking and take my DSLR (not a fancy one, a Nikon D5300) as well as my iPhone 11. I will take the same shot in regular daylight of a scene with my DSLR as well as my phone- the phone really just does not capture the fine details as well, there is more "mush" in small details vs the DSLR (and I am not talking about expanding to 100% and pixel peeping, I mean just in how the image looks on the computer screen at 22% view that it defaults to in my Luminar or Photos apps). To me it is a pretty night and day difference. I would LOVE to be able to really get by with my phone so I didn't have to lug my DSLR around, but so far that has just not been the reality. Maybe the iPhone 12 will be one more step closer to that?

The question is: does it really matter that there’s more “mush” in the details? At the end of the day if you edit those photos and print them on canvas either one of them is going to look equally good (or bad) because the quality of smartphone cameras has improved so much that you won’t notice a difference in most cases. On your computer screen - maybe. On a canvas projected to by a FHD or even 4K projector? I doubt it. And that’s the bottom line here.

 

[4sallypat]

When I travel, we use the both the phone and DSLR to take pictures.
Phones take the quick, close up, moving shots.
DSLRs take the distant / zoom, depths of field, and manually complex focal planes which it captures.

While the smartphone camera quality is improving - such as the Samsung which beats out the Apple I hate to say...

We have 2 cropped frame DSLRs and have a series of expensive Canon L lenses that a cell phone camera can not match - and I not talking about digital zoom which is crappy.

 

[Halfpastdead]

While the smartphone camera quality is improving - such as the Samsung which beats out the Apple I hate to say...

Each to their own. I find completely the opposite. Samsung images always seem to be over saturated and less life like.

 

[canyonblue737]

Especially on the Max?
Seems the huge advancements in HDR and low light performance are near or on par with at least entry level cameras.

absolutely not. the 83% or whatever increase in low light performance is good but that sensor remains a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the size of even a micro 4/3 DSLR sensor, let alone APS-C or full frame. a DSLR *crushes* the iPhone in terms of low light performance.

i will say that apple attempts to cover all this up by strong, strong automatic noise correction (its why when you zoom into an iPhone picture in low light looks like a watercolor painting) and things like the portrait mode attempt to cover up the total lack of depth in the lens with artificial bokeh... its all a neat effect and the results are stunning for a phone but DSLR and iPhone aren't in the same sentence in all but bright light, and even then the bokeh is not real in the iPhone pictures.

 

[magbarn]

Answer no. 2 is succinct and correct. And others have explained why.

But my iPhone 7 goes places my big heavy DSLR doesn't. Especially when I'm travelling. Have taken photos when skiing and at the apres ski which I otherwise couldn't have done - because my DSLR is back at the hotel. Yes, you can tell the difference in quality on the iMac, but they're better than no photo at all.

I'm excited for the IP12 Pro upgrade. Better lenses, image stabilisation and HDR with improved low light capability. Still won't beat the Nikon though, except perhaps for low light photography.

With a tripod or the latest mirrorless models (My Z6 takes awesome low light pics with the 50mm 1.8S) that have sensor stabilization you can easily beat the iphone 12 in low light. With long exposure and low iso, they'll also be much less grainy and won't have the watercolor effect that cell phone pics have at night, even in night exposure mode, there's still a ton of noise reduction causing blurring...