Unless you plan on making jumbo-sized prints or need extreme digital zoom capability, there's minimal utility to going 13 MP on a smartphone and plenty of downside. Diminished low light performance and increased noise occur when you increase the number of pixels without also increasing the size of the sensor or making other improvements. Then there's the issue with the increased file size for the photos themselves, considering that iOS does not allow for adjustments to the JPEG compression level or image size, and the devices themselves cannot use external storage. I'd much rather see improvements to the processing, low light performance, and just general image quality. This is where the iPhone has excelled, and where megapixels for specs' sake falters.
Prior to dominance of the dSLR, the limit/point of diminishing returns was calculated to be around 30 megapixels under optimum conditions with the best prime lenses on 35mm film gear (with the classic 24x36mm film gate) and the best/finest grain film (like Fujichrome Velvia). Optical resolving power is the primary limiting factor.
In the real world, there are lens aberrations, manufacturing variances in consumer film equipment, operator behavior (hand holding). that don't translate into better image quality at higher resolutions which is why the dSLR megapixel war settled around 24MP.
A cellphone camera module has much smaller optics and sensor, so the practical limit is probably around 8 megapixels. For a digital point-and-shoot camera (which is usually paired with a zoom lens design), the practical limit is probably around 12-16 megapixels.
Going to 12-16MP on a smartphone is a waste of resources, and typically means compromising more on low light performance for no additional resolving performance. You get more data in each image, but it's just grainy noise.
Apple is doing the right thing here. Nobody really pays attention to the megapixels anymore - all people want is a good picture. Apple should have no trouble convincing the average consumer that less megapixels means better pictures.
I'd say megapixels still matters to the average uninformed consumer. I learned myself that megapixels don't equate to quality. Years ago, before I knew much about photography, I bought a Nikon CoolPix S560 camera, based on specs: 5x zoom + 10MP. I naively thought I would get the same resolution as the larger 10MP camera I had at the time, one the Canon PowerShot models. But a simple side-by-side test revealed I wasn't getting anything near 10MP. I doubt Nikon is lying about the sensor specs, but I'll be damned if there was better than 2.5 to 3MP actual resolution in the JPEG images produced by the camera. Optics may have had something to do with it, as did the post-processing done in camera by the image processing chip.
I eventually learned that brands like Nikon are still playing the megapixel war--it is still prominently touted in their advertising--on low end consumer cameras, (and for whatever reason on the expensive D800). But their "pro" models, like the D90 and D4, are no longer adding megapixels. And Canon hasn't budged on megapixels in years.
You have a point of sorts though I consider digital zoom to be a bit of a joke. More pixels do lead to better cropping and other pic manipulation , but it generally is better to have good quality pictures to begin with.
In any event I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple add optical zoom or something in the way of interchangeable lenses. Either has far more potential than blowing out the size of the CCD. Further I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apples sapphire production is destined for camera lenses. I can very much see Apple adding a cell phone to its lineup focused on photography. It could be Tim's secret project.
The idea of having the back of the iPhone made of Sapphire and allowing a big circle in the middle to be a giant lens/sensor seems like something that could penitentially happen - as long as they could prevent it from looking terrible.
The potential for interchangeable lens without looking terrible would be interesting as well, though I doubt it will happen at least any time soon.
Higher res photos and videos will require a lot more storage space. Hopefully that fact alone will push Apple towards the 32/64/128GB options. I don't think most people shop for a smartphone based on 8MP vs. 15MP and let that be the deciding factor. Tech people know the MP count doesn't necessarily mean a better photo. I do think Apple at least has to reach 10MP though as there is a psychological threshold of going to a 2 digit MP count vs. a single digit. Although it is very true that the MP war with DSLR cameras ended years ago that is because the vast majority of those customers are very tech savvy. Smartphone consumers aren't this savvy so Apple are smart to focus on image quality but at the same time do need to at least marginally bump it up so these people can grasp there is an improvement. Either that or launch a advertising campaign explaining the difference.
The front facing camera has become just about as important as the rear facing one so Apple do need to step up their game a bit in that one as well which has not tended to keep pace with the rear camera in improvements. Selfies are here to stay.
Selfies rarely leave a computer/phone screen so it's useless to have 8 MP on the front facing camera.
And the pixels on DSLRs are larger than those used on point-and-shoot and smartphone cameras, so they don't have the same signal noise and low light issues that smaller sensors have. I guess the marketing people can point to 13MP as matching the pixel count on DSLRs (and therefore, it's just as good as a DSLR). But, other than specs, I just don't see the point of going into that MP range for smartphones, considering the image quality tradeoffs.
I am almost certain that Apple is doing this in the interest of file size. I heard the actual pictures that the Nokia Lumina 1020 (highest MP camera phone) are 40MB each!! That's absolutely ridiculous for a phone, it makes no sense when it comes to transporting files that size through text/email/whatever. If 40MB is the image size, think of what HD video will be like... gigabytes for a 30 second video.
Granted the Lumina does have it's "low quality" mode where it takes pictures around 4MB each, but if you're using it in low quality mode... why even care about the extra MP?
What is "conservative" about improving the image quality and functional capabilities of the camera? The megapixel race ended in high end DSLR cameras years ago.
I don't think so. I think we're going to see 50MP full-frame DSLRs within 24 months. The only thing holding that back is that the DSLR market (actually the entire photography market) is in decline, so the major camera manufacturers are holding back on investment.
Nikon released the 38MP D800 in 2012. Most of the rest of the line is 24MP with the exception of the retro Df, which is 16MP as is the top-of-the-line just released D4s. The Sony A7r mirrorless uses the same sensor as the D800 and the A7 uses a 24MP sensor. Most Canon DSLRs (both full-frame and APS-C) are 18 to 20 MP. While I would personally prefer to see improvements in focus, UI, communications and video, I don't think we've seen the last of the MP race, even though unless you're blowing up an image larger than 24" or so, one would never perceive the difference.
What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography. Simple matter of adding a second 8 MP camera on the back of the phone, along the long edge with a typical 180 mm interpupillary distance. When phone is rotated to "landscape" orientation, an option appears for 3-D photo, and two "portrait" shots of about 4 MP each are taken, a "right" and a "left". The two shots together would occupy the same storage space as an 8 MP photo. Apple could utilize the motion sensors already in the camera to create a display of a virtual 3-D scene on the existing screen simply by the user moving the screen about, or they could implement a true 3D retina display on the phone. As 3-D TVs are readily available, such 3-D photos could also be displayed in home.
Selfies rarely leave a computer/phone screen so it's useless to have 8 MP on the front facing camera.
Who are you even arguing with because no where in my post did I ever suggest they add a 8 MP FaceTime camera. It is easy to win arguments when you just make up crap you hoped the other person said instead of actually arguing with what was posted. I simply said they really need to improve over the current 1.2 MP which leaves a lot of room between 1.2 MP and 8 MP.
I am almost certain that Apple is doing this in the interest of file size. I heard the actual pictures that the Nokia Lumina 1020 (highest MP camera phone) are 40MB each!! That's absolutely ridiculous for a phone, it makes no sense when it comes to transporting files that size through text/email/whatever. If 40MB is the image size, think of what HD video will be like... gigabytes for a 30 second video.
Recall Apple get a very high margin on selling higher capacity iDevices. If Apple was doing this purely with the interest in reducing file size, it would have an effect of lowering the need for selling higher capacity iDevices; in effect lowering their margins. If they were concerned about file size they could always down sample in iDevice, and actually they already do this when they send up your photos to iCloud (aka Photostream). The photos are all down sampled to iPad Retina resolution (which is about 3MP IIRC).
I don't think so. I think we're going to see 50MP full-frame DSLRs within 24 months. The only thing holding that back is that the DSLR market (actually the entire photography market) is in decline, so the major camera manufacturers are holding back on investment.
Nikon released the 38MP D800 in 2012. Most of the rest of the line is 24MP with the exception of the retro Df, which is 16MP as is the top-of-the-line just released D4s. The Sony A7r mirrorless uses the same sensor as the D800 and the A7 uses a 24MP sensor. Most Canon DSLRs (both full-frame and APS-C) are 18 to 20 MP. While I would personally prefer to see improvements in focus, UI, communications and video, I don't think we've seen the last of the MP race, even though unless you're blowing up an image larger than 24" or so, one would never perceive the difference.
It is my opinion that we've reached the point of diminishing return on megapixel density in DSLR photography. Higher megapixels might be useful for photographers replacing medium format film cameras.
Megapixels matter, but only to a point. I'm sure if they are not adding pixels this year they have their reasons. Phones are very thin, anyway. Perhaps phone manufactures including Apple should consider stacking the cameras vertically inside their phones so they can put in better cameras than the physical thickness will allow.
Earlier this week I read a competitor was having problems with its 13 MP camera lenses. Apple might have seen there were too many issues with manufacturing quality 13 MP camera lenses in the quantity it needs then decided to skip 13 MP while improving the capabilities of the 8 MP camera. All improvements for the 8 MP camera could put Apple ahead of its competitors.
SONY image sensors are 50% more than other manufacturers. Apple is paying a premium for SONY 8MP image sensors. Apple can not easily move up to 13MP without hurting its profit margin.
I have a 16MP camera, but most of the time I shoot 8MP images. I get superior dynamic range and better performance in less than optimal lighting.
Many professional level cameras are only 16MP and they have sensors many times larger than mine. Megapixel count is just a number.
While it would be nice in theory for Apple to increase the size of the sensor in the iPhone there's a problem. A bigger sensor requires a longer focal length. The phone would have to be thicker (or have a huge bump sticking out like the Nokia 1020 has). I can't see Apple ever going down that road. They're obsessed with making things as thin as possible. There are still ways to improve image quality with an improved sensor and lens, and there are features like image stabilization that could be added without a huge increase in the size of the camera mechanism. The only potential problem I see with image stabilization is increased power draw leading to lower battery life. Some iPhone users already complain about not being able to make it through the day on a charge so this is a big issue.
What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography.
Eh, not really. 3D’s a gimmick, and there’s zero reason for “3D pictures” until (no, not until, unless) autostereoscopic screens become the norm.
You want to know the real revolution? Light field photography. Focus AFTER the fact. Get Apple to miniaturize Lytro’s technology and include it. Consumers don’t have a clue about focusing correctly! So instead of having software to autofocus before the fact, allow the consumer to choose their focus AFTER the fact!
Great example here with the dandelion, though I DO see that they allow some “perspective shift” which almost gives the same effect as an autostereoscopic 3D image. Yet another reason I think light field photography is everything that the gimmick of 3D is not.
It has more to do with the sensor, which Apple DID update on the 5S - and would be a much less disingenuous way of upgrading the camera. The sensor on phones is already terrible compared to high-end camera - so bumping the pixelage would create a tonne of noise
I think MP's are more "important" on the "entry level" DSLR's. Unless you are in to photography you don't know. Our society is conditioned to think a higher number of anything is better. (I'd mention our national debt but that's another topic completely. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />) The pro's know and don't get caught up in all that stuff.
Years ago I bought a D60 instead of the venerable D40. I don't remember the specific feature that made me choose it over the D40 but I do remember the D40 having better low light performance than it's replacement. I think at the time I was looking for better cropping options and the higher MP gave that. I use external flash's so low light performance wasn't an issue at the time. Since flashes on phones are terrible I'd take better low light performance than higher MP's any day.
What is "conservative" about improving the image quality and functional capabilities of the camera? The megapixel race ended in high end DSLR cameras years ago.
You're right. A $6,500 Nikon D4s is 16.2 Mp. A $8,000 D3x is 24.5 MP. Wouldn't surprise me to see the next Samsung Galaxy "whatever" advertise itself as the best camera on the market at 28 MP. Sad thing is people (the press) will fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
It not just Nikon. The top of the line Canon 1D-X is 18.1 MP. $7000. We should mention that D4s is the newest Nikon DSLR. Even newer then the mid range D800E (36 MP), $3300
What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography.
Aren't these devices too small to offer a good 3D image with multiple lens? Or could they use some some or non-visual light or radio to bounce off objects to creating a map that it could then render as 3D?
What about an App Store app that uses multiple devices to take, analyze and then render a 3D image?
Comments
Unless you plan on making jumbo-sized prints or need extreme digital zoom capability, there's minimal utility to going 13 MP on a smartphone and plenty of downside. Diminished low light performance and increased noise occur when you increase the number of pixels without also increasing the size of the sensor or making other improvements. Then there's the issue with the increased file size for the photos themselves, considering that iOS does not allow for adjustments to the JPEG compression level or image size, and the devices themselves cannot use external storage. I'd much rather see improvements to the processing, low light performance, and just general image quality. This is where the iPhone has excelled, and where megapixels for specs' sake falters.
Somewhere around 24MP I believe.
That's no surprise.
Prior to dominance of the dSLR, the limit/point of diminishing returns was calculated to be around 30 megapixels under optimum conditions with the best prime lenses on 35mm film gear (with the classic 24x36mm film gate) and the best/finest grain film (like Fujichrome Velvia). Optical resolving power is the primary limiting factor.
In the real world, there are lens aberrations, manufacturing variances in consumer film equipment, operator behavior (hand holding). that don't translate into better image quality at higher resolutions which is why the dSLR megapixel war settled around 24MP.
A cellphone camera module has much smaller optics and sensor, so the practical limit is probably around 8 megapixels. For a digital point-and-shoot camera (which is usually paired with a zoom lens design), the practical limit is probably around 12-16 megapixels.
Going to 12-16MP on a smartphone is a waste of resources, and typically means compromising more on low light performance for no additional resolving performance. You get more data in each image, but it's just grainy noise.
I'd say megapixels still matters to the average uninformed consumer. I learned myself that megapixels don't equate to quality. Years ago, before I knew much about photography, I bought a Nikon CoolPix S560 camera, based on specs: 5x zoom + 10MP. I naively thought I would get the same resolution as the larger 10MP camera I had at the time, one the Canon PowerShot models. But a simple side-by-side test revealed I wasn't getting anything near 10MP. I doubt Nikon is lying about the sensor specs, but I'll be damned if there was better than 2.5 to 3MP actual resolution in the JPEG images produced by the camera. Optics may have had something to do with it, as did the post-processing done in camera by the image processing chip.
I eventually learned that brands like Nikon are still playing the megapixel war--it is still prominently touted in their advertising--on low end consumer cameras, (and for whatever reason on the expensive D800). But their "pro" models, like the D90 and D4, are no longer adding megapixels. And Canon hasn't budged on megapixels in years.
Between 12-18MP for DSLRs.
You have a point of sorts though I consider digital zoom to be a bit of a joke. More pixels do lead to better cropping and other pic manipulation , but it generally is better to have good quality pictures to begin with.
In any event I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple add optical zoom or something in the way of interchangeable lenses. Either has far more potential than blowing out the size of the CCD. Further I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apples sapphire production is destined for camera lenses. I can very much see Apple adding a cell phone to its lineup focused on photography. It could be Tim's secret project.
The idea of having the back of the iPhone made of Sapphire and allowing a big circle in the middle to be a giant lens/sensor seems like something that could penitentially happen - as long as they could prevent it from looking terrible.
The potential for interchangeable lens without looking terrible would be interesting as well, though I doubt it will happen at least any time soon.
Selfies rarely leave a computer/phone screen so it's useless to have 8 MP on the front facing camera.
Between 12-18MP for DSLRs.
And the pixels on DSLRs are larger than those used on point-and-shoot and smartphone cameras, so they don't have the same signal noise and low light issues that smaller sensors have. I guess the marketing people can point to 13MP as matching the pixel count on DSLRs (and therefore, it's just as good as a DSLR). But, other than specs, I just don't see the point of going into that MP range for smartphones, considering the image quality tradeoffs.
I am almost certain that Apple is doing this in the interest of file size. I heard the actual pictures that the Nokia Lumina 1020 (highest MP camera phone) are 40MB each!! That's absolutely ridiculous for a phone, it makes no sense when it comes to transporting files that size through text/email/whatever. If 40MB is the image size, think of what HD video will be like... gigabytes for a 30 second video.
Granted the Lumina does have it's "low quality" mode where it takes pictures around 4MB each, but if you're using it in low quality mode... why even care about the extra MP?
Edit: Here's a comparison between the two. Despite the Lumina having 41 Mega-Pixel camera, the iPhone 5S scored better in most categories.
What is "conservative" about improving the image quality and functional capabilities of the camera? The megapixel race ended in high end DSLR cameras years ago.
I don't think so. I think we're going to see 50MP full-frame DSLRs within 24 months. The only thing holding that back is that the DSLR market (actually the entire photography market) is in decline, so the major camera manufacturers are holding back on investment.
Nikon released the 38MP D800 in 2012. Most of the rest of the line is 24MP with the exception of the retro Df, which is 16MP as is the top-of-the-line just released D4s. The Sony A7r mirrorless uses the same sensor as the D800 and the A7 uses a 24MP sensor. Most Canon DSLRs (both full-frame and APS-C) are 18 to 20 MP. While I would personally prefer to see improvements in focus, UI, communications and video, I don't think we've seen the last of the MP race, even though unless you're blowing up an image larger than 24" or so, one would never perceive the difference.
What Apple could *really* do here that would revolutionize consumer photography is to implement 3-D photography. Simple matter of adding a second 8 MP camera on the back of the phone, along the long edge with a typical 180 mm interpupillary distance. When phone is rotated to "landscape" orientation, an option appears for 3-D photo, and two "portrait" shots of about 4 MP each are taken, a "right" and a "left". The two shots together would occupy the same storage space as an 8 MP photo. Apple could utilize the motion sensors already in the camera to create a display of a virtual 3-D scene on the existing screen simply by the user moving the screen about, or they could implement a true 3D retina display on the phone. As 3-D TVs are readily available, such 3-D photos could also be displayed in home.
Selfies rarely leave a computer/phone screen so it's useless to have 8 MP on the front facing camera.
Who are you even arguing with because no where in my post did I ever suggest they add a 8 MP FaceTime camera. It is easy to win arguments when you just make up crap you hoped the other person said instead of actually arguing with what was posted. I simply said they really need to improve over the current 1.2 MP which leaves a lot of room between 1.2 MP and 8 MP.
I am almost certain that Apple is doing this in the interest of file size. I heard the actual pictures that the Nokia Lumina 1020 (highest MP camera phone) are 40MB each!! That's absolutely ridiculous for a phone, it makes no sense when it comes to transporting files that size through text/email/whatever. If 40MB is the image size, think of what HD video will be like... gigabytes for a 30 second video.
Recall Apple get a very high margin on selling higher capacity iDevices. If Apple was doing this purely with the interest in reducing file size, it would have an effect of lowering the need for selling higher capacity iDevices; in effect lowering their margins. If they were concerned about file size they could always down sample in iDevice, and actually they already do this when they send up your photos to iCloud (aka Photostream). The photos are all down sampled to iPad Retina resolution (which is about 3MP IIRC).
It is my opinion that we've reached the point of diminishing return on megapixel density in DSLR photography. Higher megapixels might be useful for photographers replacing medium format film cameras.
Earlier this week I read a competitor was having problems with its 13 MP camera lenses. Apple might have seen there were too many issues with manufacturing quality 13 MP camera lenses in the quantity it needs then decided to skip 13 MP while improving the capabilities of the 8 MP camera. All improvements for the 8 MP camera could put Apple ahead of its competitors.
SONY image sensors are 50% more than other manufacturers. Apple is paying a premium for SONY 8MP image sensors. Apple can not easily move up to 13MP without hurting its profit margin.
Many professional level cameras are only 16MP and they have sensors many times larger than mine. Megapixel count is just a number.
While it would be nice in theory for Apple to increase the size of the sensor in the iPhone there's a problem. A bigger sensor requires a longer focal length. The phone would have to be thicker (or have a huge bump sticking out like the Nokia 1020 has). I can't see Apple ever going down that road. They're obsessed with making things as thin as possible. There are still ways to improve image quality with an improved sensor and lens, and there are features like image stabilization that could be added without a huge increase in the size of the camera mechanism. The only potential problem I see with image stabilization is increased power draw leading to lower battery life. Some iPhone users already complain about not being able to make it through the day on a charge so this is a big issue.
Eh, not really. 3D’s a gimmick, and there’s zero reason for “3D pictures” until (no, not until, unless) autostereoscopic screens become the norm.
You want to know the real revolution? Light field photography. Focus AFTER the fact. Get Apple to miniaturize Lytro’s technology and include it. Consumers don’t have a clue about focusing correctly! So instead of having software to autofocus before the fact, allow the consumer to choose their focus AFTER the fact!
Great example here with the dandelion, though I DO see that they allow some “perspective shift” which almost gives the same effect as an autostereoscopic 3D image. Yet another reason I think light field photography is everything that the gimmick of 3D is not.
There are less expensive Nikon's that are 24 MP as well (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/19/Nikon-D3200-with-WiFi-Option)
It has more to do with the sensor, which Apple DID update on the 5S - and would be a much less disingenuous way of upgrading the camera. The sensor on phones is already terrible compared to high-end camera - so bumping the pixelage would create a tonne of noise
I think MP's are more "important" on the "entry level" DSLR's. Unless you are in to photography you don't know. Our society is conditioned to think a higher number of anything is better. (I'd mention our national debt but that's another topic completely.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />) The pro's know and don't get caught up in all that stuff.
Years ago I bought a D60 instead of the venerable D40. I don't remember the specific feature that made me choose it over the D40 but I do remember the D40 having better low light performance than it's replacement. I think at the time I was looking for better cropping options and the higher MP gave that. I use external flash's so low light performance wasn't an issue at the time. Since flashes on phones are terrible I'd take better low light performance than higher MP's any day.
What is "conservative" about improving the image quality and functional capabilities of the camera? The megapixel race ended in high end DSLR cameras years ago.
You're right. A $6,500 Nikon D4s is 16.2 Mp. A $8,000 D3x is 24.5 MP. Wouldn't surprise me to see the next Samsung Galaxy "whatever" advertise itself as the best camera on the market at 28 MP. Sad thing is people (the press) will fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
It not just Nikon. The top of the line Canon 1D-X is 18.1 MP. $7000. We should mention that D4s is the newest Nikon DSLR. Even newer then the mid range D800E (36 MP), $3300
Aren't these devices too small to offer a good 3D image with multiple lens? Or could they use some some or non-visual light or radio to bounce off objects to creating a map that it could then render as 3D?
What about an App Store app that uses multiple devices to take, analyze and then render a 3D image?