Or how about "$88K electric car boasts Lamborghini-like results"?
A few years ago that headline would have been mocked as nonsense.
You mean the GM EV1 beating out a Porsche 911 back in the 90's? Not nonsense at all. Again, that's a similar comparison.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? I'm talking about physical size limitations here. An equal size Tesla outrunning an equal size Lamborghini is fair game.
A tiny sensor beating out a sensor 100 times its size is not the same thing. No matter what one does, that tiny sensor can only collect so much light, versus that larger sensor able to capture 100-times more light. What's so difficult to understand?
If SLR/Mirrorless sensors halted evolution NOW, then maybe in 5 years perhaps iPhone cameras can reach the level of SLR capabilities from TODAY's SLR sensors. That will not happen because SLR/Mirrorless sensors in FIVE YEARS will also be better than what they are now. This is not a p!ssing-contest. It's simply physics.
You are assuming both solutions are of equal efficiency in processing light. Yes, the larger lens and sensor can capture more light on the surface of the sensor. The point that you are overlooking is that a solution with multiple smaller sensors may be able to use the light more efficiently than a traditional single sensor setup.
I will wait and see what the actual quality is for myself before judging, but I cannot rule out the possibility that an array of sensors could be more efficient than a single larger sensor.
I'm sure it's great tech and will improve cell phone PQ, but to state that it's DSLR quality is absurd. You cannot achieve in a small sensor and tiny lens what can be achieved with a large sensor and lens. And any advances in sensor tech that reduces noise in small sensors also gets applied to large sensors to further improve their quality.
The iPhone already makes images good enough for Facebook, etc. But display those images at full size and they usually look like crap. Being able to change focus points after the photo is taken is fun, but that in itself is not going to improve overall picture quality.
I'm old enough to remember when this same argument was over whether a 35mm camera was "good enough" to replace a 4x5 press camera. Much the same argument you presented only it was about film grain and lens quality. I don't know what you're thinking of when you say "full size" but Apple recently blew up iPhone photos to billboard size and they looked pretty good.
It is NOT "DSLR Quality". Typical tech-hype from people banking on people being too ignorant to know better. AI should know better than to give this shop headline cred with such bullsh!t claims.
A 35mm SLR sensor will flat-out always beat some tiny 1/4th of a fingernail-sized sensor. It's plain physics. The large surface area will always be better at collecting the maximum amount of light than some tiny peephole. Couple that with a good lens, again... huge glass to collect light, and it's a no brainer.
I love my iP6+ and it takes wonderful photos. Anything to make those little cameras even better is great for me, and great for everyone. That being said, it is nowhere near the quality I get with my 35mm Canon 5D Mark III on a bad day. Assuming the 35mm segment stops innovating from this point forward, perhaps in 5 years it could be better, but its not going to happen. It will just be 35mm mirrorless cameras or even more high-end dSLR sensors, but that market is not standing still at all.
Next AI headline... "Mini Cooper boasts Lamborghini-like results". Why not AI? It's about as nonsense as your headline.
Last time I checked Canon Mark line are usually used by the pro or semi-pro. Apple is not targeting those but home users'entry DSRL. So, if you want to compare, let's say Canon Rebel line. Bottom line, lense quality is more important for DSRL. Your Mark III with a cheap lense can produce shitty pictures if taken by an average Joe.
This is nice but it will never replace a DSLR with high quality lens and a fullframe sensor.
I'm telling you this...9 out of 10 users with entry DSRL for home use don't care crap about the lenses, but use whatever come with the package. Their pictures taken with those DSRL and cheap lenses are craps compared to those by these guys in National Geographic with iPhone 6+.
15 years ago, who would say point and shoot cameras will be killed by phone camera? It did already. With more technologies coming in, we will soon see the death of home use DSRL.
Or how about "$88K electric car boasts Lamborghini-like results"?
A few years ago that headline would have been mocked as nonsense.
Size considerations aside (they're on the same playing field there), "Lamborghini-like results" needs some qualifications. Which one would you rather be driving on a 3-lap Nürburgring time trial ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut
Couldn't disagree with you more. DSLR's couldn't innovate anymore slowly. Basically the same product for the history of the device. More megapixels, better light sensitivity. That's it. I noticed you said you got a 5D? How'd you feel being raped by Canon - paying through the nose for an extra memory slot and a few extra focus points? In fact - a big part DSLR's are stuck in their form and function are the huge ass lenses they need to keep supporting. They have no hope against Apple.
You talk like a photographer who's never shot anything in motion with a thin DoF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
If you really mean that, then don't look at what other tech companies have development centers in Israel. You will feel bad using about anything that plugs in and connects to the internet.
Yeah, you can chalk up any of your favorite patriotic strikes by a Predator, Reaper, etc. to Israeli technology. I work in this area, and I'll tell you that Israeli technology generally kicks ass.
Last time I checked Canon Mark line are usually used by the pro or semi-pro. Apple is not targeting those but home users'entry DSRL. So, if you want to compare, let's say Canon Rebel line. Bottom line, lense quality is more important for DSRL. Your Mark III with a cheap lense can produce shitty pictures if taken by an average Joe.
Mark Line? You mean the 5D series of full-frame bodies? There are "Marks" for the 7D, 5D, 1D, and 1Ds families of bodies.
The way most consumers use a Rebel, yes, they'd do just fine with an iPhone for most of their shots. Yes, DSLR will continue to become more of a niche market, but it will not go away. The glass and sensor size are required due to physics, and we are just not going to overcome it in a phone form factor. Whatever sensor tech you put in an iPhone will also improve a DSLR's larger sensor, but the DSLR will have the added benefit of significant glass, bigger focus motors, and a bigger battery to power them.
Mark Line? You mean the 5D series of full-frame bodies? There are "Marks" for the 7D, 5D, 1D, and 1Ds families of bodies.
The way most consumers use a Rebel, yes, they'd do just fine with an iPhone for most of their shots. Yes, DSLR will continue to become more of a niche market, but it will not go away. The glass and sensor size are required due to physics, and we are just not going to overcome it in a phone form factor. Whatever sensor tech you put in an iPhone will also improve a DSLR's larger sensor, but the DSLR will have the added benefit of significant glass, bigger focus motors, and a bigger battery to power them.
I know what "Mark" is...just the abbreviation. BTW, comparing phone camera with Pro/Semipro DSRL is silly. We're only talking about entry leve DSRL for home use which may be impacted by this new technology just like point and shoot years ago.
There is nothing that says that this tech needs to be limited to mobile or iPhone-sized device ...
<cough> GoPro <cough>
Yes, there's that ...
One of the techs that really interests me is instant replay -- where turn-around time is more important than image quality.
For example, if you prepare in advance you can do the second part of this video highlight (the full-color within a shape, and gray background outside the shape) in a about 7 seconds using FCPX on a decent Mac.
[VIDEO]
The second video involves accurately highlighting only the player outline and the ball outline. This involves tedious, mostly manual rotoscoping -- and took several hours. This was a few years back -- now there are FCPX plugins that help automate the task and reduce turnaround to minutes instead of hours. But, still minutes of turn-around time.
[VIDEO]
The second video is more pleasing to the eye ... With a camera capable of real-time background removal (masking/filtering) -- the highlighting effect would be free, and follow the subject of the video shot. Zero turn-around time!
Edit:
For reasons of full expos ... er, ah, disclosure -- I have to admit that manual rotoscoping is not always tedious, but can demand your full attention ...
The following is Ana Ayora from a leadin to the Castle TV Show -- in the original Ana is wearing red shorts:
Do your research and you will see Israel is a hot bed for tech so forget about not just Apple products, but Microsoft, Intel and almost all other areas of tech from storage to batteries have come from this country.
A country that is modern, democratic, favorable to all ethnicities , sexual orientation, race colour and creed. A country where Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are treated better than Palestinians and Arabs in most other countries in the surrounding areas
I'm old enough to remember when this same argument was over whether a 35mm camera was "good enough" to replace a 4x5 press camera. Much the same argument you presented only it was about film grain and lens quality. I don't know what you're thinking of when you say "full size" but Apple recently blew up iPhone photos to billboard size and they looked pretty good.
Well it depends upon your definition of good enough. My father was a pro-photographer and his standard camera was a 4x5 Graflex press camera, but in the studio they used 8x10 cameras. They also did a lot of work with Cirkut Panorama cameras which made negatives 6", 8" or 10" high and several feel wide and were contact printed. Images from those things were amazing. For weddings and events of that nature, they used medium format 6x6cm, which is what I learned photography on, but for banquet photography, they used large format. Every once in a while, I see one of his firm's images in an antique store. The resolution is amazing.
It took a lot of pressure for him to use a 35mm camera - he didn't pick one up until 1966 and even then, he rarely used it for professional purposes.
While one could capture great images in 35mm, especially as film stocks got better, the fact remains that medium or large format looked even better. I'm always a little shocked when I go to MOMA or some other museum and see classic medium or large format photographs from decades ago. They're almost always spectacular.
I normally shoot family photos with my pro-DSLR. My grandson was in last week and I was too lazy to carry around the heavy camera bag, so I shot with the iPhone instead. On the phone, the photos looked fine, but when I looked at them on my Mac's (obviously) larger monitor, they really looked grossly inferior to anything I've shot on the DSLR.
Most consumers are willing to give up quality for convenience with both audio and photography/video. An iPhone is certainly the most convenient way to capture images. As they say, "the best camera to have is the one you have with you." But if you really care about picture quality, it doesn't make the grade, IMO and I personally wouldn't use it to capture anything really important.
What happens when most people are pleased enough with their phone pics they don't bother calling a "professional" anymore?
Ah yes, the "good enough" syndrome. It's very valid. And the more and more these technologies are aimed at lower-tier consumers (I don't mean that as derogatory), the less and less drive there is by the manufacturers to deliver the features higher-end users are looking for. Compressed music, crappy cable/satellite TV picture quality, the very UI of the Mac OS. These are all valid business decisions, to target that level of less demanding users, but that doesn't mean that some of don't us want more from our devices/services. Going hand-in-hand with "good enough" is not caring to have better quality (music, TV, photos). It's all personal preference and need.
And of course, as always, any camera in your hand is better than a DSLR sitting at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut
Couldn't disagree with you more. DSLR's couldn't innovate anymore slowly. Basically the same product for the history of the device. More megapixels, better light sensitivity. That's it. I noticed you said you got a 5D? How'd you feel being raped by Canon - paying through the nose for an extra memory slot and a few extra focus points? In fact - a big part DSLR's are stuck in their form and function are the huge ass lenses they need to keep supporting. They have no hope against Apple.
This is joke, right? I supposed we can says the iPhone has had a complete lack of innovation, too. After all, the basic form and function has remain unchanged since the first first model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt
I'm telling you this...9 out of 10 users with entry DSRL for home use don't care crap about the lenses, but use whatever come with the package. Their pictures taken with those DSRL and cheap lenses are craps compared to those by these guys in National Geographic with iPhone 6+.
15 years ago, who would say point and shoot cameras will be killed by phone camera? It did already. With more technologies coming in, we will soon see the death of home use DSRL.
Even a low-end DSLR with a cheap kit lens can take better photos than most (maybe all) phones if you don't have good shooting conditions (low light, moving objects). Are you suggesting that those National Geographic guys couldn't also shoot as good or better photos with a low-end DSLR?
And of course, it all depends on what you consider important for image quality. Some people like the overprocessed, over saturated quality some cameras produce. Others like just a clean, sharp, natural color photo with a clear depth of field. Some poeple think lens flare is a nice artist touch (which it can sometimes be), others avoid it at all costs. There are countless ways to express picture quality. Some are more subjective than others.
Some people will care about it more than others. By and large, most people just really don't care. They just want whatever camera they can carry with them everywhere to snap the occassional photo to post on Facebook. But that doesn't invalidate the desire of those who want something better.
how about Apple stop over post processing its camera images and uses a better sensor like most every one else, hop into Photoshop and put a 1 pixel median blur on any DSLR image and then go compare it to a typical Apple iPhone image and note the simile all over cauliflower head like pattern on the image.
how about you start making sense...can we start there?
Most consumers are willing to give up quality for convenience with both audio and photography/video. An iPhone is certainly the most convenient way to capture images. As they say, "the best camera to have is the one you have with you." But if you really care about picture quality, it doesn't make the grade, IMO and I personally wouldn't use it to capture anything really important.
so do you use a 3x4" or an 8x10" for important stuff? cuz it sounds similar to your dads thoughts on 35mm...
Agree 100% with @sflocal so here are facts that bolster the same points on IMAGE QUALITY:
1. Those great Apple photos essentially ALL in bright light. Indoor shots, low-light shots, have a lot more fuzz/noise/grain.
2. Unless you smush out all the detail. That cuts the confetti that you'll see on a cropped or zoomed-in look, but it also cuts the crispness.
3. My DSLR has a sensor approx 22X the size of my very nice iPhone6+'s sensor. My f/2 lens puts about 24X the number of photons on the sensor as the iPhone6+'s f/2.2 lens puts on its sensor. So the competition between the light and the noise is 22X as much in favor with a DSLR. Low-light photography is dramatically superior w the bigger sensor, because it's most challenging on small sensors.
4. Camera sensor tech is hotly competitive. Apple buys its sensors from firms that sell to other markets. While Moore's Law is more helpful in improving the quality of tiny sensors, the physics is approx similar and big SLR cos are highly incentivized to get more pixels, better quality, too.
5. A picture that's only viewed at screen resolution is a picture that OUGHT to look good even with very modest technology. Each pixel you see is an average of maybe a dozen original pixels. See #2—noise is much lower than you'd see on a print or a crop.
6. I look forward to what Apple can do with the LinX tech—smart software CAN indeed make for higher quality photos! The features described—3D, Lytros-like refocusing, optical measurements, etc—are GREAT! But they won't make for much better ordinary still photos.
Sorry, @fallenjt, your average Joe never owned a Digital Single-Lens Reflex camera.
He had a point-n-shooter a couple years back and it's probably still in a drawer somewhere, but it's not as good as today's iPhone cameras — and nowhere close to a DSLR. But then, he never took high-quality photos in the first place; was always happy with seeing his gf's smile or the nice colors on his Hawaii vacation in slideshows.
If Apple does build a GoPro like device, which would be great, I hope they can improve the performance. For instance, the current GoPro is a bit too heavy for some applications.
Comments
Or how about "$88K electric car boasts Lamborghini-like results"?
A few years ago that headline would have been mocked as nonsense.
You mean the GM EV1 beating out a Porsche 911 back in the 90's? Not nonsense at all. Again, that's a similar comparison.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? I'm talking about physical size limitations here. An equal size Tesla outrunning an equal size Lamborghini is fair game.
A tiny sensor beating out a sensor 100 times its size is not the same thing. No matter what one does, that tiny sensor can only collect so much light, versus that larger sensor able to capture 100-times more light. What's so difficult to understand?
If SLR/Mirrorless sensors halted evolution NOW, then maybe in 5 years perhaps iPhone cameras can reach the level of SLR capabilities from TODAY's SLR sensors. That will not happen because SLR/Mirrorless sensors in FIVE YEARS will also be better than what they are now. This is not a p!ssing-contest. It's simply physics.
You are assuming both solutions are of equal efficiency in processing light. Yes, the larger lens and sensor can capture more light on the surface of the sensor. The point that you are overlooking is that a solution with multiple smaller sensors may be able to use the light more efficiently than a traditional single sensor setup.
I will wait and see what the actual quality is for myself before judging, but I cannot rule out the possibility that an array of sensors could be more efficient than a single larger sensor.
I'm old enough to remember when this same argument was over whether a 35mm camera was "good enough" to replace a 4x5 press camera. Much the same argument you presented only it was about film grain and lens quality. I don't know what you're thinking of when you say "full size" but Apple recently blew up iPhone photos to billboard size and they looked pretty good.
It is NOT "DSLR Quality". Typical tech-hype from people banking on people being too ignorant to know better. AI should know better than to give this shop headline cred with such bullsh!t claims.
A 35mm SLR sensor will flat-out always beat some tiny 1/4th of a fingernail-sized sensor. It's plain physics. The large surface area will always be better at collecting the maximum amount of light than some tiny peephole. Couple that with a good lens, again... huge glass to collect light, and it's a no brainer.
I love my iP6+ and it takes wonderful photos. Anything to make those little cameras even better is great for me, and great for everyone. That being said, it is nowhere near the quality I get with my 35mm Canon 5D Mark III on a bad day. Assuming the 35mm segment stops innovating from this point forward, perhaps in 5 years it could be better, but its not going to happen. It will just be 35mm mirrorless cameras or even more high-end dSLR sensors, but that market is not standing still at all.
Next AI headline... "Mini Cooper boasts Lamborghini-like results". Why not AI? It's about as nonsense as your headline.
Last time I checked Canon Mark line are usually used by the pro or semi-pro. Apple is not targeting those but home users'entry DSRL. So, if you want to compare, let's say Canon Rebel line. Bottom line, lense quality is more important for DSRL. Your Mark III with a cheap lense can produce shitty pictures if taken by an average Joe.
This is nice but it will never replace a DSLR with high quality lens and a fullframe sensor.
I'm telling you this...9 out of 10 users with entry DSRL for home use don't care crap about the lenses, but use whatever come with the package. Their pictures taken with those DSRL and cheap lenses are craps compared to those by these guys in National Geographic with iPhone 6+.
15 years ago, who would say point and shoot cameras will be killed by phone camera? It did already. With more technologies coming in, we will soon see the death of home use DSRL.
About time to get rid of home DSRL.
I'll keep mine thanks.
Or how about "$88K electric car boasts Lamborghini-like results"?
A few years ago that headline would have been mocked as nonsense.
Size considerations aside (they're on the same playing field there), "Lamborghini-like results" needs some qualifications. Which one would you rather be driving on a 3-lap Nürburgring time trial ?
Couldn't disagree with you more. DSLR's couldn't innovate anymore slowly. Basically the same product for the history of the device. More megapixels, better light sensitivity. That's it. I noticed you said you got a 5D? How'd you feel being raped by Canon - paying through the nose for an extra memory slot and a few extra focus points? In fact - a big part DSLR's are stuck in their form and function are the huge ass lenses they need to keep supporting. They have no hope against Apple.
You talk like a photographer who's never shot anything in motion with a thin DoF.
If you really mean that, then don't look at what other tech companies have development centers in Israel. You will feel bad using about anything that plugs in and connects to the internet.
Yeah, you can chalk up any of your favorite patriotic strikes by a Predator, Reaper, etc. to Israeli technology. I work in this area, and I'll tell you that Israeli technology generally kicks ass.
Waze is Israeli tech as well.
Last time I checked Canon Mark line are usually used by the pro or semi-pro. Apple is not targeting those but home users'entry DSRL. So, if you want to compare, let's say Canon Rebel line. Bottom line, lense quality is more important for DSRL. Your Mark III with a cheap lense can produce shitty pictures if taken by an average Joe.
Mark Line? You mean the 5D series of full-frame bodies? There are "Marks" for the 7D, 5D, 1D, and 1Ds families of bodies.
The way most consumers use a Rebel, yes, they'd do just fine with an iPhone for most of their shots. Yes, DSLR will continue to become more of a niche market, but it will not go away. The glass and sensor size are required due to physics, and we are just not going to overcome it in a phone form factor. Whatever sensor tech you put in an iPhone will also improve a DSLR's larger sensor, but the DSLR will have the added benefit of significant glass, bigger focus motors, and a bigger battery to power them.
I'll keep mine thanks.
Sure, let me know when you can beat these pictures taken by current 6+.
Mark Line? You mean the 5D series of full-frame bodies? There are "Marks" for the 7D, 5D, 1D, and 1Ds families of bodies.
The way most consumers use a Rebel, yes, they'd do just fine with an iPhone for most of their shots. Yes, DSLR will continue to become more of a niche market, but it will not go away. The glass and sensor size are required due to physics, and we are just not going to overcome it in a phone form factor. Whatever sensor tech you put in an iPhone will also improve a DSLR's larger sensor, but the DSLR will have the added benefit of significant glass, bigger focus motors, and a bigger battery to power them.
I know what "Mark" is...just the abbreviation. BTW, comparing phone camera with Pro/Semipro DSRL is silly. We're only talking about entry leve DSRL for home use which may be impacted by this new technology just like point and shoot years ago.
Yes, there's that ...
One of the techs that really interests me is instant replay -- where turn-around time is more important than image quality.
For example, if you prepare in advance you can do the second part of this video highlight (the full-color within a shape, and gray background outside the shape) in a about 7 seconds using FCPX on a decent Mac.
[VIDEO]
The second video involves accurately highlighting only the player outline and the ball outline. This involves tedious, mostly manual rotoscoping -- and took several hours. This was a few years back -- now there are FCPX plugins that help automate the task and reduce turnaround to minutes instead of hours. But, still minutes of turn-around time.
[VIDEO]
The second video is more pleasing to the eye ... With a camera capable of real-time background removal (masking/filtering) -- the highlighting effect would be free, and follow the subject of the video shot. Zero turn-around time!
Edit:
For reasons of full expos ... er, ah, disclosure -- I have to admit that manual rotoscoping is not always tedious, but can demand your full attention ...
The following is Ana Ayora from a leadin to the Castle TV Show -- in the original Ana is wearing red shorts:
[VIDEO]
Sure, let me know when you can beat these pictures taken by current 6+.
Do your research and you will see Israel is a hot bed for tech so forget about not just Apple products, but Microsoft, Intel and almost all other areas of tech from storage to batteries have come from this country.
A country that is modern, democratic, favorable to all ethnicities , sexual orientation, race colour and creed. A country where Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are treated better than Palestinians and Arabs in most other countries in the surrounding areas
I'm old enough to remember when this same argument was over whether a 35mm camera was "good enough" to replace a 4x5 press camera. Much the same argument you presented only it was about film grain and lens quality. I don't know what you're thinking of when you say "full size" but Apple recently blew up iPhone photos to billboard size and they looked pretty good.
Well it depends upon your definition of good enough. My father was a pro-photographer and his standard camera was a 4x5 Graflex press camera, but in the studio they used 8x10 cameras. They also did a lot of work with Cirkut Panorama cameras which made negatives 6", 8" or 10" high and several feel wide and were contact printed. Images from those things were amazing. For weddings and events of that nature, they used medium format 6x6cm, which is what I learned photography on, but for banquet photography, they used large format. Every once in a while, I see one of his firm's images in an antique store. The resolution is amazing.
It took a lot of pressure for him to use a 35mm camera - he didn't pick one up until 1966 and even then, he rarely used it for professional purposes.
While one could capture great images in 35mm, especially as film stocks got better, the fact remains that medium or large format looked even better. I'm always a little shocked when I go to MOMA or some other museum and see classic medium or large format photographs from decades ago. They're almost always spectacular.
I normally shoot family photos with my pro-DSLR. My grandson was in last week and I was too lazy to carry around the heavy camera bag, so I shot with the iPhone instead. On the phone, the photos looked fine, but when I looked at them on my Mac's (obviously) larger monitor, they really looked grossly inferior to anything I've shot on the DSLR.
Most consumers are willing to give up quality for convenience with both audio and photography/video. An iPhone is certainly the most convenient way to capture images. As they say, "the best camera to have is the one you have with you." But if you really care about picture quality, it doesn't make the grade, IMO and I personally wouldn't use it to capture anything really important.
Right.
What happens when most people are pleased enough with their phone pics they don't bother calling a "professional" anymore?
Ah yes, the "good enough" syndrome. It's very valid. And the more and more these technologies are aimed at lower-tier consumers (I don't mean that as derogatory), the less and less drive there is by the manufacturers to deliver the features higher-end users are looking for. Compressed music, crappy cable/satellite TV picture quality, the very UI of the Mac OS. These are all valid business decisions, to target that level of less demanding users, but that doesn't mean that some of don't us want more from our devices/services. Going hand-in-hand with "good enough" is not caring to have better quality (music, TV, photos). It's all personal preference and need.
And of course, as always, any camera in your hand is better than a DSLR sitting at home.
Couldn't disagree with you more. DSLR's couldn't innovate anymore slowly. Basically the same product for the history of the device. More megapixels, better light sensitivity. That's it. I noticed you said you got a 5D? How'd you feel being raped by Canon - paying through the nose for an extra memory slot and a few extra focus points? In fact - a big part DSLR's are stuck in their form and function are the huge ass lenses they need to keep supporting. They have no hope against Apple.
This is joke, right? I supposed we can says the iPhone has had a complete lack of innovation, too. After all, the basic form and function has remain unchanged since the first first model.
I'm telling you this...9 out of 10 users with entry DSRL for home use don't care crap about the lenses, but use whatever come with the package. Their pictures taken with those DSRL and cheap lenses are craps compared to those by these guys in National Geographic with iPhone 6+.
15 years ago, who would say point and shoot cameras will be killed by phone camera? It did already. With more technologies coming in, we will soon see the death of home use DSRL.
Even a low-end DSLR with a cheap kit lens can take better photos than most (maybe all) phones if you don't have good shooting conditions (low light, moving objects). Are you suggesting that those National Geographic guys couldn't also shoot as good or better photos with a low-end DSLR?
And of course, it all depends on what you consider important for image quality. Some people like the overprocessed, over saturated quality some cameras produce. Others like just a clean, sharp, natural color photo with a clear depth of field. Some poeple think lens flare is a nice artist touch (which it can sometimes be), others avoid it at all costs. There are countless ways to express picture quality. Some are more subjective than others.
Some people will care about it more than others. By and large, most people just really don't care. They just want whatever camera they can carry with them everywhere to snap the occassional photo to post on Facebook. But that doesn't invalidate the desire of those who want something better.
that's nice, dear. I expect that means we'll never see you post here ever again?
how about you start making sense...can we start there?
so do you use a 3x4" or an 8x10" for important stuff?
Agree 100% with @sflocal so here are facts that bolster the same points on IMAGE QUALITY:
1. Those great Apple photos essentially ALL in bright light. Indoor shots, low-light shots, have a lot more fuzz/noise/grain.
2. Unless you smush out all the detail. That cuts the confetti that you'll see on a cropped or zoomed-in look, but it also cuts the crispness.
3. My DSLR has a sensor approx 22X the size of my very nice iPhone6+'s sensor. My f/2 lens puts about 24X the number of photons on the sensor as the iPhone6+'s f/2.2 lens puts on its sensor. So the competition between the light and the noise is 22X as much in favor with a DSLR. Low-light photography is dramatically superior w the bigger sensor, because it's most challenging on small sensors.
4. Camera sensor tech is hotly competitive. Apple buys its sensors from firms that sell to other markets. While Moore's Law is more helpful in improving the quality of tiny sensors, the physics is approx similar and big SLR cos are highly incentivized to get more pixels, better quality, too.
5. A picture that's only viewed at screen resolution is a picture that OUGHT to look good even with very modest technology. Each pixel you see is an average of maybe a dozen original pixels. See #2—noise is much lower than you'd see on a print or a crop.
6. I look forward to what Apple can do with the LinX tech—smart software CAN indeed make for higher quality photos! The features described—3D, Lytros-like refocusing, optical measurements, etc—are GREAT! But they won't make for much better ordinary still photos.
Sorry, @fallenjt, your average Joe never owned a Digital Single-Lens Reflex camera.
He had a point-n-shooter a couple years back and it's probably still in a drawer somewhere, but it's not as good as today's iPhone cameras — and nowhere close to a DSLR. But then, he never took high-quality photos in the first place; was always happy with seeing his gf's smile or the nice colors on his Hawaii vacation in slideshows.
<cough> GoPro <cough>
If Apple does build a GoPro like device, which would be great, I hope they can improve the performance. For instance, the current GoPro is a bit too heavy for some applications.
We Put A GoPro On A Sparrow: