Moving from dedicated camera to iPhone 11 pro

[LiE_]

So I've bought a Fujifilm X-T30 (silver) that should be with me in 1 week. I'm selling my X-E2s and 35mm F2 to fund it. For now this leaves me with the kit 18-55 which is surprisingly good. I've always found the 35mm F2 a bit too long for indoor photos and outdoors I prefer the versatility of the 1855. Long term I'm hoping to bag the 16mm 1.4 for my indoor photos.

 

[kallisti]

Whilst I would like that to be true, I can’t see it. As generations of film / SLR users get older, the people who replace them will not have the same nostalgia. I’m not saying it’s dead yet, just that I feel given the money that Apple /Samsung etc can throw into R&D, how can traditional camera makers compete In the long term.

it used to be pure physics that meant camera phones were the poor relation in terms of image quality, but computational photography is eliminating that. in 5 years time, what will be the reason for owning a SLR?

I believe that you have stated your opinion that "computational photography" will replace traditional photography several times in various threads.

I do not agree.

It might be a question of "good enough".

In very general terms (which may not apply to you or your statement), I see many posts by people saying that their iPhone pics are "just as good" as something taken with a dedicated camera. For those types of replies, my initial thought is that the poster has never used a *really* good lens.

"Computational photography" will never replace traditional photography, at least in the near-term (and possibly ever). At least for some types of images (and I would argue that they are a significant subset of image types).

Your assumption is that with a static subject there are ways via software to emulate the effects of a faster lens regarding a shallow DOF or perhaps a stopped down lens regarding a larger DOF. Both potentially possible, though the current ability of iPhones (or even dedicated software in post) aren't exactly the same as actually shooting the subject appropriately with the appropriate gear and exposure settings. Yes, I have used software such as Gigapixel AI to improve sharpness beyond what was captured with the lens, but while the results can be acceptable they are never better than shooting with the appropriate gear in the first place.

But what about subjects that require a fast shutter speed to freeze motion? No amount of "computational photography" either in camera or in post will be able to fix the blur caused by an image that was captured at too slow of a shutter speed for the subject.

Or subjects that require a slow shutter speed (on the order of 5 minutes)? Things are actually changing in time over that exposure duration within the frame that can't be fixed or emulated with "computational photography". It isn't a question of applying some sort of "blur" filter to the image or parts of the image, the actual content of the image changes in a way that can never be replicated, approximated, or emulated via software.

Or what about lighting? iPhone "portrait" lighting effects are crap compared to actual studio lighting. Even if you envision some future software ability where you could have a 3D model of your subject and could then place lights with specific modifiers within this 3D space, the initial file captured with an iPhone would be of such poor quality that this hypothetical modeling system would still produce inferior results. To ground this back in reality, no phone camera currently has anything approaching the ability to do this and I don't see this changing in the next 5 years. Lighting is an art unto itself. "Computational photography" can't address this now and isn't likely to be able to do this in the foreseeable future.

Or what about "niche" lenses like tilt/shift lenses. In theory, the tilt part could be replicated via software, but the shift part couldn't be. Ever. It is literally impossible.

The basic problem with your argument is that regardless of future software improvements, the quality of the initial file is still paramount. Garbage in = garbage out. Only so much can be done with poor initial data.

I get that you want to place your faith in "future technology" replacing traditional photography. For what you shoot, this might actually be possible. But "computational photography" will *never* replace traditional photography for some applications. And I would argue further that this doesn't solely apply to the realm of "niche" photography.

It goes back to the argument of "good enough". For some, computational photography will be "good enough". For others, it won't. But it is a serious mistake to assume that your opinion regarding the current and future abilities of "computational photography" (presumably related to your photography experience and shooting style) applies to photographers in general, all photographers, or photography as a discipline/profession/art form.

 

[mmomega]

My 11 Pro does takes very nice photos but it is, for me, an additional camera outside of my main dedicated cameras.
And I have a lot invested in glass and bodies over the last several years as well as enjoying the connection of holding the camera, pressing the shutter.

 

[Moakesy]

I believe that you have stated your opinion that "computational photography" will replace traditional photography several times in various threads.

I do not agree.

It might be a question of "good enough".

In very general terms (which may not apply to you or your statement), I see many posts by people saying that their iPhone pics are "just as good" as something taken with a dedicated camera. For those types of replies, my initial thought is that the poster has never used a *really* good lens.

"Computational photography" will never replace traditional photography, at least in the near-term (and possibly ever). At least for some types of images (and I would argue that they are a significant subset of image types).

Your assumption is that with a static subject there are ways via software to emulate the effects of a faster lens regarding a shallow DOF or perhaps a stopped down lens regarding a larger DOF. Both potentially possible, though the current ability of iPhones (or even dedicated software in post) aren't exactly the same as actually shooting the subject appropriately with the appropriate gear and exposure settings. Yes, I have used software such as Gigapixel AI to improve sharpness beyond what was captured with the lens, but while the results can be acceptable they are never better than shooting with the appropriate gear in the first place.

But what about subjects that require a fast shutter speed to freeze motion? No amount of "computational photography" either in camera or in post will be able to fix the blur caused by an image that was captured at too slow of a shutter speed for the subject.

Or subjects that require a slow shutter speed (on the order of 5 minutes)? Things are actually changing in time over that exposure duration within the frame that can't be fixed or emulated with "computational photography". It isn't a question of applying some sort of "blur" filter to the image or parts of the image, the actual content of the image changes in a way that can never be replicated, approximated, or emulated via software.

Or what about lighting? iPhone "portrait" lighting effects are crap compared to actual studio lighting. Even if you envision some future software ability where you could have a 3D model of your subject and could then place lights with specific modifiers within this 3D space, the initial file captured with an iPhone would be of such poor quality that this hypothetical modeling system would still produce inferior results. To ground this back in reality, no phone camera currently has anything approaching the ability to do this and I don't see this changing in the next 5 years. Lighting is an art unto itself. "Computational photography" can't address this now and isn't likely to be able to do this in the foreseeable future.

Or what about "niche" lenses like tilt/shift lenses. In theory, the tilt part could be replicated via software, but the shift part couldn't be. Ever. It is literally impossible.

The basic problem with your argument is that regardless of future software improvements, the quality of the initial file is still paramount. Garbage in = garbage out. Only so much can be done with poor initial data.

I get that you want to place your faith in "future technology" replacing traditional photography. For what you shoot, this might actually be possible. But "computational photography" will *never* replace traditional photography for some applications. And I would argue further that this doesn't solely apply to the realm of "niche" photography.

It goes back to the argument of "good enough". For some, computational photography will be "good enough". For others, it won't. But it is a serious mistake to assume that your opinion regarding the current and future abilities of "computational photography" (presumably related to your photography experience and shooting style) applies to photographers in general, all photographers, or photography as a discipline/profession/art form.

I reckon shooting on a Nikon D850 with two out of the three ‘holy Trinity’ lenses is good enough for me to comment isn’t it?

I said that this is the ‘beginning of the end’, not that it was the end just yet.

Within its first few steps, computational photography is doing some amazing things. Try replicating something like night mode using the D850 and you’d be pushed to match it in certain situations. In other situations, the camera will eat it anything a phone can currently do.

mirrorless is already pushing DSLR’s to the sidelines and phones are doing the same.

tilt/shift lenses have their place, but are hardly common even with traditional cameras.


long exposures could easily be included, software already exists to a limited extent to do that.

i see the end of mass market cameras for two reasons, first is portability and the second is economic.
Having the phone in your pocket means most wont want to take a camera bag out.
Add to that falling revenues means a lack of investment to keep the gap as wide as it is now.
There will always be a gap in quality and I agree with you on that, but once that gap closes sufficiently then where do the big camera companies go?

 

[LiE_]

Just to keep people updated with my journey, I put the X-T30 order on hold and picked up an iPhone 11 pro to try out within the 14 day period. This way I can actually see how it would work in practice. So far the snapshot style photos I like to take are holding up well on social media, which is where I post these photos.

It's my son's birthday on Saturday where I'll be testing out video and some more challenging conditions (in door kids soft play area).

 

[kallisti]

I reckon shooting on a Nikon D850 with two out of the three ‘holy Trinity’ lenses is good enough for me to comment isn’t it?

I said that this is the ‘beginning of the end’, not that it was the end just yet.

Within its first few steps, computational photography is doing some amazing things. Try replicating something like night mode using the D850 and you’d be pushed to match it in certain situations. In other situations, the camera will eat it anything a phone can currently do.

mirrorless is already pushing DSLR’s to the sidelines and phones are doing the same.

tilt/shift lenses have their place, but are hardly common even with traditional cameras.


long exposures could easily be included, software already exists to a limited extent to do that.

i see the end of mass market cameras for two reasons, first is portability and the second is economic.
Having the phone in your pocket means most wont want to take a camera bag out.
Add to that falling revenues means a lack of investment to keep the gap as wide as it is now.
There will always be a gap in quality and I agree with you on that, but once that gap closes sufficiently then where do the big camera companies go?

I think there are two separate issues that are getting conflated. I agree with you completely that mirrorless may very well replace traditional DSLRs with mirrors. Sony as well as the Nikon Z6/7 are showing that mirrorless can do many things as well and some things better than a traditional digital camera with a mirror. Not quite there yet for some applications, but getting pretty close.

While a mirrorless body counts as computational photography for you, that isn't how I would classify it. You are still using a system with interchangeable lenses that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's just that the body isn't the same. The sensors can be mostly the same between them (for example the Z7 sensor is quite similar to the D850 sensor with the exception of the phase detect elements in the Z7). The RAW files are almost indistinguishable from each other. If the Z7 is an example of computational photography for you, then I would say the D850 is also an example of computational photography.

The other point you are making (and the one that specifically prompted my response) is going in the other direction, implying that software will ever allow a phone camera to equal the output of a dedicated camera. I feel this is pure BS and certainly won't happen in the next 5 years. The smaller sensor size of a phone camera imposes limits on the quantity and quality of data it can record. The tiny lenses on a phone camera impose very real optical limits on the quality of data the sensor can "see". This is physics. Barring groundbreaking breakthroughs in sensor technology, there are very real limits on the quality of data a phone sensor can record.

I agree that phone camera software has made huge strides in recent years. When I look at the RAW files from my iPhone XS Max, I'm extremely impressed with how it generated such "good" JPEGs given the RAW data it had to work with. Apple's engineers should be congratulated on the algorithms they created to make lemonade out of lemons. Having said that, the IQ of images from my iPhone are never equal to images I would get with a dedicated camera

I don't think it necessarily follows that because phone image quality has improved so much in the last 5 years that it will continue to increase at the same pace into the future. More likely, there will be a plateau where a limit is reached on what can be achieved with poor sensor data from a phone camera.

There are software "tricks" that can be used currently in post to combine multiple images into a single image that has better sharpness, a larger DOF, better dynamic range, etc. All of these methods rely upon good source data to really work well. Something that the poor source data of a phone camera will make more challenging. There are also subjects/image types that require very specific lenses or exposure variables to create. Some images will never be able to be created via software emulation--they have specific requirements at the time of capture that can't be "fixed" via software either in camera or in post. I provided some examples in my previous post.

I will go back to my statement regarding "good enough". For some people (many people?), phone cameras are "good enough", either now or they will be in the near future. That's fine. But some images have requirements that will never be possible to emulate via software and can only be obtained with a dedicated camera and appropriate lens, getting it right at the time of capture.

I agree with you that mirrorless will likely replace mirrored cameras in the near future. I do not agree with you that phone cameras will replace mirrorless (or mirrored) cameras in the near future. Some images simply cannot be achieved with "computational photography" (meaning poor initial data but "fixed" via software algorithms either in camera or in post).
[automerge]1571194176[/automerge]

Just to keep people updated with my journey, I put the X-T30 order on hold and picked up an iPhone 11 pro to try out within the 14 day period. This way I can actually see how it would work in practice. So far the snapshot style photos I like to take are holding up well on social media, which is where I post these photos.

It's my son's birthday on Saturday where I'll be testing out video and some more challenging conditions (in door kids soft play area).

Awesome! Sounds like a good plan

 

[LiE_]

Testing out the iPhone 11 pro camera this morning on my dog walk. Normally I cannot take my camera because my dog needs to be on the lead at all times so it's nice to take a few shots.

Some thoughts.
- Photos look good on my phone and will not doubt look better on smaller screens/instagram/etc. On my Mac, as soon as you open them in Photos on my 4K monitor you can see the lack of detail and sharpness, which is to be expected.
- Taking photos with a smartphone isn't as satisfying as using a dedicated camera, each photo doesn't feel as crafted.
- The speed at which I can get access to the photos is really good.
- I haven't figured out the best way to do edits on the photos. I don't like that all the 3rd party editors make copies of the photo instead of making non-destructive edits to the originals. Lightroom mobile is the worst, it exports to it's own folder so you lose the timeline of the photo in the main photos view.

Here are some photos straight out of camera. Nothing fancy but it can be a good for comparisons.

I would normally edit photos in RAW using Lightroom. I think with a few small edits the photos would look pretty good when sharing online.

 

[LiE_]

Just run them through some of my standard pre-sets I've built over time in Lightroom to see what results I can get.

 

[Moakesy]

Just run them through some of my standard pre-sets I've built over time in Lightroom to see what results I can get.

Some really nice shots in there and good to see the post edit versions for comparison. Thanks for posting.

So, the £64,000 question (and one of great interest to me).....do you feel it's a viable alternative to your Fuji X-E2s ? Under what scenario can you see yourself reaching for the Fuji?

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

If you really want to experiment, you can shoot RAW on the iPhone. I believe you can do so through LR mobile, or camera apps like ProCam also work. This obviously takes up more space on your phone since each image is uncompressed.

 

[mollyc]

If you really want to experiment, you can shoot RAW on the iPhone. I believe you can do so through LR mobile, or camera apps like ProCam also work. This obviously takes up more space on your phone since each image is uncompressed.

Yes, I shoot raw through LR on my phone. But it still doesn't compare with a dedicated camera, IMO. The raw colors are so flat through my phone (8+). Although I imagine the 11 camera is more sophisticated.

 

[LiE_]

If you really want to experiment, you can shoot RAW on the iPhone. I believe you can do so through LR mobile, or camera apps like ProCam also work. This obviously takes up more space on your phone since each image is uncompressed.

I have done this a few times, but the RAW file isn't the easiest to work with. You don't get all that computational/bracketing wizardry when using the camera to capture RAW data. Just shows how well the native camera app handles the RAW data to produce the images it does.

Some really nice shots in there and good to see the post edit versions for comparison. Thanks for posting.

So, the £64,000 question (and one of great interest to me).....do you feel it's a viable alternative to your Fuji X-E2s ? Under what scenario can you see yourself reaching for the Fuji?

The sticking point for me at the moment is I really like the photos I can get from my Fuji.

I like to take quick snaps of products I buy for posting and this allows for a good comparison. Just something so pleasing about the Fuji photos.

I have some challenging situations to shot this weekend with my son's birthday which may sway me in a certain direction.

 

[Moakesy]

I have some challenging situations to shot this weekend with my son's birthday which may sway me in a certain direction.

I'll await with interest.

 

[PrecisionGem]

While the camera on phones keep getting better every year, I don't think they will ever replace a dedicated camera with interchangeable lens. Sure the new iPhone has 3 lens, but they are not that far apart from each other.
Here's two photos I took last month with my Nikon D750. Both were shot with the same zoom lens, form the same location, one at each extreme. Nothing on a phone could come close to this range. You don't even see the boat in the first image.

 

[LiE_]

So final update.

I've decided to keep the iPhone 11 pro and no longer use a dedicated camera. The iPhone 11 pro takes some really good photos and most importantly captures the moment. I would say 95% of my photos are of my family and our adventures, I just don't do "photography" unless there is an opportunity on one of our outings.

The video on the iPhone 11 pro is stunning, I've found myself using this quite a lot to capture something instead of having to use photos.

I always have my phone on me so I feel like I can always capture what I need to and be happy with the output. Phones will always be getting better each year and I'll be more likely to upgrade where as I cannot invest money into a camera I barely use.

 

[mtbdudex]

I upgraded from a 7+ to a 11Pro and what a night and day difference!
Truly, I still have my Canon 70D plus it's lens, 70-200 f2.8, 11-16 UWA, and a few more ...
But besides low light outdoor sports, like soccer, or my night astrophotography where I take 100's of images and stack them, I'm using the 11Pro exclusively now.

Even it's 0.5 zoom makes a big difference when indoors and can't back up anymore.

Sort of...

I thought about doing it two years ago when my son was born. My DSLR was outdated and I had been on a hiatus from photography for a few years, and the iPhone 7 Plus with its dual-lens system seemed versatile in ways that smartphone cameras hadn't been before. I used the iPhone like crazy, but ultimately upgraded my DSLR. At first it didn't seem like a huge deal, but it quickly became clear that in anything but absolutely perfect light the iPhone's photos appeared a bit blotchy, lacking fine detail and tonal transitions. I regret that the only newborn photos I have of my son are iPhone photos. They're better than nothing, but when my second child was born I brought the "real" camera with me, and comparing the two, it's a night-and-day difference.

I still use my iPhone very heavily, but it has become my dedicated video camera instead... and that's largely due to the H.265 compression on the videos. If my "real" camera did H.265 as well there's a good chance that it would be my primary video camera, too.

The iPhone 11 Pro looks very nice, and I am very tempted to upgrade my 7 Plus for the video options that three lenses would afford. I have no doubt that the phone also handles better in less than perfect lighting, but honestly I'd be shocked if the photos didn't lose detail quickly once lighting became less than perfect. I do not intend to replace my camera with it. I don't mind carrying my camera with me to most places; I would hope that the iPhone 11 Pro would make me feel better about leaving my "real" camera at home a bit more often, but I wouldn't hope for more than that.

But as usual, YMMV and all that. Most of my photography is done indoors these days, in fairly poor lighting. I also have a toddler, and rely on extremely quick autofocus. I'm fairly certain the iPhone won't perform well for me - not for the quality I've come to expect from my photos. But if you're primarily photographing in bright conditions, and/or you find it a hassle to take out your camera (whether due to size/weight or workflow), then it's just a waste. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you. I'd add, "the one you end up using" to that saying as well. The 11 Pro is easily the best camera system Apple has included in their portables, and three lens options are incredibly nice.

100% agree the best camera is the one you have with you, which for most of us also is a smartphone.
Now with that said, I am thinking of maybe 1 more generation of DSLR, like the new 90D or possible a FF 6MkII .....

We've all heard it said that the best camera is the one you have with you. And that's true, but sometimes it's more about the fastest, most convenient tool. That can very even between phone models.

Case in point: last weekend my Miata club took a drive to a steam train roundhouse for a tour. My nephew and brother-in-law meet us there. Our tour guide asked for a volunteer to ring the bell, and my nephew volunteered and walked up to the train. I could see my partner, his brother, and I all gave expectantly and then remember, "We need to record this!" We all fumbled for our phones, but I was able to get my iPhone 11 Pro Max out and was ready to snap, but it was a video moment and not a photo moment. I suddenly recalled a review I'd seen that mentioned the ability to touch the shutter button and slide it over to start taking video quickly. I was the only one who got the video (partner has a 7 Plus, brother-in-law uses a Google phone).

I used to have a DSLR and would take it on events like this. But the changing of lenses, heavy equipment bag, lens focus noise during videos...the iPhone has been meeting my needs for years now. I'm not a pro, but I take some damned nice pics with my iPhone.

 

[Ledgem]

I've decided to keep the iPhone 11 pro and no longer use a dedicated camera. The iPhone 11 pro takes some really good photos and most importantly captures the moment. I would say 95% of my photos are of my family and our adventures, I just don't do "photography" unless there is an opportunity on one of our outings.

The video on the iPhone 11 pro is stunning, I've found myself using this quite a lot to capture something instead of having to use photos.

Thanks for the update. I would say that the one lament I have about using my camera over my iPhone is the lack of "Live Photos," which is actually a really nice feature and certainly makes the moment a bit more memorable. My camera has a dedicated button to start video recording - no need to change modes or do any menu diving - and I thought it was a waste of a button until I realized how much video I was doing. The only reason I still reach for my iPhone over my camera for video is because of HEVC (H.265) compression over H.264; videos with the iPhone are almost half the file size of my camera. There's no doubt the videos with the camera have a more "cinematic" appearance due to the more shallow depth of field, though, which is a blessing and a curse in itself. The camera can also take videos in much lower light than my iPhone (7 Plus).

I still have my doubts that the iPhone 11 Pro would make me feel any less enthusiastic about bringing my camera out, but your post makes me think that it might be worth trading my 7 Plus in for an 11 Pro instead of waiting for another generation...

All the best to you and your family!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Thanks for the update. I would say that the one lament I have about using my camera over my iPhone is the lack of "Live Photos," which is actually a really nice feature and certainly makes the moment a bit more memorable. My camera has a dedicated button to start video recording - no need to change modes or do any menu diving - and I thought it was a waste of a button until I realized how much video I was doing. The only reason I still reach for my iPhone over my camera for video is because of HEVC (H.265) compression over H.264; videos with the iPhone are almost half the file size of my camera. There's no doubt the videos with the camera have a more "cinematic" appearance due to the more shallow depth of field, though, which is a blessing and a curse in itself. The camera can also take videos in much lower light than my iPhone (7 Plus).

I still have my doubts that the iPhone 11 Pro would make me feel any less enthusiastic about bringing my camera out, but your post makes me think that it might be worth trading my 7 Plus in for an 11 Pro instead of waiting for another generation...

All the best to you and your family!

From what I’ve heard, the iPhone 11 camera upgrade is enough of an improvement for even the XR buyers.

 

[eyeseeyou]

Admittingly over 90% of my photos will never go to print or be viewed on a large hi-definition monitor. I'm also not a professional and don't particularly enjoy lugging around a DSLR which is why I recently sold it.

For my use, the latest iPhone will do the job in most scenarios(although I wish I could've afforded the PRO with the 2 tele lens) but I keep the G7X II for low light, optical zoom required situations.

 

[Ledgem]

From what I’ve heard, the iPhone 11 camera upgrade is enough of an improvement for even the XR buyers.

That's impressive, indeed.

I'm also impressed @lifeisepic was able to get an 11 Pro (assuming he didn't pre-order it). My local Apple stores are still out of stock of all colors and storage sizes. It's been quite popular - or Apple just kept numbers limited, I suppose.

I guess the even more impressive thing is that the iPhone 11 photos should get even better once iOS 13.2 is released. That's the release when the "deep fusion" feature is supposed to be enabled. Many of the reviews on the iPhone 11 Pro's camera compared to the Pixel 4 and such seem to talk about deep fusion but with some of them it seems that they're not aware that it isn't even functioning yet. As it is the photos seem to be roughly equal; if the deep fusion claims are true, then the iPhone's photos are really going to blow away the competition.

 

[akash.nu]

That's impressive, indeed.

I'm also impressed @lifeisepic was able to get an 11 Pro (assuming he didn't pre-order it). My local Apple stores are still out of stock of all colors and storage sizes. It's been quite popular - or Apple just kept numbers limited, I suppose.

I guess the even more impressive thing is that the iPhone 11 photos should get even better once iOS 13.2 is released. That's the release when the "deep fusion" feature is supposed to be enabled. Many of the reviews on the iPhone 11 Pro's camera compared to the Pixel 4 and such seem to talk about deep fusion but with some of them it seems that they're not aware that it isn't even functioning yet. As it is the photos seem to be roughly equal; if the deep fusion claims are true, then the iPhone's photos are really going to blow away the competition.

Just to help take the leap. Here’s an awesome video describing the difference between pictures on iPhone 11 Pro and a DSLR.

 

[LiE_]

I saw that video, very impressed.

Also Peter McKinnon posted his short film yesterday and took all of his photos with the 11 pro.

One of those photos from his Instagram.

http://instagr.am/p/B39-z60AOxR/

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I dunno, to some extent, when you have the right scene and/or conditions, the type of camera can be less a factor. For example, I took this with with an LG G4, while holding a squirmy toddler.

 

[Ray2]

And of course even some situations stump smart phone cameras. This seems like it should be solved computationally pretty easily, but I guess not.

Machines do what they’re instructed to do. Mass market consumer products companies program for their mass market audience. That does not breed creativity. It does breed what the masses are looking for. What you got. What you would have done would be just as meaningless to that audience.

Oh, but I can use a fully manual camera app! And you probably own and use a real camera.

 

[Matteo[V]]

The thought of selling my canon 77d knocked on my door for one second ... ooooonly one second because iphone 11 pro is nice for camera day but there are a lot of limits when you need to force setting so...