While it's true that megapixels is not the only indicator of quality and that in small sensors, more megapixels can actually do harm because they heat up and cause noise, especially at high ISOs, to claim as Gruber apparently did, that a cell phone camera can offer DSLR quality when it has such a small sensor and a tiny lens is completely absurd. All it demonstrates is that Gruber knows nothing about the physics of digital photography.
Having said that, there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of focusing speed, ability to change the shooting speed to capture action, tracking, color accuracy, white balance, etc. I noticed recently when shooting some showrooms for a bathroom renovation that even with post-processing white balance correction, it was impossible to get the color of tiles correct. They looked different in every shot. And there should be simple controls to adjust exposure within the Camera application similar to the touch focus control.
I realize that Photos is coming soon, but I think Apple has far to go in terms of UI to manage photos. It's currently a freaking mess. Camera Roll and Photo Stream never match, most users don't know the difference and after having to restore photos from a backup folder on my Mac, I now can't add or delete photos from those "Albums" on the phone. It needs to work well for users who don't want to pay for iCloud.
You missed the obvious point that low-light performance suffers with higher resolution. Since phones can't pack in full size high powered flashes, they have to leverage what they can. Apple can still make some more improvements to the Camera system (8MP is "at least as good as most DSLR's"... from 2008) before increasing the megapixels.
Like have you seen what an image produced by the Nokia Lumia 1020 (41MP) look like? Sure they look nice when outside, but not when you zoom in, or take pictures indoors. Any real benefit of the larger sensor just compensates for the jpeg lossiness. It's a handwave really. The high resolution sensors are really only of any good when they are in a full size DSLR that can write raw files. In a mobile phone you have to deal with image stabilizing (no tripod), fixed lens profile, and low-light conditions where a flash is inappropriate.
I'm not going to knock the Nokia 1020 too hard, it's biggest drawback is that Nokia and Microsoft create disposable devices/software, so you might buy a phone because it has a 41Mpixel camera, but you will have to throw it away once the next OS comes out. Older devices were supported long past the point of caring.
As usual, with these things, it's not that simple. Nikon and Sony came out with a 24MP sensor a few years ago, then a 36MP. Now Canon is coming out with 51MP cameras, and likely so will Sony and possibly Nikon. We've got 80MP backs for medium format, and scanning backs go to hundreds of MP.
What really matters is per pixel IQ, as long as they are equal, I'll take higher resolution any day. Even if the per pixel IQ is slightly less, much higher resolution allows binning, which still leaves you with, at a lower resolution, lower noise and a sharper image. And you still get the higher resolution for when you need it.
For smartphone cameras, the issue is somewhat different because of the tiny imaging sites, which are pretty much at the limit of practical lens resolution. So is the usage model. 8MP is high enough for a sharp 8x12. For most people, as long as they're not doing a lot of cropping, that's enough. The problem comes in because of the lack of optical zoom. Once you do crop, 8MP may not be enough.
But for Facebook, email, etc. it's fine.
Except the sensors in DSLR's are full frame 35mm in size, the distance from the lens to the sensor is many times the thickness of a phone.
I was in MacRumor's earlier and these nuts whining about this MP and that this is the reason for them to go to Android phones...I was laughing at these fking trolls...really? You buy a phone because of camera MP? Just plain idiots, I guess.
Like the idiots who try to tell you that the iPhone 6 is equivalent to a 2008 android phone based purely on the number 8.
I believe they did, explaining at several keynotes why greater megapixels didn't equate to better pictures, when pointedly asked why there weren't more mega-pixels.
I believe they did, explaining at several keynotes why greater megapixels didn't equate to better pictures, when pointedly asked why there weren't more mega-pixels.
That should be "greater megapixels didn't [necessarily] equate to better pictures.
You missed the obvious point that low-light performance suffers with higher resolution. Since phones can't pack in full size high powered flashes, they have to leverage what they can. Apple can still make some more improvements to the Camera system (8MP is "at least as good as most DSLR's"... from 2008) before increasing the megapixels.
Like have you seen what an image produced by the Nokia Lumia 1020 (41MP) look like? Sure they look nice when outside, but not when you zoom in, or take pictures indoors. Any real benefit of the larger sensor just compensates for the jpeg lossiness. It's a handwave really. The high resolution sensors are really only of any good when they are in a full size DSLR that can write raw files. In a mobile phone you have to deal with image stabilizing (no tripod), fixed lens profile, and low-light conditions where a flash is inappropriate.
I'm not going to knock the Nokia 1020 too hard, it's biggest drawback is that Nokia and Microsoft create disposable devices/software, so you might buy a phone because it has a 41Mpixel camera, but you will have to throw it away once the next OS comes out. Older devices were supported long past the point of caring.
You obviously haven't either. The 1020 has a xeon flash . IT also saves In raw format. So your jpeg lossiness comment shows you have no idea what your talking about.
I'm surprised that the megapixel race is still going on, and that camera manufacturers don't know better than to out megapixel the other guy. And this is Nikon and Canon, the seasoned veterans of pro photography equipment manufacturers, not a rookie like Samsung.
High resolution makes all the sense in the world for professional work or even an advanced amature. It is no different than in the days of film and the move up to medium format.
In the case of Canon I do wonder though if they have gone to far for a 35 mm frame size sensor. Time will tell. A pro will choose the best tool for the job
Nope make the ring more functional. It would be nice to see it turn into a magnetic mount for filters and the like. Old school I know but using a filters gives you results in real time.
Nope make the ring more functional. It would be nice to see it turn into a magnetic mount for filters and the like. Old school I know but using a filters gives you results in real time.
Not sure I agree. With RAW you can try out lots of filters not be stuck with a single result. I'd like to see Apple go RAW.
You missed the obvious point that low-light performance suffers with higher resolution. Since phones can't pack in full size high powered flashes, they have to leverage what they can. Apple can still make some more improvements to the Camera system (8MP is "at least as good as most DSLR's"... from 2008) before increasing the megapixels.
I didn't miss that point at all, that's what "more megapixels can actually do harm because they heat up and cause noise, especially at high ISOs..." means, although I should have been clearer and said that "photosites heat up", not "they".
High resolution makes all the sense in the world for professional work or even an advanced amature. It is no different than in the days of film and the move up to medium format.
People didn't move up to medium format, they moved down from it. My father was a pro photographer. In the studio, everything was 8x10, 5x7 or 4x5. When they shot banquets and large groups, they would frequently use Cirkuit panoramic cameras in which the negative was 6 to 12 inches high and several feet long and then those would be contact printed (talk about great resolution!) Most commercial work and weddings were shot either 4x5 or 120/220 format (usually twin lens reflex, as per a Rollei). But over time, most pros started shooting 35mm at least some of the time and eventually 35mm dominated as lenses and film stocks got better, except perhaps in studio fashion and product work. I remember my father being very reluctant to even try a 35mm camera, but he eventually used it often, especially when he was hired to go several hundred feet underground to take photos of rock when a new water tunnel was being built.
I shot TLR when I was a kid, but when I bought my own camera, it was 35mm.
But there's a big difference between film and digital photography. When you shot larger format, there were no technical disadvantages. When you shoot higher resolution in digital, high pixel density necessitates packing photosites in the sensor closer together. At high ISO shooting, necessary in low light, those photosites heat up and cause noise in the photo. That's why Nikon's highest end camera, the D4s ($6500), is only 16MP and Canon's highest end camera, the EOS 1Dx ($6000), is 18MP. It's their lower line cameras that have higher MP counts.
I think the iPhone's camera is good for uses beyond Facebook/Instagram and email, to be quite honest. For most family photography it is a great camera. Obviously for most pro uses it is inadequate though Brassai and perhaps Koudelka may have disagreed (I assume those are considered 'professional' though probably not 'commercial'). To suggest that an iPhone can replace a professionally used DSLR is silly talk. As in the above article I always wonder how come analysts get taken seriously when it comes to technical projections such as why and what the iPhone camera developments are likely to entail. At least they should reference a camera expert by name when they make these claims.
One good reason not to increase the image resolution may be to preserve a reasonable file size. A far more useful feature would be an optical zoom that can preserve image quality and low light sensitivity, however. How that can possibly be achieved in a smartphone is another question. When achieved the term 'magical' may become truly appropriate :-)
As I said, it's great up to 8x12. The thing about high resolution is that you can always bring the size down, but it's not as good to bring it up, though you can double the pixel number without I'll effects,, if you give a gentle sharpen.
Optical zoom is one feature I've been craving about for years. If Apple could get just a two times zoom, that would speed up the death of less expensive compact cameras, which are already on the way out.
Pro lenses aren't keeping up with resolution advances; analogous I suppose to mobile and batteries, but few are complaining.
More resolution is great, all else being (near) equal, but even now, the processors in dslr's are straining to meet frame rate expectations, and it does impose a need for some serious post processing power, which should make Intel, AMD and Nvidia very happy.
Apple is exactly right with a balanced workflow in the iPhone; there aren't any performance penalties and images look great even in low light conditions. Perhaps the release of Photos for OS X will push Apple to support a RAW workflow in both still and video for the next generation iPhone.
That's not quite true. There are some incredibly sharp pro lenses out there, from several companies, including Canon, Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Schneider, and even Sigma. There are a couple of smaller lens makers that make extremely good super achromat lenses. Costal Optics, for example. These are all for 35mm DSLR size cameras. There are two or three tele models for Hasselblad
Canon and Bikin both make apochromatis lenses, but don't advertize them as such as Leica and Zeiss do.
Comments
You missed the obvious point that low-light performance suffers with higher resolution. Since phones can't pack in full size high powered flashes, they have to leverage what they can. Apple can still make some more improvements to the Camera system (8MP is "at least as good as most DSLR's"... from 2008) before increasing the megapixels.
Like have you seen what an image produced by the Nokia Lumia 1020 (41MP) look like? Sure they look nice when outside, but not when you zoom in, or take pictures indoors. Any real benefit of the larger sensor just compensates for the jpeg lossiness. It's a handwave really. The high resolution sensors are really only of any good when they are in a full size DSLR that can write raw files. In a mobile phone you have to deal with image stabilizing (no tripod), fixed lens profile, and low-light conditions where a flash is inappropriate.
I'm not going to knock the Nokia 1020 too hard, it's biggest drawback is that Nokia and Microsoft create disposable devices/software, so you might buy a phone because it has a 41Mpixel camera, but you will have to throw it away once the next OS comes out. Older devices were supported long past the point of caring.
Right, except they never even mentioned it.
But here we find something objectively correct in every instance.
As usual, with these things, it's not that simple. Nikon and Sony came out with a 24MP sensor a few years ago, then a 36MP. Now Canon is coming out with 51MP cameras, and likely so will Sony and possibly Nikon. We've got 80MP backs for medium format, and scanning backs go to hundreds of MP.
What really matters is per pixel IQ, as long as they are equal, I'll take higher resolution any day. Even if the per pixel IQ is slightly less, much higher resolution allows binning, which still leaves you with, at a lower resolution, lower noise and a sharper image. And you still get the higher resolution for when you need it.
For smartphone cameras, the issue is somewhat different because of the tiny imaging sites, which are pretty much at the limit of practical lens resolution. So is the usage model. 8MP is high enough for a sharp 8x12. For most people, as long as they're not doing a lot of cropping, that's enough. The problem comes in because of the lack of optical zoom. Once you do crop, 8MP may not be enough.
But for Facebook, email, etc. it's fine.
Except the sensors in DSLR's are full frame 35mm in size, the distance from the lens to the sensor is many times the thickness of a phone.
Size isn't everything it's how you use it.
I was in MacRumor's earlier and these nuts whining about this MP and that this is the reason for them to go to Android phones...I was laughing at these fking trolls...really? You buy a phone because of camera MP? Just plain idiots, I guess.
Like the idiots who try to tell you that the iPhone 6 is equivalent to a 2008 android phone based purely on the number 8.
Quote of the day.
Right, except they never even mentioned it.
I believe they did, explaining at several keynotes why greater megapixels didn't equate to better pictures, when pointedly asked why there weren't more mega-pixels.
That's all we're begging you.
That should be "greater megapixels didn't [necessarily] equate to better pictures.
You missed the obvious point that low-light performance suffers with higher resolution. Since phones can't pack in full size high powered flashes, they have to leverage what they can. Apple can still make some more improvements to the Camera system (8MP is "at least as good as most DSLR's"... from 2008) before increasing the megapixels.
Like have you seen what an image produced by the Nokia Lumia 1020 (41MP) look like? Sure they look nice when outside, but not when you zoom in, or take pictures indoors. Any real benefit of the larger sensor just compensates for the jpeg lossiness. It's a handwave really. The high resolution sensors are really only of any good when they are in a full size DSLR that can write raw files. In a mobile phone you have to deal with image stabilizing (no tripod), fixed lens profile, and low-light conditions where a flash is inappropriate.
I'm not going to knock the Nokia 1020 too hard, it's biggest drawback is that Nokia and Microsoft create disposable devices/software, so you might buy a phone because it has a 41Mpixel camera, but you will have to throw it away once the next OS comes out. Older devices were supported long past the point of caring.
You obviously haven't either. The 1020 has a xeon flash . IT also saves In raw format. So your jpeg lossiness comment shows you have no idea what your talking about.
High resolution makes all the sense in the world for professional work or even an advanced amature. It is no different than in the days of film and the move up to medium format.
In the case of Canon I do wonder though if they have gone to far for a 35 mm frame size sensor. Time will tell. A pro will choose the best tool for the job
Nope make the ring more functional. It would be nice to see it turn into a magnetic mount for filters and the like. Old school I know but using a filters gives you results in real time.
Not sure I agree. With RAW you can try out lots of filters not be stuck with a single result. I'd like to see Apple go RAW.
No, it doesn’t.
Protruding lens? You're thinking of the new Canon 5Ds.
You missed the obvious point that low-light performance suffers with higher resolution. Since phones can't pack in full size high powered flashes, they have to leverage what they can. Apple can still make some more improvements to the Camera system (8MP is "at least as good as most DSLR's"... from 2008) before increasing the megapixels.
I didn't miss that point at all, that's what "more megapixels can actually do harm because they heat up and cause noise, especially at high ISOs..." means, although I should have been clearer and said that "photosites heat up", not "they".
High resolution makes all the sense in the world for professional work or even an advanced amature. It is no different than in the days of film and the move up to medium format.
People didn't move up to medium format, they moved down from it. My father was a pro photographer. In the studio, everything was 8x10, 5x7 or 4x5. When they shot banquets and large groups, they would frequently use Cirkuit panoramic cameras in which the negative was 6 to 12 inches high and several feet long and then those would be contact printed (talk about great resolution!) Most commercial work and weddings were shot either 4x5 or 120/220 format (usually twin lens reflex, as per a Rollei). But over time, most pros started shooting 35mm at least some of the time and eventually 35mm dominated as lenses and film stocks got better, except perhaps in studio fashion and product work. I remember my father being very reluctant to even try a 35mm camera, but he eventually used it often, especially when he was hired to go several hundred feet underground to take photos of rock when a new water tunnel was being built.
I shot TLR when I was a kid, but when I bought my own camera, it was 35mm.
But there's a big difference between film and digital photography. When you shot larger format, there were no technical disadvantages. When you shoot higher resolution in digital, high pixel density necessitates packing photosites in the sensor closer together. At high ISO shooting, necessary in low light, those photosites heat up and cause noise in the photo. That's why Nikon's highest end camera, the D4s ($6500), is only 16MP and Canon's highest end camera, the EOS 1Dx ($6000), is 18MP. It's their lower line cameras that have higher MP counts.
As I said, it's great up to 8x12. The thing about high resolution is that you can always bring the size down, but it's not as good to bring it up, though you can double the pixel number without I'll effects,, if you give a gentle sharpen.
Optical zoom is one feature I've been craving about for years. If Apple could get just a two times zoom, that would speed up the death of less expensive compact cameras, which are already on the way out.
That's not quite true. There are some incredibly sharp pro lenses out there, from several companies, including Canon, Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Schneider, and even Sigma. There are a couple of smaller lens makers that make extremely good super achromat lenses. Costal Optics, for example. These are all for 35mm DSLR size cameras. There are two or three tele models for Hasselblad
Canon and Bikin both make apochromatis lenses, but don't advertize them as such as Leica and Zeiss do.
Some are, and some are APS-C, and some are 4/3.
I don't understand your point.