Although I would have wanted 12MP, it only matters when printing and cropping, that is it. The more pixels, the more you can crop and still have a pixel density large enough to print/view at larger sizes. If you want to print huge sizes, more pixels help. I shot most of my stuff with an 8MP Canon and printed perfect at 13x19, so unless you want to print higher than that, megapixel wars are as stupid as MHz wars.
Pixel SIZE and pixel quality matter.
More information is nice to have, but you need the technology to deliver it reliably. To put it simply the tech isn't there yet in cell phone sized sensors. As you note pixel size is very important element in delivering good quality.
No body here is saying the desire for more pixels is wrong. The problem is you have to balance a bunch of physical realities to deliver top notch photos. Go to higher sensor resolutions and you will loose capability elsewhere at the current state of the art. What Apple has delivered is a camera that is extremely balanced between pixel count and other valuable features such as low light capability and resolution.
I, for one, would like more pixels. I never print my pictures. I just like to zoom in and see more detail. The thing I love most about digital photography is that cameras capture more detail than you saw when you took the photo. I love finding little details like a bug hiding behind the petal of a flower. More pixels means you can crop out these details and still have an image with a decent amount of resolution. You can say I am wrong but this iPhone user wants more megapixels!
I think digital image stabilization is taking a hit in peoples' minds because they see the word "digital" and they immediately think of digital zoom—which sucks donkey balls compared with optical zoom. The difference is nowhere near as great between digital and optical image stabilization. It would be if the camera sensor were continuous, but it's not. (Neither was film, for that matter—it was divided into grains. Difference being, you know exactly where the pixels on an image sensor are, whereas film grain was completely random.) The image can only shift one pixel at a time, regardless of method. For a professional photographer using a high-end DSLR the difference would be like night and day, of course—but I question how noticeable it would be on a phone camera.
Interesting read from a professional writing on TechCrunch. From the article...
"The sensor in the iPhone 5S remains at 8 megapixels, which is a bold choice given that competitors like Nokia are shooting for the moon as far as pixel count is concerned. But, as with many things, the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels, and that’s what Apple has focused on here.”
As I said, it’s the software and Apple’s image processor technology, not the shear number of pixels. And the iPhone 6 is even better, so they say.
8MP is plenty for the rear camera and I agree with the posts above. It will take great photos and more than that is not needed unless you print posters. But I am disappointed the FaceTime camera didn't get a bump to the 2 to 3 MP range. Now that actually would make a huge difference in quality. As popular as selfies are now I was sure that would get a bump in megapixels.
I was an amatuer photographer for around thirty years in film, had a dark room for b&w, Leica cameras, etc, and had a love/hate relationship with the entire process. Good film -- like Kodak 25 and 64 -- was amazing, but the process of getting prints done was an expensive nightmare. Though I'm sure that was partly a function of location -- if I'd been in New York or San Francisco I likely would have had access to great colour print shops, but not where I was. I still think that there is a look to great colour film that has not been bettered. But digital photography has on the whole been a tremendous liberation. MUCH less expensive, much higher success rate on printable shots.
The only thing that I miss is that cameras do not have a setting to try to reproduce black and white photography. That seems to have become a dead art. And -- hear me , gods of nostalgia! -- I miss it. Yes I know that there is software that allows you to tweak and adjust to get something that is close. But it is never close enough. And it can't just be that I have not tried hard enough to get it right — I don't see anyone else succeeding with it either.
I don't expect Apple to bother with this -- but there is a niche for someone to try to fill.
Wait, so you're saying that even if it was in a vacuum, the iPhone would have stayed at 4" FOREVER? Even while the original iPhone wasn't even conceived with 3rd party apps in mind? Come on. It was always a matter of "when", in terms of multiple iPhone sizes, not "if". Any sane human being realizes that. It made perfect sense to keep the size consistent for as long as they did, for a myriad of reasons, including development and consistency. But just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER one of their products, the lineup expands. There's not a shred of evidence this was a response to Samsung or anyone else. If Apple was truly "responding" they would have made a larger phone 2-3 years ago. They did it now because it was the right time for them, in terms of things aligning from a technological, consumer demand, manufacturing ability and capacity, and software standpoint. Since the 5S is the best selling smartphone in the world, I doubt Apple gives too much of a shit what others are doing. Apple is well aware that all these other companies are using size as a differentiator because its literally all they have.
> The iPhone has largely derailed the once-booming point-and-shoot camera industry
Really?
People actually believe this nonsense?
The decline had already started before the iphone came out, thanks for nokia and blackberry. iOS push them farther downhill. And then Android devices pushed them along farther.
I know, i know....when you worship the Great Fruit, EVERYTHING hinges on the actions of the Great Fruit.
> The iPhone has largely derailed the once-booming point-and-shoot camera industry
Really?
People actually believe this nonsense?
The decline had already started before the iphone came out, thanks for nokia and blackberry. iOS push them farther downhill. And then Android devices pushed them along farther.
I know, i know....when you worship the Great Fruit, EVERYTHING hinges on the actions of the Great Fruit.
Ah, but it was the great fruit which usurped camera's on Flickr.
Not Nokia, not Blackberry not anyone except Apple.
Interesting read from a professional writing on TechCrunch. From the article...
"The sensor in the iPhone 5S remains at 8 megapixels, which is a bold choice given that competitors like Nokia are shooting for the moon as far as pixel count is concerned. But, as with many things, the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels, and that’s what Apple has focused on here.”
As I said, it’s the software and Apple’s image processor technology, not the shear number of pixels. And the iPhone 6 is even better, so they say.
Thanks. I couldn't see anything to backup the claim that "professional photographers have labeled the iPhone camera the best in mobile". The closest was a comment from someone who said he was a professional and who said his son worked for Apple.
I was puzzled by the claim because every phone camera comparison I have seen rates the Nokia 1020 as having the best camera. The 5S obviously has a very capable camera and does some great things with image processing but it isn't the best in a phone.
Too bad the resolution has not improved. It has remained fixed at 8 megapixels since the 4s. That's six different phone models with the same resolution: 4s, 5, 5c, 5s, 6 and 6 plus. I realize that image quality matters more than resolution but resolution also matters. They could have squeezed in 12 megapixels by now and still had excellent quality.
One other problem they need to solve: The phone should be able to take landscape photos and videos when it is held in portrait orientation. That will get rid of the issue of portrait videos that everyone hates. It is natural to hold the phone vertically but that does not imply we want a portrait aspect ratio. The camera sensor is square so there is no reason at all why it cannot take landscape images and videos from any orientation. Sure give us the option to do portrait if we want (at least for still images) but video should always default to landscape.
That would defeat the object.
I love watching portrait videos on youtube and then reading the irate comments complaining. That gives me chuckles. Don't take my chuckles away.
Yes, so do I. I think 4, 4.7, 5.5, all in the same style and roughly same specs (minus small differences), is the right way to go for the forseeable future. Those sizes should cover 98% of the market. It would also be extremely economical for Apple to use the same SoC on all 3 models, from an economy of scale.
I think if Apple was going to do that they would've done it this year, and not kept the 5s. If I had to guess, I'd say they're going to drop the 5s and the 5c next year, and separate the iPhones into two categories, unapologetic polycarbonate and metal, each in two different sizes. Using US subsidized pricing as a starting off point: they could have the 4.7" iPhone 6s and the 5/5" iPhone 6s Plus at the usual $199 and $299, maintaining a high value and aspirational appeal, while selling two base models of the iPhone c, with the 4" starting at $0 and a 4.7" iPhone c Plus starting at $99. They could move further into the low end in developing markets with different internal components for the 4" iPhone c.
In summery, for 2015:
4" iPhone c (<$0, A6) (for developing markets only)
4" iPhone c ($0, A7)
4.7" iPhone c Plus ($99, A8)
4.7" iPhone 6s ($199, A9)
5.5" iPhone 6s Plus ($299, A9)
This lineup would be very easy for the consumer to conceptualize, with high incentive to upgrade at every level.
8MP is plenty for the rear camera and I agree with the posts above. It will take great photos and more than that is not needed unless you print posters. But I am disappointed the FaceTime camera didn't get a bump to the 2 to 3 MP range. Now that actually would make a huge difference in quality. As popular as selfies are now I was sure that would get a bump in megapixels.
Nokia have a new model, the 735, which has a 6.7 MP rear camera and a 5 MP front camera for selfies and Skype calls. It also has very impressive battery life. I imagine it will appeal to quite few people given it's about a quarter the cost of an iPhone 6.
Panasonic have probably just raised the bar for cameras in Phones with their just announced DMC-CM1- just a bit
f/2.8 Leica DC Elmarit lens and a one inch 20 MP sensor on the back and a 4.7" Android phone on the front - perhaps 'back' and 'front' be swapped in this instance.
What's great is since I (like most) buy every 2 years , and am upgrading from a 5, I also get all the improvements from the 5S (low light etc.). This week's new "stuff" is not the ONLY new stuff for most people.
5 to 6 is quite a nice jump.
I was surprised just the other night at how BAD the low light video is on the 5S. My wife's 5 was considerably better. I looked online and it's a common complaint.
Still photos in low light are great. Videos in good light are great. But forget low light video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone
They have opted for better low light performance rather than sheer pixel quantity. The low light performance is particularly important for video because -- unlike still photography -- the shutter speed cannot be slowed down for video to compensate exposure for poor lighting.
I'm trying to find out if the 6 plus handles low-light better than the 5. Probably need to wait for some hands on reviews. Plenty of articles saying it is supposed to be better, though they often say the 5S was better too.
Comments
More information is nice to have, but you need the technology to deliver it reliably. To put it simply the tech isn't there yet in cell phone sized sensors. As you note pixel size is very important element in delivering good quality.
Each iPhone release crushes mainstream point and shoot cameras a little more.
That sounds very interesting, do you have a link for that, I'd like to read what they have to say?
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/12/a-photographers-take-on-the-iphone-5s-camera/
Interesting read from a professional writing on TechCrunch. From the article...
"The sensor in the iPhone 5S remains at 8 megapixels, which is a bold choice given that competitors like Nokia are shooting for the moon as far as pixel count is concerned. But, as with many things, the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels, and that’s what Apple has focused on here.”
As I said, it’s the software and Apple’s image processor technology, not the shear number of pixels. And the iPhone 6 is even better, so they say.
8MP is plenty for the rear camera and I agree with the posts above. It will take great photos and more than that is not needed unless you print posters. But I am disappointed the FaceTime camera didn't get a bump to the 2 to 3 MP range. Now that actually would make a huge difference in quality. As popular as selfies are now I was sure that would get a bump in megapixels.
I was an amatuer photographer for around thirty years in film, had a dark room for b&w, Leica cameras, etc, and had a love/hate relationship with the entire process. Good film -- like Kodak 25 and 64 -- was amazing, but the process of getting prints done was an expensive nightmare. Though I'm sure that was partly a function of location -- if I'd been in New York or San Francisco I likely would have had access to great colour print shops, but not where I was. I still think that there is a look to great colour film that has not been bettered. But digital photography has on the whole been a tremendous liberation. MUCH less expensive, much higher success rate on printable shots.
The only thing that I miss is that cameras do not have a setting to try to reproduce black and white photography. That seems to have become a dead art. And -- hear me , gods of nostalgia! -- I miss it. Yes I know that there is software that allows you to tweak and adjust to get something that is close. But it is never close enough. And it can't just be that I have not tried hard enough to get it right — I don't see anyone else succeeding with it either.
I don't expect Apple to bother with this -- but there is a niche for someone to try to fill.
Wait, so you're saying that even if it was in a vacuum, the iPhone would have stayed at 4" FOREVER? Even while the original iPhone wasn't even conceived with 3rd party apps in mind? Come on. It was always a matter of "when", in terms of multiple iPhone sizes, not "if". Any sane human being realizes that. It made perfect sense to keep the size consistent for as long as they did, for a myriad of reasons, including development and consistency. But just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER one of their products, the lineup expands. There's not a shred of evidence this was a response to Samsung or anyone else. If Apple was truly "responding" they would have made a larger phone 2-3 years ago. They did it now because it was the right time for them, in terms of things aligning from a technological, consumer demand, manufacturing ability and capacity, and software standpoint. Since the 5S is the best selling smartphone in the world, I doubt Apple gives too much of a shit what others are doing. Apple is well aware that all these other companies are using size as a differentiator because its literally all they have.
hahaha...this made me laugh for some reason.
Really?
People actually believe this nonsense?
The decline had already started before the iphone came out, thanks for nokia and blackberry. iOS push them farther downhill. And then Android devices pushed them along farther.
I know, i know....when you worship the Great Fruit, EVERYTHING hinges on the actions of the Great Fruit.
Slurpy, you wanna take this one or…
Ah, but it was the great fruit which usurped camera's on Flickr.
Not Nokia, not Blackberry not anyone except Apple.
Possible reasons:
- space? I'm not sure how much larger the camera is.
- battery power? Running servos takes power.
- product differentiation?
- costs?
Each iPhone release crushes mainstream point and shoot cameras a little more.As I pointed out, other, smaller, phones have OIS.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/12/a-photographers-take-on-the-iphone-5s-camera/
Interesting read from a professional writing on TechCrunch. From the article...
"The sensor in the iPhone 5S remains at 8 megapixels, which is a bold choice given that competitors like Nokia are shooting for the moon as far as pixel count is concerned. But, as with many things, the sheer number of pixels is not as important as the quality of those pixels, and that’s what Apple has focused on here.”
As I said, it’s the software and Apple’s image processor technology, not the shear number of pixels. And the iPhone 6 is even better, so they say.
Thanks. I couldn't see anything to backup the claim that "professional photographers have labeled the iPhone camera the best in mobile". The closest was a comment from someone who said he was a professional and who said his son worked for Apple.
I was puzzled by the claim because every phone camera comparison I have seen rates the Nokia 1020 as having the best camera. The 5S obviously has a very capable camera and does some great things with image processing but it isn't the best in a phone.
That would defeat the object.
I love watching portrait videos on youtube and then reading the irate comments complaining. That gives me chuckles. Don't take my chuckles away.
Yes, so do I. I think 4, 4.7, 5.5, all in the same style and roughly same specs (minus small differences), is the right way to go for the forseeable future. Those sizes should cover 98% of the market. It would also be extremely economical for Apple to use the same SoC on all 3 models, from an economy of scale.
I think if Apple was going to do that they would've done it this year, and not kept the 5s. If I had to guess, I'd say they're going to drop the 5s and the 5c next year, and separate the iPhones into two categories, unapologetic polycarbonate and metal, each in two different sizes. Using US subsidized pricing as a starting off point: they could have the 4.7" iPhone 6s and the 5/5" iPhone 6s Plus at the usual $199 and $299, maintaining a high value and aspirational appeal, while selling two base models of the iPhone c, with the 4" starting at $0 and a 4.7" iPhone c Plus starting at $99. They could move further into the low end in developing markets with different internal components for the 4" iPhone c.
In summery, for 2015:
4" iPhone c (<$0, A6) (for developing markets only)
4" iPhone c ($0, A7)
4.7" iPhone c Plus ($99, A8)
4.7" iPhone 6s ($199, A9)
5.5" iPhone 6s Plus ($299, A9)
This lineup would be very easy for the consumer to conceptualize, with high incentive to upgrade at every level.
8MP is plenty for the rear camera and I agree with the posts above. It will take great photos and more than that is not needed unless you print posters. But I am disappointed the FaceTime camera didn't get a bump to the 2 to 3 MP range. Now that actually would make a huge difference in quality. As popular as selfies are now I was sure that would get a bump in megapixels.
Nokia have a new model, the 735, which has a 6.7 MP rear camera and a 5 MP front camera for selfies and Skype calls. It also has very impressive battery life. I imagine it will appeal to quite few people given it's about a quarter the cost of an iPhone 6.
Panasonic have probably just raised the bar for cameras in Phones with their just announced DMC-CM1- just a bit
f/2.8 Leica DC Elmarit lens and a one inch 20 MP sensor on the back and a 4.7" Android phone on the front - perhaps 'back' and 'front' be swapped in this instance.
What's great is since I (like most) buy every 2 years , and am upgrading from a 5, I also get all the improvements from the 5S (low light etc.). This week's new "stuff" is not the ONLY new stuff for most people.
5 to 6 is quite a nice jump.
I was surprised just the other night at how BAD the low light video is on the 5S. My wife's 5 was considerably better. I looked online and it's a common complaint.
Still photos in low light are great. Videos in good light are great. But forget low light video.
Quote:
They have opted for better low light performance rather than sheer pixel quantity. The low light performance is particularly important for video because -- unlike still photography -- the shutter speed cannot be slowed down for video to compensate exposure for poor lighting.
I'm trying to find out if the 6 plus handles low-light better than the 5. Probably need to wait for some hands on reviews. Plenty of articles saying it is supposed to be better, though they often say the 5S was better too.
Anyone know?
I'm trying to find out if the 6 plus handles low-light better than the 5.
Both do.