Photographers with pro gear - how are we liking the latest iPhone camera updates?

[ericgtr12]

I wanted to get an idea of how many photographers using pro gear are moving toward the iPhone. Personally, I've been embracing the iPhone camera, just moved from the 11 Pro Max to the 13 Pro max and have made a conscious effort to use it for more of my photography for some shots.

My conclusion is that it's still not quite there, it's a great point and shoot but I can't seem to get the same quality and composition.

First is the lack of a view finder, whether on my DSLR or my mirrorless I rely on this for composition and framing and didn't realize how much until I used the iPhone instead. It's a struggle to see and unless it's a low light situation I really can't see the iPhone screen in broad daylight, at least not well enough to scrutinize it properly as I shoot. It can also be unwieldy and awkward to hold as you're taking a shot, even using the volume buttons for the shutter.

The lenses, while always improving, are still not even close to what you can get on DSLR or mirrorless, even by the standards of 10 or 15 years ago they simply cannot compete with the quality of a standard up to scale lens with all the elements included. It's hard to fault smartphones for this as we understand the size limitations but I don't see how they ever get around this hurdle.

I was hoping to continue using it for genuine photography work but after testing for a while I've concluded that it won't work for that, I have a second older DSLR that I'll be using for wider shots while keeping my 70-200 on my main mirrorless, so I have full coverage. However, for shots of the family, pets, real life fun stuff you can't go wrong with the iPhone.

 

[Clix Pix]

I mostly use my iPhone for quick snapshots of an interesting scene or item that I spot while out-and-about or occasionally even at home when I see something that I think could make an interesting image. Actually, I did that this morning, just for the heck of it. Sometimes I'll use the iPhone as a preliminary "test shot" device before setting up a scene and getting out the other gear.

 

[mollyc]

I can't imagine using the phone for "good photos." Admittedly I still have only an 8+, and my kids have newer phones and those phones take much better photos. But I'm not giving up my good gear anytime soon. I enjoy using it too much.

That said, I am going backwards into diving more and more into film, even with some lower end bodies. But using film gear makes me think even harder, really paying attention to settings and composition, knowing that it's more difficult to fix in post.

I have been trying to use my phone a bit more deliberately when I pull it out for a photo, but I still rarely remember it even has a camera unless I am taking goofy photos of the dog to send to my kids.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

For what I photograph much of, I don’t know that a phone will ever be able to suffice. 300-600mm shots on a smartphone will always be inferior, because whatever sensor improvements are made in a phone could easily be applied to a classic camera sensor that is much bigger and has much more substantial optics. Yes, they keep adding new abilities to phones that provide more flexibility, but it’s hard to conquer physics with small sensors and thin lenses.

Much of what has improved smartphone cameras in recent years are software enhancements, where multisampling and AI are applied. The phone detects a face, so it applies certain algorithms to make the result look better. It detects a sky, it smooths out the gradients. Etc. I think this might be fine, since it helps everyday folks get better results, but it seems to be going too far for my tastes. IMO, Apple peaked with the XR, as I find the 12 to really go overboard with HDR, and stops just shy of blowing out highlights. The end result feels a bit unnatural to me.

I guess you can always shoot in RAW mode and such, but that starts removing the convenience factor. I’m still not a fan of the ergonomics and focal length limitations. All that said, I’m most likely to use a smartphone for video, but even there, I believe videophiles will say it doesn’t compare. It’s just that video isn’t something I aspire to really master, and phones do a good enough job for me there.

 

[r.harris1]

I’ve seen amazing shots from various model of iPhone over time. Of course, like all amazing shots, it’s heavily dependent on the individual behind it. I personally hate the form factor, though. It feels like I’m holding a phone and I don’t want texts and calls on my camera. I will absolutely use it in the right situations and the cameras in them have come a long way. But I love the quality and flexibility of larger sensors and I like to shoot between 20mm and 600mm with reasonably high quality glass. iPhones are definitely convenient but we’re heading to the UK this summer (finally!) and I’ll have my beloved Fuji X100f at my side ready to go. It’s very portable and the lens is perfect for vacation shots. And I won’t get a phone call from my mom on it.

 

[cthompson94]

I usually do iPhone upgrades every 1-2 years mainly for the camera upgrade. As others have mentioned, I use my iPhone camera mainly for snapshots and video and keep my camera for photographs if you will. I have noticed that the iPhone photos are starting to look more and more like oil paintings especially with just zooming in a little which looks good sometimes imo. I really love it for videos, I have been trying to get into and learn how to make and edit videos from my camera, but the iPhones video is just so good that mainly what I take videos of anyway are my 2 year old so the quick, 4k, HDR and so on video fills that pretty easily without the need to record flat in camera to record as much info as possible and then bring back as much color and whatnot in post.

Size is another thing, but for just going out and about I just keep my Tamron 28-75 on camera, sure it is bigger than a phone, but I can also zoom to 75mm optically and can even use Super-35 mode (sony) go in further with a 1.5x crop if really needing a little extra distance.

I know there are professionals who make beautiful images from their iPhone, but as much as I love advancing tech, there is something about the feel of changing controls physically with a tactile response compared to a touch screen, I feel like majority of amazing iPhone photos need time to make sure all the settings are correct while tapping various buttons compared to a Mirrorless (since that is what I have) that you can change majority of the settings you need without needing to even look away from the EVF.

 

[mackmgg]

When I'm out and about, I'll usually only use one camera (the nicest camera I have with me, generally). So iPhone is mostly used when I don't have any other camera with me. But when I'm setting up a tripod anyway, I do try and take an identical shot (on the same tripod) with both just to compare later. The real camera is obviously still better, especially anywhere there's shallow depth of field desired or longer reach. But that gap is narrowing quickly. I'm in an every other year upgrade cycle just for the camera, so I currently have a 12 Pro and am eagerly awaiting the 14 Pro. Here's a comparison shot from this weekend's shoot:

The left is a 225 second exposure with a Canon R6 with the RF 16mm f/2.8. The right is an iPhone 12 Pro 29 second exposure in Night Mode. Obviously the Canon is better than the iPhone, but the iPhone is better than my original DSLR (a Canon T2i). And this is comparing a 29 second exposure to a 225 second exposure, I think if the iPhone let you shoot that long it would be a lot more comparable! And again this is with an iPhone 12 Pro, whereas the 13 Pro has a significantly larger sensor. I think in only a few more iPhone generations you'll be able to take astrophotography shots that are worth printing big, which is exciting!

Going forward a few years, I think the big gap between phone cameras and "real" cameras will be telephoto lenses (I could see phones getting 200mm with periscope lenses, but not 600mm for a while) and ergonomics. Even though I'm happy with the photos my phone takes, there are some shots that are just easier to get with a bigger camera with buttons and knobs and dials because you can get exactly what you want a lot quicker. So as @mollyc said, I don't see getting rid of any of the dedicated photography cameras any time soon, because I enjoy using them. But I do think if I see something cool when I don't have a camera with me, I'll be able to get a pretty good shot with just my phone.

 

[orionquest]

I've adapted my workflow to include iPhone shots. Not for pro use just everyday snapshots. Capturing the moment, a place etc. It's great for this and it's alot quicker then pulling out my bulky DSLR. Anything photography related is all DSLR. Because it is more specific and I have options with lenses to get the desired shot and work in any conditions.

Right tool for the right purpose, or whichever camera you have with you

 

[Clix Pix]

This is the sort of situation when I will use my iPhone: as I was entering our local branch of the public library, I noticed that they had this really fun exhibit in their main display case. It featured those lovable bright yellow Minions, and a friend of mine has always been fond of them. Voila -- a no-brainer to pull out the iPhone 12 Pro and snap a few shots, which I'll be sending to her, as I know she'll get a kick out of them.

 

[GumaRodak]

I do use fuji x100f for private pictures, shooting directly to jpgs so i dont have to edit them and loose private time, as this is the only thing which i cant buy …. Phone which i have is for calls, messaging etc … so i do spare a lot of money not hunting every year for new hw in hope of better pictures etc …

 

[Astrohunter]

iPhone 13 Pro Max here, and even compared to cheap camera like Sony A6400… you just can’t compare.

Phones have too tiny sensor, the image looks crap on my 4k display.
And they completely fall apart in low light.

What I also don’t like is that Apple is messing with RAW files on iPhone, doing noise reduction and other things you can’t disable.

2 years ago before buying my first camera, I almost fell for the youtubers crap that there is almost no difference between dslr and smartphones anymore.

Luckily I didn’t…

Now I only use my smartphone camera if I want to photograph some documents etc.

 

[mackmgg]

What I also don’t like is that Apple is messing with RAW files on iPhone, doing noise reduction and other things you can’t disable.

Like most cameras, Apple embeds a processed JPG in with the RAW, which is what’s shown in Photos. Click the “Edit” button or open it in Lightroom/whatever editor you use. You’ll see a completely different looking image!

 

[Astrohunter]

Like most cameras, Apple embeds a processed JPG in with the RAW, which is what’s shown in Photos. Click the “Edit” button or open it in Lightroom/whatever editor you use. You’ll see a completely different looking image!

Nah, NR is applied to RAW too.

 

[kenoh]

Like most cameras, Apple embeds a processed JPG in with the RAW, which is what’s shown in Photos. Click the “Edit” button or open it in Lightroom/whatever editor you use. You’ll see a completely different looking image!

Agreed you can get to the RAW but there is now a concept of RAW vs RAW RAW. Apple bake some processing into what we get as the RAW image. Leica do it on the SL2 too (distortion control) based on the lens it has attached so if you manually set the wrong lens, it can affect the "RAW" you get in post.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well, I am assuming that a good photographer using a cellphone or even a pinhole camera can take a "better" photo than a bad photographer using a professional camera. There are lots of professional photographers including cellphones in their photographic events.

Re-edit: I forgot to mention that there is a ting as timing or being in the right place. There are all kinds of things that can make a photo better or worst, but these things are subjective. A photo that tells a story without having the photographer explaining what it is, probably is more interesting than not.

 

[katbel]

Several times I don't have my gear with me, but the iPhone 12 Pro is always in my pockets and if there is a shot that is worth it I take it and then I go back with my gear, depending on many factors.
Sometimes it is because of the light in that precise moment or the subject/panorama or because I know that I will not have time to go back with my camera. Many times it happens the opposite: camera ready and nothing worth it..like birds: the other day there were a row on a wire, starlings alternated to purple finches, amazing.
As soon as I pointed at them, all gone and I was hidden, kind of. Then two starlings came back, not the finches.

Updated the iPhone model: still have the iPhone 8+ , one of my favourite

 

[mackmgg]

Another year, another iPhone! Decided to upgrade from the 12 to the 14 Pro this year. I posted the handheld shot in another thread, but figured I'd post 3 here. The iPhone handheld, the iPhone with a tripod, and the Canon R6 on a tripod.

Handheld iPhone 14 Pro, 10 second exposure:

iPhone 14 Pro on tripod, 30 second exposure:

Canon R6, 35mm f/1.8 @ f/4, 450 second exposure:

In thumbnails, all three pictures are quite good! The difference between them is only in how big you can view it before things start to fall apart. Especially in the finer details, which the iPhone tends to turn to mush. And of course I haven't found a good way to take multi-minute exposures with the iPhone, so the Canon has far more light gathering.

These pictures were taken less than a mile outside of town, so next time I'm in a truly dark place I'll do another comparison! The light pollution was definitely the limiting factor more than the camera I think.

 

[sam_dean]

For paid work the iPhone would make it a more complicated workflow.

As a personal everyday camera I prefer it

 

[mtbdudex]

Another year, another iPhone! Decided to upgrade from the 12 to the 14 Pro this year. I posted the handheld shot in another thread, but figured I'd post 3 here. The iPhone handheld, the iPhone with a tripod, and the Canon R6 on a tripod.

Handheld iPhone 14 Pro, 10 second exposure:
View attachment 2086406

iPhone 14 Pro on tripod, 30 second exposure:
View attachment 2086408

Canon R6, 35mm f/1.8 @ f/4, 450 second exposure:
View attachment 2086410

In thumbnails, all three pictures are quite good! The difference between them is only in how big you can view it before things start to fall apart. Especially in the finer details, which the iPhone tends to turn to mush. And of course I haven't found a good way to take multi-minute exposures with the iPhone, so the Canon has far more light gathering.

These pictures were taken less than a mile outside of town, so next time I'm in a truly dark place I'll do another comparison! The light pollution was definitely the limiting factor more than the camera I think.

Thx for posting this, nice to see.
Looking fwd to the dark skies outing.
I have iPhone 11Pro.. passed on the 13 but maybe getting the 14, last had the 8+ so on a 3 year upgrade cycle.

I also have an R5 and use that for “event” photos.. like HS homecoming, prom, or when I go on purposeful nature outings.

 

[mackmgg]

Yesterday I decided to go ahead and print those photos to compare them on paper instead of just the screen. I wasn't expecting much from the iPhone print, but it far exceeded my expectations! I printed both 13x19", and as expected the photo from the R6 was the much better print. But the iPhone photo looks way better on print than it does on the screen! I think this has to do with all the AI artifacts that set the effective pixel size (which is of course bigger than the real pixels), so on the screen you can zoom to 100% and you'll see the pixels but then it's made up of blobs around that. When printed, there are no obvious pixels so the blobs don't look nearly as out of place.

Given the choice of course, I'd obviously rather have the R6 than the iPhone. But the iPhone prints really well, so I won't think twice about using the iPhone (with a MagSafe tripod) to take astrophotography photos if that's all I have with me. Or even leaving the R6 behind if I want to travel lightweight to get somewhere further away and not spend as much time hiking at night.

 

[ericgtr12]

Yesterday I decided to go ahead and print those photos to compare them on paper instead of just the screen. I wasn't expecting much from the iPhone print, but it far exceeded my expectations! I printed both 13x19", and as expected the photo from the R6 was the much better print. But the iPhone photo looks way better on print than it does on the screen! I think this has to do with all the AI artifacts that set the effective pixel size (which is of course bigger than the real pixels), so on the screen you can zoom to 100% and you'll see the pixels but then it's made up of blobs around that. When printed, there are no obvious pixels so the blobs don't look nearly as out of place.

Given the choice of course, I'd obviously rather have the R6 than the iPhone. But the iPhone prints really well, so I won't think twice about using the iPhone (with a MagSafe tripod) to take astrophotography photos if that's all I have with me. Or even leaving the R6 behind if I want to travel lightweight to get somewhere further away and not spend as much time hiking at night.

I would consider two factors with this, first is those prints are still pretty small but if the goal is keeping it that way then it seems perfectly usable. My buddy took a photo of a pier in the fog with his iPhone 6 and I have an 8x10 of it up on my wall, looks great. I'm also guessing that I would get a pretty usable 13x19 if I wanted.

The other is that the iPhone does in camera processing with compressed jpg files, so basically what you see is what you get but again if that's acceptable then more power to you. Low light with any real details is also still a problem from my tests, even the latest cannot compare to a real camera on a tripod taking long exposures in RAW. I'll admit that I'm very meticulous about this as I like nice large, clean prints of night skylines and low light scenes. Even at smaller prints the iPhone is noisy and overblown with its internal settings.

When it comes to post processing a RAW image from DSLR/Mirrorless (larger sensors) you obviously have a lot more data and flexibility to work with and freedom to tweak the image as you see fit. Of course that comes with a learning curve and experience but the results can be spectacular in the right hands.

I still see it as an option between consumer point & shoot vs professional level DSLR/Mirrorless, if one is not out to be a photographer with professional looking images then the cameras on the iPhones are perfectly acceptable. It's always my go to for quick point & shoots as well.

 

[mackmgg]

I would consider two factors with this, first is those prints are still pretty small but if the goal is keeping it that way then it seems perfectly usable. My buddy took a photo of a pier in the fog with his iPhone 6 and I have an 8x10 of it up on my wall, looks great. I'm also guessing that I would get a pretty usable 13x19 if I wanted.

The other is that the iPhone does in camera processing with compressed jpg files, so basically what you see is what you get but again if that's acceptable then more power to you. Low light with any real details is also still a problem from my tests, even the latest cannot compare to a real camera on a tripod taking long exposures in RAW. I'll admit that I'm very meticulous about this as I like nice large, clean prints of night skylines and low light scenes. Even at smaller prints the iPhone is noisy and overblown with its internal settings.

When it comes to post processing a RAW image from DSLR/Mirrorless (larger sensors) you obviously have a lot more data and flexibility to work with and freedom to tweak the image as you see fit. Of course that comes with a learning curve and experience but the results can be spectacular in the right hands.

I still see it as an option between consumer point & shoot vs professional level DSLR/Mirrorless, if one is not out to be a photographer with professional looking images then the cameras on the iPhones are perfectly acceptable. It's always my go to for quick point & shoots as well.

For any astrophotography, RAW is not optional. The JPG (or really HEIF but I'll still call them JPGs) produced is just miles behind. As you said, RAW gives you way more data, and I think an iPhone RAW (aka ProRAW) gives even more data than the RAWs from my mirrorless. Sure the larger sensor gives you a better dynamic range and less noise, but phone sensors have come a long way! My old T2i produced acceptable photos up to ISO 1600, maybe 3200. Then I had a 6D II which could go up to ISO 6400, maybe 12,800 if I didn't mind aggressive de-noising. Now my R6 is great at ISO 12,800 and even acceptable at 25,600 which is incredible! I'd put the iPhone 14 Pro at usable up to ISO 6400 though, which puts it almost on par with a 6D Mark II (a 5 year old DSLR at this point). The RX100 is unusable above ISO 3200, so I'll take the iPhone over it in low light any day. And that's not surprising, in addition to the computational photography the iPhone has a larger pixel pitch! Sure it's only 12MP vs 24MP (and so still a smaller sensor) but 12MP is plenty for most uses that don't involve cropping.

All that's to say, the iPhone will not produce as good of a photo as a modern full frame sensor. Not even close. But if you were happy with the results of DSLRs from the past decade, there's no reason to say that an iPhone can't produce the same images (assuming you want an image at 24mm because it's not interchangeable lens and the other "lenses" aka other sensors aren't quite as good).

The real place a MILC still shines is very very long exposures. I've tried, but haven't yet found a good way to take exposures measured in minutes rather than seconds on the iPhone. Maybe I'll have to write my own very specialized camera app? I'm still playing around and that photo was taken when I had only had the new iPhone for a week or so. I'm sure as I go I'll figure out more tips and tricks! I'm also specifically comparing tripod to tripod, the iPhone can way outperform the R6 handheld but I'm not happy with the results of either for astrophotography without a tripod (even though they're both very good and perfectly useable for social media). This is the tripod I use for my iPhone (which I backed on Kickstarter so didn't pay the full price for), and it's incredible. Not much bigger than a few credit cards so plenty easy to carry even on an outing where the R6 would be too big.

As for print size, I'm not going to spend the money to get these printed any larger just for a comparison. Unfortunately I can only print 13x19 at home. If I had more space I would upgrade printers in a heartbeat to a 16x24 printer, but I just couldn't fit one anywhere. I do really like printing my photos, and it's a lot nicer to just do at home than send it to a lab! That said, 13x19 is significantly bigger than 8x10 (~3x bigger) but it is still a lot smaller than 16x24 (though only ~1.5x smaller so closer to 16x24 than 8x10).

For reference here's an edited RAW vs an out of phone JPG:

No comparison!

 

[citysnaps]

Around 10 years ago a photographer friend and I engaged in a San Francisco photo project, intentionally using only our iPhones (this was following a previous Tenderloin project using regular dSLR cams). Don't remember exactly, but guessing our iPhones were either 4s, 5, or 5s models.

We made a book and sold a bunch of them, had a gallery exhibition, and raised a lot of money for a charity we donated our proceeds to, Larkin Street Youth Services (similar to our Tenderloin USA project, book, and exhibition).

While the phones were far from perfect, they were good enough for the book and for gallery exhibition prints that were around 20x20 inches, and reception.

Today, with my iPhone 14 PM, I'd have no qualms at all engaging in similar and more demanding projects, producing much better results.

 

[Astrohunter]

Good hardware destroyed but poor processing.
Oversharpened and noise reduced photos that look like oil painting (at least my iP13 Pro Max)