15 ms·

iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

167 points by florianmari 6y ago

jseliger 6y ago
In some ways, this feels like the reviews of the last couple of generations of iPhone: it can work really well in very good light and at typical web resolutions. The photo of the woman in the parka is very impressive as a technical demonstration but is also pretty blurry/smeared, to my eye. As an only camera, it's probably the best or near the best of the phones.
- zobzu 6y ago
  I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and that's great, but let's not fool ourselves ;-) I'm also curious what the max will look like - though at the size and price it's difficult to say if buying a RX100 and a cheaper phone isn't a better option still, for many.
  - ssijak 6y ago
    What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? I would say that more people will prefer the phone photo, unless you edit the dslr photo (which phone is doing automatically unless you shoot RAW on iPhone).
    - zobzu 6y ago
      the picture we're talking about is taken at night, and looks like a painting, this has nothing to do with bokeh or the need to edit a picture taken with a large sensor mirrorless camera
    - grecy 6y ago
      I would guess close to 0% of people, IFF we're looking at the photos side by side on a phone screen, or maybe a crappy laptop screen. Put them both on a hi-res display, or HD TV or (even better) print them out in large format. Then there's no comparison. So it really comes down to how is the photo going to be used. And for 99% of photos taken these days, viewing it on a small screen is the purpose, so the phone camera is perfectly good enough.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        For this picture specifically, which is the one OP was talking about: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03adec668905b/1603176722265-H0FSBKFAMQV25X9PEFHX/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kOT4XFbjPh2wviguHcWSfHx7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z5QHyNOqBUUEtDDsRWrJLTmS0k9nmfOWkBD2X4dgpGrpTPEppH71Jxj5Xy1txktWwN6z35OdSjbl9A5nuJM5etC/IMG_1686.jpg?format=750w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... Yes, anyone could tell the difference between this taken on a dedicated camera and this taken on iPhone. Really, anyone. No matter the resolution. It really does just look like a blurry mess. A cheap 150$ DSLR with a bottom-bargain Chinese or very old lens (at say, F1.4 or lower) would provide significantly better results.
        ssijak 6y ago
        I think that this was the image referenced with the "woman in a park" in the initial post https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03adec668905b/1603178865884-05EVQ5V89D6P01O4OWOD/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kFn01b69qibFV6p4ATINgYx7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z5QHyNOqBUUEtDDsRWrJLTmaHJ0CCIp0h94CjFWATtzumDyWwG6cTlYaiji1mbxg2_decyTpAb-46CnvkjVgn6l/IMG_1301.jpg?format=1500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a...
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Oh, I read "woman in a parka" instead, and in combination with "blurry, smeared" I concluded that it was the image at night.
    - yladiz 6y ago
      I don't know how you would define "better", but if you mean higher quality, I'm certain that most people would be able to pick out the DSLR version in a "blind" test, even if you used the same approx. lens focal length on the DSLR and the phone (e.g. 52mm when comparing to iPhone). I would guess people would prefer the DSLR one, but it's simply a guess (and I'm biased because I know more or less what to look for).
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        I'm not sure if I'd say that most people would be able to tell. But I'm sure photography people would be able to tell. Unless you're a wannabe influencer or a working professional, what matters is not whether other people would be able to tell. Nobody cares about your pictures. What matters is if you can tell, and how it makes you feel.
        jonplackett 6y ago
        I think if you let them zoom in to the edges they'd pick it easily enough. My iPhone always blurs a few little details, little part of a hat sticking out, thinking it's the background.
    - numpad0 6y ago
      There are surprisingly little “cultural” differences between iPhone and dSLR, iPhone shots look like a Nikon at wrong ISO.
    - ValentineC 6y ago
      > What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? As an iPhone 11 Pro + Halide user myself, I daresay a DSLR photo with a decent portrait lens would definitely look better — or at the very least — more natural, than any iPhone photo that relies on "computational photography" fake-bokeh.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    > I think the photo of the woman is terrible This is partly because the flash has blasted her face with light losing all the shape except for an ugly shadow under her nose. With my Nikon I could try at (very) high ISO for a natural-light shot or use an off-camera flash to shape her face in a more flattering way. But perhaps people used to the very flat / boring light common in mirror selfies won't care about this. The blur on the edges of the fur look digitally smeared rather than optically blurred. [edit - okay, I didn't spot that he used off screen light rather than flash. But the effect is similar and hasn't given any pleasing sculpting of the subject. Other processing may have made things worse]
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The blur is actually insane amounts of noise reduction, it's not an attempt at bokeh, I think! You can tell because all other shadows are just as blurred out. I think that it doesn't look flat just because of the flash, but really as a mix of incredibly severe noise reduction as well as a ton of dynamic compression necessary to keep the background in roughly the same exposure.
      - wlesieutre 6y ago
        He says it’s “Portrait mode”, so it does have the fake bokeh on the background in addition to any smoothing from night mode denoising. That’s why he also mentions the depth map for the fuzzy hood.
    - inasio 6y ago
      I don't think there was flash involved in the shot, it says he held another phone on his left hand and used the light from the screen (not flash) as an indirect light source. The washed out look I think is from software averaging to correct motion blur from the 3 second exposure.
    - kristofferR 6y ago
      He didn't use a flash for that image, the only light was from another phone screen. And it was a three second hand-held, it's impressively clear for what it is. > This Portrait mode w/ Night mode 3-second exposure was shot with the iPhone 12 Pro in my right hand. Simultaneously, in my left hand, I held my iPhone 11 Pro and used the light emitting from the screen (not the flash) as an off-camera fill light for Esther’s face.
  - TrainedMonkey 6y ago
    You are correct that a larger sensor would capture more photons, however I think you are not comparing apples to apples. That picture is a snapshot with basically 0 visible light and was made possible by capturing a lot of channels and running a remarkable software enhancement. AFAIK, there is no API to do anything like that with uploaded raw picture (0). So to get a similar quality picture with a larger sensor you will need a long exposure time... and an average human subject shivering in a cold environment will come out way blurrier. Good portraits are usually made by excellent lightning conditions. As a portrait this picture is average, but when you take conditions in the account the result is quite amazing. (0) That is an assumption I am making which might be wrong. You could also definitely do this by hand by investing 100-1000x more time.
  - spike021 6y ago
    It was a 3-second hand-held long exposure in apparently little to no light. I'd say the fact that her features are somewhat defined is pretty decent. It seems the point of it in the first place was to see how well the night mode works in near pitch-darkness for portraits.
  - inasio 6y ago
    This is on a handheld three second exposure in the dark. Not sure you would do much better with an SLR. I have on Olympus OMD EM5 with great OIS and that shot would be pretty challenging
  - simonh 6y ago
    As a photo for a magazine or other professional use sure. As a photo of your daughter the first time you've managed to get together after the lockdown late at night after a long journey, effing incredible.
  - Nition 6y ago
    > I think the photo of the woman is terrible. On any normal camera that photo would be a complete blur. Impossible. It's a hand-held three second exposure.
    - frostburg 6y ago
      IBIS and a f/0.95 lens would get you there (or a flash, which phones mostly can't synch to).
      - Nition 6y ago
        Ah well, F/0.95 is cheating a bit though, I meant assuming you were doing a hand-held three second exposure with another camera. Of course it's a reasonable point you make that a "proper" camera wouldn't need such a long exposure for the same amount of light.
      - snowwrestler 6y ago
        That shot is testing the low-light autofocus with no modelling light, which I think is a test that any f/0.95 lens/body combo on the market right now would fail?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Most modern cameras can autofocus in perfect darkness using a small AF light. Especially at f/0.95! But really, I recreated the shot, in a perfectly dark room with a phone light as the only light source, and it focused adequately and the image came out more than adequate at 1/20x ISO 2066 @ f/2.8, or 1/30 ISO2400 f/1.4, all with good AF.
    - wlesieutre 6y ago
      And good luck with auto-focus
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      You don't need a three second exposure with a modern camera and a fast lens. F/1.2 or f/1.4 with low-light stacking at 1/10 to 1/2 will more than do it for moonlight. Plus, it has artifical light, a phone screen, so even less than that would be useful. As for AF, the obvious solution is to simply have a light in the camera. Mine does, it works fine even in complete darkness. I've actually gone and took a photo of a subject lit only with a phone screen, in perfect darkness, at around 2 meters. Result? F2.8, 1/10x3 (stacking), ISO6400 actual, ISO2066 effective. Very, very far from a challenging situation. Actually, quite easy. With my F/1.4 lens, a cellphone screen provides enough light to illuminate a wooden plank to a shutter speed of 1/25 at ISO4000. More than serviceable. Especially with stabilization, where I can in reality get away with 1/2. You know, dedicated cameras also evolved. A lot. At the issue of this expriment, I can be confident that my camera can take pictures of much higher quality in the same conditions, at a higher resultion with much less noise and more detail, and all that at half of the price. Indeed, an a6000+EF-speedbooster+Tamron28-75 2.8 EF will run you 600$ tax included, for a higher performance, and will last you a decade or more. EDIT: for some reason, I can't answer since I'm rate limited, but I can actually do a 3 second exposure, hand held, with my camera, and get a sharper result that that. Especially if I'm tipsy. Here's how I do it - I put my camera in image stacking mode, set the shutter speed to 0.8 seconds, and fire the shutter. My camera will then take 4 pictures with IS on for 0.8 seconds in each of them, recenter IS in the few milliseconds between them, then warp and shift the images together and stack them. Bam, 3(.2) second exposure. It's not always the sharpest on the first try, but it's a hell of a lot sharper than whatever is in the picture there. Also, the iPhone is rejecting quite a few images there, so it won't be 3 seconds and more like 1.2 seconds. Especially at the wide focal lengths equivalent to an iPhone. It's not very hard. I was at 1/20 before to ensure maximum sharpness, but if I'm willing to either stack in post or take 2-3 shots, more than possible.
ponker 6y ago
Imagine if Apple or Google shipped a digital SLR with all of their software magic onboard (or executed on a paired phone).
- crazygringo 6y ago
  I don't really see the point. Things like low-light photography has always been available on DSLR's, like SLR's long before it, since you've always been able to control shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. And all the extra software magic can already be done on your laptop on RAW files, where you've got enough space on your screen for all the sliders -- and a large enough screen to see the difference it makes in the details. These days, pretty much the only people shooting with DSLR's are the people who want/need that fine-grained manual control anyways.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The big issue that's missing are stacked exposure RAW files with gyroscope and accelerometer data. When that becomes available, then yes the possible processing on a computer will match and exceed what can be done on a phone. If any camera would be able to do it, I'd bet on the Sony A9iii or A7iv.
    - numpad0 6y ago
      What about multi focal aspects of smartphone triple/quad cameras? Aren’t they supposed to add some sort of data points?
    - crazygringo 6y ago
      Ah, that's a great point. It does seem like it's high time for there to be some kind of RAW-over-time standard, e.g. a single file with 2 hours of exposure that Photoshop would have built-in tools to manage -- and even the ability to handle matrix transformation movement over time, e.g. to photograph stars over 5 minutes. I wonder how useful it would be to embed gyroscope/accelerometer data with it though? Everything I imagine having to do with long/stacked exposures involves a tripod. Motion data actually seems like it would be more useful to embed in regular-exposure RAWs, since it could help build a deconvolution kernel to undo motion blur.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ciarannolan 6y ago
I wish these reviews would post the full res images. I clicked "View Image" on a few of these to see just the photo but they're all cropped and compressed. Almost any flagship phone can produce similar pics to the ones in this article. The devil is really in the details now.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- buryat 6y ago
  that's not true, the night mode on 12 pro is way better than other phones like 11 pro that they showed in comparison
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Only on the super wide though. Night mode on normal lens is the same and already very good on 11.
    - bydo 6y ago
      The 12 Pro does Night Mode on all three lenses. The 11 Pro only does it on the "regular" wide. The 12 Pro's "regular" wide also has a larger aperture to improve low light capture, so Night Mode can stack fewer / shorter exposures for the final image.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Even without the full resolution images, some of the samples seem to exhibit serious sharpness problems. One example: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03adec668905b/1603213328477-Z5XLX2O4DLLMZQ3RKN77/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kOVKhqjzbm10MiDnThJIlG4UqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYy7Mythp_T-mtop-vrsUOmeInPi9iDjx9w8K4ZfjXt2dirTHmuM_s-nkBYPi32Z4oBKuEKHJmBgG4xpM3KBlj5rZtJ3qR9G2BYeA0wOAaeYNg/%C2%A9AustinMann_IMG_0960.jpg?format=2500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... If that's the output I can expect, I don't know why I'd even bother taking the picture. The image is a mess. On the basis of this article, my conclusion is if you want to share or view the images on anything other than a mobile device, you might be disappointed with the output of this camera. Better to stick with your a7 III or what have you.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pgib 6y ago
I got the iPhone 12 Pro after using my iPhone X for the last three years. I was mostly excited about a big camera upgrade, and there are definitely some big improvements from what I have been using. But I'm not 100% sure if I'm going to keep it. I'm not sure I'm blown away enough for just shy of CDN $2,000. Even though it's almost the same size, it feels considerably bigger than my X, and I'm not a fan of the matte back which slides off my hands much easier than the polished glass of the X. I know the regular 12 and mini have a polished back, and the mini looks like a good option for me except for the fact that I'd be losing the 2x lens. If I have two lenses, I'd rather have the wide and 2x of my X than a wide and ultra-wide that the 12 and 11 before it have.
- gizmodo59 6y ago
  The X is my favorite by far. It was a leap in terms of the user experience and design. I think all the versions that followed that doesn't change the user experience by that much. May be we will see one in the 20th anniversary edition!
  - Shivetya 6y ago
    and here I am looking to go to the Mini because at this point the phone's cameras have been more capable than I have for ages and all I want is a phone but without the size and weight that makes me notice I am carrying it.
- bradenb 6y ago
  I'm still rocking an X. I thought whatever the 12 was would end up being my replacement. But I am just not impressed enough and your summary makes me feel good about not jumping on it. The X is still going strong. I get > 1 day battery life (which is all I need) and although I do notice the occasional stutter, it is still very very good.
  - ecf 6y ago
    These comments can be tedious, but same! Been using this X for a few years now and would rather purchase a battery replacement. The one feature to make me upgrade is a high refresh rate screen. I switched from 60hz to 120hz on my main monitor a few years ago and I can’t go back. I imagine the same would happen with my phone since it’s mainly used to reading articles like this one.
BigBubbleButt 6y ago
I've always found it odd nobody, specifically Samsung or Sony (since Sony already makes their own high-end CMOS sensors), doesn't ship a phone with a slightly superior sensor? Yes, I get the unit economics of it (at least I think I do, I've never worked in the phone industry so that could easily be hubris on my part), but if you can spend an extra few dollars or even tens of dollars on your BOM for something that is clearly, objectively a better camera to everything else out there I don't see how Samsung couldn't trivially add a minimum $200 markup just for that. And you don't even need that. You could add a sensor that's just a few dollars more expensive at scale - it seems the margins are trivially there since that would easily justify a $50 markup. I realize the optics also matter, but at this point it's really the sensors limiting the phones, not the cheap glass. In an industry where everyone is struggling for an edge, it just seems painfully obvious to do this to me. I look forward to someone more knowledgeable telling me why all my assumptions are wrong though (I mean that literally, no snark intended!).
- varispeed 6y ago
  It probably depends on what scale these parts can be provided on. It is possible that for a digital camera the supply capability could meet the demands but would struggle with the volume required for a phone.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Samsung, Huawei, Sony, Apple, they're always trying to put the best and latest sensors on their phones.
- Tade0 6y ago
  My take is that it's easier to sell parts to manufacturers who bear the expense of marketing. Certain iPhones were manufactured by Samsung, cameras for a long time were almost exclusively supplied by Sony. I guess someone ran the number on that and figured it would make more sense financially.
- detaro 6y ago
  I don't think attempts at specifically photo-optimized smartphones have done that well when it was tried, and at least Sony is probably happy having their sensors in everyone elses high-end phones (which I think is the case). And in the form-factor of a normal high-end phone it's probably not just "just use a more expensive sensor", the top models likely are already near the top of what's possible sensor-wise.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vmception 6y ago
Just bought mine :) I hope the Lidar can help portrait mode and other AI depth of field techniques work at further distances to a subject If this becomes true I chuck all of my DSLR-form factor cameras immediately, its over.
- sgt 6y ago
  This review is seriously tempting me into buying one. I thought I was happy with my XS!
- valarauko 6y ago
  I'll be happy to take the cameras off your hands :)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 6y ago
Most of these photos are remarkable but the woman-in-parka shot looks heavily ... airbrushed. Maybe one of the blur filters got turned on or something? Composition-wise it's good and all that, not insulting the subject or the photographer, but the software appears to have applied quite a bit of blur.
- gokhan 6y ago
  It's labelled as "Extreme low-light Portrait with Night mode" with the note "The blurring and noise reduction is a bit less realistic and a bit more… dreamy?"
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Huh, my bad, I missed that it was night mode.
- Nition 6y ago
  It's a three-second exposure, hand-held. The software has greatly reduced the blur if anything. Try doing that with a normal camera and the whole thing will be blur.
- berryjerry 6y ago
  yea it's a '3 second handheld exposure' like are you kidding, in a camera review?
alfalfasprout 6y ago
I feel like a lot of people that keep bringing up DSLRs kinda miss the point. The best camera is the one you have on you. So even a minor incremental upgrade is worth its weight in gold when you consider you'll be capturing images where you'd never dream of having a DSLR but in considerably better quality.
- herpderperator 6y ago
  You don't need a DSLR. A regular point-and-shoot[0] which costs $100, fits in your pocket and has an electronic retractable lens (and many times optical zoom) is going to blow away anything recent phone cameras can do (photography wise), bar handheld night photos where the additional processing does help even out blurriness. If you can remember to bring your phone, you can remember to bring a point-and-shoot, and they both fit in your pocket. The insane quality upgrade you get from a point-and-shoot is because they have a much bigger sensor and a real lens and focus light brilliantly well, and if you want bokeh you don't need any of that crap fake blur processing to achieve what physics will do for you. I often feel like people have forgotten or never even knew how good images can be with an actual camera, and it doesn't have to be a DSLR at all. If you want a camera, buy a camera, not a phone. [0] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1210607-REG/canon_1096c001_powershot_elph_180_digital.html/overview https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1210607-REG/canon_109...
  - patentatt 6y ago
    I'd be very surprised if this were true. My iPhone 11 goes head-to-head with my mid-range mirrorless camera setup in most shooting conditions. Modern phone cameras are surprisingly good, really.
    - novok 6y ago
      Really? I've done comparisons with my GR3 and my iPhone and even when browsing thumbnails it gets pretty obvious which is which quality wise. When I start looking at the photos on my desktop or iPad it becomes even more evident. It might be the kit lens your using or your taking pictures in bright sunlight only, which at that point the camera doesn't matter that much anymore.
itg 6y ago
He only compared a few shots to the 11 pro, there are some youtube videos that do comparisons to the pixel 5 and galaxy note s20. The s20 especially has better zoom and night mode compared to the 12 pro.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  Wouldn’t you want to compare the s20 to the 12 pro max?
spike021 6y ago
A lot of comments seem to be picky with the photo of the lady in the parka. As I mentioned in another comment, I read the article itself and that photo in particular was a hand-held 3-second long exposure in near-complete darkness. It was a test of the Night Mode for portraits. It was literally just to see how the new LIDAR stuff can help with a nearly impossibly dark shot. Of course a DSLR/mirrorless with proper lighting and a tripod would actually look good. I don't think that was the point with that test shot, though.
- whoisburbansky 6y ago
  Agreed; the apples-to-(heh)-apples comparison would be that photo against a hand-held DSLR 3-second exposure, or a shorter exposure with the ISO maxed out, and even them I'm fairly certain the DSLR image would be barely usable.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    A handheld MILC with a stabilized f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens at a 0.5sx3 stacked exposure would be the proper comparison, and it would be more than usable. Modern cameras can take video with nothing but moonlight, let alone photography.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Worth to check A7S3
mrits 6y ago
The author doesn't know but this is really a review about compression algorithms.
- valuearb 6y ago
  I’m thinking the author knows just a bit more about it than you.
  - mrits 6y ago
    Possibly. But the inability to properly configure a TLS connection gives me doubt.
    - comeonseriously 6y ago
      Hmmm... there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
kev009 6y ago
Just since it's sponsored, Airstream is one of the shittiest luxury products I can think of and owning one of the bigger mistakes I've ever made. The quality is the same as any other RV, so you are paying a huge premium for the aluminum shell which looks cool but not nearly as trouble free as the marketing leads one to expect. You can basically own 3-4 trailers from any other manufacturer for the same cost, and would be ahead in every way. You can also rent RVs including other people's airstreams these days so unless you plan on spending a significant amount of time using an RV (like full time or as a guest house) it's smarter to let someone else deal with maintenance and depreciation.
- milleramp 6y ago
  Thanks for this insight, they do look cool, so i can see making a emotional purchase rather than logical one.
herpderperator 6y ago
> Stop and consider that for a moment... because of Night mode and computational algorithms we went from "completely unusable dark frame" to "I want that on my wall." No mention of whether or not the photo was handheld or how long the exposure time was. If the photo they were referring to was handheld, I guess I agree. However, the subsequent photo which is the same landscape is captioned "on tripod" so it's not clear if the previous one (which isn't captioned) is handheld or not. If both were shot on a tripod, then I disagree with the original statement. Any sensor will do better in low light with a longer exposure, and if phones simply let you expose for however long you wanted to then many "night" photos would look amazing - on a tripod, of course.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  I think the point he's making is that night mode was not available on the wide lens on the 11. So you can't so a long exposure at all, hence the frame of nothingness.
Hippocrates 6y ago
This iPhone 12 Pro upgrade has made me put my MILC gear all up for sale. "The best camera is the one you have on you" yada yada.. As others here have pointed out, you can still take a better photo with a DSLR/MILC and nice glass and unlimited time to fidget with your gear, but for the size and convenience, this iPhone comes way too close. For me it easily outweighs the burden of a bulky, expensive, fragile DSLR (I am also embarrassed to haul a DSLR to a wedding or party). There are also a bunch of software features on the iPhone that are actually more ergonomic than on a dedicated camera, and help me catch the shot I want. Live Photos, burst, pinch zoom, tap to focus (on a legit screen, not on those poor excuses for touch UIs on cameras). Instant switching between video/still and lens modes. Basically everything is auto and It's point and shoot in any situation. If I am to boil the whole thing down I would say the iPhone's camera makes my MILC feel antiquated and 90% of the time I'll be catching better photos on the iPhone 12.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

167 points by florianmari 6y ago

In some ways, this feels like the reviews of the last couple of generations of iPhone: it can work really well in very good light and at typical web resolutions. The photo of the woman in the parka is very impressive as a technical demonstration but is also pretty blurry/smeared, to my eye. As an only camera, it's probably the best or near the best of the phones.

zobzu 6y ago
I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and that's great, but let's not fool ourselves ;-) I'm also curious what the max will look like - though at the size and price it's difficult to say if buying a RX100 and a cheaper phone isn't a better option still, for many.
- ssijak 6y ago
  What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? I would say that more people will prefer the phone photo, unless you edit the dslr photo (which phone is doing automatically unless you shoot RAW on iPhone).
  - zobzu 6y ago
    the picture we're talking about is taken at night, and looks like a painting, this has nothing to do with bokeh or the need to edit a picture taken with a large sensor mirrorless camera
  - grecy 6y ago
    I would guess close to 0% of people, IFF we're looking at the photos side by side on a phone screen, or maybe a crappy laptop screen. Put them both on a hi-res display, or HD TV or (even better) print them out in large format. Then there's no comparison. So it really comes down to how is the photo going to be used. And for 99% of photos taken these days, viewing it on a small screen is the purpose, so the phone camera is perfectly good enough.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      For this picture specifically, which is the one OP was talking about: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03adec668905b/1603176722265-H0FSBKFAMQV25X9PEFHX/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kOT4XFbjPh2wviguHcWSfHx7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z5QHyNOqBUUEtDDsRWrJLTmS0k9nmfOWkBD2X4dgpGrpTPEppH71Jxj5Xy1txktWwN6z35OdSjbl9A5nuJM5etC/IMG_1686.jpg?format=750w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... Yes, anyone could tell the difference between this taken on a dedicated camera and this taken on iPhone. Really, anyone. No matter the resolution. It really does just look like a blurry mess. A cheap 150$ DSLR with a bottom-bargain Chinese or very old lens (at say, F1.4 or lower) would provide significantly better results.
      - ssijak 6y ago
        I think that this was the image referenced with the "woman in a park" in the initial post https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03adec668905b/1603178865884-05EVQ5V89D6P01O4OWOD/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kFn01b69qibFV6p4ATINgYx7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z5QHyNOqBUUEtDDsRWrJLTmaHJ0CCIp0h94CjFWATtzumDyWwG6cTlYaiji1mbxg2_decyTpAb-46CnvkjVgn6l/IMG_1301.jpg?format=1500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a...
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Oh, I read "woman in a parka" instead, and in combination with "blurry, smeared" I concluded that it was the image at night.
  - yladiz 6y ago
    I don't know how you would define "better", but if you mean higher quality, I'm certain that most people would be able to pick out the DSLR version in a "blind" test, even if you used the same approx. lens focal length on the DSLR and the phone (e.g. 52mm when comparing to iPhone). I would guess people would prefer the DSLR one, but it's simply a guess (and I'm biased because I know more or less what to look for).
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      I'm not sure if I'd say that most people would be able to tell. But I'm sure photography people would be able to tell. Unless you're a wannabe influencer or a working professional, what matters is not whether other people would be able to tell. Nobody cares about your pictures. What matters is if you can tell, and how it makes you feel.
      - jonplackett 6y ago
        I think if you let them zoom in to the edges they'd pick it easily enough. My iPhone always blurs a few little details, little part of a hat sticking out, thinking it's the background.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    There are surprisingly little “cultural” differences between iPhone and dSLR, iPhone shots look like a Nikon at wrong ISO.
  - ValentineC 6y ago
    > What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? As an iPhone 11 Pro + Halide user myself, I daresay a DSLR photo with a decent portrait lens would definitely look better — or at the very least — more natural, than any iPhone photo that relies on "computational photography" fake-bokeh.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > I think the photo of the woman is terrible This is partly because the flash has blasted her face with light losing all the shape except for an ugly shadow under her nose. With my Nikon I could try at (very) high ISO for a natural-light shot or use an off-camera flash to shape her face in a more flattering way. But perhaps people used to the very flat / boring light common in mirror selfies won't care about this. The blur on the edges of the fur look digitally smeared rather than optically blurred. [edit - okay, I didn't spot that he used off screen light rather than flash. But the effect is similar and hasn't given any pleasing sculpting of the subject. Other processing may have made things worse]
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The blur is actually insane amounts of noise reduction, it's not an attempt at bokeh, I think! You can tell because all other shadows are just as blurred out. I think that it doesn't look flat just because of the flash, but really as a mix of incredibly severe noise reduction as well as a ton of dynamic compression necessary to keep the background in roughly the same exposure.
    - wlesieutre 6y ago
      He says it’s “Portrait mode”, so it does have the fake bokeh on the background in addition to any smoothing from night mode denoising. That’s why he also mentions the depth map for the fuzzy hood.
  - inasio 6y ago
    I don't think there was flash involved in the shot, it says he held another phone on his left hand and used the light from the screen (not flash) as an indirect light source. The washed out look I think is from software averaging to correct motion blur from the 3 second exposure.
  - kristofferR 6y ago
    He didn't use a flash for that image, the only light was from another phone screen. And it was a three second hand-held, it's impressively clear for what it is. > This Portrait mode w/ Night mode 3-second exposure was shot with the iPhone 12 Pro in my right hand. Simultaneously, in my left hand, I held my iPhone 11 Pro and used the light emitting from the screen (not the flash) as an off-camera fill light for Esther’s face.
- TrainedMonkey 6y ago
  You are correct that a larger sensor would capture more photons, however I think you are not comparing apples to apples. That picture is a snapshot with basically 0 visible light and was made possible by capturing a lot of channels and running a remarkable software enhancement. AFAIK, there is no API to do anything like that with uploaded raw picture (0). So to get a similar quality picture with a larger sensor you will need a long exposure time... and an average human subject shivering in a cold environment will come out way blurrier. Good portraits are usually made by excellent lightning conditions. As a portrait this picture is average, but when you take conditions in the account the result is quite amazing. (0) That is an assumption I am making which might be wrong. You could also definitely do this by hand by investing 100-1000x more time.
- spike021 6y ago
  It was a 3-second hand-held long exposure in apparently little to no light. I'd say the fact that her features are somewhat defined is pretty decent. It seems the point of it in the first place was to see how well the night mode works in near pitch-darkness for portraits.
- inasio 6y ago
  This is on a handheld three second exposure in the dark. Not sure you would do much better with an SLR. I have on Olympus OMD EM5 with great OIS and that shot would be pretty challenging
- simonh 6y ago
  As a photo for a magazine or other professional use sure. As a photo of your daughter the first time you've managed to get together after the lockdown late at night after a long journey, effing incredible.
- Nition 6y ago
  > I think the photo of the woman is terrible. On any normal camera that photo would be a complete blur. Impossible. It's a hand-held three second exposure.
  - frostburg 6y ago
    IBIS and a f/0.95 lens would get you there (or a flash, which phones mostly can't synch to).
    - Nition 6y ago
      Ah well, F/0.95 is cheating a bit though, I meant assuming you were doing a hand-held three second exposure with another camera. Of course it's a reasonable point you make that a "proper" camera wouldn't need such a long exposure for the same amount of light.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      That shot is testing the low-light autofocus with no modelling light, which I think is a test that any f/0.95 lens/body combo on the market right now would fail?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Most modern cameras can autofocus in perfect darkness using a small AF light. Especially at f/0.95! But really, I recreated the shot, in a perfectly dark room with a phone light as the only light source, and it focused adequately and the image came out more than adequate at 1/20x ISO 2066 @ f/2.8, or 1/30 ISO2400 f/1.4, all with good AF.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    And good luck with auto-focus
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    You don't need a three second exposure with a modern camera and a fast lens. F/1.2 or f/1.4 with low-light stacking at 1/10 to 1/2 will more than do it for moonlight. Plus, it has artifical light, a phone screen, so even less than that would be useful. As for AF, the obvious solution is to simply have a light in the camera. Mine does, it works fine even in complete darkness. I've actually gone and took a photo of a subject lit only with a phone screen, in perfect darkness, at around 2 meters. Result? F2.8, 1/10x3 (stacking), ISO6400 actual, ISO2066 effective. Very, very far from a challenging situation. Actually, quite easy. With my F/1.4 lens, a cellphone screen provides enough light to illuminate a wooden plank to a shutter speed of 1/25 at ISO4000. More than serviceable. Especially with stabilization, where I can in reality get away with 1/2. You know, dedicated cameras also evolved. A lot. At the issue of this expriment, I can be confident that my camera can take pictures of much higher quality in the same conditions, at a higher resultion with much less noise and more detail, and all that at half of the price. Indeed, an a6000+EF-speedbooster+Tamron28-75 2.8 EF will run you 600$ tax included, for a higher performance, and will last you a decade or more. EDIT: for some reason, I can't answer since I'm rate limited, but I can actually do a 3 second exposure, hand held, with my camera, and get a sharper result that that. Especially if I'm tipsy. Here's how I do it - I put my camera in image stacking mode, set the shutter speed to 0.8 seconds, and fire the shutter. My camera will then take 4 pictures with IS on for 0.8 seconds in each of them, recenter IS in the few milliseconds between them, then warp and shift the images together and stack them. Bam, 3(.2) second exposure. It's not always the sharpest on the first try, but it's a hell of a lot sharper than whatever is in the picture there. Also, the iPhone is rejecting quite a few images there, so it won't be 3 seconds and more like 1.2 seconds. Especially at the wide focal lengths equivalent to an iPhone. It's not very hard. I was at 1/20 before to ensure maximum sharpness, but if I'm willing to either stack in post or take 2-3 shots, more than possible.

ponker 6y ago

Imagine if Apple or Google shipped a digital SLR with all of their software magic onboard (or executed on a paired phone).

crazygringo 6y ago
I don't really see the point. Things like low-light photography has always been available on DSLR's, like SLR's long before it, since you've always been able to control shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. And all the extra software magic can already be done on your laptop on RAW files, where you've got enough space on your screen for all the sliders -- and a large enough screen to see the difference it makes in the details. These days, pretty much the only people shooting with DSLR's are the people who want/need that fine-grained manual control anyways.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The big issue that's missing are stacked exposure RAW files with gyroscope and accelerometer data. When that becomes available, then yes the possible processing on a computer will match and exceed what can be done on a phone. If any camera would be able to do it, I'd bet on the Sony A9iii or A7iv.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    What about multi focal aspects of smartphone triple/quad cameras? Aren’t they supposed to add some sort of data points?
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Ah, that's a great point. It does seem like it's high time for there to be some kind of RAW-over-time standard, e.g. a single file with 2 hours of exposure that Photoshop would have built-in tools to manage -- and even the ability to handle matrix transformation movement over time, e.g. to photograph stars over 5 minutes. I wonder how useful it would be to embed gyroscope/accelerometer data with it though? Everything I imagine having to do with long/stacked exposures involves a tripod. Motion data actually seems like it would be more useful to embed in regular-exposure RAWs, since it could help build a deconvolution kernel to undo motion blur.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ciarannolan 6y ago

I wish these reviews would post the full res images. I clicked "View Image" on a few of these to see just the photo but they're all cropped and compressed. Almost any flagship phone can produce similar pics to the ones in this article. The devil is really in the details now.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
buryat 6y ago
that's not true, the night mode on 12 pro is way better than other phones like 11 pro that they showed in comparison
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Only on the super wide though. Night mode on normal lens is the same and already very good on 11.
  - bydo 6y ago
    The 12 Pro does Night Mode on all three lenses. The 11 Pro only does it on the "regular" wide. The 12 Pro's "regular" wide also has a larger aperture to improve low light capture, so Night Mode can stack fewer / shorter exposures for the final image.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Even without the full resolution images, some of the samples seem to exhibit serious sharpness problems. One example: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03adec668905b/1603213328477-Z5XLX2O4DLLMZQ3RKN77/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kOVKhqjzbm10MiDnThJIlG4UqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYy7Mythp_T-mtop-vrsUOmeInPi9iDjx9w8K4ZfjXt2dirTHmuM_s-nkBYPi32Z4oBKuEKHJmBgG4xpM3KBlj5rZtJ3qR9G2BYeA0wOAaeYNg/%C2%A9AustinMann_IMG_0960.jpg?format=2500w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... If that's the output I can expect, I don't know why I'd even bother taking the picture. The image is a mess. On the basis of this article, my conclusion is if you want to share or view the images on anything other than a mobile device, you might be disappointed with the output of this camera. Better to stick with your a7 III or what have you.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pgib 6y ago

I got the iPhone 12 Pro after using my iPhone X for the last three years. I was mostly excited about a big camera upgrade, and there are definitely some big improvements from what I have been using. But I'm not 100% sure if I'm going to keep it. I'm not sure I'm blown away enough for just shy of CDN $2,000. Even though it's almost the same size, it feels considerably bigger than my X, and I'm not a fan of the matte back which slides off my hands much easier than the polished glass of the X. I know the regular 12 and mini have a polished back, and the mini looks like a good option for me except for the fact that I'd be losing the 2x lens. If I have two lenses, I'd rather have the wide and 2x of my X than a wide and ultra-wide that the 12 and 11 before it have.

gizmodo59 6y ago
The X is my favorite by far. It was a leap in terms of the user experience and design. I think all the versions that followed that doesn't change the user experience by that much. May be we will see one in the 20th anniversary edition!
- Shivetya 6y ago
  and here I am looking to go to the Mini because at this point the phone's cameras have been more capable than I have for ages and all I want is a phone but without the size and weight that makes me notice I am carrying it.
bradenb 6y ago
I'm still rocking an X. I thought whatever the 12 was would end up being my replacement. But I am just not impressed enough and your summary makes me feel good about not jumping on it. The X is still going strong. I get > 1 day battery life (which is all I need) and although I do notice the occasional stutter, it is still very very good.
- ecf 6y ago
  These comments can be tedious, but same! Been using this X for a few years now and would rather purchase a battery replacement. The one feature to make me upgrade is a high refresh rate screen. I switched from 60hz to 120hz on my main monitor a few years ago and I can’t go back. I imagine the same would happen with my phone since it’s mainly used to reading articles like this one.

BigBubbleButt 6y ago

I've always found it odd nobody, specifically Samsung or Sony (since Sony already makes their own high-end CMOS sensors), doesn't ship a phone with a slightly superior sensor? Yes, I get the unit economics of it (at least I think I do, I've never worked in the phone industry so that could easily be hubris on my part), but if you can spend an extra few dollars or even tens of dollars on your BOM for something that is clearly, objectively a better camera to everything else out there I don't see how Samsung couldn't trivially add a minimum $200 markup just for that. And you don't even need that. You could add a sensor that's just a few dollars more expensive at scale - it seems the margins are trivially there since that would easily justify a $50 markup. I realize the optics also matter, but at this point it's really the sensors limiting the phones, not the cheap glass. In an industry where everyone is struggling for an edge, it just seems painfully obvious to do this to me. I look forward to someone more knowledgeable telling me why all my assumptions are wrong though (I mean that literally, no snark intended!).

varispeed 6y ago
It probably depends on what scale these parts can be provided on. It is possible that for a digital camera the supply capability could meet the demands but would struggle with the volume required for a phone.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
Samsung, Huawei, Sony, Apple, they're always trying to put the best and latest sensors on their phones.
Tade0 6y ago
My take is that it's easier to sell parts to manufacturers who bear the expense of marketing. Certain iPhones were manufactured by Samsung, cameras for a long time were almost exclusively supplied by Sony. I guess someone ran the number on that and figured it would make more sense financially.
detaro 6y ago
I don't think attempts at specifically photo-optimized smartphones have done that well when it was tried, and at least Sony is probably happy having their sensors in everyone elses high-end phones (which I think is the case). And in the form-factor of a normal high-end phone it's probably not just "just use a more expensive sensor", the top models likely are already near the top of what's possible sensor-wise.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vmception 6y ago

Just bought mine :) I hope the Lidar can help portrait mode and other AI depth of field techniques work at further distances to a subject If this becomes true I chuck all of my DSLR-form factor cameras immediately, its over.

sgt 6y ago
This review is seriously tempting me into buying one. I thought I was happy with my XS!
valarauko 6y ago
I'll be happy to take the cameras off your hands :)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 6y ago

Most of these photos are remarkable but the woman-in-parka shot looks heavily ... airbrushed. Maybe one of the blur filters got turned on or something? Composition-wise it's good and all that, not insulting the subject or the photographer, but the software appears to have applied quite a bit of blur.

gokhan 6y ago
It's labelled as "Extreme low-light Portrait with Night mode" with the note "The blurring and noise reduction is a bit less realistic and a bit more… dreamy?"
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Huh, my bad, I missed that it was night mode.
Nition 6y ago
It's a three-second exposure, hand-held. The software has greatly reduced the blur if anything. Try doing that with a normal camera and the whole thing will be blur.
berryjerry 6y ago
yea it's a '3 second handheld exposure' like are you kidding, in a camera review?

alfalfasprout 6y ago

I feel like a lot of people that keep bringing up DSLRs kinda miss the point. The best camera is the one you have on you. So even a minor incremental upgrade is worth its weight in gold when you consider you'll be capturing images where you'd never dream of having a DSLR but in considerably better quality.

herpderperator 6y ago
You don't need a DSLR. A regular point-and-shoot[0] which costs $100, fits in your pocket and has an electronic retractable lens (and many times optical zoom) is going to blow away anything recent phone cameras can do (photography wise), bar handheld night photos where the additional processing does help even out blurriness. If you can remember to bring your phone, you can remember to bring a point-and-shoot, and they both fit in your pocket. The insane quality upgrade you get from a point-and-shoot is because they have a much bigger sensor and a real lens and focus light brilliantly well, and if you want bokeh you don't need any of that crap fake blur processing to achieve what physics will do for you. I often feel like people have forgotten or never even knew how good images can be with an actual camera, and it doesn't have to be a DSLR at all. If you want a camera, buy a camera, not a phone. [0] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1210607-REG/canon_1096c001_powershot_elph_180_digital.html/overview https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1210607-REG/canon_109...
- patentatt 6y ago
  I'd be very surprised if this were true. My iPhone 11 goes head-to-head with my mid-range mirrorless camera setup in most shooting conditions. Modern phone cameras are surprisingly good, really.
  - novok 6y ago
    Really? I've done comparisons with my GR3 and my iPhone and even when browsing thumbnails it gets pretty obvious which is which quality wise. When I start looking at the photos on my desktop or iPad it becomes even more evident. It might be the kit lens your using or your taking pictures in bright sunlight only, which at that point the camera doesn't matter that much anymore.

itg 6y ago

He only compared a few shots to the 11 pro, there are some youtube videos that do comparisons to the pixel 5 and galaxy note s20. The s20 especially has better zoom and night mode compared to the 12 pro.

Schiendelman 6y ago
Wouldn’t you want to compare the s20 to the 12 pro max?

spike021 6y ago

A lot of comments seem to be picky with the photo of the lady in the parka. As I mentioned in another comment, I read the article itself and that photo in particular was a hand-held 3-second long exposure in near-complete darkness. It was a test of the Night Mode for portraits. It was literally just to see how the new LIDAR stuff can help with a nearly impossibly dark shot. Of course a DSLR/mirrorless with proper lighting and a tripod would actually look good. I don't think that was the point with that test shot, though.

whoisburbansky 6y ago
Agreed; the apples-to-(heh)-apples comparison would be that photo against a hand-held DSLR 3-second exposure, or a shorter exposure with the ISO maxed out, and even them I'm fairly certain the DSLR image would be barely usable.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  A handheld MILC with a stabilized f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens at a 0.5sx3 stacked exposure would be the proper comparison, and it would be more than usable. Modern cameras can take video with nothing but moonlight, let alone photography.
- fomine3 6y ago
  Worth to check A7S3

mrits 6y ago

The author doesn't know but this is really a review about compression algorithms.

valuearb 6y ago
I’m thinking the author knows just a bit more about it than you.
- mrits 6y ago
  Possibly. But the inability to properly configure a TLS connection gives me doubt.
  - comeonseriously 6y ago
    Hmmm... there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

kev009 6y ago

Just since it's sponsored, Airstream is one of the shittiest luxury products I can think of and owning one of the bigger mistakes I've ever made. The quality is the same as any other RV, so you are paying a huge premium for the aluminum shell which looks cool but not nearly as trouble free as the marketing leads one to expect. You can basically own 3-4 trailers from any other manufacturer for the same cost, and would be ahead in every way. You can also rent RVs including other people's airstreams these days so unless you plan on spending a significant amount of time using an RV (like full time or as a guest house) it's smarter to let someone else deal with maintenance and depreciation.

milleramp 6y ago
Thanks for this insight, they do look cool, so i can see making a emotional purchase rather than logical one.

herpderperator 6y ago

> Stop and consider that for a moment... because of Night mode and computational algorithms we went from "completely unusable dark frame" to "I want that on my wall." No mention of whether or not the photo was handheld or how long the exposure time was. If the photo they were referring to was handheld, I guess I agree. However, the subsequent photo which is the same landscape is captioned "on tripod" so it's not clear if the previous one (which isn't captioned) is handheld or not. If both were shot on a tripod, then I disagree with the original statement. Any sensor will do better in low light with a longer exposure, and if phones simply let you expose for however long you wanted to then many "night" photos would look amazing - on a tripod, of course.

jonplackett 6y ago
I think the point he's making is that night mode was not available on the wide lens on the 11. So you can't so a long exposure at all, hence the frame of nothingness.

Hippocrates 6y ago

This iPhone 12 Pro upgrade has made me put my MILC gear all up for sale. "The best camera is the one you have on you" yada yada.. As others here have pointed out, you can still take a better photo with a DSLR/MILC and nice glass and unlimited time to fidget with your gear, but for the size and convenience, this iPhone comes way too close. For me it easily outweighs the burden of a bulky, expensive, fragile DSLR (I am also embarrassed to haul a DSLR to a wedding or party). There are also a bunch of software features on the iPhone that are actually more ergonomic than on a dedicated camera, and help me catch the shot I want. Live Photos, burst, pinch zoom, tap to focus (on a legit screen, not on those poor excuses for touch UIs on cameras). Instant switching between video/still and lens modes. Basically everything is auto and It's point and shoot in any situation. If I am to boil the whole thing down I would say the iPhone's camera makes my MILC feel antiquated and 90% of the time I'll be catching better photos on the iPhone 12.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]