iPhone 12 Pro vs Nikon Z7 in low light

[kallisti]

I'm loving, loving, loving my iPhone 12 Pro. Largely because I am now able to get reception at my desk at work where I couldn't with my iPhone XS Max (Intel modem vs Qualcomm modem).

I started a different thread with pics from the iPhone 12 Pro using it's computational photography for low light pics vs DNG pics taken with LR mobile.

Took some pics tonight comparing the iPhone 12 Pro files (both HEIC in low light mode using burst and subsequent computational photography, and DNG using LR mobile) to my Z7 and Sigma 40mm f/1.4.

All the pics were taken at f/1.6. I attempted to make the FOV similar between the pics, though it isn't perfect. DOF isn't the same because the lenses have different focal lengths and the subject distance wasn't the same.

For me, there are two different take home messages. The first is that Apple's computational algorithms are pretty damn good. The way they have combined multiple images into a single HEIC output image is laudable after looking at the DNG file from the LR mobile app. I'm actually excited to see what Apple ProRAW files look like. They may be usable.

The second take home message is that the files from the iPhone 12 Pro are still "phone" images and can't compete with the output from a dedicated camera. May not be totally obvious in the images posted below, but the differences in sharpness are quite dramatic when looking at the actual files (as well as other differences which all favor the Z7). Yes, I am using a good body with a good lens that isn't in the same economic ballpark as a phone camera. While the iPhone files may end up being usable for me once Apple ProRAW goes online, I don't see myself giving up my dedicated camera anytime soon. For *my* photographic needs, current phone cameras aren't adequate.

The other annoying thing I've noticed is that the iPhone 12 Pro keeps wanting to go into video recording mode for no apparent reason when in photo mode. Very, very annoying. Moving the camera takes it out of this mode and back into photo mode, but it has been driving me crazy.

Nikon Z7 and Sigma 40mm f/1.4 lens, 1/40th sec, f/1.6, ISO 1000. Exposure +1.60 in LR.

Nikon Z7 and Sigma 40mm f/1.4 lens, 0.4 sec, f/1.6, ISO 64. Exposure +1.65 in LR.

iPhone 12 Pro, standard "wide" lens (4.2mm), 1/15th sec, f/1.6, ISO 1250. DNG taken with Lightroom mobile app. Highlights -54 in LR.

iPhone 12 Pro, standard "wide" lens (4.2mm), 1/30th sec (taken in low light "burst" mode with a 1 sec burst window), f/1.6, ISO 1000. HEIC image. Exposure +0.95 in LR.

 

[MacNut]

The Nikon still looks better. If they were not side by side however you would not be able to tell.

 

[kallisti]

The Nikon still looks better. If they were not side by side however you would not be able to tell.

Kind of, sort of true. It depends on your intended output.

All images posted on this site (and many other sites) have a hard limit on the file sizes that can be posted. This results in relatively small files that by necessity degrade image quality. It’s one of the frustrations that I (and others) have with this forum. All images posted in the POTD thread (or other threads) appear “worse” (i.e. softer and with other artifacts) than the actual files when viewed on your computer screen or other device. For some pics it doesn’t matter, but for some it can. I get why the file limits are in place (and I am grateful that MR even lets us post all the images that this forum generates), but it makes it hard to really show off your work or compare images between different cameras/lenses.

In this case you will just have to trust me that when looking at the actual files it is night and day between the Nikon and the iPhone 12 Pro. I could potentially post crops that would highlight the differences more, but even those images will be small files that contain artifacts because of their small size.

If your intended output is solely for the web, “better” source files from an IQ perspective may not translate into noticeable differences. For printing, they may. Or if you need to crop, they may. Or if you need to do significant manipulation in post, they may.

The other thing I would note relates to DOF and bokeh. The iPhone standard “wide” lens is 4.2mm. Because of the smaller sensor it gives a much narrower field of view (closer to ~28mm in full frame terms, but Google search is failing me at the moment). Field of View might be similar to 28mm (or whatever it is), but DOF relates to the actual focal length of the lens. A 4.2mm lens has a massive DOF, even at large apertures and close subject distances.

You can see this in the pics I posted. The white blob to the left side of the chair with the Nikon pics is the same pinpoint light source in the iPhone pics. The 40mm lens on the Z7 @ f/1.6 rendered it as a large uniform “blob” without nasty artifacts like onion skinning (i.e. pleasing bokeh). With the iPhone it was captured as a point light source.

Depending on the subject, a shallow DOF or a massive DOF might be preferable. Different tools have different strengths and weaknesses.

I‘m happy that iPhone image IQ seems to be improving. I’m looking forward to seeing files shot in Apple ProRAW. Exciting times.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I agree that the forum really mashes the quality of the photos. Really seems to suck the saturation out of what I post.

 

[LiE_]

I agree the difference is substantial, but I am viewing them on my PC. I think many people only every view photos on social media/phones which allows the phone photos to look better than they actually are.

 

[mollyc]

but the bokeh on the Z file...never going to happen on a phone.

 

[kallisti]

but the bokeh on the Z file...never going to happen on a phone.

Very, very true.

A counter example would be the following image that I posted in the POTD thread:

iPhone 12 Pro, 4.2mm lens, 1/60th sec, f/1.6, ISO 250, HEIC file, handheld.

The massive DOF from the 4.2mm lens was incredibly helpful for this image. The edges of the leaves weren't in a flat plane, but stretching toward the camera. To get everything in this 3D image sharp with my Z7 would have involved compromises regardless of lens choice. Would have had to severely stop down the lens to get everything in focus. This would have required a tripod. With such a small aperture, diffraction would have been a serious concern regarding sharpness.

Possible I would have ended up with a better file using my Z7 and one of my lenses (20 f/1.8?, 24-70 f/2.8?, 40 f/1.4?, 105 macro?). Not sure. But whatever lens I chose would have had to be stopped down to f/16 (or smaller) to get everything in focus as it is with the iPhone 12 Pro image.

Arguable whether the Apple HEIC file is optimal regarding processing. But possible Apple ProRAW will give more options.

Full frame vs phone has many advantages. But for some subjects a phone camera could be a better tool, assuming the files are usable. A big if.

 

[r.harris1]

Very, very true.

A counter example would be the following image that I posted in the POTD thread:

View attachment 1528125
iPhone 12 Pro, 4.2mm lens, 1/60th sec, f/1.6, ISO 250, HEIC image, handheld.

The massive DOF from the 4.2mm lens was incredibly helpful for this image. The edges of the leaves weren't in a flat plane, but stretching toward the camera. To get everything in this 3D image sharp with my Z7 would have involved compromises regardless of lens choice. Would have had to severely stop down the lens to get everything in focus. This would have required a tripod. With such a small aperture, diffraction would have been a serious concern regarding sharpness.

Possible I would have ended up with a better file using my Z7 and one of my lenses (24-70 f/2.8?, 40 f/1.4?, 105 macro?, 200 macro?). Not sure. But whatever lens I chose would have had to be stopped down to f/16 (or smaller) to get everything in focus as it is with the iPhone 12 Pro image.

Arguable whether the Apple HEIC file is optimal regarding processing. But possible Apple ProRAW will give more options.

Full frame vs phone has many advantages. But for some subjects a phone camera could be a better tool, assuming the files are usable. A big if.

Great stuff! I'm looking forward to hearing more about the 12 pro max as well when it comes out, with its larger sensor. I'm not sure that the size tradeoff (of the phone itself) is worth it to me, but I haven't upgraded mine since the X so will probably do so with the 12 pro / 12 pro max. There seem to be more compelling features and opportunities for better image quality.

 

[tsd]

Really interesting stuff here. Thanks for taking the time to post it! I agree with your take on things. ? I’m considering an upgrade to either the 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max (using a 6S now), and the upgrade is 50% for the camera updates.

 

[bunnspecial]

Thanks for the photos and comparison.

The big thing that sticks out to me on iPhone photo is how nasty ISO 1250 is. That's something like Nikon D2H level noisy for that ISO. To my eye, my D800 at ISO 6400 looks better. From your web-sized crops, your Z7 looks as clean at 1000 as it does at 64, which is what I'd expect and reflects my recent experience with newer high end sensors. n

Granted the fact that you have a usable phone photo in those conditions is an impressive step forward, and something that wouldn't have happened even a few years ago.

 

[eyeseeyou]

Have you tried a night portrait mode pic?