Ladislav Soukup The megapixel war for compact cameras is already a common practice, but mobile phones have not participated much. Most mobile phones stay relatively low in terms of megapixels and end up around 8 Mpix. But what is really important for quality photos? Is 41 Mpix really needed?
Sensors
The type and resolution of the sensor are certainly important, but only to a certain extent. The quality of the optical part also plays a big role, which is the biggest problem with mobile phones. If the optics are not of high quality, even a resolution of 100 Mpix will not save you. On the other hand, behind high-quality optics, a sensor with a higher resolution can simply show off. Another important indicator besides resolution is the type of sensor as well as the construction of individual photocells.
An interesting technology is Back-illuminated sensor, which Apple has used since the iPhone 4. The advantage is that this type of sensor can capture approximately 90% of photons, instead of the usual approximately 60% for a classic CMOS sensor. This greatly reduced the level of digital noise that CMOS sensors generally suffer from. Which is another essential indicator of quality. In poor lighting conditions, noise appears very quickly in the image and can greatly degrade the quality of the photo. And the more megapixels in a small space (or the smaller the sensor cell), the more noticeable the noise, which is also the main reason why photomobiles generally stick to the ground in the megapixel war, and Apple stuck to 4 Mpix with the iPhone 5 and only with the iPhone 4S did it switch to 8 Mpix, where the iPhone 5 remained.
Let's sharpen
The ability of the optics to focus is also very important... in the distant past (iPhone 3G) the lens was fixed and the focus was fixed at a specific distance - mostly at the hyperfocal distance (ie the depth of field ends exactly at infinity and starts as close to the camera as possible) . Today, the vast majority of camera phones have switched to optics capable of focusing, Apple did so with the iPhone 3GS with iOS 4.
Digital camera
Another important part is the image processor, which takes care of interpreting the data from the sensor into the resulting image. Owners of digital SLR cameras are probably already familiar with the RAW format, which "bypasses" this processor and replaces it only with software on a computer (but nowadays also on tablets). The image processor has several tasks - remove noise (software), balance white (so that the color tones correspond to reality - it depends on the lighting in the photo), play with the tonality of the colors in the photo (green and blue saturation is added for landscapes, etc...) , correct the contrast of the photo and other minor adjustments.
There are also sensors that have exactly that 40 Mpix and use a "trick" to reduce noise... Each pixel is interpolated from multiple photocells (pixels on the sensor) and the image processor tries to hit the right color and intensity for that pixel. This usually works. Apple has not yet approached similar techniques, and so it remains among the better ones. Another interesting trick appeared relatively recently (and has not yet been used in practice with any photomobile) – Dual ISO. This means that half of the sensor scans with maximum sensitivity and the other half with minimum sensitivity, and again the resulting pixel is interpolated using the image processor – this method has probably the best noise suppression results so far.
Zoom
The zoom is also a practical feature, but unfortunately it is not optical on mobile phones, but usually only digital. Optical zoom is obviously better - there is no image degradation. Digital zoom works like ordinary photo cropping, i.e. the edges are cropped and the image then appears enlarged; unfortunately at the expense of quality. Some manufacturers go the way of 40 Mpix sensors, on which digital cropping is easier - there is a lot to take from it. The resulting photo is then converted from high resolution to the level of roughly 8 Mpix.
[do action=”citation”]A good photograph is not made by the camera, but by the photographer.[/do]
Although in this case there will be no fundamental degradation of resolution (after saving, the photo is always smaller than the real number of points on the sensor), there will be a degradation at the sensor level, where the individual points are smaller and thus less sensitive to light, which unfortunately means more noise. But in general it's not a bad way and it makes sense. We'll see if Apple follows suit with a new iPhone. Fortunately for the iPhone, there are quite a few removable lenses that can add optical zoom with minimal impact on quality – of course, a lot depends on the quality of the optical elements.
Blesk
For taking photos in the dark, most mobile phones today already use a "flash", i.e. a white LED diode, or a xenon flash. In many cases it works and helps, but in photography in general, on-axis flash is considered the worst atrocity. On the other hand, the use of an external flash (larger and heavier than the mobile phone) is quite impractical, so off-axis flash will remain the domain of semi-professional and professional photographers in the DSLR category for a long time. But that doesn't mean that the iPhone can't be used for portrait photography at a professional level. After all, take a look for yourself at professional photography with the iPhone 3GS.
[youtube id=TOoGjtSy7xY width=”600″ height=”350″]
Image quality
Which brings us to the general problem: "I can't take such a good photo without an expensive camera." Wrong. You can. A good photograph is not made by the camera, but by the photographer. A digital SLR camera with an expensive quality lens will always be better than a mobile phone, but only in the hands of an experienced photographer. A good photographer will take a better photo with a mobile phone than most non-photographers with an expensive SLR camera - often also from a technical point of view.
We share pictures
In addition, a great advantage of smartphones and iOS in general is the large number of applications for editing photos and their easy and quick sharing, which iOS itself is constantly improving and expanding. The result is that the photo from the iPhone is ready and shared in a few minutes, while the journey from the SLR camera to social networks takes several hours (including the journey home and processing). The results are often very similar.
The built-in app in iOS is quite capable on its own. For more demanding users, there is again a large group of applications aimed at more advanced users with a greater range of options. The application offers probably the most possibilities PureShot, whose review we are preparing for you. We then have a second set of applications available for photo editing. A separate group are applications that support both taking photos and subsequent editing - for example, excellent Camera +.
Perhaps the only limitation of the iPhone is focus… that is, the ability to focus manually. There are photos when the otherwise very good autofocus fails and it is then up to the skill of the photographer to "bypass" the limitations and take the photo. Yes, I would have taken a better photo with less noise with a SLR camera and a macro lens, but when comparing the iPhone and a "regular" compact camera, the results are already very close, and the iPhone usually wins because of the ability to process and share the photo immediately.
Personally, I think it is excessive to compare a professional photographer with an iPhone VS an inexperienced user with a professional SLR camera. If someone buys a semi-professional SLR with a quality lens, it is not a beginner, but at least. an amateur who will have 100x better photos than a professional photographer with an iPhone. It is not for nothing that I protested in one of the photographers' journals that they should use iPhones instead of SLRs and that they are ashamed of their work. Anyone who has seen the comparison of the photos from the report iP VS SLR knows very well how quickly the quality dropped. In the video in the article, the photographer gets an iPhone for the photo shoot, but he is no longer forbidden to use the studio's expensive equipment, including the beautiful model :D I wonder how he would react if he had to take pictures at night only under the moon and stars - well, that would be a catastrophic result ;-)
In that journal, it's not the photographers but the editors who are scolding them for having to take pictures with an iPhone because the photographer threw away the journal. I know several amateurs who have bought quite expensive SLR cameras and their photos are several classes worse than those taken with the iPhone.
I still stand by mine, that the comparisons are absurd and I only stick to extremes. An apt saying in this case: He who wants to beat a dog will always find a stick.
The lens I use is for shooting sports, where the photographer stands from a greater distance and the lighting conditions are not ideal -> iP in the hands of a professional VS Nikon D600 in the hands of an amateur with sequential shooting
Difference? Abyssal in favor of the amateur. Hul can always be found ;-)
So yes, it's a bit over the top, but not too much. I met a lot of people with photo equipment for 100000 and more, but without the slightest knowledge. Yes, there aren't many of them (if I don't count Japanese tourists), but they are there.
Otherwise, a video photographer wouldn't shoot many things with a SLR camera without studio light either.. know that a lot of stylized outdoor photography can also be done with an iPhone and as a result it may not be so visible... Yes, a professional will not photograph a paid job with a mobile phone (if not paid by the phone manufacturer), but in general it is possible and a lot of photographers in their free time prove that it is possible :)
but it's more about the fact that the following applies: "the best camera is the one I have with me" - an SLR camera at home is very useful to me... and I have my mobile phone with me almost all the time :)
It's wonderful to hear these words, for example, from a photographer who, in the finale, wants to buy a Canon 5D Mark III instead of the Mark II, which he originally owned.
Demagoguery to the nth :-) Here again someone is trying to tell us that iPhone photos are equal to photos from a photo camera. the mobile phone will never have the optics, the diameter of the lens and the size of the chip as the camera has. NEVER.
And from a single-purpose application to a selected type of quick effect, editing on a PC is evened out. The sentence that bothers me the most is this sentence: "The results are often very similar." LOL, so if you have a lot of work in your hands and head, editing on a computer won't save it, that's a fact. and even a super-cool vintage effect from some stupid app won't save it. it will just be a photo. i.e. an app like Camera+ will never be comparable to Aperture or Photoshop. Simply NEVER.
Just. It's not the same player, it's not even the same league. This is a completely different sport! The only thing I know is that for a secret photo shoot, where I would be kicked out with a SLR camera, I can't take it to the beach, etc., or just for an emergency that I want to quickly share on the web. final album, but I'll want it from a SLR camera, I won't talk about that.
Are you not allowed on the beach with a SLR camera? I must have been in the world for a few years before I encountered this ban. For me, the emergency photo is this one -> to take a picture of a broken car door, yes, the iP served well for this purpose.
Yes. And 640 KB of memory must be enough for everyone... ;-)
The iPhone 5 and generally more decent mobile phones can really capture similar things in the hands of an amateur as ordinary compacts. An ordinary user usually does not shoot in RAW, does not play with aperture and depth of field, and the resolution and noise levels are usually sufficient for the purposes such a user needs (sharing on FB, a few emails, some web presentation, some small-format photo). So, even if it's nice to masturbate over the quality of an SLR, the truth is that for such "home use by a regular user" a phone that takes decent photos is a fully sufficient alternative. In fact, the quality of what comes out of today's phones is much better (if I ignore the depth of field) than, for example, from professional film cameras at the time when Leica made them famous, and even though we still admire the photos from those machines. I say this with full responsibility and as someone who takes pictures with them.
With a large camera, one gains image quality, but sacrifices far more important parameters for many people – readiness, availability and ease of use. And the choice is not between having a higher quality photo and a photo of less technical quality, but between having a photo or not taking a photo at all.
Even though I have Hasselblads and other medium formats at home, Leicas, MarkIIs with a bunch of L lenses, I take most of the photos with the iPhone simply because it's at hand when I need it...always...not just when I think in advance that I'm going to take pictures NOW. The quality of the photo is then just a matter of photographic skill and a little practice.
Yes you are right. those two paragraphs contain a bit of my original thought. te compliance and readiness. and yes, a virtuoso can play even a bad instrument. No doubt about it.
You write about skills including photo quality and then you own a Mark II, which is completely contradictory.
You are probably allergic to similar articles.
>"Here again someone is trying to tell us that iPhone photos are equal to photos from a photo camera".
I read the article in its entirety and nothing came of it. In my opinion, the author summarized quite well what can be done with a mobile phone and what are its real advantages and disadvantages.
I think every reasonable person will understand that a mobile phone cannot be compared to a DSLR. But modern mobile phones are already good enough to take a good photo with them - for casual use at home, on trips... And I completely agree with the opinion that a good photo is mainly taken by the photographer.
the best camera is always the one you have with you when you need to take a photo... it's usually not a dslr ;o)
The most important factor for the technical quality of the photo is the physical size of the chip together with quality optics. The number of pixels should be proportionate to the physical size of the chip.