Great article as usual. However you missed an important detail about the iPhone 4's camera, which Apple also fails to mention on their website. The new iPhone's camera sports an f2.4 lens, while the 3Gs only had an f2.8 lens. You can verify this by examining the EXIF data on photos taken with both phones' cameras.
Is this site listing the iPhone 4 as having a f2.8?
Haven't read that article, but yeah, seems they're referring to an f2.8 lens. They also note a maximum ISO of 1000, while I've taken numerous photos with EXIF data indicating ISO 2000.
Either the EXIF data on my iPhone's photos is incorrect, or the author of that article may have some inaccurate information.
Not sure how much faith I can place on the author overall. I noticed he mentions low light photos are "noisy as heck." I'm assuming he's not expecting the iPhone 4 to have low light capabilities comparable to his $1500 Canon 7D DSLR. A knowledgable photographer should appreciate the fact that a less noisy image is not always a better image. For example, Canon's latest G11 and S90 cameras boast great low light capabilities for their class. However, it's been noted that they achieve this in part by applying an excessive level of noise reduction at high ISO settings. The result is a smoother looking, noise free image, but one where much of the picture detail has been obliterated by the noise reduction algorithm, yielding less useful resolution than some competing cameras. One photo site tested further by taking the RAW version of the image (without noise reduction) and applying some careful post processing to increase sharpness. The result was a noisier image which retained far greater picture detail.
Let's not forget that in pre-digital days, ISO 400 film produced what would be considered pretty grainy images by today's standards, yet that didn't keep those images from winning awards or gracing the pages of prominent photo magazines.
Ultimately, which photo is best is a somewhat subjective matter, but most pros would take a detailed, noisy image over a noise free image that lacks detail. I consider excessive noise reduction as a sign of a marketing decision aimed at pleasing inexperienced camera buyers. I applaud Apple's decision to allow the iPhone's camera to show off its true resolving power at high ISO settings without resorting to consumer-pleasing noise reduction settings that yield inferior images. This is in line with their decision to offer a lower resolution camera sensor rather than cramming in a higher density, higher resolution sensor that looks great on the spec sheet but performs poorly in low light.
which seems to be the originator of the incorrect information about the iPhone's lens aperture and max ISO. I'd post a comment to the Macworld article but my interest in doing so is insufficient to put up with their cumbersome and intrusive registration screen. UI fail.
which seems to be the originator of the incorrect information about the iPhone's lens aperture and max ISO. I'd post a comment to the Macworld article but my interest in doing so is insufficient to put up with their cumbersome and intrusive registration screen. UI fail.
No worries. i'll let them know.
PS: I'm glad to see thorough, well thought out posts are springing back up. This place was turning into MacRumors since the iPhone 4 came out.
which seems to be the originator of the incorrect information about the iPhone's lens aperture and max ISO. I'd post a comment to the Macworld article but my interest in doing so is insufficient to put up with their cumbersome and intrusive registration screen. UI fail.
I haven't found an iPhone 4 shot with an ISO greater than 1000. My lowest ISO is 80. However, my photos show an aperture of f/2.4, which confirms your side on that part. The shutter time range lines up with your experience too, at least nothing longer than 1/15. I haven't pushed the shorter end, though it can get pretty short, I have some with unusual times: 1/3352, 1/2320 and 1/2742, I don't know what to make of those unusual numbers. But overall, I am pleased with the camera. The way I see it, it really puts a dent into the Flip-type market and the slim point and shoot market, with the exception of those that want optical zoom. Save for optical zoom, I don't see the point in buying any point and shoot, I'm sure you can get better, but there is plenty good enough, you might as well be buying something that offers interchangeable lenses if you want to make a worthwhile upgrade.
I don't think the camera is that great! At least not on my iPhone 4. Check out these pictures I took and posted on this forum and let me know how this camera could get such rave reviews. I get yellow nasty pictures indoors!
I don't think the camera is that great! At least not on my iPhone 4. Check out these pictures I took and posted on this forum and let me know how this camera could get such rave reviews. I get yellow nasty pictures indoors!
Welcome to the forum, Jnicholson1437, have you read other reviews? Most of them are doing a wide range of shots and comparing them to other smartphones and cameras. The results show it’s best all around in class for a smartphone.
Many even document the one thing you’re referring to, the yellow effect when the software is trying to figure the white balance. You can either wait for the flux to take the pic or wait for a software update. Apple has been good about giving the camera worthy updates on their other iPhones, I don’t imagine this will be different.
Regardless of where I tapped to focus, I could not get the iPhone 4 to set a proper white balance in our photo box.
While I was watching the screen, the iPhone 4 would alternate between yellow and white for the background color. It seemed to be trying to calculate the white point but was just being thrown off by the type of light. If I timed the shot right I could snag the photo while the iPhone was switching between white balance points:
I don't think the camera is that great! At least not on my iPhone 4. Check out these pictures I took and posted on this forum and let me know how this camera could get such rave reviews. I get yellow nasty pictures indoors!
As solipsism said, it's a known problem, not just yours. This site's article on the camera seems to have one such example, but there was little to no comment on the hue. I wasn't able to reproduce the problem very well, the color I got mostly matched the color I saw. Indoor light seems to give it some trouble. iPhone 4 outdoor photos, in daylight or evening, seem to match the scene's colors perfectly in my opinion. I think it should do better automatically, but things like this are why I like to have some manual control too, manual white balance often makes it easy to just set it for a scene and all photos would come out pretty consistently.
As solipsism said, it's a known problem, not just yours. This site's article on the camera seems to have one such example, but there was little to no comment on the hue. I wasn't able to reproduce the problem very well, the color I got mostly matched the color I saw. Indoor light seems to give it some trouble. Outdoor photos, in daylight or evening, seem to match the scene perfectly in my opinion.
I?ve recreated it in some of my tests. I don?t have a solid basis for exactly what conditions will cause it and I figure it?s not that big a deal and will be dealt with shortly so I won?t be delving into any deeper. But I was able to gauge the fluctuation and take good picture, of course this is of little use if it?s not still object.
I?ve recreated it in some of my tests. I don?t have a solid basis for exactly what conditions will cause it and I figure it?s not that big a deal and will be dealt with shortly so I won?t be delving into any deeper. But I was able to gauge the fluctuation and take good picture, of course this is of little use if it?s not still object.
To me, it seems to be incandescent light that's giving the most trouble, though that's kind of odd. All my trials with several different kinds of fluorescent worked pretty well for me. The incandescent lights may just be a bit too far down the color temperature scale to work well.
To me, it seems to be incandescent light that's giving the most trouble, though that's kind of odd. All my trials with several different kinds of fluorescent worked pretty well for me. The incandescent lights may just be a bit too far down the color temperature scale to work well.
Ah, I was judging on brightness/darkness, not on types of light.
The camera is GOOD for a cellphone camera. After all the zoom is digital and not optical and as we all know a digital zoom sacrifices PQ. In any case this camera wasn't intended to compete with the regular cameras. Its good for that spur of the moment picture you want to take but by no means is it a substitute for carrying a regular camera on say a trip (for example)
The camera is GOOD for a cellphone camera. After all the zoom is digital and not optical and as we all know a digital zoom sacrifices PQ. In any case this camera wasn't intended to compete with the regular cameras. Its good for that spur of the moment picture you want to take but by no means is it a substitute for carrying a regular camera on say a trip (for example)
I agree that digital zoom is pretty pointless, I always turn it off. However, if you're going to put money into another camera, except for optical zoom, I think the iPhone 4 camera is otherwise good enough to displace the pocketable point and shoot category. Beyond that, if I'm going to consciously carry around a dedicated camera, it will be an SLR or other interchangeable lens camera, not some slim shirt-pocket device.
The camera is GOOD for a cellphone camera. After all the zoom is digital and not optical and as we all know a digital zoom sacrifices PQ. In any case this camera wasn't intended to compete with the regular cameras. Its good for that spur of the moment picture you want to take but by no means is it a substitute for carrying a regular camera on say a trip (for example)
Something to add, not having zoom isn't always a negative. Zoom lenses usually let through a lot less light and it can compromise the quality of the image. My best camera lenses don't have any zoom capability. I have one camera that I just leave a particular fixed focal length lens on it almost all the time.
I really don't have any problem with the resolution, sharpness, or contrast of the iPhone camera.
The reason why I came back to this topic is still some odd indoor light trouble. Photos shot in fluorescent light show a blue tint in the middle, but the color toward the edges look fine. I've never seen this before. It happened consistently with the two different iPhone 4s that I've tried.
Comments
Great article as usual. However you missed an important detail about the iPhone 4's camera, which Apple also fails to mention on their website. The new iPhone's camera sports an f2.4 lens, while the 3Gs only had an f2.8 lens. You can verify this by examining the EXIF data on photos taken with both phones' cameras.
Is this site listing the iPhone 4 as having a f2.8?
Is this site listing the iPhone 4 as having a f2.8?
Haven't read that article, but yeah, seems they're referring to an f2.8 lens. They also note a maximum ISO of 1000, while I've taken numerous photos with EXIF data indicating ISO 2000.
Either the EXIF data on my iPhone's photos is incorrect, or the author of that article may have some inaccurate information.
Not sure how much faith I can place on the author overall. I noticed he mentions low light photos are "noisy as heck." I'm assuming he's not expecting the iPhone 4 to have low light capabilities comparable to his $1500 Canon 7D DSLR. A knowledgable photographer should appreciate the fact that a less noisy image is not always a better image. For example, Canon's latest G11 and S90 cameras boast great low light capabilities for their class. However, it's been noted that they achieve this in part by applying an excessive level of noise reduction at high ISO settings. The result is a smoother looking, noise free image, but one where much of the picture detail has been obliterated by the noise reduction algorithm, yielding less useful resolution than some competing cameras. One photo site tested further by taking the RAW version of the image (without noise reduction) and applying some careful post processing to increase sharpness. The result was a noisier image which retained far greater picture detail.
Let's not forget that in pre-digital days, ISO 400 film produced what would be considered pretty grainy images by today's standards, yet that didn't keep those images from winning awards or gracing the pages of prominent photo magazines.
Ultimately, which photo is best is a somewhat subjective matter, but most pros would take a detailed, noisy image over a noise free image that lacks detail. I consider excessive noise reduction as a sign of a marketing decision aimed at pleasing inexperienced camera buyers. I applaud Apple's decision to allow the iPhone's camera to show off its true resolving power at high ISO settings without resorting to consumer-pleasing noise reduction settings that yield inferior images. This is in line with their decision to offer a lower resolution camera sensor rather than cramming in a higher density, higher resolution sensor that looks great on the spec sheet but performs poorly in low light.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1523...meratests.html
which seems to be the originator of the incorrect information about the iPhone's lens aperture and max ISO. I'd post a comment to the Macworld article but my interest in doing so is insufficient to put up with their cumbersome and intrusive registration screen. UI fail.
Update: it seems that the Take Zer0 article borrowed some of its facts from this Macworld article:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1523...meratests.html
which seems to be the originator of the incorrect information about the iPhone's lens aperture and max ISO. I'd post a comment to the Macworld article but my interest in doing so is insufficient to put up with their cumbersome and intrusive registration screen. UI fail.
No worries. i'll let them know.
PS: I'm glad to see thorough, well thought out posts are springing back up. This place was turning into MacRumors since the iPhone 4 came out.
Update: it seems that the Take Zer0 article borrowed some of its facts from this Macworld article:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1523...meratests.html
which seems to be the originator of the incorrect information about the iPhone's lens aperture and max ISO. I'd post a comment to the Macworld article but my interest in doing so is insufficient to put up with their cumbersome and intrusive registration screen. UI fail.
I haven't found an iPhone 4 shot with an ISO greater than 1000. My lowest ISO is 80. However, my photos show an aperture of f/2.4, which confirms your side on that part. The shutter time range lines up with your experience too, at least nothing longer than 1/15. I haven't pushed the shorter end, though it can get pretty short, I have some with unusual times: 1/3352, 1/2320 and 1/2742, I don't know what to make of those unusual numbers. But overall, I am pleased with the camera. The way I see it, it really puts a dent into the Flip-type market and the slim point and shoot market, with the exception of those that want optical zoom. Save for optical zoom, I don't see the point in buying any point and shoot, I'm sure you can get better, but there is plenty good enough, you might as well be buying something that offers interchangeable lenses if you want to make a worthwhile upgrade.
http://www.iphonedownloadblog.com/fo...3&p=3781#p3781
I don't think the camera is that great! At least not on my iPhone 4. Check out these pictures I took and posted on this forum and let me know how this camera could get such rave reviews. I get yellow nasty pictures indoors!
http://www.iphonedownloadblog.com/fo...3&p=3781#p3781
Welcome to the forum, Jnicholson1437, have you read other reviews? Most of them are doing a wide range of shots and comparing them to other smartphones and cameras. The results show it’s best all around in class for a smartphone.
Many even document the one thing you’re referring to, the yellow effect when the software is trying to figure the white balance. You can either wait for the flux to take the pic or wait for a software update. Apple has been good about giving the camera worthy updates on their other iPhones, I don’t imagine this will be different.
I don't think the camera is that great! At least not on my iPhone 4. Check out these pictures I took and posted on this forum and let me know how this camera could get such rave reviews. I get yellow nasty pictures indoors!
http://www.iphonedownloadblog.com/fo...3&p=3781#p3781
As solipsism said, it's a known problem, not just yours. This site's article on the camera seems to have one such example, but there was little to no comment on the hue. I wasn't able to reproduce the problem very well, the color I got mostly matched the color I saw. Indoor light seems to give it some trouble. iPhone 4 outdoor photos, in daylight or evening, seem to match the scene's colors perfectly in my opinion. I think it should do better automatically, but things like this are why I like to have some manual control too, manual white balance often makes it easy to just set it for a scene and all photos would come out pretty consistently.
As solipsism said, it's a known problem, not just yours. This site's article on the camera seems to have one such example, but there was little to no comment on the hue. I wasn't able to reproduce the problem very well, the color I got mostly matched the color I saw. Indoor light seems to give it some trouble. Outdoor photos, in daylight or evening, seem to match the scene perfectly in my opinion.
I?ve recreated it in some of my tests. I don?t have a solid basis for exactly what conditions will cause it and I figure it?s not that big a deal and will be dealt with shortly so I won?t be delving into any deeper. But I was able to gauge the fluctuation and take good picture, of course this is of little use if it?s not still object.
I?ve recreated it in some of my tests. I don?t have a solid basis for exactly what conditions will cause it and I figure it?s not that big a deal and will be dealt with shortly so I won?t be delving into any deeper. But I was able to gauge the fluctuation and take good picture, of course this is of little use if it?s not still object.
To me, it seems to be incandescent light that's giving the most trouble, though that's kind of odd. All my trials with several different kinds of fluorescent worked pretty well for me. The incandescent lights may just be a bit too far down the color temperature scale to work well.
To me, it seems to be incandescent light that's giving the most trouble, though that's kind of odd. All my trials with several different kinds of fluorescent worked pretty well for me. The incandescent lights may just be a bit too far down the color temperature scale to work well.
Ah, I was judging on brightness/darkness, not on types of light.
Ah, I was judging on brightness/darkness, not on types of light.
I hadn't thought of the darkness part, that may be part of it. Do you remember what kind of bulbs you were shooting under?
The camera is GOOD for a cellphone camera. After all the zoom is digital and not optical and as we all know a digital zoom sacrifices PQ. In any case this camera wasn't intended to compete with the regular cameras. Its good for that spur of the moment picture you want to take but by no means is it a substitute for carrying a regular camera on say a trip (for example)
I agree that digital zoom is pretty pointless, I always turn it off. However, if you're going to put money into another camera, except for optical zoom, I think the iPhone 4 camera is otherwise good enough to displace the pocketable point and shoot category. Beyond that, if I'm going to consciously carry around a dedicated camera, it will be an SLR or other interchangeable lens camera, not some slim shirt-pocket device.
The camera is GOOD for a cellphone camera. After all the zoom is digital and not optical and as we all know a digital zoom sacrifices PQ. In any case this camera wasn't intended to compete with the regular cameras. Its good for that spur of the moment picture you want to take but by no means is it a substitute for carrying a regular camera on say a trip (for example)
Something to add, not having zoom isn't always a negative. Zoom lenses usually let through a lot less light and it can compromise the quality of the image. My best camera lenses don't have any zoom capability. I have one camera that I just leave a particular fixed focal length lens on it almost all the time.
I really don't have any problem with the resolution, sharpness, or contrast of the iPhone camera.
The reason why I came back to this topic is still some odd indoor light trouble. Photos shot in fluorescent light show a blue tint in the middle, but the color toward the edges look fine. I've never seen this before. It happened consistently with the two different iPhone 4s that I've tried.