I agree 100%…with this device I absolutely suck, maybe when the device gets better I’ll be better, but that might be around $2k+…who knows.
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.
Other Hopefully next iPhone has a better camera…updated!
- Thread starter jsmith1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m actually going to start thinking of splitting from iPhone as you’re right, most every other phone gives way more for the $.Buy a different phone next time. Maybe a Xiaomi. Get the phone that fits your needs rather than calling "it sucks" because "it's expensive and doesn't do what I want".
Xiaomi Mi 11 is an amazing example of how macro cameras should work
Xiaomi has shown the rest of the smartphone world how to take a close-upwww.tomsguide.com
That’s where you’re wrong..I don’t care if anyone agrees with me…the camera sucks from my experience and I don’t need validation about it.
I actually took some advice from a poster a while back and added an add on device to try and get better pics but ended up returning it.
Why don’t you show us example photos that you’re talking about?
I've heard similar thoughts from new photographers. They buy a camera and the kit lens and it doesn't do everything they want. They buy loads of lenses because each one doesn't make them a better photographer, even though each next lens is the answer.
What I've seen professional photographers and videographers do with just an iPhone is crazy. An iPhone will never replace a DSLR, but skill/experience and a knowledge of lighting/perspective/etc. goes a long way. You can't buy skill and experience.
However, you can try EVERY setting and learn from each experience.
Most experienced, but casual photographers try everything, and come out with a few keepers. As a sports photographer, I never had the patience to spend 45 minutes on a flower, but I've seen people do that.
Since the iPhone 4S, I've been impressed with the camera available to each iPhone. I'm always amazed that you can get such high quality from a tinier sensor. If people are willing to take the time and pay attention, they can get a great deal out of any phone camera now available.
Some of those are good although focus is very limited to on section…even so I haven’t seen those results from raw iPhone 12 Pro Max. Maybe I need to learn how to use add on software to compensate for macro lacking results, but thanks for showing.
I did a while back and actually bought a add on lense suggestion from a poster but returned it. That’s why I’m hoping the next phone has a better camera for the price Apple is getting…not sure why some get butt hurt because some want accountability for their $$.
With all due respect, this is 100% user error. Without putting in the time to develop your skills, you could spend $10k and still be a bad photographer and produce bad photos. That doesn't make the $10k camera a bad value for the money, it just further exposes you as a bad photographer.
I'm getting along just fine with mine, and of the 11 real cameras I own, the 12PM cameras are consistently more fun to shoot on than any of the DSLR/mirrorles setups.
The 12PM is a great tool. If you spend more time learning how to use it to its fullest and working on your photography in general, you'll get good results. Just because the minimum focus distance is a few inches longer (due to the larger sensor) doesn't make it a bad camera, just like all of the $6000 Leica lenses and rangefinder bodies that don't focus closer than 3 feet.
I'm getting along just fine with mine, and of the 11 real cameras I own, the 12PM cameras are consistently more fun to shoot on than any of the DSLR/mirrorles setups.
The 12PM is a great tool. If you spend more time learning how to use it to its fullest and working on your photography in general, you'll get good results. Just because the minimum focus distance is a few inches longer (due to the larger sensor) doesn't make it a bad camera, just like all of the $6000 Leica lenses and rangefinder bodies that don't focus closer than 3 feet.
With all due respect, this is 100% user error. Without putting in the time to develop your skills, you could spend $10k and still be a bad photographer and produce bad photos. That doesn't make the $10k camera a bad value for the money, it just further exposes you as a bad photographer.
I'm getting along just fine with mine, and of the 11 real cameras I own, the 12PM cameras are consistently more fun to shoot on than any of the DSLR/mirrorles setups.
The 12PM is a great tool. If you spend more time learning how to use it to its fullest and working on your photography in general, you'll get good results. Just because the minimum focus distance is a few inches longer (due to the larger sensor) doesn't make it a bad camera, just like all of the $6000 Leica lenses and rangefinder bodies that don't focus closer than 3 feet.
Wow. Stunning pictures!
Woah those are some amazing shots. Would it be okay if I used a couple as a wallpaper for my iPhone?
If you're using that as a crutch to claim the whole camera system sucks, I don't know what to tell you. And to be honest, with a cheap $9 awful Chinese amazon clip on macro lens it does just fine. The white flower image had no lens attachment, the rest did. Most $1500+ cameras you can buy won't focus this close either without an additional lens purchase. Because the tiny flat object in your pocket that does 9000 other things doesn't act as a microscope doesn't mean it sucks.
So for $1.5K, I would need more Chinese parts outside the phone other than the Chinese parts in the phone to get a decent macro shot without some software wizards, or will still need the software too?If you're using that as a crutch to claim the whole camera system sucks, I don't know what to tell you. And to be honest, with a cheap $9 awful Chinese amazon clip on macro lens it does just fine. The white flower image had no lens attachment, the rest did. Most $1500+ cameras you can buy won't focus this close either without an additional lens purchase. Because the tiny flat object in your pocket that does 9000 other things doesn't act as a microscope doesn't mean it sucks.
A dedicated $1500 DSLR or mirrorless isn't going to get you macro shots out of the box either. And *no device on the planet* is going to get you macro shots with more than a very thin plane of focus unless you have a completely still subject and tripod in order to focus stack 10-15 images together, and know exactly what you're doing in post to combine them.
You can get exactly what you're looking for out of the 12PM with a macro clip on lens, a tripod, some software, and some photography courses on YouTube. If you had bought a $1500 Sony A7III or something, you'd be in the same boat on some other forum - and they'd tell you to go buy a dedicated macro lens, a tripod, and some software for focus stacking.
Luckily good photographers get good results with most any gear. The rest is skill and practice.
“It sucks” … okay… as compared to what? In the world of smartphones, iPhone is one of the top rated. Don’t buy a phone for the camera. If you need better shots, buy a dedicated camera. Simple.
Why are we feeding the troll?
Why are we feeding the troll?
Last edited:
I guess maybe in certain situations. Most of what we do is take pictures of our kids indoors or at family events outside. We all trade photos after and the Pixel stuff is amazing in terms of the kids aren't blurry, even if they move. The detail is better, it's way better in lower light. iPhone takes better movies, for sure. So we trade movies for pics. It has been like this for 3-4 years. iPhone might take a better picture of a plate of food or a cat holding still?
Finally someone that doesn’t mind saying the truth as well. Of course it sucks, but with the kind of feedback you get here Apple will never get it right, to many fanbois.
No, we're not 'fanbois'. The issue is that we're offering explanations but you're not interested in entering a proper debate about it. You've offered your opinion of 'it sucks' and that's it. You're refusing to engage in discourse where we could discuss it - after all this is a forum. Your argument of 'I would need more Chinese parts outside the phone' doesn't hold any water. Even with a DSLR you will need EXTRA lenses to get good macro shots. You're acting as if Apple doesn't improve the camera in every single generation... As if it hasn't been among the top 2/3 of smartphone camera systems for years, often taking top spot there.
You're more than welcome to feel that the iPhone doesn't get good macro shots. But if you're going to hold that opinion and post it on a forum at least be open to how you could take better macro pictures (as has been posted in this thread numerous times) with a Pro Max.
So you want the camera to do something it was not designed to do. So what? That's why there are product spec sheets and why there are very reputable photography and smartphone websites that do extensive camera testing. It was known from the beginning that this model does not excel in macro focus situations. Buying one in the hopes that it will magically start taking the macro shots you desire will not change that.
My car is incapable of pulling a 2-ton trailer. Does the car suck? No, it's a great car for what it is. If I wanted to pull a 2-ton trailer, I should have bought a different car.
Speaking as someone who has been a serious photographer for over 50 years (and a professional for some of those years)... Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses. The Leica rangefinders of my youth (like the historic/classic M3), no matter how well-made and capable, absolutely suck for macro photography. Why? Because even if it has a lens capable of focusing to a couple of inches, the rangefinder focusing system does not focus to that distance, and the parallax present in all rangefinders means you can't accurately frame the photo. Proper macro focusing/composition requires through-the-lens viewing - that could be done using a totally old-school 4x5 or 8x10 view camera, a film SLR, or any digital with an electronic display that has a lens suited to the task.
Another basic truth about modern macro photography is that most cameras today include autofocus. Autofocus works really well when you're farther from the subject matter, but a fundamental weakness is that when the camera chooses the subject of sharpest focus it may not be choosing the subject that the photographer prefers. That choice of focus point becomes much more important in macro photography - do you want the closest tip of the nearest flower petal in sharpest focus, or do you want the focus to be somewhere in the middle of the flower petal, or...? iPhone, like most smartphone cameras, does allow you to manually select the point of sharpest focus (even for macro) but you have to know to use it. That's the difference between owning a camera and being a photographer.
Another key factor in macro photography is depth-of-focus/depth-of-field. The closer you get, the shorter the depth of focus. Photographers compensate for that (to the degree they can) by using a smaller aperture. Smaller aperture requires slower shutter speed, which leads to the need to steady the camera (tripod, traditionally). Even the best OIS (optical image stabilization) can't do as well as a tripod and remote shutter release (having both OIS and tripod is a nice thing). The nice thing is, I have an Apple Watch, which provides remote shutter release for my iPhone.
Shooting with flash (even in broad daylight) can be a necessity in macro work. Selecting a small aperture (to enhance depth of focus) may demand flash if you don't have a tripod, and sometimes even when you do have one. Again, knowing when and how to use that flash is the difference between owning a camera and being a photographer.
But I have a different approach to shooting with my iPhone X, and it's a philosophy that applies to all the cameras I've ever had - use the tool best-suited for the job. Every camera I've used has its particular strengths and weaknesses, and those factors affect the style and type of photos I take with that camera.
Rather than fight the weaknesses or take shots that just aren't going to work out, I use each camera to its best advantage. I have a very different style when I shoot with my iPhone than when I use my "good" camera and the style with my good camera is affected by which lens I have attached. I've been lucky and taken some very nice shots of nearby roosting birds with my iPhone, but since it has a 50mm-equivalent "telephoto" lens that kind of shot is very hard to get. I have several long telephoto lenses for my good camera, which makes it far better suited for wildlife and sports. iPhone is better for social photography and wide-angle scenics/landscapes. It doesn't mean I won't get down on my belly in the grass for an occasional flower macro with that iPhone, but it's not going to be a super close-up (which it can't do anyway).
I have the iPhone with me at all times, so I take far more shots with that than any other camera. When I intend to take "serious" shots when traveling/hiking I'm going to load my backpack with "good" camera, lenses, tripod and other accessories. Having that particular rig means most of my shots end up being "thoughtful," careful compositions rather than quick grabs. If I'm out hiking with a group I have to limit the number I times I stop to haul out that gear, compose, then wait for the desired lighting. In most cases I end up using both my good camera and my iPhone. iPhone for the spur-of-the-moment shots, good camera for the set-shots (unless it's spur-of-the-moment wildlife, in which case I hope I have my telephoto on the good camera, rather than the macro).
I have taken totally wonderful photos with my iPhones. They are not as technically perfect as they might have been with a "proper" camera, but they're more than good enough to wow the people who view them - whatever technical weaknesses exist are not enough to detract from the impact of the composition, lighting, subject matter, etc. The photos communicate, which is the most important thing.
So you can't tell me a particular camera "sucks" simply because it can't take extreme close-ups. All you can say is that it sucks for taking extreme close-ups. Take different kinds of photos, and if you must take extreme close ups, get a camera and lenses that are well-suited to the task.
My car is incapable of pulling a 2-ton trailer. Does the car suck? No, it's a great car for what it is. If I wanted to pull a 2-ton trailer, I should have bought a different car.
Speaking as someone who has been a serious photographer for over 50 years (and a professional for some of those years)... Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses. The Leica rangefinders of my youth (like the historic/classic M3), no matter how well-made and capable, absolutely suck for macro photography. Why? Because even if it has a lens capable of focusing to a couple of inches, the rangefinder focusing system does not focus to that distance, and the parallax present in all rangefinders means you can't accurately frame the photo. Proper macro focusing/composition requires through-the-lens viewing - that could be done using a totally old-school 4x5 or 8x10 view camera, a film SLR, or any digital with an electronic display that has a lens suited to the task.
Another basic truth about modern macro photography is that most cameras today include autofocus. Autofocus works really well when you're farther from the subject matter, but a fundamental weakness is that when the camera chooses the subject of sharpest focus it may not be choosing the subject that the photographer prefers. That choice of focus point becomes much more important in macro photography - do you want the closest tip of the nearest flower petal in sharpest focus, or do you want the focus to be somewhere in the middle of the flower petal, or...? iPhone, like most smartphone cameras, does allow you to manually select the point of sharpest focus (even for macro) but you have to know to use it. That's the difference between owning a camera and being a photographer.
Another key factor in macro photography is depth-of-focus/depth-of-field. The closer you get, the shorter the depth of focus. Photographers compensate for that (to the degree they can) by using a smaller aperture. Smaller aperture requires slower shutter speed, which leads to the need to steady the camera (tripod, traditionally). Even the best OIS (optical image stabilization) can't do as well as a tripod and remote shutter release (having both OIS and tripod is a nice thing). The nice thing is, I have an Apple Watch, which provides remote shutter release for my iPhone.
Shooting with flash (even in broad daylight) can be a necessity in macro work. Selecting a small aperture (to enhance depth of focus) may demand flash if you don't have a tripod, and sometimes even when you do have one. Again, knowing when and how to use that flash is the difference between owning a camera and being a photographer.
But I have a different approach to shooting with my iPhone X, and it's a philosophy that applies to all the cameras I've ever had - use the tool best-suited for the job. Every camera I've used has its particular strengths and weaknesses, and those factors affect the style and type of photos I take with that camera.
Rather than fight the weaknesses or take shots that just aren't going to work out, I use each camera to its best advantage. I have a very different style when I shoot with my iPhone than when I use my "good" camera and the style with my good camera is affected by which lens I have attached. I've been lucky and taken some very nice shots of nearby roosting birds with my iPhone, but since it has a 50mm-equivalent "telephoto" lens that kind of shot is very hard to get. I have several long telephoto lenses for my good camera, which makes it far better suited for wildlife and sports. iPhone is better for social photography and wide-angle scenics/landscapes. It doesn't mean I won't get down on my belly in the grass for an occasional flower macro with that iPhone, but it's not going to be a super close-up (which it can't do anyway).
I have the iPhone with me at all times, so I take far more shots with that than any other camera. When I intend to take "serious" shots when traveling/hiking I'm going to load my backpack with "good" camera, lenses, tripod and other accessories. Having that particular rig means most of my shots end up being "thoughtful," careful compositions rather than quick grabs. If I'm out hiking with a group I have to limit the number I times I stop to haul out that gear, compose, then wait for the desired lighting. In most cases I end up using both my good camera and my iPhone. iPhone for the spur-of-the-moment shots, good camera for the set-shots (unless it's spur-of-the-moment wildlife, in which case I hope I have my telephoto on the good camera, rather than the macro).
I have taken totally wonderful photos with my iPhones. They are not as technically perfect as they might have been with a "proper" camera, but they're more than good enough to wow the people who view them - whatever technical weaknesses exist are not enough to detract from the impact of the composition, lighting, subject matter, etc. The photos communicate, which is the most important thing.
So you can't tell me a particular camera "sucks" simply because it can't take extreme close-ups. All you can say is that it sucks for taking extreme close-ups. Take different kinds of photos, and if you must take extreme close ups, get a camera and lenses that are well-suited to the task.
Camera test: iPhone 12 vs. 12 Pro vs. 11 Pro
The next pair in this camera comparison is the new iPhone 12 Pro and the old iPhone 11 Pro (Max). So, he
Was the 12 Pro even better than previous year? Some don’t think so and for sure not worth the money.
Truth be told software enhancements are used most of the time for the better photos but they can’t help macro photos…hence raw they suck. Maybe Apple will fix this as the price gets to $2K.