David Hanak Professional photographer Austin Mann published a fairly comprehensive review of the new iPhone's photographic capabilities on his website. He took the iPhone X on his trip to Guatemala and took pictures and pictures and pictures (he even recorded some video in between). He published the results on your blog and given the quality of the review, it is spreading across Apple sites like an avalanche. About his article Tim Cook also tweeted, who used it a bit for advertising. However, this does not change the fact that it is a very well done job.
It could be interest you
Dan Pražák In addition to photos, the test contains quite a lot of text. The author focuses individually on the capabilities of the camera, camera, microphone, photo modes, etc. In the text, he often compares the new product with the iPhone 8 Plus, which he also used.
It could be interest you
He appreciates the novelty, for example, of the support for optical image stabilization, which is available here for both main lenses (unlike the iPhone 8 Plus, where only one lens is equipped with optical stabilization). As a result, the photos are of significantly higher quality, easier to take and cope better with low-light environments. This also applies to the front-facing Face Time camera and the Portrait Lightning mode, which works surprisingly well in low light.
The front camera contains only one lens, so the Portrait Lightning mode is helped by the Face ID system, or its infrared emitter that scans the faces in front of it and passes this information on to the software, which can then pull out the right subject. It is thus possible to take portrait photos in such lighting conditions, in which the classic two-lens solution would not work at all due to the lack of light.
It could be interest you
Patrik Siwek In addition to photographic abilities, the author also praises the quality of sound recording. Although almost no one mentions it, the microphones in the new iPhone X are said to be significantly better than those in previous models. Although, according to Apple's official statement, it is the same hardware, in this case they managed to fine-tune it better. You can find more details in the review <a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1932/8043/files/200721_ODSTOUPENI_BEZ_UDANI_DUVODU__EN.pdf?v=1595428404" data-gt-href-en="https://en.notsofunnyany.com/">here</a>. If you're primarily interested in the iPhone X as a camera phone, this is a very good read.
Source: Austin mann
It will never take good pictures with 12MPX. It really is all about the pixels. Quality optics too, but why would you need a Bentley 1,6TDI????
??? An expert will recognize this immediately. You will be surprised, but the pixels are the last thing that affects it. There were even professional devices with fewer pixels, can you believe it? ?
for that price it should be 50mpix!!!!! UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE WRONG - PIXELS ARE WHAT THE EPL ARE BUILDING ON A SWAMP FOR THE BASE BUILDING….
He won't pick up a brick, but he's an expert at his word. Such a Mr. Lorenc in a Bentley.
Now seriously. I have been involved in photography for many years and I can state with a calm heart that you are spouting nonsense. This is exactly how the marketing materials of mobile phone sellers spoke during the hunt for the resolution of cameras in mobile phones. The pixels are fine, but the resolution should be proportional to the quality of the optics and the size of the sensor. Just for the sake of interest, try to compare photos from e.g. Nikon D700 or D3 (also 12 Mpx) with a quality lens against any "photo-mobile" with the same or higher resolution. You might wonder how it is possible that the professional SLR takes better pictures when the engine is only "1.6TDI". This is not to say that today's mobile phones take bad pictures. Most of the photos end up on the internet anyway, where the resolution is significantly reduced and then the untrained eye can hardly tell the difference. I just wanted to make my colleague Lorenc think. It's no good trying to speak "sophisticatedly" about something you don't understand. He then looks, with forgiveness, like a fool.
OH YEAH ONE MORE TIME. I JUST NOTE THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER!!!
THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE QUALITY OF A PHOTO. THE FIRST AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS THE NUMBER OF PIXELS, THEN OF COURSE OPTICS, STABILIZATION ETC ETC.
DEAR LORD IF YOU HAVE A 1 MPX CAMERA THEN EVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN'T HELP YOU
WHY EPL CHOOSES THE WAY THAT 12 IS SUPER? IT'S SIMPLE-EPL CHIPS AND CORE ARE NOTHING POWERFUL AND PROCESSING A 23 MPIX PHOTO WOULD TAKE A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY FOR THE CHIP. SO WHY DO THIS? ALWAYS 99% OF PEOPLE ONLY SEE THE PHOTO ON THE PHONE DISPLAY.
I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU TO OPEN YOUR IPHONE PHOTOS IN YOUR PC AND THEN WRITE A TECHNICAL ARTICLE ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY AND NOT FEED PEOPLE NONSENSE. IT'S POSSIBLE YOU LIVE IN LEGOLAND-SO SORRY ABOUT THAT-THERE IS AN IPHONE WITH A CAMERA AT HOME!!!
I HAVE AN IPHONE X AND IT IS GREAT - EXCEPT FOR THE PHOTO WHERE THE IMAGE IS NOISED EVEN IN THE DAY.
WHY MAKE A HIGHER-QUALITY PHOTO WHEN THE PR DEPARTMENT OF APPLE CLEARLY SAYS: THERE IS STILL TIME FOR THE IPHONE Xs TO HAVE A 3% BIGGER BATTERY AND AN ULTRASUPER 12,8 MPX PHOTO IN A YEAR. PEOPLE REALLY EAT EVERYTHING.
BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF I LOOK AT THE LEGO BRICK FROM 2 KM, IT IS BEAUTIFUL AND ROUND AND WITHOUT A ERROR. BUT FROM 20CM IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
IF YOU TAKE PICTURES, TAKE PICTURES OF FAMILY CELEBRATIONS WITH GRANDMOTHERS AND FRIENDS' BIRTHDAYS AT THE PUB, AS YOU HAVE BEFORE, AND THERE YOU CAN FEED THEM WITH VERSIONS THAT THE LESS PIXELS THE BETTER.
I AM SORRY FOR YOU.
PS: DID YOU KNOW THAT KONOFILM 35MM HAD ABOUT 30 MPX?
MOVIE - THAT'S WHAT FILMS USED TO BE MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW? MAYBE JUST FOR INTERESTING: ARABELA WAS NOT FILMED WITH AN IPHONE BUT AN ARRI, BUT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ANYWAY, SO YOU SHOULD GO TO THE NEAREST PUB TO GIVE OUT PICTURES….
:D lol lol
leave him alone guys, he was just in the sun for too long and he's quite a PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER who drives a Bentley.. The rest of us will just settle for a 12 MPx iPhone and drive around in a Skoda
I don't have a Bentley yet, but I do have a noble car - a Jaguar, even a 3.
But I'm not going to brag, I'm just pointing out that everything runs on gasoline, no diesel, because I also understand engines
Did you even read what I wrote? In one sentence you prove me right and in the second you deny everything. I didn't say that a lower resolution means a better photo. Only that the resolution should be proportional to the rest of the assembly. I too have spent quite a bit of time in the darkroom, but you've obviously never come out of it. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to spawn such nonsense without head and heels. Before you start writing another passionate answer, try to sort out your thoughts and also study something about the technology of today's sensors and what effect the pixel density has on the quality (especially noise). A larger sensor with the same resolution can tolerate far worse lighting conditions. I hope you will not oppose me as a professional photographer.
Man, you're a good fool. And tell about yourself that you are a professional photographer? You don't even know how to spell it. :-))) You understand photography like a goat knows parsley and it can be seen in what you write. A professional photographer does not care about the number of pixels or stabilization. You're a piece of bull who's only embarrassing himself here. And you can write it in big letters, even bold, but you are completely transparent. You don't understand photography at all - you just came here to play smart and argue. Poor guy, I feel sorry for you.
Allow me to comment. It's about pixels up to a certain limit. Sure, 1mpix is relatively small, but once you reach a certain limit, the number of pixels really doesn't matter anymore. What is important is how big this number is on the chip, i.e. how big the pixels are. If the chip is miniature, there is no point in chasing the number, for 99% of users it really won't do anything. If we have a big enough chip, a reasonable number of pixels, then it's all about glass! That's why camera bodies are also falling in price very quickly, while GOOD lenses are many times more expensive than the body and the price is almost not falling at all.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you.
SO IF SOMEONE WRITE SUCH A FALSE THEN IT SHOULD BE CRIMINAL!!
IT'S LIKE WRITING FROM MIT FOR A PAYMENT OF STACI 5000, OROTOSE IT'S SOMETIMES MORE THAN 100.000
GOD GOD
SO MANY FOOLS COME HERE WHO THINK THAT 1 PIXEL IS LIKE 30 LEOSI BECAUSE IT IS APPLE WATER
SO IF SOMEONE WRITE SUCH A FALSE THEN IT SHOULD BE CRIMINAL!!
IT'S LIKE WRITING FROM MIT FOR A PAYMENT OF STACI 5000, OROTOSE IT'S SOMETIMES MORE THAN 100.000
GOD GOD
SO MANY FOOLS COME HERE WHO THINK THAT 1 PIXEL IS LIKE 30 LEOSI BECAUSE IT IS APPLE WATER
Is it worth embarrassing yourself like this? You don't read (or understand) what others write, you react to things that arose only in your head, and you know absolutely nothing about the given issue. I assume you only came to bash Apple and argue in the discussion. Please do others a favor and go somewhere else with these spills.
Bentlik is just a bitch who came here to argue, because I still don't understand anything here. If it was about cars, he would be a racer, if it were about airplanes, he would be a world champion in aerial aerobatics, etc. You mustn't see this in him. Unless it was about shit - I wouldn't deny his championship. ?
It's interesting how many experts and professionals with years of experience will mix the fifth through the ninth just to defend their opinion.