if all 3 photos are equally horribly compressed, then the relative quality from one to the other is still the same. That was cute though
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 11 iPhone 11: Are you happy with the camera lens combo? Or would you prefer a telephoto?
- Thread starter gdourado
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if all 3 photos are equally horribly compressed, then the relative quality from one to the other is still the same. That was cute though
I'm still not entirely sure what you're arguing. Are you expecting a crop of the ultra wide lens to look the same as the wide? The face in a pic from the ultra wide will contain fewer pixels that the face in a pic from the wide lens taken at the same distance from the subject.
It bothered me at first, but with the $400 difference between the 128gb 11 and the 256gb pro I decided to invest in a moment 58mm telephoto lens. I really only use the telephoto lens on my X when filming video of the kids playing sports, so I figured I can just pocket the lens and take it to those events. Plus, the telephoto lens on the main sensor should yield better results than the telephoto lens on the Pro.
You’re just being obtuse at this point so I won’t even waste my time trying to argue with you.
Also, if you’re so underwhelmed by this phone, and have no intentions on buying it because it’s garbage, what even are you doing here? Why waste your time and energy arguing over something that has zero impact on your life? Nothing better to do with your time?
[doublepost=1568658578][/doublepost]
No point in trying to break this down for him. He’s got an agenda here and will vehemently argue his point even if he knows he’s wrong.
With that thinking they could also axe the wide angle and just use a single ultra wide. Cos we can digital zoom everything.
I wonder why Apple even bothers with multiple lenses
I personally love my telephoto lens. I use it very rarely (mostly when I’m at concerts) but I appreciate being able to have optical zoom for those occasions.With that thinking they could also axe the wide angle and just use a single ultra wide. Cos we can digital zoom everything.
I wonder why Apple even bothers with multiple lenses
correct, and one fix for this is to increase the resolution when taking ultra wide Vids
Sure, because Apple will do that.With that thinking they could also axe the wide angle and just use a single ultra wide. Cos we can digital zoom everything.
I wonder why Apple even bothers with multiple lenses
I was all in on 11 until I heard it lacked telephoto. I then debated between a used X or a new 11. Ultimately going with the 11, but was sad to miss out. I feel like the standard camera is already too far away for many shots. And digital zoom does nothing that cropping can't do after the fact. It's just blowing up the pixels and won't get as good of quality as a telephoto.
I think you are missing his point - and yes I have been involved in photography so I do understand your points also. But if you are in a small room you are limited by how far you can back up and the 2x zoom is very limited anyway as far as a telephoto lens goes IMHO.
[doublepost=1568677787][/doublepost]Personally would have preferred the telephoto lens but think the creative possibilities of the ultra wide will compensate at least for me. And let’s be honest a 2x zoom of a lens that is wide to begin with is not much of a zoom anyway.
One fine example of usefulness of wide angle vs 2x zoom that's mostly useless. Borrowed from Note 10 thread.
![20190916_012621-jpg.858876]()
Wow! This has to be one of the dumbest posts I've read in a long time. Seems like you need a lot of help understanding physical reality. I'll give it a cursory shot. If you are using a 0.5x lens, your subjects face would be captured by approximately 1/4 the number of pixels than with a 1x lens. This is why the same face looks less detailed in a 0.5x shot vs a 1x shot. It's really not that hard to understand, but I guess it is for some.
Your solution to just increase the resolution pretty much negates the need for two separate lenses as you could then just crop a 1x out of it and at the intended original resolution, with of course a little more distortion. (This is how m43 sensors work when used with larger than m43 lenses. A 2x cropped sensor area produces an image that is functionally very similar to 2x the focal width of the lens. But this would absolutely destroy the light capturing performance of the 0.5x, as the pixel pitch would be absolutely tiny an d you'd have to deal with distortion issues, though the centre of a lens is usually less distorted.
I have been getting away with using short panos to get ultra wide/tall shots, but you're eating into the 12 megapixels when you digitally zoom in. I would have wanted all three and maybe we will in two/three year's time, but as of now, the telephoto would have made a bigger difference to me than an ultra wide.
I'm EXTREMELY disappointed Apple opted for the Ultra-Wide in the NON-Pro, instead of the Telephoto !
But the flip-side is, the Back Telephoto image sensor in the Pro models wasn't even upgraded, so the pixel size remains at ONLY 1.0um !
As such, it makes ALOT of sense to get the NON-Pro & investigate the Telephoto Attachment Lens options.
Pairing a Telephoto Attachment Lens with the upgraded Back Wide image sensor will very-likely provide the highest-quality results.
There are numerous benefits to this approach.
IMO, it's fair to say Apple "may" have shot themselves in the foot on this one !
If it's indeed confirmed on Friday the the NON-Pro has 3.7-3.8 GB of DRAM, then that one could be a run away success hit !
But the flip-side is, the Back Telephoto image sensor in the Pro models wasn't even upgraded, so the pixel size remains at ONLY 1.0um !
As such, it makes ALOT of sense to get the NON-Pro & investigate the Telephoto Attachment Lens options.
Pairing a Telephoto Attachment Lens with the upgraded Back Wide image sensor will very-likely provide the highest-quality results.
There are numerous benefits to this approach.
IMO, it's fair to say Apple "may" have shot themselves in the foot on this one !
If it's indeed confirmed on Friday the the NON-Pro has 3.7-3.8 GB of DRAM, then that one could be a run away success hit !
Your method of comparison is flawed. Let's take the lenses out of it for a moment. Snap a photo of a face using any lens so that it fills the frame. Now back up twenty steps and center the face and take another shot. Repeat. Each time the face fills less of the frame and has fewer pixels to show detail. Obviously, if you open the farthest photo in a viewer and zoom in to make the face fill the frame it will look awful. But that can have nothing to do with the lens used because the same lens was used for all the shots. It is simply a matter of physics.
It's intentional by Apple. I'm a wide-angle fan but most people want more zoom and more reach with their cameras. ... And now you got to pay up for a Pro to get the zoom lens.
Wide angle suits the photography enthusiast. Zoom the consumer. I love cameras and photography and am personally going from a XS to a Pro to get wide angle. My wife snaps pictures mostly of the cat, and of family and friends. She always wants more reach.
Apple knows that when people try them in the store they will see that the Pro has zoom and might end up paying the extra to get it. It's kind of like those stickers on cheap consumer camcorders that used to say 20X or 40X zoom. Even if the quality was terrible, most consumers went for the longer reach.
Wide angle suits the photography enthusiast. Zoom the consumer. I love cameras and photography and am personally going from a XS to a Pro to get wide angle. My wife snaps pictures mostly of the cat, and of family and friends. She always wants more reach.
Apple knows that when people try them in the store they will see that the Pro has zoom and might end up paying the extra to get it. It's kind of like those stickers on cheap consumer camcorders that used to say 20X or 40X zoom. Even if the quality was terrible, most consumers went for the longer reach.
Last edited:
I too was all over the 11 when the leaks started coming in.
I was decided to get one until the keynote when I saw they removed the telephoto.
So I was going for a Pro Max, but was having a real hard time swallowing the price I was going to pay more just for the telephoto.
But as fate would have it, I got a mint XS max 256gb yesterday afternoon for way cheaper than a new 11 would cost me.
I too was all over the 11 when the leaks started coming in.
I was decided to get one until the keynote when I saw they removed the telephoto.
So I was going for a Pro Max, but was having a real hard time swallowing the price I was going to pay more just for the telephoto.
But as fate would have it, I got a mint XS max 256gb yesterday afternoon for way cheaper than a new 11 would cost me.
Yes, it is not the ideal portrait range. The 2x on an iPhone is more of standard, or so called normal focal length in photography.
But even being so, it still makes a big difference on photographing people.
Check this example:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4164807
Massive difference in perspective from 24 to 50mm.
That is the case with the iPhone from 26mm equivalent focal length of the standard camera to de 52mm 2x zoom.
I understand many people these days grew up with smartphone photography and the wide lenses are what they see and know as standard so they are used to it.
But if you have any kind of background in photography the 2x makes a huge difference.
Not for sports photography. You have one chance and that's it.
I use my phone for cycling shots, because I really do not want my DSLR swinging around my back when riding (though yes I know some people do).
Most times that I ride ahead and stop to take pics of other riders the shots just aren't framed right. You can't stand in the middle of the road and frame your shot in advance. You have limited safe spots to stand, and limited time to frame it. A zoom is way, way more useful than wide. Though higher resolution to super crop works a nice substitute but the iPhone isn't there yet.
But most people aren't taking sports photography so wide will give them nicer photos I'd agree though.
I mean damn, why don’t all camera manufactures just put sensors with a trillion pixels in their cameras and one fixed lens so we can digital zoom infinitely with zero loss of quality.
I’m with you on this. I do a fair bit of photography in my spare time and after using a few zooms, I found the majority of my photos were taken at the 28mm-50mm range so now I just have one fixed lens camera with a 28mm (Leica Q) and a Fuji X Pro 2 that usually has a 35mm (50mm FF equiv). “Zooming with your feet” is the sort of thing someone who isn’t a photographer always says. The compression between background and subject longer lenses gives and the distortion of using a wide lens for close portraits makes a massive difference.
I take pictures of my dogs mostly, the ability to optically zoom in slightly is going to be a big miss from my 8+. I cant see any circumstance were ultrawide is useful, just step back a bit further. But for the price difference upto a pro to get that extra camera I could buy a far superior dedicated camera.