From a photography perspective in terms of prints, being able to take 48MP shots for large prints is great. If I want high quality images, I'm sticking with the DSLR.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 15/Plus I'm a Pro Photographer and ordered a Standard 15
- Thread starter Miltz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well I called it. After some side by side tests my intuition is spot on. There is zero difference is quality between the 13Pro and the 15 with the regular lens. The 24 megapixels on the 15 Does Not resolve more detail than the 12 on the 13Pro. The Ultra Wide is worse on the 15 by a small margin which is what I predicted based on the difference in light gathering.
The weight difference is drastic which for me is important. It feels like half the weight even though it's only 33 grams lighter. Bottom Line do not upgrade for the cameras as you will be disappointed. 48 Megapixel file is a joke, it looks gross and I'm never going to use it.
The weight difference is drastic which for me is important. It feels like half the weight even though it's only 33 grams lighter. Bottom Line do not upgrade for the cameras as you will be disappointed. 48 Megapixel file is a joke, it looks gross and I'm never going to use it.
Compare in low light. There have been several comparisons where the 15 Pro outperforms the 14 Pro with the main camera there. That is also the only improvement Apple stated at the keynote. There really is very little you can improve in good light (without changing the lenses), as the sensor is already excellent in well lit environments. The biggest improvement there is the defaulting to 24MP vs 12MP.
The 48MP is a raw mode, and works well if you intend to do a lot of pushing and pulling in post, otherwise avoid.
Last edited:
Correct. It makes me think of the M1 iPad Pro. Purchased a keyboard case for it. However, using it as a mac replacement is usually more frustrating than enjoyable.
My kitchen is pretty dark so it's low light. The files look identical with the main camera except for white balance. This makes sense as the cameras have the same sensor size. That's also why the 48 megapixel shot looks so bad. Same sensor as the 13Pro but now upsampling to 48 from 12. I considering setting it up to shoot 12 by default like the 13.
I did some quick comparison shots against my x-t5, and while I still don't like the photos from iPhone I think its a really great option for the everyday person, or person that can't/isnt ready to invest in a camera. if we are being honest most peoples cameras rolls will be filled with pictures of their pets, kids, or dinner for the night, they don't need to invest in a separate device to catch that unless they want to. IDK why the camera is such a hot topic this year lol
Some positive news if you want to see it that way. In the 15 you can change it to always shoot at 12MP. When you do and compare side by the to the 13Pro, It does look better. More detail and less noise which is positive. I'm going to keep it at 12MP. I can always upsample the images in photoshop just like apple is doing in software if I want a larger image.
I picked up the new Pro for the 120mm equivalent focal length, and like a dummy, realized later that the feature is specific to the larger model. Oops. Extending the optical focal range out that far is such a delightful ideal to me. It would leave the iPhone covering my favorite focal ranges.
That said, even though the cameras have been upgraded in some capacities here and there (optical improvements, the stacking providing a mid-range resolution through blending with the debayered and however-the-are-doing the full resolution readout from the quad bayer matrix-filtered sensors), I wouldn’t expect that any of this amounts to a dramatic improvement for the enthusiastic photographer on the previous model. The new telephoto optical range is probably the standout feature there. And the rest is improvements in computational photography.
Kinda like folks can make a big deal out of the latest incremental advances in a professional camera, when in fact, it really does not do so much more than the previous model that it should be having a dramatic impact on the quality of results the photographer is producing.
But I won’t be selling my cameras to use the iPhone. Some things, a mobile phone just cannot even come close to a traditional camera and lenses in accomplishing.
That said, even though the cameras have been upgraded in some capacities here and there (optical improvements, the stacking providing a mid-range resolution through blending with the debayered and however-the-are-doing the full resolution readout from the quad bayer matrix-filtered sensors), I wouldn’t expect that any of this amounts to a dramatic improvement for the enthusiastic photographer on the previous model. The new telephoto optical range is probably the standout feature there. And the rest is improvements in computational photography.
Kinda like folks can make a big deal out of the latest incremental advances in a professional camera, when in fact, it really does not do so much more than the previous model that it should be having a dramatic impact on the quality of results the photographer is producing.
iPhones can be practical for photography, even for a professional. If I hired a photographer for an event like a wedding and they showed up with an iPhone, I’d want to gut them on the spot, but it can still serve practical purposes in various projects, and in knowledgeable hands, it can still produce exceptional results. It can certainly be a fun tool for a photographer. It is a fun tool for me, and I have been enjoying photography with expensive gear for more than two decades, now.
But I won’t be selling my cameras to use the iPhone. Some things, a mobile phone just cannot even come close to a traditional camera and lenses in accomplishing.
In a side-by-side comparison like that, always be sure to look at the *full* image in a comparable field of view, rather than zooming in or doing anything 1:1. The higher resolution image will always look noisier, but it tends to balance out quite a bit when viewed at the same field of view. It also strikes me as highly unlikely that the 12 MP photo features more detail. That is probably just an artifact of the sharpening algorithms. You would inherently have more detail in the higher resolution image, even if it is noisier. One nice thing about the higher resolution images is that the noise is also smaller relative to detail, so noise reduction can be more effective at preserving detail.
But I can think of plenty of reasons why it would make sense to use a "default to 12 MP" mode anyhow.
One is that these 48MP sensors are quad bayer filtered sensors, and that does not render properly to 48 MP (or 24 MP for that matter). It debaters properly and cleanly to 12 MP. So I suspect there are some [legit] behind-the-scenes shenanigans that go into creating those files (such as sub-pixel sampling through multiple exposures). The 24 MP trick also makes sense. You can take lower resolution color data and apply it to higher resolution monochromatic data and get the illusion of more detail without necessarily having it in the color data itself. I’m a bit curious to learn a bit more about what Apple is doing there, beyond simply combining an exposure in the 48 MP mode with an exposure in the normally debayered 12 MP mode in a process that leaves a compromise in a 24 MP image.
48MP has less processing as is RAW. There were clear differences between my 13 Pro and 14 Pro so……
They are not upsampling in software like that. They are downsampling multiple exposures from 48MP. There are countless comparisons of the differences on the internet already.
If you want a relatively real “RAW” file you need to use an app, but even then, a lot of heavy-lifting goes into creating those files, and Apple ProRAW is not really RAW. A RAW file from those 48 MP sensors would debayer to 12 MP. Any color image derived from those sensors at 48 MP or 24 MP is highly dependent on computational photography.
Both the 48 MP and 12 MP “ProRAW” files are RAW in an Apple sense, but also not RAW files in a traditional sense.
If the 12 MP files “look” sharper, it is probably because local contrast introduced in Apple’s behind-the-scenes pipeline made it look sharper. Personally, I would *love* to be able to tone down the sharpening Apple bakes into these files, so I have more control over it myself. They do bake in sharpening.
(Not to crap on Apple. Their file format is better than the competition.)
Retired pro here as well. I like my mirrorless and my superzoom for traveling. iPhones look great on...an iPhone which is how most people digest photos. But it makes me cringe while culling in LR on a desktop. Some are okay, bright day, outdoors, etc. But wouldn't want my vacation photos exclusively shot on a phone. I also like printing photo books of vacations, so the quality must be decent, and that is tricky with a phone.
Suffice to say I disagree with much of the OP commentary because it misses a lot or is flat wrong. E.g. at the end he says "in fact the 15 should produce better images than the 14Pro as it will be able to gather more light" because the 15 has a slightly faster lens (f/1.6 versus f/1.78). Although it is true that ceteris paribus faster is better, all the other parameters of the camera system are much more relevant by a huge amount.
Of course "no professional photographer is going to take out their phone in a professional studio to shoot a client," but there are many, many pro image captures other than just "in a professional studio to shoot a client."
The OP says "I never used ProRaw except when I was testing it out. I didn’t find it useful ..." and although perhaps true for the OP, IMO that is not necessarily good advice to folks looking to up their image captures.
ProRAW is certainly *far* superior to capturing HEIC (the present-day stand-in for JPG). It may not be RAW, but it at least affords a lot more latitude for editing than the committed file format does (e.g. material adjustment in white balance). I find I tend to turn it on and off for different things. Sometimes it isn't needed.
It is weird to imagine someone who does editing not exploring that file format.
This thread is about base model iPhone camera versus iPhone Pro cameras. Of course 5 pounds and $5,000 of Nikon + lens will always produce better pix, but that does not mean that it is always appropriate to expect to have 5 pounds of $5,000 Nikon + lens + time available for the capture...
Last edited:
?? Clearly I do not get the point. You said "This [the thread] one's about iPhone vs dedicated cameras." I was simply saying that I think "This thread is about base model iPhone camera versus iPhone Pro cameras."
Thanks. I will check out the low pollution chart, and hopefully can take some good pics.
Hmmm..no idea why you felt the need to go back and edit your post after I replied to it but, whichever cameras are being discussed here, this thread is still no closer to being about environmental issues - which was what I was suggesting might be more appropriately discussed in a thread specifically dealing with that subject.
In short, the actual cameras being discussed had nothing to do with the point I was making about an off-topic post.
That clear enough?
I just finished testing night mode on the main camera between the 13Pro and 15. The 15 looks worse. I guess the F1.5 aperture of the 13Pro is making the difference here compared to F1.6 on the 15. Since the sensors are the same size images quality is worse, not by a lot, but it's noticeable. I thought they would be equal because of Apple's newer processing but that's not the case. Also the 15 has no macro mode. The selfie camera is the only camera with a noticeable improvement.
Small sensors will never match a full size sensor regardless of the megapixel size. But, I'm certain you already know this.
I agree iPhone’s are great for instagram or looking back at memories on your phone. I’ve never printed an iPhone photo at 300 dpi, but it would be an interesting challenge to capture and edit the image for such a use case.