How 48 megapixels on the iPhone 14 will give a huge advantage in your photography

[ericgtr12]

The expected upgrade in megapixels looks like the most significant change we've seen in the camera to date and offers a big advantage for photographers, not just for large print, but more importantly for cropping.

As it stands, no matter how many improvements Apple makes to the iPhone and sensors, they'll always be limited by glass as they cannot offer professional level lenses due to obvious size constraints. However, adding megapixels greatly reduces that need when you can crop out what you want and enlarge it.

Since upgrading to a 42 megapixel camera I've been able to get so many more keepers. Here is an example of cropping, when I go out on these shoots I am aware that I'll likely be taking samples from a large scene.

Here is the original out of the camera (shot in RAW on a Sony A7RIII with no in camera processing):

This is the end result, a small swath that I cropped out from the scene with zero quality loss. Post processing applied but no sharpening or enlarging:

This shows the detail you are able to pull out without applying any digital zoom so everything is in the optical range. IMO this ability will likely blur the difference between professional level cameras and the new iPhone even more.

 

[bunnspecial]

On a sensor that size, I'd be concerned about having glass that can actually resolve 48mp, or rather resolve at the pixel pitch that would come with a phone-sized sensor.

I have not crossed the 36mp line in my own personal photography, but a 36mp sensor can out-resolve a good number of my lenses, and even on the ones where it doesn't I have to do everything right.

With pixels that small will also come noise, and increasing the lens speed to be able to keep ISO down likely make it even more difficult to get all that resolution out.

I'm sure the new cameras will be a big improvement over the current 12MP, but I'll be interested to see how much real world improvement there actually is.

 

[ericgtr12]

On a sensor that size, I'd be concerned about having glass that can actually resolve 48mp, or rather resolve at the pixel pitch that would come with a phone-sized sensor.

I have not crossed the 36mp line in my own personal photography, but a 36mp sensor can out-resolve a good number of my lenses, and even on the ones where it doesn't I have to do everything right.

With pixels that small will also come noise, and increasing the lens speed to be able to keep ISO down likely make it even more difficult to get all that resolution out.

I'm sure the new cameras will be a big improvement over the current 12MP, but I'll be interested to see how much real world improvement there actually is.

All great questions that we'll have to wait for real world results to see, I'm guessing the camera will be doing a lot of processing to compensate on a digital level.

 

[r.harris1]

I haven't been following the rumors for the 48mp camera (will try to catch up when I come up for air), but are they saying the output will be 48mp or that it's a 48mp sensor? I know sometimes, the larger mp cameras in other phones have been used more from a pixel binning standpoint. The output could be 12mp but binning could help with DR in certain scenarios. Just curious...

 

[Analog Kid]

All great questions that we'll have to wait for real world results to see, I'm guessing the camera will be doing a lot of processing to compensate on a digital level.

Which basically means inventing data…

 

[jz0309]

All great questions that we'll have to wait for real world results to see, I'm guessing the camera will be doing a lot of processing to compensate on a digital level.

rumors I've read indicted it is for the ultra-wide camera only.
And my assumption has been that they would be using pixel binning, so not sure that you will actually get access to the RAW file, maybe through an app like Halide - but who knows, guess we'll have to wait a little while longer.

 

[ericgtr12]

I haven't been following the rumors for the 48mp camera (will try to catch up when I come up for air), but are they saying the output will be 48mp or that it's a 48mp sensor? I know sometimes, the larger mp cameras in other phones have been used more from a pixel binning standpoint. The output could be 12mp but binning could help with DR in certain scenarios. Just curious...

Your guess is as good as mine, if it is only for the ultra-wide as suggested then it won't bode well for cropping out certain areas I don't think.

 

[jwolf6589]

The expected upgrade in megapixels looks like the most significant change we've seen in the camera to date and offers a big advantage for photographers, not just for large print, but more importantly for cropping.

As it stands, no matter how many improvements Apple makes to the iPhone and sensors, they'll always be limited by glass as they cannot offer professional level lenses due to obvious size constraints. However, adding megapixels greatly reduces that need when you can crop out what you want and enlarge it.

Since upgrading to a 42 megapixel camera I've been able to get so many more keepers. Here is an example of cropping, when I go out on these shoots I am aware that I'll likely be taking samples from a large scene.

Here is the original out of the camera (shot in RAW with no in camera processing):
View attachment 2026821

This is the end result, a small swath that I cropped out from the scene with zero quality loss. Post processing applied but no sharpening or enlarging:
View attachment 2026823

This shows the detail you are able to pull out without applying any digital zoom so everything is in the optical range. IMO this ability will likely blur the difference between professional level cameras and the new iPhone even more.

I dont think a 48MP camera is a good idea. For one the files will be huge and for two 5G is just not available everywhere.

 

[MacNut]

I dont think a 48MP camera is a good idea. For one the files will be huge and for two 5G is just not available everywhere.

I doubt the iPhone would be shooting RAW, so files sizes won't be that bad. Apple will still be compressing these images.

 

[mollyc]

I dont think a 48MP camera is a good idea. For one the files will be huge and for two 5G is just not available everywhere.

you don’t need 5g to take a photo. my regular cameras aren’t connected to the internet and they take photos just fine.

 

[MacNut]

you don’t need 5g to take a photo. my regular cameras aren’t connected to the internet and they take photos just fine.

And even if you were, instagram is not accepting a 48 MP file.

 

[jwolf6589]

you don’t need 5g to take a photo. my regular cameras aren’t connected to the internet and they take photos just fine.

I should have been more clear. Most people instantly send to social media or text their photos.

 

[bunnspecial]

When I think of a "stereotypical" iPhone camera user, I think of someone like my wife who gave up using a P&S camera probably around 2013 or 2014 and generally takes far more photos with her phone than I do. She will take a photo with one of my "good" cameras, but has zero desire to actually use anything other than an iPhone(and yes she basically has free access to anything I have). Many of her photos get uploaded to Instabook or wherever else.

AFAIK, most social media sites compress photos when you upload. iMessage is good about initially sending at "thumbnail" resolution and then will give full res on the receiver's end if they want it. If you send an image over email and IIRC over SMS, you're given a couple of resolution options.

We ARE talking about Apple, and I'm sure that they won't roll something like this out unless they are sure it can be used seamlessly in a typical user's application. Of course that's not perfect, as .heic files can still be problematic for users outside the Apple ecosystem, but mostly Apple is good about the whole "it just works" thing.

 

[ericgtr12]

When I think of a "stereotypical" iPhone camera user, I think of someone like my wife who gave up using a P&S camera probably around 2013 or 2014 and generally takes far more photos with her phone than I do. She will take a photo with one of my "good" cameras, but has zero desire to actually use anything other than an iPhone(and yes she basically has free access to anything I have). Many of her photos get uploaded to Instabook or wherever else.

AFAIK, most social media sites compress photos when you upload. iMessage is good about initially sending at "thumbnail" resolution and then will give full res on the receiver's end if they want it. If you send an image over email and IIRC over SMS, you're given a couple of resolution options.

We ARE talking about Apple, and I'm sure that they won't roll something like this out unless they are sure it can be used seamlessly in a typical user's application. Of course that's not perfect, as .heic files can still be problematic for users outside the Apple ecosystem, but mostly Apple is good about the whole "it just works" thing.

Of course all that RAW data gives us the flexibility in post and the ability to crop things down that we're after but it's funny that 20+ to 40+ megabyte photos end up being uploaded at less than 200 kb to social media.

 

[bunnspecial]

Of course all that RAW data gives us the flexibility in post and the ability to crop things down that we're after but it's funny that 20+ to 40+ megabyte photos end up being uploaded at less than 200 kb to social media.

Very true.

Since I'm still stuck in 2014 with a D810(along side a D800, which was the camera that made me really jump into digital and has a very similar sensor to the D810) and 36mp, my files aren't QUITE as large as if I was using a 40+mp camera, although I'm also hoping to get a D850 sometime in the next few months.

I'm glad to have the files, especially when I start cropping. Still, though, if I post am image from it here or elsewhere, my standard Lightroom export setting is 2500 pixels on the long dimension. That's still too big for a lot of purposes, and I post to some websites that still automatically resize down to 1200 pixels on the long dimension. That's throwing a lot away considering that the sensor spits out over 7000 horizontal.

At the same time, the largest I've printed from it is 20x24. At 300dpi, that's 7200 pixels across. Since 35mm film and the full frame sensors that followed are stupidly wide for a lot of purposes, sizing to the 20x24 aspect ratio from a 36mp file leave 5800 pixels. I didn't crop it too much other than of course to get it in ratio, but did have to some when I did a bit of perspective correction. I ended up interpolating up, quite literally a first for me(and something that AFAIK hasn't really been improved/advanced in about 15 years when 12mp+ cameras started becoming the norm). I did, fortunately, shoot it at base ISO and I used the 35mm f/1.4 ART I then owned(I had a love/hate relationship with that lens, and IIRC a D810 firmware update killed it on that camera and mine was old enough that it had to go to the factory to get updated or maybe I didn't want to buy the dock to do it myself, so I cut my losses on that heavy beast I rarely used) that could easily out-resolve the sensor at f/5.6. I gave the print away, but IIRC there was some definite fuzziness on close examination, but that was to my picky eyes and not to the person who was VERY grateful to get the print.

I'll also mention that I had that printed at the lab that, then, did all my film processing for me. The person who took the order initially was reluctant to sell me a print that large. I asked(by name) for the person who did film processing as she knew me by name, and said "I hope that's a medium format scan and not a 35mm." I told her it was a digital original and what it came from, and she assured them that I knew what I was doing and it would be fine, but still I can understand the reluctance for a lab to spit out a $30 print when a whole lot of their customers would come in with lower resolution photos. Of course I'd have also hoped that my coming in with a cropped file sized to print at exactly 300 dpi at the requested size might have clued them in, but oh well.

 

[Falhófnir]

A little bit of extra info from when Nokia first debuted this tech in a phone a decade ago:

Nokia 808 PureView review: Photo Finnish

The camera is the main reason everyone is interested in the Nokia 808 PureView. It was off to a flying start after emerging victorious from our blind...

www.gsmarena.com

The lossless digital zoom is an interesting byproduct, less so for the Pros with the 3x lens (and in future periscope) but the regular iPhone could benefit from a good substitute to optical zoom!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Quite a few years ago, my everyday smartphone was a Lumia 1020, which was very unique for its time. It has a 41MP sensor that took a full-res shot, but downscaled a copy to something like 4MP for easy sharing and file management. The idea was you take the picture, then crop to zoom. It was a remarkable smartphone camera setup for its time, and became a dedicated camera for me at the time. The other plus was the attachable grip that made using it as a camera even easier. It had a battery built into it, so you got more time shooting with it. It’s nothing special today, but it was way ahead of its time. 10 years later, iPhone finally might move past it (with all the sensor advancements they have been made since then too).

 

[cthompson94]

One thing to note is the sensor itself. I am not sure what camera you used for your original post, but that seems like some good low light performance. Phones not having as big of a sensor would need more time hence the iPhone automatically adding seconds to take the photo in a darker situation. IMO, simply throwing Megapixels at the phones camera system is a cheap way of "creating better photos", just look at the more recent Sony Xperia that was released. Sony made it so the phone has a 100% optical zoom lens not just a 2 or 3 set focal lengths and using crop to mimic a focal length in between. The Xperia proves that true optics can be done in a phone, granted it is expensive.

One last thing is keep in mind from what I noticed anyway, even using ProRaw, there still seems to be some processing done to the image the "painted" look that Apple uses in which in comparison to a camera doesn't happen quite the same (I understand that there is not true RAW and that there is always processing done, but DSLR/Mirrorless cameras seems to have very minimal compared to not just the iPhone but all the phones version of RAW images.)

 

[PhilBoogie]

And now that the 48MP iPhone is here, I think it's safe to say: hooray! Yes, using the 48MP isn't always better, but we now get to choose. And with Halide or ProCam we can also shoot 48MP in HEIF or JPG.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Very true.

Since I'm still stuck in 2014 with a D810(along side a D800, which was the camera that made me really jump into digital and has a very similar sensor to the D810) and 36mp, my files aren't QUITE as large as if I was using a 40+mp camera, although I'm also hoping to get a D850 sometime in the next few months.

I'm glad to have the files, especially when I start cropping. Still, though, if I post am image from it here or elsewhere, my standard Lightroom export setting is 2500 pixels on the long dimension. That's still too big for a lot of purposes, and I post to some websites that still automatically resize down to 1200 pixels on the long dimension. That's throwing a lot away considering that the sensor spits out over 7000 horizontal.

At the same time, the largest I've printed from it is 20x24. At 300dpi, that's 7200 pixels across. Since 35mm film and the full frame sensors that followed are stupidly wide for a lot of purposes, sizing to the 20x24 aspect ratio from a 36mp file leave 5800 pixels. I didn't crop it too much other than of course to get it in ratio, but did have to some when I did a bit of perspective correction. I ended up interpolating up, quite literally a first for me(and something that AFAIK hasn't really been improved/advanced in about 15 years when 12mp+ cameras started becoming the norm). I did, fortunately, shoot it at base ISO and I used the 35mm f/1.4 ART I then owned(I had a love/hate relationship with that lens, and IIRC a D810 firmware update killed it on that camera and mine was old enough that it had to go to the factory to get updated or maybe I didn't want to buy the dock to do it myself, so I cut my losses on that heavy beast I rarely used) that could easily out-resolve the sensor at f/5.6. I gave the print away, but IIRC there was some definite fuzziness on close examination, but that was to my picky eyes and not to the person who was VERY grateful to get the print.

I'll also mention that I had that printed at the lab that, then, did all my film processing for me. The person who took the order initially was reluctant to sell me a print that large. I asked(by name) for the person who did film processing as she knew me by name, and said "I hope that's a medium format scan and not a 35mm." I told her it was a digital original and what it came from, and she assured them that I knew what I was doing and it would be fine, but still I can understand the reluctance for a lab to spit out a $30 print when a whole lot of their customers would come in with lower resolution photos. Of course I'd have also hoped that my coming in with a cropped file sized to print at exactly 300 dpi at the requested size might have clued them in, but oh well.

I imagine that a camera with even a 20MP sensor used during sports events at bursts of 20 fps would take a lot of hard drive space

 

[OldMacs4Me]

It's not necessarily the number of pixels but the number of pixels that show image detail. My little Fuji XP 90 camera is supposedly 16MP but quite honestly shows no more detail at 16MP than it does if I do the same image at 8MP, and is only a marginal improvement over a 3.2MP capture.

Given the sensor size on the iPhones is still in the itsy bitsy teeny weenie range, I suspect those extra megapixels will be of very limited value. Especially in terms of cropping.

 

[bunnspecial]

I imagine that a camera with even a 20MP sensor used during sports events at bursts of 20 fps would take a lot of hard drive space

It's nutty to me that the Nikon Z9 can do 20fps at full RAW with its 45.7mp sensor, and will go up to 30fps if you do JPEG. Drop it to 11mp and you can hit 120fps!

I thought 9fps out of my D850 was fast enough!

 

[robgendreau]

One can seem some nice examples of a real world photographer Jonny Roam using an iPhone 14 Pro, both the UW 12MP and the wide 48MP sensor, compared to his Sony A7iv, here:

The amount of shadow recovery from raw images in Lr was amazing.

Some other examples, like cropping a 48MP Apple ProRAW to the 12MP: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/i-just-tried-the-iphone-14-pros-48mp-camera-at-it-blew-me-away

Note the 48MP raws in Apple ProRaw are huge. Like about 90MB. For more day to day shooting, it will use pixel binning and have much smaller files. I haven't seen examples of those with the iPhone; on some other platforms the results weren't terribly improved over say a regular 48MP, but with Apple's processing I wouldn't assume that will be the case.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

It's nutty to me that the Nikon Z9 can do 20fps at full RAW with its 45.7mp sensor, and will go up to 30fps if you do JPEG. Drop it to 11mp and you can hit 120fps!

I thought 9fps out of my D850 was fast enough!

Yes. The firing rate of new cameras is quite fast, so when I am photographing sled dog races, I return home and the cards are holding photos by the gigabyte numbers. What I have been doing is deleting the photos I don't want (out of focus, and so on) before editing in my computer. Then when the folders on the desktop have a few gigabytes worth of edited photos I move then to external hard drives. Now for landscape, waterscape and other photographic events where one is not settingg the camera to burst mode, the 30-50 MP sensors should be real nice.

The new iPhone sounds interesting, but I don't need to upgrade that far over my 11 Pro since I don't use it for photography.

 

[mackmgg]

Been testing it a bit, and the 48 megapixel images are definitely better but they're also HUGE. I'll probably use it for landscape shots where I really want the extra detail, but at 80-100MB per photo it's not going to be enabled very often.

Now, the 12MP mode at night is incredible! For that reason, I have my ProRAW set to 12MP mode, since it can take some incredible handheld astro shots. Here's an example handheld photo taken with the iPhone 14 Pro: