Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple unveils the best photos from the Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apple-unveils-the-best-photos-from-the-shot-on-iphone-macro-challenge/
164 comments
> It's pretty cool that you can get such nice results from a phone. But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras.
Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos?
I am in a lot of entomology and myrmecology online groups and people are able to take clear photos of insects that look like professional macro photos using their phones. Before that, only a handful of pro/powerusers were able to share this kind of quality.
When asked what camera he used, one popular youtuber (I cannot remember the exact context) explained that while expensive cameras are better on paper he often relies on his iPhone + a cheap ring light clipped on it. Animals often act in interesting ways when you are not ready for it. The ease of using the device that is in your pocket often outweight the potential increase in quality that would come from setting up a studio level setup. The best picture is the one you are able to take.
Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos?
I am in a lot of entomology and myrmecology online groups and people are able to take clear photos of insects that look like professional macro photos using their phones. Before that, only a handful of pro/powerusers were able to share this kind of quality.
When asked what camera he used, one popular youtuber (I cannot remember the exact context) explained that while expensive cameras are better on paper he often relies on his iPhone + a cheap ring light clipped on it. Animals often act in interesting ways when you are not ready for it. The ease of using the device that is in your pocket often outweight the potential increase in quality that would come from setting up a studio level setup. The best picture is the one you are able to take.
> Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos?
Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the expectation of getting photos of similar quality as shown on the page, my question is, how often do you have a high quality ring light on your person along with a stable tripod?
Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the expectation of getting photos of similar quality as shown on the page, my question is, how often do you have a high quality ring light on your person along with a stable tripod?
It's a great argument for camera phones, because you don't need added lighting or stabilization to get decent shots. The pictures you take are better than the ones you never took, and if you take a lot of pictures you're more likely to stumble onto a great one even as a total amateur.
I think the pictures on that page are aspirational, to be sure... but my own experience with this camera system suggest that they're not out of reach.
Here's one of the first macro pictures I took with an iPhone 13 Pro a day or two after I got it, completely without stabilization, on a momentary stop while I was walking my dog: https://imgur.com/uux8RNS (I'm not saying I'm a good photographer; this is just for technical purposes. It's also unedited.)
Compare that to the "leaf illumination" picture in the article. The professional's picture is noticeably better, of course. But it's more a matter of framing and choice of subject than any hardware limitation.
I think the pictures on that page are aspirational, to be sure... but my own experience with this camera system suggest that they're not out of reach.
Here's one of the first macro pictures I took with an iPhone 13 Pro a day or two after I got it, completely without stabilization, on a momentary stop while I was walking my dog: https://imgur.com/uux8RNS (I'm not saying I'm a good photographer; this is just for technical purposes. It's also unedited.)
Compare that to the "leaf illumination" picture in the article. The professional's picture is noticeably better, of course. But it's more a matter of framing and choice of subject than any hardware limitation.
A lot of reptiles, fishes and insects are in vivariums that already provide a good light source. For wild animals, you are fine without a light since they are mostly outdoor and unless you're planning for it chances are that you'll stumble on them during daylight.
Personally, I have a lot of ring lights because beauty and makeup brands give them for free with a lot of products.
But even without all of this, you can get great footage and photos.
Take a look at this spider that was walking around my sink for example.
The phone (pixel 3, already quite aged) did not have a lot of trouble to focus on it even if we are talking about a small spider that is only a few milimiter in size.
It's a video so focus comes and goes but the parts where the focus is set on the spider are quite clear (ignoring the upload compression).
I am no artist and was focusing more on the spider's behavior. Someone who is an artist could have snapped great macros at that moment.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/z2RALoGeXiAo6uHG6
Another example is this queen ant when it was in it's founding stage. The nanitics (first workers) are small even when it comes to ant scale. You can see them in great details and can even see the translucent parts of their gaster with the sugar water inside.
Again, I focused on the behavior more than the art. But an artist could have taken a photo instead of a video with great results.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzMXLqG5v1cfFKx9
Both of those were candid moments that I happened to snap because I had my phone in my pocket while my 4k camera and my canon reflex were in their box in my desk.
Personally, I have a lot of ring lights because beauty and makeup brands give them for free with a lot of products.
But even without all of this, you can get great footage and photos.
Take a look at this spider that was walking around my sink for example.
The phone (pixel 3, already quite aged) did not have a lot of trouble to focus on it even if we are talking about a small spider that is only a few milimiter in size.
It's a video so focus comes and goes but the parts where the focus is set on the spider are quite clear (ignoring the upload compression).
I am no artist and was focusing more on the spider's behavior. Someone who is an artist could have snapped great macros at that moment.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/z2RALoGeXiAo6uHG6
Another example is this queen ant when it was in it's founding stage. The nanitics (first workers) are small even when it comes to ant scale. You can see them in great details and can even see the translucent parts of their gaster with the sugar water inside.
Again, I focused on the behavior more than the art. But an artist could have taken a photo instead of a video with great results.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzMXLqG5v1cfFKx9
Both of those were candid moments that I happened to snap because I had my phone in my pocket while my 4k camera and my canon reflex were in their box in my desk.
Well, I often have a "real" camera on my person, because I like cameras. It definitely gets me better results than when I use my phone camera. That's just my taste. I'm certainly not saying your average joe would be best-served by going out and buying a GFX-100S.
I'm not sure what YouTuber you're referring to, but most popular photography YouTubers mostly use real cameras still. Occasionally they'll do a gimmick video where they use a phone, but it's the exception, not the rule.
I'm not sure what YouTuber you're referring to, but most popular photography YouTubers mostly use real cameras still. Occasionally they'll do a gimmick video where they use a phone, but it's the exception, not the rule.
For sure, if I am on a trip I'll have my reflex big bulky camera around my neck. But day to day, commuting to work, at a friend's, etc., all I have is my phone.
Dude, have you ever even used an iPhone 13 Pro?
Believe me, the macros you take with this phones are stunning.
And lighting and stabilization are a determining factor for macro even with cameras, actually even more so for cameras than phones.
These pictures btw were not taken this way. The reason I know is because I talked to the Italian winner and Apple about exactly that.
Check this one out: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b1PRNfudllgp0q1LyuHrW1OQ...
Taken at dusk. No other lights.
These pictures btw were not taken this way. The reason I know is because I talked to the Italian winner and Apple about exactly that.
Check this one out: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b1PRNfudllgp0q1LyuHrW1OQ...
Taken at dusk. No other lights.
>F 1.8
1/83 sec
1.57 mm
ISO 320
No flash
For something taken at dusk, I'm surprised of the lack of sunset colors in the background. I would absolutely believe that shutter speed would produce that sharpness. And the depth of field looks like it would be aligned with a macro shot.
1/83 sec
1.57 mm
ISO 320
No flash
For something taken at dusk, I'm surprised of the lack of sunset colors in the background. I would absolutely believe that shutter speed would produce that sharpness. And the depth of field looks like it would be aligned with a macro shot.
The sun had just set behind the clouds in Cabo Sao Vicente. The blue you see in the background is the Atlantic Ocean from the top of a high cliff.
> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern cameras.
That's probably true but as a casual hobbyist, it's so much easier to justify spending $1k on a phone and a few hundred on apps than getting buying a legit macro camera setup, especially used camera equipment.
I was frustrated by the macro limitations of the iPhone 13 pro and started perusing for macro camera setups and totally balked at the prices. It made more sense to hold out for another major camera spec bump in the next generation of phones (which is rumored).
That's probably true but as a casual hobbyist, it's so much easier to justify spending $1k on a phone and a few hundred on apps than getting buying a legit macro camera setup, especially used camera equipment.
I was frustrated by the macro limitations of the iPhone 13 pro and started perusing for macro camera setups and totally balked at the prices. It made more sense to hold out for another major camera spec bump in the next generation of phones (which is rumored).
I don't know what your budget is, but it is not that expensive to get into a "real" macro setup, at least compared to the cost of a new phone. Try this on for size:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_v...
These items come out to a total of about $1,000 and will vastly outperform any iPhone. Note that I am not recommending this particular setup as I am not a macro photographer, I just wanted to demonstrate what's possible. I'm also not saying you're wrong to wait for a better cell phone camera. Your preferences are your own and there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to provide some information.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_v...
These items come out to a total of about $1,000 and will vastly outperform any iPhone. Note that I am not recommending this particular setup as I am not a macro photographer, I just wanted to demonstrate what's possible. I'm also not saying you're wrong to wait for a better cell phone camera. Your preferences are your own and there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to provide some information.
Compact cameras (under $500) usually have great macro lenses too, though you miss the flexibility of being able to change the lens. I've owned for quite a while a Micro Four Thirds camera from Olympus and that's a very good spot to be a hobbyist: not too expensive, but can do "pro things" like changing lenses, shoots raw, has a horseshoe socket, etc. Of course, the quality is not the same as a full frame camera, but then again, I'm not a pro :)
The A6100 (linked above) isn't a full-frame camera either.
It uses a APS-C sensor (dimensions of 23.5 x 15.6 mm). The Micro Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm
Full Frame is 24 mm x 36 mm.
It uses a APS-C sensor (dimensions of 23.5 x 15.6 mm). The Micro Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm
Full Frame is 24 mm x 36 mm.
Yes, and Sony has been really impressive with their cameras lately. It looks like finally Canon and Nikon woke up and start trying to match their (unfortunately for me, Olympus decided to sell their camera business? Did somebody buy them yet?).
The thing about larger sensors, for those that aren't aware, is that they produce much better quality images because each pixel is larger, and can gather more light. More light equals a stronger signal, in a noisy ambient.
I sometimes try astrophotography because it lets me combine my photography hobby with my programming passion, and I end up writing my own processing pipelines. With a compact camera, I could get the ghost of one of the brightest galaxies in the sky (Centaurus A in the southern hemisphere). With the MFT camera, using the included kit lens I got a little bit of detail, but it was just a few pixels wide. Switch on to a vintage lens I got for ~15 dollars, and I managed to get the galaxy and quite some detail. Not the same as a telescope image, but very impressive for a 1970's lens on a small camera!
And the noise levels aren't even comparable. My old compact camera was Noisy with a capital N. Of course I didn't realize it when I bought it, but it was[0]. I see the same on phone cameras (the sensors are about the same size now). The MFT even on ISO 25600 (highest it goes to) isn't as noisy as the compact camera was at 3200.
Most phones will cover that with a lot of computation, and that's fine for a small screen. But load your pictures on a large monitor and you'll start seeing the details and differences. However (and it has been said everywhere in the comments) phones are usually way more convenient because you always have it with you.
[0] For reference, some 12 years ago I bought a Canon G12, then a G16, and then moved on to a Olympus OMD E10. On every change I got far better quality at about the same camera size, though the olympus is slightly more bulky, and you have to factor in the lens too.
The thing about larger sensors, for those that aren't aware, is that they produce much better quality images because each pixel is larger, and can gather more light. More light equals a stronger signal, in a noisy ambient.
I sometimes try astrophotography because it lets me combine my photography hobby with my programming passion, and I end up writing my own processing pipelines. With a compact camera, I could get the ghost of one of the brightest galaxies in the sky (Centaurus A in the southern hemisphere). With the MFT camera, using the included kit lens I got a little bit of detail, but it was just a few pixels wide. Switch on to a vintage lens I got for ~15 dollars, and I managed to get the galaxy and quite some detail. Not the same as a telescope image, but very impressive for a 1970's lens on a small camera!
And the noise levels aren't even comparable. My old compact camera was Noisy with a capital N. Of course I didn't realize it when I bought it, but it was[0]. I see the same on phone cameras (the sensors are about the same size now). The MFT even on ISO 25600 (highest it goes to) isn't as noisy as the compact camera was at 3200.
Most phones will cover that with a lot of computation, and that's fine for a small screen. But load your pictures on a large monitor and you'll start seeing the details and differences. However (and it has been said everywhere in the comments) phones are usually way more convenient because you always have it with you.
[0] For reference, some 12 years ago I bought a Canon G12, then a G16, and then moved on to a Olympus OMD E10. On every change I got far better quality at about the same camera size, though the olympus is slightly more bulky, and you have to factor in the lens too.
Yeah I got my son a a6400. Such a nice camera, and the low light performance is amazing.
>few hundred on apps
I don't even understand what you think you're going to buy that will make you a good macro photographer for hundreds of dollars. Hundreds on apps instead of dedicated macro hardware? I can't imagine that will do anything but waste hundreds of dollars.
I don't even understand what you think you're going to buy that will make you a good macro photographer for hundreds of dollars. Hundreds on apps instead of dedicated macro hardware? I can't imagine that will do anything but waste hundreds of dollars.
What I was personally referring to when I mentioned "software" is a photo editing application like Photoshop, Lightroom, DxO Photolab, etc. The subscriptions/purchase prices of these type of software is $200+. There are free software versions of these apps but most photographers do not use them.
You're going to need such software whether you use an iphone or a DSLR. There's no difference in cost except the hardware.
Sorry, to be extra clear, my point is that you will not get these results without such software, because photos almost universally require editing in order to look their best. But my belief is that Apple, with their "Shot on iPhone" marketing, is trying to convey that you will get these results straight out of the camera. This is unlikely to actually be the case. That's the sum of my point w.r.t. software.
You can get 98% of the same capability with much cheaper software - you don't need spend several hundred on software (affinity photos does focus stacking raws, for example). But you're right the best looking photos are usually processed somehow.
PS + LR CC comes in a photography bundle for $10/month.
https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/compare-p...
I've tried a lot of other DAM + editing software and keep coming back to LR. YMMV.
https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/compare-p...
I've tried a lot of other DAM + editing software and keep coming back to LR. YMMV.
I use lightroom for many years, but when it went subscription only and I couldn't install it from disc anymore, I bought affinity photo. I think I've saved hundreds of dollars already.
and you can do most of the photo edits with software like Affinity Photo or Pixelmator Pro without the “hundreds” price tag.
Hence why I'm a casual hobbyist, I'm not trying to win competitions or anything here.
You can buy a competent macro lens for around 200$ (the Canon EF 100mm macro), and camera to slap it on for around 400$.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment is pretty much the secret to ... everything, including knowing the internal software results you get ;)
When photography was a bigger hobby for me I had an old digital camera that had a great lens, but tiny sensor and could be slow exposure wise. It did have a great set of built in color modes that I had trouble emulating in software ( and didn't want to spend time on that a great deal ) so I kept around and got a cheap-o mono pod and blamo it's slow nature was less of an issue.
Folks with fancy new equipment seemed to struggle emulating what I got with relative ease.
Now I probably couldn't emulate what they did in many situations, but I didn't try either, I knew what that equipment could do and it worked.
The world of photography is a funky world of pixel peepers, TRUE---ish advice, and folks throwing tons of money at equipment and software and hours of editing and ... just sticking with some specific equipment for a while / learning it's nature can save you A LOT of time and money.
When photography was a bigger hobby for me I had an old digital camera that had a great lens, but tiny sensor and could be slow exposure wise. It did have a great set of built in color modes that I had trouble emulating in software ( and didn't want to spend time on that a great deal ) so I kept around and got a cheap-o mono pod and blamo it's slow nature was less of an issue.
Folks with fancy new equipment seemed to struggle emulating what I got with relative ease.
Now I probably couldn't emulate what they did in many situations, but I didn't try either, I knew what that equipment could do and it worked.
The world of photography is a funky world of pixel peepers, TRUE---ish advice, and folks throwing tons of money at equipment and software and hours of editing and ... just sticking with some specific equipment for a while / learning it's nature can save you A LOT of time and money.
Great advice. It would be fun to see a behind-the-scenes of how some of these photos were taken
> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras.
The iPhone camera really is fantastic for what it is (economies of scale are an amazing thing) but you're not wrong. Doing this sort of photography work on an iPhone is more about the challenge than the capabilities.
One of the interesting things about photography is that so many capable cameras and lenses have been produced over the past couple decades that you can stop by eBay and pick up some truly capable gear for relatively cheap if you do your research. It's tempting to get pulled into the world of modern full-frame cameras and the latest glass, but the truth is that an older mirrorless camera combined with some known-good old glass will produce amazing photos.
> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras.
The iPhone camera really is fantastic for what it is (economies of scale are an amazing thing) but you're not wrong. Doing this sort of photography work on an iPhone is more about the challenge than the capabilities.
One of the interesting things about photography is that so many capable cameras and lenses have been produced over the past couple decades that you can stop by eBay and pick up some truly capable gear for relatively cheap if you do your research. It's tempting to get pulled into the world of modern full-frame cameras and the latest glass, but the truth is that an older mirrorless camera combined with some known-good old glass will produce amazing photos.
This is even true for digital gear. At base ISO, cameras like a D7100/7200 have as good image quality as it gets for that class, and you can pick those up for cheap. Even fairly high-end, high-resolution full-frame cameras can be had for less than 500 quid (e.g. D800) and those still have outstanding image quality; there really wasn't a whole lot of major improvements in image quality in the last ten years when you control the light (i.e. don't need high ISO).
Things get expensive if you want...
... best low-noise performance (needs sensor from the last ~five years, older stuff usually has color shifts and other issues which are not easy to fix)
... video
... mirrorless
... fast AF (especially if you also want mirrorless)
... all of the above
Things get expensive if you want...
... best low-noise performance (needs sensor from the last ~five years, older stuff usually has color shifts and other issues which are not easy to fix)
... video
... mirrorless
... fast AF (especially if you also want mirrorless)
... all of the above
Not even necessarily – the Sony a6300 retails around 300 bucks used, which gives you 4K30 or 2K120 video at 8bit. It’s an APS-C mirrorless with fast AF, and its low-noise performance is (although a few years out of date) excellent for its price.
And in real-life circumstances it’s better than a Google Pixel.
And in real-life circumstances it’s better than a Google Pixel.
> “Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight [...] hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit [...] analogous to the videos of fake hamburgers”
You don’t have to speculate. Most of the photographers directly tell you how these were set up:
> love going on early morning walks with my iPhone 13 Pro. The ‘golden hour’ brings the best out of nature
> I’ve used a spot studio light on the lily with a dark background.
> This one instance was during the sliver of golden hour when the sun is shining directly into my window, illuminating all of the tiny cells in each leaf.
> I used two items that I found in my kitchen fridge: a strawberry and a can of soda. I placed a clear vase on my kitchen counter, poured the soda into the vase, and used a piece of black paper as the background. I then dropped the strawberry in the vase of soda and waited. Slowly, bubbles began to form on the surface of the strawberry, and its texture was completely transformed.
> This image was taken along the edge of Riverside Park in Manhattan while on a morning walk with our puppy this winter.
> This tiny, shimmering liquid jewel is delicately nestled at the base of a leaf after a tropical storm, almost imperceptible to the human eye.
> The photo was taken when my 3-year-old son discovered the blossom of the tulip at home. I then appreciated the flower with my son and took out my iPhone, trying to capture the moment when the sun kissed the flower, which created a perfect shadow at the petals. As I moved my iPhone closer to the flower, it automatically turned on macro mode,
It is entirely possible for someone on a tight budget to make their own studio-like lighting, and there are good photo editing tools available for free. Saying «don’t bother to be inspired by these lovely smartphone photos because some professionals spend thousands of dollars on lighting and Photoshop» is lazy cynical negativity in the extreme. And «people who win photography contests are typically more careful tool users than an average person with no experience» is hardly a deep insight.
You don’t have to speculate. Most of the photographers directly tell you how these were set up:
> love going on early morning walks with my iPhone 13 Pro. The ‘golden hour’ brings the best out of nature
> I’ve used a spot studio light on the lily with a dark background.
> This one instance was during the sliver of golden hour when the sun is shining directly into my window, illuminating all of the tiny cells in each leaf.
> I used two items that I found in my kitchen fridge: a strawberry and a can of soda. I placed a clear vase on my kitchen counter, poured the soda into the vase, and used a piece of black paper as the background. I then dropped the strawberry in the vase of soda and waited. Slowly, bubbles began to form on the surface of the strawberry, and its texture was completely transformed.
> This image was taken along the edge of Riverside Park in Manhattan while on a morning walk with our puppy this winter.
> This tiny, shimmering liquid jewel is delicately nestled at the base of a leaf after a tropical storm, almost imperceptible to the human eye.
> The photo was taken when my 3-year-old son discovered the blossom of the tulip at home. I then appreciated the flower with my son and took out my iPhone, trying to capture the moment when the sun kissed the flower, which created a perfect shadow at the petals. As I moved my iPhone closer to the flower, it automatically turned on macro mode,
It is entirely possible for someone on a tight budget to make their own studio-like lighting, and there are good photo editing tools available for free. Saying «don’t bother to be inspired by these lovely smartphone photos because some professionals spend thousands of dollars on lighting and Photoshop» is lazy cynical negativity in the extreme. And «people who win photography contests are typically more careful tool users than an average person with no experience» is hardly a deep insight.
I am a little suspicious of some of these, though. For example in the last one, it seems a bit weird that his son discovered a tulip, and it just happened to be directly in front of a perfectly black background (?). I suspect some of the stories have been tweaked to play up the convenience of having the phone handy. But they are still very nice shots!
I love the descriptions b/c they explain the 'art' behind photo taking. It's people being creative, which is really what photos should be about.
I disagree that bigger cameras are better for macrophotography. I say this because of the physics of how light works in macrophotography, which matches my experience doing macrophotography with larger cameras (6x7cm and 4x5").
The long story short is that reducing the aperture has two effects on image sharpness. Smaller apertures increase the depth of field, bringing more of your scene into focus. Smaller apertures also introduce diffusion, which makes the whole image softer. This tradeoff means that there is a medium aperture which makes your image as sharp as possible.
Photographing people with a 35mm camera, the aperture which maximizes sharpness is often achieved with apertures somewhere around ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8. It is advantageous to use a 35mm camera because the larger sensor size can reveal more detail and capture more light. 35mm also gives you access to larger apertures and those nice, blurry backgrounds.
In macrophotography, large cameras just aren’t as advantageous. The small apertures that you typically use will produce soft images, and the soft images can be captured well enough on a small sensor. Small cameras give you very blurry backgrounds to begin with, so you wouldn’t choose a large camera to blur the background. Additionally, small cameras require less lens movement, proportional to their size, to focus at the short distances required for macrophotography.
I do some macrophotography with my RZ67. Mostly pictures of flowers. It’s fun, but I know that it would be much more convenient to use a smaller camera, and I wouldn’t be sacrificing image quality. One of the big reasons I use the RZ67 is because it uses a bellows to focus, and the bellows is long enough that you can focus very close. However, there’s a lower limit to the size of the subjects I can comfortably photograph, and if I were serious about macrophotography, I would use a smaller camera.
Summary: Large cameras are better at taking pictures of large things, small cameras are better at taking pictures of small things.
The long story short is that reducing the aperture has two effects on image sharpness. Smaller apertures increase the depth of field, bringing more of your scene into focus. Smaller apertures also introduce diffusion, which makes the whole image softer. This tradeoff means that there is a medium aperture which makes your image as sharp as possible.
Photographing people with a 35mm camera, the aperture which maximizes sharpness is often achieved with apertures somewhere around ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8. It is advantageous to use a 35mm camera because the larger sensor size can reveal more detail and capture more light. 35mm also gives you access to larger apertures and those nice, blurry backgrounds.
In macrophotography, large cameras just aren’t as advantageous. The small apertures that you typically use will produce soft images, and the soft images can be captured well enough on a small sensor. Small cameras give you very blurry backgrounds to begin with, so you wouldn’t choose a large camera to blur the background. Additionally, small cameras require less lens movement, proportional to their size, to focus at the short distances required for macrophotography.
I do some macrophotography with my RZ67. Mostly pictures of flowers. It’s fun, but I know that it would be much more convenient to use a smaller camera, and I wouldn’t be sacrificing image quality. One of the big reasons I use the RZ67 is because it uses a bellows to focus, and the bellows is long enough that you can focus very close. However, there’s a lower limit to the size of the subjects I can comfortably photograph, and if I were serious about macrophotography, I would use a smaller camera.
Summary: Large cameras are better at taking pictures of large things, small cameras are better at taking pictures of small things.
I appreciate your perspective, but most folks who are at the top of the macrophotography game use 35mm cameras and macro lenses. It's not actually the case that smaller sensors are net beneficial for taking macro photographs, otherwise we'd see a different trend. Even if these folks were just looking for the "real camera" ergonomics, they'd be using m43, but few of them do. (Perhaps you get some advantage of more depth of field, but 35mm camera lenses can be stopped down to achieve the same effect, when it is desired.)
There are exceptions, as my sibling comment points out, but if you go to a list of the top macro photographers and check each one out, 90+% of them will be using 35mm cameras.
There are exceptions, as my sibling comment points out, but if you go to a list of the top macro photographers and check each one out, 90+% of them will be using 35mm cameras.
You're just looking in the wrong places. Check this out: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4438556
I'm not surprised that there exist folks doing macro work on M43. And I'm not surprised that you can find such people in the corresponding forum on dpreview.com. :) I was not making a universal claim of nonexistence.
I'm always floored by the amazing results you can get from focus stacking.
People use the equipment they like with good ergonomics—equipment they are familiar with. Very few people understand their equipment well enough and understand the physics well enough to justify their choices from a purely technical image-quality standpoint, and very few people actually try out different equipment to see what the results are (which might cost thousands of dollars, just for starters).
Instead, most people come up with all sorts of justifications for why their equipment is the best. And that’s ok. In the end, photographers take good pictures and we are happy. There is no underlying need for photographers to use the “best” equipment available to them, and in actual practice, you will find photos in galleries taken using a camera phone or a cheap plastic Holga, hung right next to pictures taken on a 4x5" that look immaculate.
> Perhaps you get some advantage of more depth of field, but 35mm camera lenses can be stopped down to achieve the same effect, when it is desired.
The premise I’m operating under is that you’ll make, more or less, the same artistic choices with different equipment. In other words, if you shoot micro four thirds and switch to 35mm, you double the ƒ-number (e.g. go from ƒ/11 to ƒ/22), get roughly the same depth of field, roughly the same field of view, roughly the same image sharpness.
There are two problems here. One problem is that the image is not particularly sharp to begin with, so any extra resolution provided by a better sensor is wasted. The second problem is that larger lenses are operated farther from their ideal focal distances.
The formula for focal distance of an ideal lens is
1/ƒ = 1/d1 + 1/d2,
where ƒ is the focal length, d1 is the subject distance, and d2 is the distance to the image. Normally, d1 >> d2, and you can consider a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera as the same as a 25mm lens on micro four thirds. For macrophotography, d1 ≈ d2, and changing the sensor size has a radical impact on how far a lens must be moved to remain in focus in relative terms. That is, when you double the sensor size, you have to more than double the distance you move the lens.
This means that larger lenses are operating farther outside their ideal focal distances, and this has a negative impact on image sharpness. Macro lenses are specifically designed to be operated in this range, but the fact remains, larger lenses are still operating in a more extreme regime compared to smaller lenses.
You get pretty good results by just copying what most people use, but the fact than 90+% of people are using equipment X does not mean that equipment X is ideal. Plenty of musicians have completely incorrect notions about what kind of impact various choices they make about their gear has on how they sound, too—these beliefs often completely fail to hold up under any reasonable amount of scrutiny.
Photographers commonly believe that larger lenses take better pictures. Reality is more complicated—there are a ton of tradeoffs both with lens design from a practical perspective and tradeoffs involving the underlying physics that make the situation much more complicated.
Instead, most people come up with all sorts of justifications for why their equipment is the best. And that’s ok. In the end, photographers take good pictures and we are happy. There is no underlying need for photographers to use the “best” equipment available to them, and in actual practice, you will find photos in galleries taken using a camera phone or a cheap plastic Holga, hung right next to pictures taken on a 4x5" that look immaculate.
> Perhaps you get some advantage of more depth of field, but 35mm camera lenses can be stopped down to achieve the same effect, when it is desired.
The premise I’m operating under is that you’ll make, more or less, the same artistic choices with different equipment. In other words, if you shoot micro four thirds and switch to 35mm, you double the ƒ-number (e.g. go from ƒ/11 to ƒ/22), get roughly the same depth of field, roughly the same field of view, roughly the same image sharpness.
There are two problems here. One problem is that the image is not particularly sharp to begin with, so any extra resolution provided by a better sensor is wasted. The second problem is that larger lenses are operated farther from their ideal focal distances.
The formula for focal distance of an ideal lens is
1/ƒ = 1/d1 + 1/d2,
where ƒ is the focal length, d1 is the subject distance, and d2 is the distance to the image. Normally, d1 >> d2, and you can consider a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera as the same as a 25mm lens on micro four thirds. For macrophotography, d1 ≈ d2, and changing the sensor size has a radical impact on how far a lens must be moved to remain in focus in relative terms. That is, when you double the sensor size, you have to more than double the distance you move the lens.
This means that larger lenses are operating farther outside their ideal focal distances, and this has a negative impact on image sharpness. Macro lenses are specifically designed to be operated in this range, but the fact remains, larger lenses are still operating in a more extreme regime compared to smaller lenses.
You get pretty good results by just copying what most people use, but the fact than 90+% of people are using equipment X does not mean that equipment X is ideal. Plenty of musicians have completely incorrect notions about what kind of impact various choices they make about their gear has on how they sound, too—these beliefs often completely fail to hold up under any reasonable amount of scrutiny.
Photographers commonly believe that larger lenses take better pictures. Reality is more complicated—there are a ton of tradeoffs both with lens design from a practical perspective and tradeoffs involving the underlying physics that make the situation much more complicated.
This lines up with what Don Don Komarechka says on the subject. His images are fantastic and he shoots micro 4/3.
https://www.donkom.ca
https://www.donkom.ca
>Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light).
this is not true. the iPhone camera's sensor receives the same density of light from its f/1.8 lens than any old traditional camera using an f/1.8 lens. this means the stops are identical. of course the total amount of light that passes through the iPhone's lens is much smaller than a normal camera's, but that has no bearing on the photo's exposure. the real difference rests in the signal to noise ratio, which is determined by pixel density, and that's why smartphone photos are incredibly noisy.
this is not true. the iPhone camera's sensor receives the same density of light from its f/1.8 lens than any old traditional camera using an f/1.8 lens. this means the stops are identical. of course the total amount of light that passes through the iPhone's lens is much smaller than a normal camera's, but that has no bearing on the photo's exposure. the real difference rests in the signal to noise ratio, which is determined by pixel density, and that's why smartphone photos are incredibly noisy.
You mentioned that the stops are identical, but then you said that the phone photos are noisier at the same ISO. You didn't mention this, but there will also be a deeper focus plane. So they aren't identical -- at least under the sense of the word "identical" that's useful to me. You need to use a much slower shutter to get the same noise level. Or a much faster aperture at the same shutter speed.
That difference is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll generally find that a cell phone photo has about the same noise once if you divide the ISO by the square of the relative crop factor (and set exposure accordingly). Coincidentally, you also need to use an aperture that's faster by the relative crop factor to get the same level of background blur.
That difference is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll generally find that a cell phone photo has about the same noise once if you divide the ISO by the square of the relative crop factor (and set exposure accordingly). Coincidentally, you also need to use an aperture that's faster by the relative crop factor to get the same level of background blur.
I never claimed taking photos on a minuscule sensor with a plastic lens is identical to doing so with a high end DSLR. Stops refer to exposure and noise and depth of field have no bearing on a photo's correct exposure. It seemed to me that parent was spreading a common misconception about how exposure works across different sensor sizes so I wanted to correct/clarify that. The whole topic of noise equivalency or depth of field equivalency is completely separate and I just mentioned it to make it clear what part of a camera influences which characteristic (light density for exposure, pixel density/pixel size for noise, sensor size for depth of field)
I got the canon 100L macro lens last spring for my 6D mark II (after drooling over it for literally 10 years), and ended up getting the iPhone 13 Pro when it came out. So I'm a macro noob with no other equipment.
Can confirm, everything out of my dslr + macro lens comes out perfect. It's ridiculous how hard it is to take a bad picture with those. Fluorescent lights, cloudy days, handheld, they're all perfect.
That being said I've definitely used and shared more images from my iPhone macro mode. There have been a bunch of misfires, lighting is hard, sharpness is not there across the board - but it definitely scratches that itch and I find myself using my macro lens less.
Although after writing this I fully expect to run around my house for an hour next time the sun is out to take some macro shots with the macro lens :D
TL;DR - even as a pixel peeper the convenience of having macro on the phone puts dust on my dslr macro lens.
Can confirm, everything out of my dslr + macro lens comes out perfect. It's ridiculous how hard it is to take a bad picture with those. Fluorescent lights, cloudy days, handheld, they're all perfect.
That being said I've definitely used and shared more images from my iPhone macro mode. There have been a bunch of misfires, lighting is hard, sharpness is not there across the board - but it definitely scratches that itch and I find myself using my macro lens less.
Although after writing this I fully expect to run around my house for an hour next time the sun is out to take some macro shots with the macro lens :D
TL;DR - even as a pixel peeper the convenience of having macro on the phone puts dust on my dslr macro lens.
> the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod
Why is a high-quality tripod needed? You can just set the camera to be on a timer so that it's not shaking (from you touching the shutter button) when it captures the photo. I think it's also possible to use an Apple Watch to trigger the shutter.
> It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images.
Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?
Why is a high-quality tripod needed? You can just set the camera to be on a timer so that it's not shaking (from you touching the shutter button) when it captures the photo. I think it's also possible to use an Apple Watch to trigger the shutter.
> It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images.
Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?
"Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?"
This is going to depend on the genre of the contest, but for most contest types outside of the journalistic realm editing style will very much be a part of the process. You will typically submit the final print and no one will know what the original picture was. There are some contests out there with some pretty outrageous editing though!
This is going to depend on the genre of the contest, but for most contest types outside of the journalistic realm editing style will very much be a part of the process. You will typically submit the final print and no one will know what the original picture was. There are some contests out there with some pretty outrageous editing though!
I'm no expert but I think these shots often use slower shutter speeds, for example 0.5s instead of 0.01s. This increases the amount of light, but any movement that happens while the shutter is open will cause blur. Movement causes blur at fast shutter speeds too, but it's less noticeable because obviously you can move much less in 0.01s than you can in 0.5s.
I get that, but even a cheap tripod (I use a Joby) will hold a phone still for .5 seconds, won't it? You can put the phone on a 10 second delay, so any movement generated by you touching the shutter button would have dissipated by the time the photo is taken.
> Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?
To my knowledge - yes
To my knowledge - yes
> Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod. It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images.
Like they do with "professional" cameras as well.
Like they do with "professional" cameras as well.
Actually way less than with pro cameras
All Macro photography requires extra light, it's not just anything to do specific to cell phones. That's why there are so many flash rigs designed for this.
Also, the iPhone 13 camera has ridiculously fast lenses[0]:
Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography
[0]https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/
Also, the iPhone 13 camera has ridiculously fast lenses[0]:
Pro 12MP camera system: Telephoto, Wide, and Ultra Wide cameras
Telephoto: ƒ/2.8 aperture
Wide: ƒ/1.5 aperture
Ultra Wide: ƒ/1.8 aperture and 120° field of view
Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography
[0]https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/
Just a meta-comment, but your reply was really good until the last sentence.
> Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography
That undermined your otherwise very factual rebuttal/clarification because it seems like at best an impossible standard (everybody could always use more research into anything), and at worst a "you don't know as much as me" veiled in professionalism/passive aggressiveness. The interpretation is up to the reader (some of whom will be charitable in their interpretation, others will not).
To be clear I'm not accusing you of "the worst" (I have no idea what was in your heart/mind and I don't presume to guess), I'm executing on a personal goal to try and help elevate conversations through useful/constructive feedback. Also I'm not presuming that this comment/feedback is useful or constructive as it may not be, but I hope that it is because that's my goal.
> Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography
That undermined your otherwise very factual rebuttal/clarification because it seems like at best an impossible standard (everybody could always use more research into anything), and at worst a "you don't know as much as me" veiled in professionalism/passive aggressiveness. The interpretation is up to the reader (some of whom will be charitable in their interpretation, others will not).
To be clear I'm not accusing you of "the worst" (I have no idea what was in your heart/mind and I don't presume to guess), I'm executing on a personal goal to try and help elevate conversations through useful/constructive feedback. Also I'm not presuming that this comment/feedback is useful or constructive as it may not be, but I hope that it is because that's my goal.
I interpreted the phrase as meaning something more like “when you make claims about the fundamentals of macrophotography with such a confident, authoritative tone, those claims should be backed by more research than you seem to have done.”
The rebuttal is actually incorrect and suffers from many misconceptions typical in photography. This makes the condescension much worse, because whoever wrote that did not live up to their own standard.
I support your goal! Maybe there is a way to state this in fewer words more often.
I know you think what you're doing is "elevating" conversations, but ... "calling out" people for the slightest bit of negativity is an extremely toxic behavior. Quality discourse requires negativity and fosters a healthy span of tolerance for it. Your interpretation is also very narrow and passive aggressive itself, to me it seems completely neutral that in a case when someone has a strong opinion based on ignorance, you remind them of their ignorance - not just for people reading it but for their own sake.
Disagree. Attack the arguments, not the person.
Why did that person feel the need to attack the poster? What did they gain from it? How did it help the argument?
I don't think there's a single benefit from that line other than to be self-serving statement that says "i know more than you" when their rebuttal did that more effectively while staying on topic.
Why did that person feel the need to attack the poster? What did they gain from it? How did it help the argument?
I don't think there's a single benefit from that line other than to be self-serving statement that says "i know more than you" when their rebuttal did that more effectively while staying on topic.
That was far from a personal attack. A personal attack is when you attack a specific attribute of that person or use this person itself as an argument for something. It is not if a person does something wrong and you say hey person, you shouldn't do that thing.
It really depends on the purposes of the comment.
Direct responses can be intended to educate the person they are responding to, but they can also be intended to warn people around.
Does this person want to get a point across with empathy or do they want to discredit the comment to future readers to avoid the circulation of false information?
Direct responses can be intended to educate the person they are responding to, but they can also be intended to warn people around.
Does this person want to get a point across with empathy or do they want to discredit the comment to future readers to avoid the circulation of false information?
[deleted]
I find that last line perfectly justified.
OP’s post was incredibly dismissive and incorrect but was written as if it was from an expert.
It’s textbook misinformation as far as I am concerned.
OP’s post was incredibly dismissive and incorrect but was written as if it was from an expert.
It’s textbook misinformation as far as I am concerned.
My post was correct and the person who was responding to me is incorrect. I did not mean to sound dismissive -- I intentionally put multiple paragraphs congratulating the artists and praising what can be done with cell phones in order to try to avoid that look. But it is important to realize that these awards are marketing and marketing needs to be interrogated, IMO.
It’s not really about being justified, it’s about being gentler with people. We don’t have to jump all over each other, there is another way.
ƒ stops need to be adjusted for sensor size [0]. The iPhone 13 Pro cameras all have and equivalent f stop > ƒ/8 [1]
[0]https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-apertu... [1]https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon...
[0]https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-apertu... [1]https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon...
stops only need to be adjusted for total photons gathered, not for photons per unit square
Yes, and a much smaller sensor will of course gather much less light.
For the same aperture, sure. But you are not going to be shooting macro photos at f1.5 on full frame (for depth of field reasons alone). For real world macro photography you'd typically be stopping down at least to f8 on a full frame camera. At that point the DSLR has a considerably smaller advantage in terms of the total amount of light gathered.
One thing that people often miss is that you can think about all of this just in terms of the absolute diameter of the aperture (not the f number, just the diameter in mm). For a given angle of view, the diameter of the aperture determines how much light you gather. The question is simply whether a photographer using a DSLR is going to be able to use an aperture that is significantly wider (in mm) than the ~4mm aperture of a phone camera. For depth of field reasons, it's unlikely that they will be able to do so.
One thing that people often miss is that you can think about all of this just in terms of the absolute diameter of the aperture (not the f number, just the diameter in mm). For a given angle of view, the diameter of the aperture determines how much light you gather. The question is simply whether a photographer using a DSLR is going to be able to use an aperture that is significantly wider (in mm) than the ~4mm aperture of a phone camera. For depth of field reasons, it's unlikely that they will be able to do so.
Why wouldn’t you need to stop down similarly on a phone camera?
Because depth of field depends on focal length as well as f number. Or to put it another way, it depends on the absolute diameter of the aperture, not the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter (= the f number).
(Also, of course, you can't stop down on a phone camera as it has a fixed aperture.)
(Also, of course, you can't stop down on a phone camera as it has a fixed aperture.)
Numerical aperture alone does not tell you anything about the amount of light gathered. The product of aperture and sensor size does. Phone cameras still have much smaller sensors than DSLRs.
Your advice to learn more about photography certainly seems good.
Your advice to learn more about photography certainly seems good.
The Hubble Space Telescope has an aperture of a pathetic f/24 [1]. I guess they should just fire an iPhone up there instead, huh.
[1] §5.2.2 in https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/hubble/a_pdf/news/SM2-Medi...
[1] §5.2.2 in https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/hubble/a_pdf/news/SM2-Medi...
> If you search for lenses for "real" cameras with those apertures and focal lengths, you'll find 4 digit price tags for each one.
The aperture is relative to the diameter of the first lens element. So you can’t just compare these values directly.
The aperture is relative to the diameter of the first lens element. So you can’t just compare these values directly.
Sure you can. The f-stop is the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. A aperture of f/4 means, the aperture is one fourth of the focal length. At the same f-stop, you get the same light density on the sensor surface.
The catch is: a phone has a much smaller sensor, so at the same f-stop, across the whole sensor less light is gathered and consequently, you have a weaker signal.
The catch is: a phone has a much smaller sensor, so at the same f-stop, across the whole sensor less light is gathered and consequently, you have a weaker signal.
Wait until you start looking at transmission values...
f-stop doesn't mean much other than the maximum that the aperture for that lens can open.
It doesn't indicate lens or element quality, or aberrations. There's a reason that pixel peeping, gear games, and reviewers are so prevalent in high end photography.
As a simple extension to this, most of my lenses work better a few stops before maximum f-stop.
So, yes, but no.
f-stop doesn't mean much other than the maximum that the aperture for that lens can open.
It doesn't indicate lens or element quality, or aberrations. There's a reason that pixel peeping, gear games, and reviewers are so prevalent in high end photography.
As a simple extension to this, most of my lenses work better a few stops before maximum f-stop.
So, yes, but no.
In practice, light gathering correlates to F-stop quite well on most normal modern lenses, transmission losses are very low. The main exceptions are deliberately apodized lenses, which have considerably transmission losses wide open.
For the rest - yeah, f# is just one of important specifications.
For the rest - yeah, f# is just one of important specifications.
You were talking about the light being gathered by the lens. That is mostly determined by the f-stop. Technically it is the t-stop, but they should be reasonably close together not to make a huge difference. Quite the contrary, as the phone lens has less elements than some modern camera lens designs, the phone might suffer less from the difference than the camera lens.
The aspects you are now referring to are about the lens quality. Yes, I would expect a real camera lens to be much better than the lens of an iPhone. There is no doubt about that. But in the posting I answered to, you spoke about the comparability of aperture values.
The aspects you are now referring to are about the lens quality. Yes, I would expect a real camera lens to be much better than the lens of an iPhone. There is no doubt about that. But in the posting I answered to, you spoke about the comparability of aperture values.
Stepping past the arrogance for a second, there’s more to macro photography than f#. A big factor is the working distance to the object. Not only is this important for skittish live subjects, it’s also important for static subjects for the practical reason that the extra distance provides space for proper lighting equipment. A good used Nikon macro lens can be had for less than a grand and a DX SLR body for less than $300. That’s cheaper than the price I paid for my iPhone 13 Pro, which has proven a bit of a disappointment for macro work.
Further, the wider open the lens, the more shallow the depth of field, which is already quite shallow in macro work. Having the space for proper lighting can allow one to stop the lens down and capture more parts of the image in focus. F# is a secondary consideration as macro often works best at f/8 or f/11.
Further, the wider open the lens, the more shallow the depth of field, which is already quite shallow in macro work. Having the space for proper lighting can allow one to stop the lens down and capture more parts of the image in focus. F# is a secondary consideration as macro often works best at f/8 or f/11.
>F# is a secondary consideration as macro often works best at f/8 or f/11.
At typical full frame focal lengths. With the shorter focal length of an iPhone you get much more depth of field for a given aperture.
At typical full frame focal lengths. With the shorter focal length of an iPhone you get much more depth of field for a given aperture.
Good point.
Lens to object distance is still an important issue in practice however.
Lens to object distance is still an important issue in practice however.
f-numbers do not have the same meaning across different sized sensors. For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera. This is pretty slow by the standards of full frame lenses, and as you can see in my other post, it is not expensive to acquire much better lenses than this that will achieve much better results with less effort.
See the chart on the first page of this article: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon...
For a detailed explanation of how to compare f-numbers across cameras have a look at this article: https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-apertu...
See the chart on the first page of this article: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon...
For a detailed explanation of how to compare f-numbers across cameras have a look at this article: https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-apertu...
F numbers have exactly the same meaning across different sized sensors: the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter. The size of the sensor does not even enter into the definition of the f number.
>For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera
This is a meaningless statement unless you specify what sort of equivalence you're talking about. I assume you mean to say that they're equivalent in terms of depth of field and in terms of the total amount of light gathered for a given angle of view. This, however, just goes to show that the 35mm camera doesn't have much of an advantage for macro photography. If the 35mm camera has to stop down at least to f8 (which it probably will, to get sufficient depth of field) then it won't gather any more light than the phone.
The basic point here is that for a given angle of view, you can only gather more light than the iPhone if the iPhone has depth of field to spare. Otherwise you can only gather more light than the iPhone by sacrificing depth of field. This is because both the total amount of light gathered (for a given angle of view) and the depth of field (for a given angle of view) are determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture.
>For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera
This is a meaningless statement unless you specify what sort of equivalence you're talking about. I assume you mean to say that they're equivalent in terms of depth of field and in terms of the total amount of light gathered for a given angle of view. This, however, just goes to show that the 35mm camera doesn't have much of an advantage for macro photography. If the 35mm camera has to stop down at least to f8 (which it probably will, to get sufficient depth of field) then it won't gather any more light than the phone.
The basic point here is that for a given angle of view, you can only gather more light than the iPhone if the iPhone has depth of field to spare. Otherwise you can only gather more light than the iPhone by sacrificing depth of field. This is because both the total amount of light gathered (for a given angle of view) and the depth of field (for a given angle of view) are determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture.
f-stops are relative to the size of the glass + sensor. They aren't equivalent to f1.5-2.8 on an APSC or full-frame sensor.
You're telling people to do more research but don't understand how photography in general works.
The speed of the lens is not the main factor. A Micro4/3 lens at f/2 is cheaper than a full frame lens at f/2, which is cheaper than a medium format in turn. The iPhone's sensors are much smaller still than FF.
The lenses on the iPhone are equivalent to some of the cheapest lenses in any given system.
Indeed, a comparable system would be the 10-18mm EF-S plus whatever kit lens you have.
Talking about relative aperture and angle of view at the same time is incredibly misleading. If you want to talk about angle of view, you need to use absolute aperture.
The speed of the lens is not the main factor. A Micro4/3 lens at f/2 is cheaper than a full frame lens at f/2, which is cheaper than a medium format in turn. The iPhone's sensors are much smaller still than FF.
The lenses on the iPhone are equivalent to some of the cheapest lenses in any given system.
Indeed, a comparable system would be the 10-18mm EF-S plus whatever kit lens you have.
Talking about relative aperture and angle of view at the same time is incredibly misleading. If you want to talk about angle of view, you need to use absolute aperture.
Lenses aren’t that expensive, especially not prime lenses. You get a very decent Canon brand 50mm f/1.8 for $125 new. So you could easily get each of these lenses in the lower hundreds.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/...
> (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light)
Not sure if this is true for macro. For a given angle of view, the amount of light collected is determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture (as opposed to the f number). It’s rarely practical to use a very wide aperture for macro photography on a DSLR for depth of field reasons. People do all sorts of unnecessarily complex calculations with crop factors, but in this scenario all you have to think about is the diameter of the aperture in mm. The phone has an aperture of perhaps around 3-4mm. You’re unlikely to use a wider aperture than that shooting macro on APS-C or full frame.
Not sure if this is true for macro. For a given angle of view, the amount of light collected is determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture (as opposed to the f number). It’s rarely practical to use a very wide aperture for macro photography on a DSLR for depth of field reasons. People do all sorts of unnecessarily complex calculations with crop factors, but in this scenario all you have to think about is the diameter of the aperture in mm. The phone has an aperture of perhaps around 3-4mm. You’re unlikely to use a wider aperture than that shooting macro on APS-C or full frame.
The whole point of a contest is to push the boundaries. I get your point, but at the same time the quality of casual shots on an iPhone is better than any camera I’m gonna see.
Hell, the iPhone 13 camera can take night shots better than what I can see in some cases.
Hell, the iPhone 13 camera can take night shots better than what I can see in some cases.
my Iphone 13 Pro has very (very) impressive low light performance.
Most of the photos Apple highlights in this campaign are also shot with very expensive external lenses.
False. Not a single one of them used any external lens at all, according to the page itself. This may be true for the campaign as a whole, but it's not true for the page under discussion in this thread.
I see no claims on this page that no external equipment was used, and it's known that professional lens rigs have been used in these "Shot on iPhone" campaigns in the past. https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
Why would you make such false claims?
Because it's true?
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
This is false FUD.
If I counted correctly, 8/10 of the selected submissions specifically mention the iPhone and the macro feature by name. Same with the comments on different submissions.
Okay, okay, I know, it's Apple, this is a marketing campaign.
I guess next time, I'm going to take a photo of the contents of my fridge, with the caption:
"Every morning, when I check my new iPhone 14 Pro Max Plus, I'm filled with a sense of inspiration. The new Wake Up feature really gives me a boost of energy, even on cloudy days like when I took this photo of an avocado. The deep, dark green of the rind reminds me of the striking new Alpine Green color of my new iPhone 14 Pro Max Plus, and the texture couldn't be more vivid than shot by the new Macro+ Holographic Lens."
Okay, okay, I know, it's Apple, this is a marketing campaign.
I guess next time, I'm going to take a photo of the contents of my fridge, with the caption:
"Every morning, when I check my new iPhone 14 Pro Max Plus, I'm filled with a sense of inspiration. The new Wake Up feature really gives me a boost of energy, even on cloudy days like when I took this photo of an avocado. The deep, dark green of the rind reminds me of the striking new Alpine Green color of my new iPhone 14 Pro Max Plus, and the texture couldn't be more vivid than shot by the new Macro+ Holographic Lens."
> If I counted correctly, 8/10 of the selected submissions specifically mention the iPhone and the macro feature by name. Same with the comments on different submissions
The contest was only open to photos taken from an iPhone. This is mentioned in the heading, sub-heading and opening paragraph.
The contest was only open to photos taken from an iPhone. This is mentioned in the heading, sub-heading and opening paragraph.
"It's your first day of school Jimmy, show me that smile! You know it's going to come out great on the iPhone 16 Ultra Max, thanks to it's advanced computational photography and new Neural Merge technology! I can even switch it over to the new Pro Portrait mode for a better digital Bokeh on the bus."
- A future excerpt from the Federighi household, probably
- A future excerpt from the Federighi household, probably
It is literally called the "Shot on iPhone Macro Challenge".
I didn't even read the text. I just noticed that plants and water seem to be huge winners. The one that wasn't a plant or water was "sea glass" so... still water. Next time try flowers and water.
[deleted]
The macro capability is a really fun addition to the iPhone. It can be hard to get a good shot though, quite often focus is off – the best way I've found is to use the Halide app, then you can enable macro mode and "focus peaking", which will highlight the in-focus area with a colour. This means that a) you are definitely in macro mode all the time, and b) the focus is fixed and you adjust what is in focus by moving the phone around until the right bit is highlighted. I have also had good results with the default camera though, but it's harder to control.
If you look at the photos close up they don't look amazingly sharp, and the "blur" around the edges looks a bit odd (not sure if this is just a macro lens thing or something iPhone specific), but regardless, it's a pretty awesome capability to have in your pocket at all times!
If you look at the photos close up they don't look amazingly sharp, and the "blur" around the edges looks a bit odd (not sure if this is just a macro lens thing or something iPhone specific), but regardless, it's a pretty awesome capability to have in your pocket at all times!
Focusing for macro is definitely a painstaking process. That's why they invented equipment to help like focus rails[0]. At macro sizes, the focus ring on the lens is just not going to help get that final focus. Instead, the camera is physically moved closer/further from the subject to get final focus. With the super shallow depth of field, millimeters matter so these rails allow you to make very tiny adjustments.
[0]https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1532833-REG/dot_line_...
[0]https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1532833-REG/dot_line_...
I would imagine focus stacking would be a future enhancement, like HDR has stacked images for a long time
Focus stacking is a style. It doesn't necessarily make it better outright. Someone might not want the look of a wider depth of field.
HDR is also a style, and at least they made it optional and not forced on every single image. Hopefully any focus stacking will be optional as well.
HDR is also a style, and at least they made it optional and not forced on every single image. Hopefully any focus stacking will be optional as well.
On the leaf image:
“The reason I like this so much is the obvious layering. The depth of field created with the iPhone here very clearly shows you what the focal point is, and represents a fantastic example of how good the software is at completely isolating the foreground, leaving the background blurry. A perfect example of computational depth of field.” — Peter McKinnon
Is this correct? From what I've shot in macro on my DSLR, the blur is natural because the focus plane is so thin. I realize the phone has a much smaller sensor, but is the blur in macro mode computational? I thought that effect was only applied in portrait mode shots.
Is this correct? From what I've shot in macro on my DSLR, the blur is natural because the focus plane is so thin. I realize the phone has a much smaller sensor, but is the blur in macro mode computational? I thought that effect was only applied in portrait mode shots.
At this point, I don't know how to apply any natural photography rules to camera phone results. There is so much processing going on that it is hard to even try to do things the "old" way. From the skin softening, to the pushing of the contrast/color balance/saturation, to the correcting of content replacing a person's face with a leaf type examples, etc, I really don't want to use the damn camera at all from a purist point of view.
The leaf was actually a leaf. https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476951534160257026?s=...
Using Halide or similar with RAW substantially improves your control.
Using Halide or similar with RAW substantially improves your control.
It doesn't actually do any of those, people just hear "computational photography" and make up things in their heads.
"Real digital cameras" also have computational photography a.k.a. sharpening, auto exposure and auto white balance.
"Real digital cameras" also have computational photography a.k.a. sharpening, auto exposure and auto white balance.
"real digital cameras" have all of those features you mentioned as options.
"real photographers" set up their camera with the settings they prefer and develop in post. i'm deliberately using quotes there as photo journalists have been forced to do certain things that would go against the norms as mandates have come down upon them. These mandates are meant to ensure claims about mainipulation in post has a little ground to stand on, but the people making those mandates don't understand what they are mandating with their PHB directives.
"real photographers" set up their camera with the settings they prefer and develop in post. i'm deliberately using quotes there as photo journalists have been forced to do certain things that would go against the norms as mandates have come down upon them. These mandates are meant to ensure claims about mainipulation in post has a little ground to stand on, but the people making those mandates don't understand what they are mandating with their PHB directives.
So do phones, but if you set everything to full manual that doesn't mean you're going to do any better. (Even autofocus can work a lot better than manual.)
Part of that developing is taking 10x the number of actual photos you want so you can delete the ones that're overexposed or too blurry. And you have to deal with all the data of keeping uncompressed RAWs around.
Part of that developing is taking 10x the number of actual photos you want so you can delete the ones that're overexposed or too blurry. And you have to deal with all the data of keeping uncompressed RAWs around.
I believe every photo on iPhone 13 pro is enhanced.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/have-iphon...
You're right though that this isn't a "perfect example of computational depth of field" as the background leaf looks far enough away where you could have achieved the effect optically on iPhone sensor with right aperature. That being said the blurring does look unnatural to me as it is not even across the background leaf despite similar distance from lens. It's not clear cut though.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/have-iphon...
You're right though that this isn't a "perfect example of computational depth of field" as the background leaf looks far enough away where you could have achieved the effect optically on iPhone sensor with right aperature. That being said the blurring does look unnatural to me as it is not even across the background leaf despite similar distance from lens. It's not clear cut though.
You can shoot RAW photos on the iPhone. Don’t think most laypeople do, though.
This is the stupidest, laziest, and less informed article I’ve ever read from the New Yorker. I honestly don’t know how it got published.
At that magnification I would expect some amount of blur, and the bokeh in the shot is very nervous, so I'd say it's mostly optical. Phone camera lenses generally have very poor bokeh, though you can rarely see much of it.
Yep. The iPhone 13 Pro bokeh is miserably bad. On point sources, you're lucky if you can get any out of it and if you do it's got a hole in the middle.
Example here: https://imgur.com/a/cPG3YSP
Example here: https://imgur.com/a/cPG3YSP
I had a friend who was creating a cardboard miniature of a museum exhibit he was designing and he wanted to take photos of it "on the ground floor" to give a pre-visualization of what it would look like. So he pulled out his DSLR and was woefully disappointed that all his photos came out looking like photos of miniatures, even if he got really close in.
I told him to switch to his smartphone. He'd be able to get in closer. The scale of the lens more closely matched the scale of the scene, so the relative angles between foreground and background objects would more closely match our expectations of being a full-sized scene. It came out great. Yes, we had to dump light on the thing to get the images to not be grainy. But the images had more of an "on the ground" feel.
Because of that (and my own experiences with smartphone photography), I feel like these images all fail to use the hardware effectively to do something unique.
Some others have talked about the differences in lenses and sensor sizes and all that, that makes high-quality smartphone photography so much harder than SLR photography. Yes, that is true, for the sorts of images that you would take with an SLR. But that's not the only kind of images you can take.
The popularity of the SLR is both its biggest advantage and its biggest curse. It's advantageous because there are TONS of accessories and guides and examples, etc. ad nauseum. It's a curse because it sucks all the air out of the room in regards to other types of cameras. There are so many, many different types of cameras, and they all make unique shots that you really can't replicate with the other types of cameras.
Few people have really explored what that means for smartphone cameras. It's clear that it would need to be used in ways that are unique to the device. Not just "it's the best camera you have with you, because your other camera is too heavy to always have on you." But stuff like, "because the lens is so tiny, we can squeeze shots out of tiny holes that would block a normal SLR". Stuff like, "this camera is a Star Trek tricorder connected to a global information network." I rarely ever see that.
I told him to switch to his smartphone. He'd be able to get in closer. The scale of the lens more closely matched the scale of the scene, so the relative angles between foreground and background objects would more closely match our expectations of being a full-sized scene. It came out great. Yes, we had to dump light on the thing to get the images to not be grainy. But the images had more of an "on the ground" feel.
Because of that (and my own experiences with smartphone photography), I feel like these images all fail to use the hardware effectively to do something unique.
Some others have talked about the differences in lenses and sensor sizes and all that, that makes high-quality smartphone photography so much harder than SLR photography. Yes, that is true, for the sorts of images that you would take with an SLR. But that's not the only kind of images you can take.
The popularity of the SLR is both its biggest advantage and its biggest curse. It's advantageous because there are TONS of accessories and guides and examples, etc. ad nauseum. It's a curse because it sucks all the air out of the room in regards to other types of cameras. There are so many, many different types of cameras, and they all make unique shots that you really can't replicate with the other types of cameras.
Few people have really explored what that means for smartphone cameras. It's clear that it would need to be used in ways that are unique to the device. Not just "it's the best camera you have with you, because your other camera is too heavy to always have on you." But stuff like, "because the lens is so tiny, we can squeeze shots out of tiny holes that would block a normal SLR". Stuff like, "this camera is a Star Trek tricorder connected to a global information network." I rarely ever see that.
People seem to always be impressed with close-up images of plants.
Humans can learn a lot from observing the world around them. We do this a lot as kids. So maybe seeing up-close details we either can't see with the naked eye or never payed attention before can be interesting. At least to me, it feels to add completeness to my observation of what nature is capable of, and this enhances my conception of how much I was missing and it is now "complete" to me.
Agree with this.
My children are so close to the ground they can observe things I just walk by. They are constantly pointing out to me things they find beautiful in their tiny details. Admittedly I've trained them to be highly observant but they've outdone me in a short time.
My children are so close to the ground they can observe things I just walk by. They are constantly pointing out to me things they find beautiful in their tiny details. Admittedly I've trained them to be highly observant but they've outdone me in a short time.
I do wonder what the subjects in these photos would look like with different cameras and lens combinations. Everything about those shots scream great composition, but held back by the technical aspects: blurry and distorted.
Pretty crazy that you can get this kind of shots with a mobile tbh. Until very recently you would require a DSLR with a bulky specialized lens. For reference this is what a typical macro lens looks like https://images.app.goo.gl/nf5keSiugxyb2pmA6
The issue is the working distance.
You'll note that the photographer there is shooing with a lens that has a fairly long barrel. For the Nikkor 105mm macro lens - https://coinimaging.com/nikon_105vr.html
At 1:1, there's 15.3 cm between the front of the lens and the subject.
But if you're shooting with a rather short lens (e.g. those in the camera of a phone) then the working distance is very close.
This becomes important important when photographing insects (you'll note there are no photos of insects in that collection)
Some other lenses and their working distances - https://www.kielia.de/photography/calculator/working-distanc...
The Olympus 30mm shooting as a macro lens has a working distance of 16mm (quite different than the 153mm of the Nikkor 105mm macro lens).
The "getting close" also impacts the "how do you light it" and keeping the subject out of the shadow of the camera.
You'll note that the photographer there is shooing with a lens that has a fairly long barrel. For the Nikkor 105mm macro lens - https://coinimaging.com/nikon_105vr.html
At 1:1, there's 15.3 cm between the front of the lens and the subject.
But if you're shooting with a rather short lens (e.g. those in the camera of a phone) then the working distance is very close.
This becomes important important when photographing insects (you'll note there are no photos of insects in that collection)
Some other lenses and their working distances - https://www.kielia.de/photography/calculator/working-distanc...
The Olympus 30mm shooting as a macro lens has a working distance of 16mm (quite different than the 153mm of the Nikkor 105mm macro lens).
The "getting close" also impacts the "how do you light it" and keeping the subject out of the shadow of the camera.
I would say most really good insect macro images are done with dead insects anyways, as they need to be stacked to get a decent depth of field.
The “how to light it” is probably a bigger point. Even with a ~100mm lens, dealing with the lens’ shadow can be annoying.
The “how to light it” is probably a bigger point. Even with a ~100mm lens, dealing with the lens’ shadow can be annoying.
> This becomes important important when photographing insects (you'll note there are no photos of insects in that collection)
I've gotten some interesting insect shots using Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED from a short distance.
I think people sometimes get too caught up with the gear instead of trying out what they have.
I've gotten some interesting insect shots using Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED from a short distance.
I think people sometimes get too caught up with the gear instead of trying out what they have.
The practical working distance is why I like the four-thirds system for macro. With a 50mm 1:2 macro lens on a micro43 body you can work at a distance of 10-25cm from the lens front, so you can sneak up on bugs, and on this format you can get a useful depth of field with more than a few atoms in focus like you'd get on a larger format.
A $20 extension tube or reversing ring will turn even any plain 50mm prime into a fine macro lens. There really isn’t an upper limit on lens hugeness or cost for people chasing that last 1% of performance.
I bought a cheap DSLR extension tube and a $15 ring light on eBay to do macro photography of electronic components. They work much better than I expected for the price. I'm sure an expensive macro lens would be better but this setup works fine for me.
My take on macro lenses is that they are sort of bulky lenses designed with the extension tube built in, so you can go from infinity to 1:1 or similar.
Slight OT: I am thinking about buying a camera. I have never had a good camera system nor I ever had a flagship phone (iPhone/Samsung/Pixel). I though a mirrorless with good lenses would be a good starting choice. I don't want to do professional photography, I just want to shoot holidays in nature and my upcoming baby. I did some internet research and was blown away when people compare photos from best phones to photos from mirrorless/DSLR cameras. My impression now after some research is that you can get better looking images from camera if you are willing to do some post-processing in Lightroom, etc. If you compare raw images then a lot of times people tend to say that the one taken on a phone looks better (I know it might not look more "real", just that people like it more). Would you agree that buying a camera is worth only if you are willing to do a lot of preparation and post processing but if not just buy a phone with all the advantages it brings? Is it even worth buying a camera in 2022 if you are targeting a price of about what top model iPhone costs?
Let's leave pure love of photography aside for the sake of argument.
Let's leave pure love of photography aside for the sake of argument.
It depends. I've only bought more gear when I had an exact need. My first camera was a D40, and I used it for years until it simply stopped working. My next camera was a D7100 that added features I knew I wanted after using the D40 for years. I still use this camera. Recently I bought a Z5 because I wanted FF and to move to mirrorless. My lenses followed similar trajectories - want to take bird pictures, need a zoom.
All the time I also mostly had the latest iPhone.
The iPhone takes great pictures with little work in many (most?) situations.
Is it worth buying a non-phone camera in 2022? I think if you really like taking pictures and are bumping into phone limitations, sure. But, if I started today, I would get a flagship phone first and grow from there.
All the time I also mostly had the latest iPhone.
The iPhone takes great pictures with little work in many (most?) situations.
Is it worth buying a non-phone camera in 2022? I think if you really like taking pictures and are bumping into phone limitations, sure. But, if I started today, I would get a flagship phone first and grow from there.
If it’s for holidays and kids, I’d say stick with a top of the line phone, then think about getting a discrete camera for edge cases (if you have that kind of money)
The best camera is the one you have available. Kids are mobile and wild and often do memorable things at unexpected time. Whipping out your iPhone and taking a video or picture is easy and pretty much always capable.
Phone cameras, with much processing magic, do produce pretty good pictures. And pretty good pictures beat non existent excellent pictures because you didn’t lug your camera around.
The best camera is the one you have available. Kids are mobile and wild and often do memorable things at unexpected time. Whipping out your iPhone and taking a video or picture is easy and pretty much always capable.
Phone cameras, with much processing magic, do produce pretty good pictures. And pretty good pictures beat non existent excellent pictures because you didn’t lug your camera around.
> Would you agree that buying a camera is worth only if you are willing to do a lot of preparation and post processing but if not just buy a phone with all the advantages it brings?
Yes.
You definitely can get better pictures out of a camera than a phone if you want to put in the time and the work, not just of using a camera instead of a phone, but of learning how to get the most out of a camera. But it is a lot of time and a lot of work, and given the capital investment not something I'd recommend taking on until you've pushed your phone as far as it can go and find you still want to go further.
Too, you mention a baby coming. Not saying this is you, but I've lost count of the guys I've worked with who get all excited with a baby on the way, buy a camera, and knowing I'm a photographer ask lots of questions about how to use it well - then, three months later, they're back to their phones because it turns out "the best camera is the one you have with you" is a cliché because it's true.
Lately most of my work is chasing wasps around with a macro rig, and let me tell you: there is no wild animal on Earth, a baby included, who will wait around for you to set up a shot. They're going to do what they're going to do, and whether you get the shot you want is entirely your problem. If you want to get that shot with a camera, that means not just knowing how to use the camera, but having it at hand and ready to shoot basically all the time. Which you can do! But you've already got your phone with you all the time anyway, you already know how to use it, you already keep its battery charged - and not for nothing, but a phone'll take a lot more abuse than just about any camera ever made, and we're talking about a baby here.
Which brings me back to the point of time. The shots I get (and occasionally post at https://aaron-m.com/topic/images) are the product, not just of hours of effort in capture and post, but also of four years I spent making photography a daily part of my life. I didn't go anywhere without my camera - eventually, my cameras, both the macro and the 200-500mm tele birding rig. I bought a giant backpack specifically because it would fit them both, I took them out with me on breaks at work, I walked all over God's green earth with them looking for good spots and eventually for good insects and spiders - I more or less lived and breathed photography for four solid years, long enough to figure out what I really wanted to do and get pretty damn good at it for an amateur with a full-time job.
I don't say this to brag, but to make clear the point that you want to think about whether that's the kind of time you want to invest, and the kind of time you can invest - with a baby on the way, and with a phone that if we're being honest already does 90+% of what the best DSLR or mirrorless on the planet can do. Sure, I happen to live firmly within the 10% that phones can't match, or at least not yet. Nobody thinks about the macro wildlife photography that I do as a phone camera use case. Taking pictures of babies, though? People in general? That's where phone cameras live. For that, I can't do better, or even as well - I'd have needed to spend those four years doing portrait work instead. (Or human portrait work, anyway...)
So yeah, I'd say save the money and the frustration, and revisit the idea of a DSLR or mirrorless once you can clearly articulate a reason why you might need one. Until then, your phone's going to serve you much better than any discrete camera will.
Yes.
You definitely can get better pictures out of a camera than a phone if you want to put in the time and the work, not just of using a camera instead of a phone, but of learning how to get the most out of a camera. But it is a lot of time and a lot of work, and given the capital investment not something I'd recommend taking on until you've pushed your phone as far as it can go and find you still want to go further.
Too, you mention a baby coming. Not saying this is you, but I've lost count of the guys I've worked with who get all excited with a baby on the way, buy a camera, and knowing I'm a photographer ask lots of questions about how to use it well - then, three months later, they're back to their phones because it turns out "the best camera is the one you have with you" is a cliché because it's true.
Lately most of my work is chasing wasps around with a macro rig, and let me tell you: there is no wild animal on Earth, a baby included, who will wait around for you to set up a shot. They're going to do what they're going to do, and whether you get the shot you want is entirely your problem. If you want to get that shot with a camera, that means not just knowing how to use the camera, but having it at hand and ready to shoot basically all the time. Which you can do! But you've already got your phone with you all the time anyway, you already know how to use it, you already keep its battery charged - and not for nothing, but a phone'll take a lot more abuse than just about any camera ever made, and we're talking about a baby here.
Which brings me back to the point of time. The shots I get (and occasionally post at https://aaron-m.com/topic/images) are the product, not just of hours of effort in capture and post, but also of four years I spent making photography a daily part of my life. I didn't go anywhere without my camera - eventually, my cameras, both the macro and the 200-500mm tele birding rig. I bought a giant backpack specifically because it would fit them both, I took them out with me on breaks at work, I walked all over God's green earth with them looking for good spots and eventually for good insects and spiders - I more or less lived and breathed photography for four solid years, long enough to figure out what I really wanted to do and get pretty damn good at it for an amateur with a full-time job.
I don't say this to brag, but to make clear the point that you want to think about whether that's the kind of time you want to invest, and the kind of time you can invest - with a baby on the way, and with a phone that if we're being honest already does 90+% of what the best DSLR or mirrorless on the planet can do. Sure, I happen to live firmly within the 10% that phones can't match, or at least not yet. Nobody thinks about the macro wildlife photography that I do as a phone camera use case. Taking pictures of babies, though? People in general? That's where phone cameras live. For that, I can't do better, or even as well - I'd have needed to spend those four years doing portrait work instead. (Or human portrait work, anyway...)
So yeah, I'd say save the money and the frustration, and revisit the idea of a DSLR or mirrorless once you can clearly articulate a reason why you might need one. Until then, your phone's going to serve you much better than any discrete camera will.
I get the feeling that iOS runs photos through a neural net filter by default. It would be nice to know exactly what is behind any given shot, both my personal images and those of a collection/competition like this. Thus armed with knowledge, only then can we truly judge for ourselves.
What difference would it make? The computation part of iPhone photography is an essential part of it.
The iPhone's macro photography is best for the fact that I can take pictures of labels and stuff for later. Something that was made for pretty stuff that nonetheless works quite well for my mundane use-case. I love technology like this.
Not to be rude hopefully, but those all look like stock high quality desktop backgrounds or 1:1 copies of an iphone add. Images seem less about artistic meaning and more about coloring and related implications about an iphone.
I hope that you like flowers. All but two of the photos are leaves or petals.
Technically impressive but visually uninteresting just about sums it up.
[deleted]
Half of these are pretty unimpressive. The composition of “A drop of freedom” does not inspire me at all. The only focused area is a boring droplet in the middle and everything is blurry. Probably a million better ways to frame it.
“The Final Bloom” is absolutely beautiful however.
“The Final Bloom” is absolutely beautiful however.
The macro lens is the reason I bought the iPhone 13 Pro and the extreme sizem weight, and poor ergonomics of the phone are why I returned it. I'd buy an iPhone the dimensions of an iPhone Mini (but say, twice as thick) with the fancy cameras, LiDAR, etc.
I've been doing macro photography with the big gear for over a decade, very actively, in the range of 1:1 to 5:1 and anything in between. I've also been using the macro mode on the iPhone13 Pro on the side, so I'm in the position to judge and compare.
The positive conclusion is that relatively speaking, when reasoning from a smartphone without any macro capabilities, it is a meaningful breakthrough. And this matters as for many people it's their only camera. If you enjoy current smartphone photography, macro is no gimmick, it's perhaps the style of photography that is most creative, fun, and full of untapped potential to get unique shots.
When comparing to the big gear, this should be seen as a start at best. It drastically falls short in many ways.
As a first example, the "Sea glass" photo. Which is wonderfully misleading. The photo is artistically attractive but technically crap. It lacks real sharpness and definition, there's the plastic-like noise reduction, and you'll see "trails" in parts of the image, a result of computational processing of multiple exposures.
Whilst you might not care in this case because the artistic quality distracts you from those glitches, they are a real issue in many photos. Macro photography is defined by a lack of light. The mobile workarounds are extremely aggressive and create tons of glitches all the time.
My second point is on the flowers. They are very large. And that's one of my conclusions, macro mode works pretty decently (for a phone) on decently sized subjects. It's closeup photography, not macro photography. To illustrate the difference in capability, the smallest flower is photographed is 3mm. I'm filling the frame with it and then still have 40-50MP of cropping space. And details are actual details, not some computed blur or guess.
Still, for a lot of people closeup photography is a new capability. I'm just saying to not think it rivals macro photography.
Finally, in macro photography subject isolation is important, clear details with a smooth and soft background. Macro mode does not do that, it fakes the blur and often gets it wrong. In particular it computes some kind of half-state: soft but still with details, which is optically impossible and looks crap.
Don't let my words discourage you though. It a step up in mobile photography, good to have this capability in your pocket. Let it make you fall in love with the endless possibilities of closeup/macro photography, and some of you might take it beyond the phone.
The positive conclusion is that relatively speaking, when reasoning from a smartphone without any macro capabilities, it is a meaningful breakthrough. And this matters as for many people it's their only camera. If you enjoy current smartphone photography, macro is no gimmick, it's perhaps the style of photography that is most creative, fun, and full of untapped potential to get unique shots.
When comparing to the big gear, this should be seen as a start at best. It drastically falls short in many ways.
As a first example, the "Sea glass" photo. Which is wonderfully misleading. The photo is artistically attractive but technically crap. It lacks real sharpness and definition, there's the plastic-like noise reduction, and you'll see "trails" in parts of the image, a result of computational processing of multiple exposures.
Whilst you might not care in this case because the artistic quality distracts you from those glitches, they are a real issue in many photos. Macro photography is defined by a lack of light. The mobile workarounds are extremely aggressive and create tons of glitches all the time.
My second point is on the flowers. They are very large. And that's one of my conclusions, macro mode works pretty decently (for a phone) on decently sized subjects. It's closeup photography, not macro photography. To illustrate the difference in capability, the smallest flower is photographed is 3mm. I'm filling the frame with it and then still have 40-50MP of cropping space. And details are actual details, not some computed blur or guess.
Still, for a lot of people closeup photography is a new capability. I'm just saying to not think it rivals macro photography.
Finally, in macro photography subject isolation is important, clear details with a smooth and soft background. Macro mode does not do that, it fakes the blur and often gets it wrong. In particular it computes some kind of half-state: soft but still with details, which is optically impossible and looks crap.
Don't let my words discourage you though. It a step up in mobile photography, good to have this capability in your pocket. Let it make you fall in love with the endless possibilities of closeup/macro photography, and some of you might take it beyond the phone.
Close up pictures of flowers and plants. Vivid colours. Extremely boring.
That's it, saved you a click. You can thank me later no prob.
j/k
j/k
Is this the climax of smartphone macrophotography? How much better could it get from here, seems impossible with the given constraints.
Although not a macro-related problem perse, these look great at the size they are taken, zooming in or enlarging them a little bit shows some of the flaws (overly processed, computational errors).
These pictures have been made by people who have photography as a serious hobby and know what they are doing, hence the well-lit and positioned scenes. I have not been able to make a picture like these without a lot of effort. But it is possible.
That said, it's a pretty incredible feature so far!
These pictures have been made by people who have photography as a serious hobby and know what they are doing, hence the well-lit and positioned scenes. I have not been able to make a picture like these without a lot of effort. But it is possible.
That said, it's a pretty incredible feature so far!
This is cool, but I really don't understand what the point of macro photography is on a smartphone.
“A Drop of Freedom” reminds me of Apple's old flower wallpapers with the black background
the resolution on these is terrible
Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod. It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images.
It's pretty cool that you can get such nice results from a phone. But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras.
These images are somewhat analogous to the videos of fake hamburgers that fast food companies use to sell their product. That is, the physical conditions where this picture was taken did exist. It's not totally CG. But the images are designed to make you think that you can get results that practically are out of reach for most of the people looking at the photos.
Still knowing that can also allow you to make better cell phone pictures by taking into account those weaknesses when you're taking pictures. There are valuable techniques to learn from these images, aside from the fact that they are all high quality art.