As a very happy, and heavy-user of a dSLR camera (Canon 5DM3), Apple will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands before I ever give it up. The only way an iPhone camera will rival full-frame dSLR cameras is if the camera makers stop all advancements from this point forward.
That being said, anything that improves the quality of iPhone cameras, I'm all for it. It's just too convenient.
People saying that phone cameras will rival full-frame SLR photos is just smoking too much ganja.
Take my money. Phones are the future of cameras for most people most of the time. DSL-like will seal the deal. Can't wait.
While I can't see sensors the size contained within cell phones to reach DSLR levels, there is always room for improvement. Makes me happy I skipped the 6, kept my 5S, and am waiting for the 6S!
I sometimes wonder if rumours like this come out just to mess with the heads of the competition
Isn't that a good thing? Makes them shite themselves, running around like chickens with their heads cut off, ensuring their products will be half-baked junk, and the iPhone then comes out and crushes them!
The biggest difference between a DSLR and phone camera (apart from interchangeable lenses) is control over depth of field (the ability to throw a background out of focus). Two lenses isn't doing to improve this - only a bigger sensor. Perhaps 3D imaging as someone suggested?
For its iPhone 6 and 6 Plus follow-up expected to debut in 2015, Apple may introduce a handset with dual lenses in what one well-connected Apple pundit calls the "biggest camera jump ever."
On the most recent episode of <em>The Talk Show</em> <a href="http://daringfireball.net/thetalkshow/2014/11/15/ep-100">podcast</a>, <em>Daring Fireball's</em> John Gruber revealed that "a birdie of a birdie" told him Apple is working on a two-lens system for incorporation in the next-generation iPhone.
"The specific thing I heard is that next year's camera might be the biggest camera jump ever," Gruber said. "I don't even know what sense this makes, but I've heard that it's some kind of weird two-lens system where the back camera uses two lenses and it somehow takes it up into DSLR quality imagery."
An interesting startup called Corephotonics, which was profiled by <em>Engadget</em> earlier <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/26/corephotonics-dual-lens-smartphone-camera/">this year</a>, proposes a different approach. Corephotonics developed a dual-lens module with two distinct focal lengths, effectively negating resolution drops associated with digital zooming. One camera is used for wide shots, while the other is used for close-ups. As an added bonus, the system provides spatial data for 3D imagery due to its lens offset.
I looked up vary large telescope that uses multiple lens and combined their images together. It requires a computer to stitched the image together. The real reason for using hardware graphic processor on the A8 processor.
People saying that phone cameras will rival full-frame SLR photos is just smoking too much ganja.
It isn't very long since anyone suggesting a camera phone by Apple would be the most popular camera on the planet would have been too stoned to be taken seriously.
This rumour pops up just as the new Sony sensor story broke...
Considering that the next iPhone release is the 'S' variant, it's inevitable that it will have upgrades like processor and camera. However, the body will remain the same and people will claim that it is an underwhelming release.
The dual lens system is purported to be able to see through clothing and is being developed under the code name: KK (for Kim Kardashian).
----------
I'm not sure if the DSLR claim is that far off. I was busy taking some photos at the same time a 'professional photographer' was snapping something. When we were looking at my set later, he commented that no small camera could capture the quality that was before our eyes. Of course, I told him that I had taken them with my iPhone 4S.
Sometimes you see what you want to see. I can't tell the difference but I'm not a professional.
The dual lens for depth idea is interesting. That means amongst other things you could adjust the clipping plane of an image in post. For instance,
Professional photographers frequently have to mask out the outline of the forground image to adjust the background. This has to be done in photoshop by painstakingly outlining it with a pen tool or using the levels filter to make a silouhette that can be used as a mask.
With depth information you can just 'push a background plane' to the correct distance in the image. Very cool for photography. Even more useful for video and film making where rotoscoping by hand (a painfully long and skilled process) can be replaced by this technique.
This is something complex enough that a simple camera wouldn't do. It would need the processing power of the A chips, graphics cards, and substantial RAM.
I'm imagining 3D holographic images being sent across iDevices, that the screen projects in front of you.
The biggest difference between a DSLR and phone camera (apart from interchangeable lenses) is control over depth of field (the ability to throw a background out of focus). Two lenses isn't doing to improve this - only a bigger sensor. Perhaps 3D imaging as someone suggested?
Not at all. Interchangeable lenses is the most obvious thing, but the sensor size and sensor pixel size are huge differences. It's one of the main reasons that low light images look so much better from my DSLR than my iPad Air. You can also throw a background out of focus on an iPhone too - just focus on something in the foreground - a DSLR offers more control over this.
John Gruber needs to quit taking so many drugs. Using a stereo camera system based on tiny CMOS sensors and only using the best results from each then calling it DSLR quality is uneducated, uninformed, and just plain crazy. Add to this the extremely small size of the camera lens and the combination doesn't come close to a DSLR. The iPhone does take nice photos but comparing them to a DSLR with high-quality lens is grossly unfair to to real cameras.
Or maybe you need to read up on the latest development in the field of digital imaging.
First, depth of field: you can read depth information (especially with a second lens/sensor) and apply it to the image to create an artificial (but valid, per actual depth and settings) depth of field effect, that is even customizable (post shoot). Google already has a (not very advanced) form of that on Android camera app, and the technology can only get better, to the point that's as convincing as actual DoP (which it sort of is -- as it can be applied to the RAW image data from the sensor before it's "developed" as a JPEG).
Second, sensor size: sensor size physically matters mostly for depth of field (and that can be solved, as seen above). The other aspects, like color accuracy and noise can be improved with better sensor technology too -- large sensors are not required.
That's why a 6 MP camera from 2004 (with its huge photo capsuring diodes) has worse low light than a 24MP camera from 2014, despite the latter having much smaller diodes. It's because the sensor, the bayes pattern and the software has been updated, and can do much better work with the same or even with smaller photo diodes.
In the same way, in tests, an iPhone 5s has mostly the same low light performance as an DSLR from 2004-5, despite having a much smaller sensor.
So, if they add several recent innovations there have been since (like separate capture for chroma and luminance, something like the Sigma cameras used to have), it's not that difficult for the iPhone to be in Canon 40D territory or even better.
Of course it wont match the currents DSLR models, but it can realistically match a fine DSLR from 5-6 years ago.
Will such tech finally put an end to people feeling compelled to apologize for the crappy quality of their photos because they were taken with a phone? Even tech on the market today is so far past what we had just 5 or 6 years ago it seems to me that most of the quality problems have more to do with factors other than the quality of the sensors. Sure it might have been easier to get an even better shot with a full DSLR camera on a tripod with reflectors and secondary light sources - but the phone is not at fault for you choosing a bad angle or not being able to steady the device while taking the photo. I just saw a post the other day with vacation photos where the poster apologized for the "crappy phone pictures" but if that hadn't been included in the post I would never even have guessed they were taking with a phone.
Not at all. Interchangeable lenses is the most obvious thing, but the sensor size and sensor pixel size are huge differences. It's one of the main reasons that low light images look so much better from my DSLR than my iPad Air. You can also throw a background out of focus on an iPhone too - just focus on something in the foreground - a DSLR offers more control over this.
A lot of people would prefer a device that comes close to at least mimicking a DSLR in imagery in a phone over a true DSLR.
DSLRs are awesome, but nothing is as awesome as a phone in your pocket.
When we visited Europe last winter, we opted to use our iPhones over our Canon cameras. It was way too convenient and you had to worry less about someone taking your device, because it was in your pocket and not strapped over your shoulder - especially in Paris.
'
I have loved all of my DLSRs that I've had over the last 12 years, but...it's too easy to just take your phone. Sadly. Maybe if DSLRs stopped putting most of the controls in a menu on a screen, rather than real buttons, then there would be the advantage. It's annoying to have to use a DLSR and keep looking at a menu to take a shot.
I have a few Minolta Dimage 7 DLSR prosumer cameras from 10-12 years ago that had buttons and dials all over them for controlling shots. Rarely did you have to look at the screen. In fact, I've kept those cameras and they still work great (5 megapixels). I got frustrated with my Canon T3i which is all screen based and ended up giving it away. If I want to keep looking at a screen to compose a shot, might as well use an iPhone.
Anyway, Camera+ app is pretty awesome and comes close to matching DLSR in closeup macro shots. Getting depth of field in a shot, if automated and no control, is fine, as long as the shot is good. Not having depth of field is really annoying, unless you have an app that will approximate it. In fact, the Canon T3i has a feature that will allow you to take a regular shot and add the depth of field blur to it. Funny, a relatively expensive camera that does point and shoot shots then mimics depth of field with software.
Anyway, many of us know that DLSR shots are typically way, way better than an iPhone photo. Just can't wait for the iPhone to get close enough in features and quality that the DLSR is needed less often.
DSLR is great for portrait, nature, and landscapes and seem to me to be better suited over an iPhone. But everyday city photography is easier and probably better covered with an iPhone (for convenience of carrying and types of shots and safety - not getting your camera stolen).
I love the camera on my iPhone 6 but it has a long way to go to beat my Nikon dSLR. Main reason is sensor size - the bigger the sensor the higher the quality but the thicker the device needs to be; bigger and thicker isn't a direction Apple follow. Secondly, interchangeable lenses: without these the iPhone cannot be 'like' a dSLR. And given the physical needs of the sensor, the lenses also need to be bigger and deeper and zooms have to solve the riddle of more brightness, higher cost and longer/wider focal length.
While there is a demand for such a thing, Apple will have to be very clever to do it. Unless they are planning another "16 million colours!" idea again...
Comments
Nah!
While I can't see sensors the size contained within cell phones to reach DSLR levels, there is always room for improvement. Makes me happy I skipped the 6, kept my 5S, and am waiting for the 6S!
Isn't that a good thing? Makes them shite themselves, running around like chickens with their heads cut off, ensuring their products will be half-baked junk, and the iPhone then comes out and crushes them!
Hideous? Yeah, ok, have you seen Samsung's junk? That crap deserves the moniker of hideous!
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...
As most people put their phones in cases, it's actually turned out to be a no-issue, since the protrusion is very small compared to most Android junk.
The biggest difference between a DSLR and phone camera (apart from interchangeable lenses) is control over depth of field (the ability to throw a background out of focus). Two lenses isn't doing to improve this - only a bigger sensor. Perhaps 3D imaging as someone suggested?
I looked up vary large telescope that uses multiple lens and combined their images together. It requires a computer to stitched the image together. The real reason for using hardware graphic processor on the A8 processor.
This rumour pops up just as the new Sony sensor story broke...
Considering that the next iPhone release is the 'S' variant, it's inevitable that it will have upgrades like processor and camera. However, the body will remain the same and people will claim that it is an underwhelming release.
You beat me to it.
The dual lens system is purported to be able to see through clothing and is being developed under the code name: KK (for Kim Kardashian).
----------
I'm not sure if the DSLR claim is that far off. I was busy taking some photos at the same time a 'professional photographer' was snapping something. When we were looking at my set later, he commented that no small camera could capture the quality that was before our eyes. Of course, I told him that I had taken them with my iPhone 4S.
Sometimes you see what you want to see. I can't tell the difference but I'm not a professional.
That means amongst other things you could adjust the clipping plane of an image in post.
For instance,
Professional photographers frequently have to mask out the outline of the forground image to adjust the background. This has to be done in photoshop by painstakingly outlining it with a pen tool or using the levels filter to make a silouhette that can be used as a mask.
With depth information you can just 'push a background plane' to the correct distance in the image. Very cool for photography. Even more useful for video and film making where rotoscoping by hand (a painfully long and skilled process) can be replaced by this technique.
Seems like Apple is on its way to 3D photography.
This is something complex enough that a simple camera wouldn't do. It would need the processing power of the A chips, graphics cards, and substantial RAM.
I'm imagining 3D holographic images being sent across iDevices, that the screen projects in front of you.
The biggest difference between a DSLR and phone camera (apart from interchangeable lenses) is control over depth of field (the ability to throw a background out of focus). Two lenses isn't doing to improve this - only a bigger sensor. Perhaps 3D imaging as someone suggested?
Not at all. Interchangeable lenses is the most obvious thing, but the sensor size and sensor pixel size are huge differences. It's one of the main reasons that low light images look so much better from my DSLR than my iPad Air. You can also throw a background out of focus on an iPhone too - just focus on something in the foreground - a DSLR offers more control over this.
John Gruber needs to quit taking so many drugs. Using a stereo camera system based on tiny CMOS sensors and only using the best results from each then calling it DSLR quality is uneducated, uninformed, and just plain crazy. Add to this the extremely small size of the camera lens and the combination doesn't come close to a DSLR. The iPhone does take nice photos but comparing them to a DSLR with high-quality lens is grossly unfair to to real cameras.
Or maybe you need to read up on the latest development in the field of digital imaging.
First, depth of field: you can read depth information (especially with a second lens/sensor) and apply it to the image to create an artificial (but valid, per actual depth and settings) depth of field effect, that is even customizable (post shoot). Google already has a (not very advanced) form of that on Android camera app, and the technology can only get better, to the point that's as convincing as actual DoP (which it sort of is -- as it can be applied to the RAW image data from the sensor before it's "developed" as a JPEG).
Second, sensor size: sensor size physically matters mostly for depth of field (and that can be solved, as seen above). The other aspects, like color accuracy and noise can be improved with better sensor technology too -- large sensors are not required.
That's why a 6 MP camera from 2004 (with its huge photo capsuring diodes) has worse low light than a 24MP camera from 2014, despite the latter having much smaller diodes. It's because the sensor, the bayes pattern and the software has been updated, and can do much better work with the same or even with smaller photo diodes.
In the same way, in tests, an iPhone 5s has mostly the same low light performance as an DSLR from 2004-5, despite having a much smaller sensor.
So, if they add several recent innovations there have been since (like separate capture for chroma and luminance, something like the Sigma cameras used to have), it's not that difficult for the iPhone to be in Canon 40D territory or even better.
Of course it wont match the currents DSLR models, but it can realistically match a fine DSLR from 5-6 years ago.
So, there...
Here you go.
Not at all. Interchangeable lenses is the most obvious thing, but the sensor size and sensor pixel size are huge differences. It's one of the main reasons that low light images look so much better from my DSLR than my iPad Air. You can also throw a background out of focus on an iPhone too - just focus on something in the foreground - a DSLR offers more control over this.
A lot of people would prefer a device that comes close to at least mimicking a DSLR in imagery in a phone over a true DSLR.
DSLRs are awesome, but nothing is as awesome as a phone in your pocket.
When we visited Europe last winter, we opted to use our iPhones over our Canon cameras. It was way too convenient and you had to worry less about someone taking your device, because it was in your pocket and not strapped over your shoulder - especially in Paris.
'
I have loved all of my DLSRs that I've had over the last 12 years, but...it's too easy to just take your phone. Sadly. Maybe if DSLRs stopped putting most of the controls in a menu on a screen, rather than real buttons, then there would be the advantage. It's annoying to have to use a DLSR and keep looking at a menu to take a shot.
I have a few Minolta Dimage 7 DLSR prosumer cameras from 10-12 years ago that had buttons and dials all over them for controlling shots. Rarely did you have to look at the screen. In fact, I've kept those cameras and they still work great (5 megapixels). I got frustrated with my Canon T3i which is all screen based and ended up giving it away. If I want to keep looking at a screen to compose a shot, might as well use an iPhone.
Anyway, Camera+ app is pretty awesome and comes close to matching DLSR in closeup macro shots. Getting depth of field in a shot, if automated and no control, is fine, as long as the shot is good. Not having depth of field is really annoying, unless you have an app that will approximate it. In fact, the Canon T3i has a feature that will allow you to take a regular shot and add the depth of field blur to it. Funny, a relatively expensive camera that does point and shoot shots then mimics depth of field with software.
Anyway, many of us know that DLSR shots are typically way, way better than an iPhone photo. Just can't wait for the iPhone to get close enough in features and quality that the DLSR is needed less often.
DSLR is great for portrait, nature, and landscapes and seem to me to be better suited over an iPhone. But everyday city photography is easier and probably better covered with an iPhone (for convenience of carrying and types of shots and safety - not getting your camera stolen).
His left eye is way off track. He would not be able to achieve stereopsis.
While there is a demand for such a thing, Apple will have to be very clever to do it. Unless they are planning another "16 million colours!" idea again...