Right, because making a 4.7 and 5.5 inch phone is not because of what other people are doing.
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.
I don't really know anything about photography but it bugs me that only the plus has the OIS. I was hoping the only difference between the 2 models would be screen size.
My decision is made anyways, with the changes to the storage options and because I have the hands of a 12 year-old, I'm changing the 4s for the 6. I'm sure the improvements are going to blow me away!
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.
That being said, I hope that next year the iphone 7 comes with upgrade internals on all 3 screen sizes.
That being said, I hope that next year the iphone 7 comes with upgrade internals on all 3 screen sizes.
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.
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.
You can have high pixel count on a small sensor footprint and suffer from low light sensitivity because the individual pixels are small. Or you can have lower pixel count for same footprint so that the pixels are larger and low light performance is better (i.e. less artifacts). It's all a compromise.
Of course you can have both higher pixel count and larger sensor to get the best quality pictures but wait, now you need to make room in your smartphone for the bigger sensor and probably you need a bigger lens too. And you're asking Apple to do this to benefit that minuscule number of people who want to take poster-sized photos but don't have the good sense to use a DSLR.
I don't really know anything about photography but it bugs me that only the plus has the OIS. I was hoping the only difference between the 2 models would be screen size.
My decision is made anyways, with the changes to the storage options and because I have the hands of a 12 year-old, I'm changing the 4s for the 6. I'm sure the improvements are going to blow me away!
The difference between software and optical IS isn't huge, probably quite a bit smaller than the sharpness added by going from the 4's slower camera to the faster one in the 6. Camera body motion is a killer IS can't deal with as easily as faster shutter speeds.
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.
Resolving power is also limited by the optics (lens size) and a 12MP sensor may not be able to give significantly more useful data than an 8MP sensor.
It is highly probable that Apple tested various lens and sensor combinations during the prototyping phase of this handset's development and concluded that the 8MP sensor had the right combinations of qualities (including performance and price) to make it the final component choice. They are going to sell over a hundred million of these phones, they clearly have a reason why they selected this specific component.
Yeah, look at all the higher megapixel camera phones overtaking the iPhones on Flickr...
...oh hang on.
At the size of a phone sensor, the compromise with more pixels is more noise to deal with.
Apple gets it, HTC gets it, the rest it's more about kudos regarding a number on a spec sheet.
I think that's what a lot of people don't get. Higher megapixel's in phones doesn't equal better image quality. With the small size of the sensors, more pixels will actually degrade the quality of the photo because of less light going to the sensor. The iPhone camera outperforms other phone cameras with higher pixel counts. You are right, Apple and HTC get it.
So you would rather have a 16 megapixel camera that takes crappier pictures? Are you saying that, based on specs alone, the more megapixels the better? Do you know that professional photographers have labeled the iPhone camera the best in mobile? It’s the SOFTWARE, stupid.
That sounds very interesting, do you have a link for that, I'd like to read what they have to say?
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!
The problem with more pixels in the same sized sensor is that each sensor element is smaller. Smaller sensor elements have decreased light recording abilities which results in more noise, to the point of utter uselessness in very low light conditions.
You may want more megapixels, but clearly Apple's design team does not. 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.
Slowly, but surely they are disrupting every single industry they decide to invade. Forcing conservative corporate boards to rethink their business models... sony, panasonic, nikon, casio, nokia, garmin, dell, intel, microsoft, VISA, master card, amex, swatch, rolex... and the list goes on. They all have one thing in common at their board meetings - a panicky feeling of being on the defensive. Apple is quietly going about this without even considering what everyone else is doing.
Considering that there are much more Android phones around, I'd lucky-guess that they are also bigger threat to dedicated cameras than iPhones are. And then, there are a few Nokias with high end cameras as well (at least in phone camera terms). But in general, it is business as usual. Market is brutal, unforgiving - and ever changing. Shift from film to digital killed some old-days titans, Kodak first on my mind. Smartphone cameras are killing P&S cameras, but they are still leagues away from assaulting DSLR battleground; however, new camera categories - which might have emerged because of smartphone assault on lower end (but then, might have emerged even without smartphone cameras) - are competing with DSLR in their own right; cameras like big sensor P&S and 1" exchangeable systems, and mirror-less DX/APS-C cameras, like NEX line.
Personally? I embrace change. Change is good. Back in the days, I had film SLR, Nikon F801s... and was more than a bit annoyed with digital surge. But then I realised that with good digital camera and software like Lightroom, I can be much more creative than I ever was with film, even if I bothered to invest into proper darkroom equipment... and all that with less investment, not to mention space and other limitations. A few years later, I'm finding that 1" pocket camera can give me comparable results to my old DX-size DLSR in most scenarios, while making the whole experience of sightseeing new destinations much more comfortable.
Today, I could not imagine dragging around my old film camera, bag full of film rolls, spare AA batteries... handling used and fresh films... and not knowing if that one great unexpected opportunity ended up with perfect or less than perfect photo, until I visit my film developer. Man, wasn't that change amazing.
So bring it on. Once smartphone cameras offer quality that will satisfy my needs close enough to what dedicated cameras offer me today, I will gladly stop carrying one extra gadget (and thinking about it all the time). I don't expect it will happen any time soon, if ever - size and form factor requirements for quality lens can hardly be overcome by improvements on digital side of equation - but should it happen, power to all of us.
There's an optimal amount of pixels for any given sensor size. With the size of the sensor in the iPhone, 8MP is it. More pixels would only result in increased noise and poorer low-light performance. Additionally it would've meant larger file sizes and all the disadvantages that brings.
While Apple (or actually the component supplier) could've used a larger sensor and then increased the megapixels to be optimized around the higher sensor, this isn't without it's own drawbacks as well. While generally speaking this does improve quality all around, the problem is that funnel of light coming in through the lens to the sensor has to change so that the light focuses on the entire sensor, and that, in a smartphone, comes at a cost.
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.
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.
Too bad the resolution has not improved. It has remained fixed at 8 megapixels since the 4s.
Resolution really isn't a problem. Yes more pixels can be an advantage if they are able to deliver good quality but they seldom do in a cell phone. Personally I'd rather see a viable optical zoom before we see more pixels. Hell id be happy even if that caused a big bump in the phone.
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.
Actually no they couldn't. Remember the sensor needs to be able to deliver all the features Apple wants to offer, it is just a simple picture and video sensor.
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.
Are you sure that sensor is square?
By the way not everyone hates portrait videos! Sometimes they are exactly what the situation requires as it crops out stuff that would distract from the subject matter.
My only complaint is the 6 Plus has OIS and not the 6. I see no reason for this at all.
As I posted earlier:
Quote:
Although I doubt the extra thickness helps in horizontal and vertical movement*, I rather the 6 to have been thicker as well then. I don't want some obnoxious 5.5" phone, but the OIS would be a huge help. I was afraid they were going to fragment features. This is probably marketing.
Comments
Right, because making a 4.7 and 5.5 inch phone is not because of what other people are doing.
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.
My decision is made anyways, with the changes to the storage options and because I have the hands of a 12 year-old, I'm changing the 4s for the 6. I'm sure the improvements are going to blow me away!
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.
That being said, I hope that next year the iphone 7 comes with upgrade internals on all 3 screen sizes.
The phone should be able to take landscape photos and videos when it is held in portrait orientation.
The UX friction involved with enabling/disabling/using this (for average users) would be far too high and confusing.
If you have an incredible idea for overcoming that, go patent it.
Looking at the flash, it looks like it is recessed and would be a great place for dust-bunnies to congregate.
That being said, I hope that next year the iphone 7 comes with upgrade internals on all 3 screen sizes.
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.
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.
You can have high pixel count on a small sensor footprint and suffer from low light sensitivity because the individual pixels are small. Or you can have lower pixel count for same footprint so that the pixels are larger and low light performance is better (i.e. less artifacts). It's all a compromise.
Of course you can have both higher pixel count and larger sensor to get the best quality pictures but wait, now you need to make room in your smartphone for the bigger sensor and probably you need a bigger lens too. And you're asking Apple to do this to benefit that minuscule number of people who want to take poster-sized photos but don't have the good sense to use a DSLR.
I don't really know anything about photography but it bugs me that only the plus has the OIS. I was hoping the only difference between the 2 models would be screen size.
My decision is made anyways, with the changes to the storage options and because I have the hands of a 12 year-old, I'm changing the 4s for the 6. I'm sure the improvements are going to blow me away!
The difference between software and optical IS isn't huge, probably quite a bit smaller than the sharpness added by going from the 4's slower camera to the faster one in the 6. Camera body motion is a killer IS can't deal with as easily as faster shutter speeds.
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.
Resolving power is also limited by the optics (lens size) and a 12MP sensor may not be able to give significantly more useful data than an 8MP sensor.
It is highly probable that Apple tested various lens and sensor combinations during the prototyping phase of this handset's development and concluded that the 8MP sensor had the right combinations of qualities (including performance and price) to make it the final component choice. They are going to sell over a hundred million of these phones, they clearly have a reason why they selected this specific component.
Yeah, look at all the higher megapixel camera phones overtaking the iPhones on Flickr...
...oh hang on.
At the size of a phone sensor, the compromise with more pixels is more noise to deal with.
Apple gets it, HTC gets it, the rest it's more about kudos regarding a number on a spec sheet.
I think that's what a lot of people don't get. Higher megapixel's in phones doesn't equal better image quality. With the small size of the sensors, more pixels will actually degrade the quality of the photo because of less light going to the sensor. The iPhone camera outperforms other phone cameras with higher pixel counts. You are right, Apple and HTC get it.
So you would rather have a 16 megapixel camera that takes crappier pictures? Are you saying that, based on specs alone, the more megapixels the better? Do you know that professional photographers have labeled the iPhone camera the best in mobile? It’s the SOFTWARE, stupid.
That sounds very interesting, do you have a link for that, I'd like to read what they have to say?
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!
The problem with more pixels in the same sized sensor is that each sensor element is smaller. Smaller sensor elements have decreased light recording abilities which results in more noise, to the point of utter uselessness in very low light conditions.
You may want more megapixels, but clearly Apple's design team does not. 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.
Considering that there are much more Android phones around, I'd lucky-guess that they are also bigger threat to dedicated cameras than iPhones are. And then, there are a few Nokias with high end cameras as well (at least in phone camera terms). But in general, it is business as usual. Market is brutal, unforgiving - and ever changing. Shift from film to digital killed some old-days titans, Kodak first on my mind. Smartphone cameras are killing P&S cameras, but they are still leagues away from assaulting DSLR battleground; however, new camera categories - which might have emerged because of smartphone assault on lower end (but then, might have emerged even without smartphone cameras) - are competing with DSLR in their own right; cameras like big sensor P&S and 1" exchangeable systems, and mirror-less DX/APS-C cameras, like NEX line.
Personally? I embrace change. Change is good. Back in the days, I had film SLR, Nikon F801s... and was more than a bit annoyed with digital surge. But then I realised that with good digital camera and software like Lightroom, I can be much more creative than I ever was with film, even if I bothered to invest into proper darkroom equipment... and all that with less investment, not to mention space and other limitations. A few years later, I'm finding that 1" pocket camera can give me comparable results to my old DX-size DLSR in most scenarios, while making the whole experience of sightseeing new destinations much more comfortable.
Today, I could not imagine dragging around my old film camera, bag full of film rolls, spare AA batteries... handling used and fresh films... and not knowing if that one great unexpected opportunity ended up with perfect or less than perfect photo, until I visit my film developer. Man, wasn't that change amazing.
So bring it on. Once smartphone cameras offer quality that will satisfy my needs close enough to what dedicated cameras offer me today, I will gladly stop carrying one extra gadget (and thinking about it all the time). I don't expect it will happen any time soon, if ever - size and form factor requirements for quality lens can hardly be overcome by improvements on digital side of equation - but should it happen, power to all of us.
In regards to the pixels...
There's an optimal amount of pixels for any given sensor size. With the size of the sensor in the iPhone, 8MP is it. More pixels would only result in increased noise and poorer low-light performance. Additionally it would've meant larger file sizes and all the disadvantages that brings.
While Apple (or actually the component supplier) could've used a larger sensor and then increased the megapixels to be optimized around the higher sensor, this isn't without it's own drawbacks as well. While generally speaking this does improve quality all around, the problem is that funnel of light coming in through the lens to the sensor has to change so that the light focuses on the entire sensor, and that, in a smartphone, comes at a cost.
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.
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.
By the way not everyone hates portrait videos! Sometimes they are exactly what the situation requires as it crops out stuff that would distract from the subject matter.
Spot on
as in spot metering lol sorry...
My only complaint is the 6 Plus has OIS and not the 6. I see no reason for this at all.
As I posted earlier:
The 60fps is great, but the size needs to be larger, same with the slo-motion. Looks great on the phone, looks horrible scaled up on the TV.
Aside from that, looks like a 6 Plus goes in the camera bag, er, my pocket