11 ms·

The trick to getting the best out of camera phones is to shore up their weaknesses with external devices. Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "rea

The trick to getting the best out of camera phones is to shore up their weaknesses with external devices. Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). So you add light to the scene to shore up that weakness. Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod. It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images. It's pretty cool that you can get such nice results from a phone. But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras. These images are somewhat analogous to the videos of fake hamburgers that fast food companies use to sell their product. That is, the physical conditions where this picture was taken did exist. It's not totally CG. But the images are designed to make you think that you can get results that practically are out of reach for most of the people looking at the photos. Still knowing that can also allow you to make better cell phone pictures by taking into account those weaknesses when you're taking pictures. There are valuable techniques to learn from these images, aside from the fact that they are all high quality art.

thr0wawayf00 5y ago
> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern cameras. That's probably true but as a casual hobbyist, it's so much easier to justify spending $1k on a phone and a few hundred on apps than getting buying a legit macro camera setup, especially used camera equipment. I was frustrated by the macro limitations of the iPhone 13 pro and started perusing for macro camera setups and totally balked at the prices. It made more sense to hold out for another major camera spec bump in the next generation of phones (which is rumored).
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I don't know what your budget is, but it is not that expensive to get into a "real" macro setup, at least compared to the cost of a new phone. Try this on for size: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans_photoelectric_a112_e_60mm_f_2_8_sony.html/overview?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoM-ytlELC2I4lQRMxezReBjaYMQCMSNfnklScX2lfTYI-Q7q8U9YwBoCiXEQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans... https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto_mkcompactlt_bk_compact_light_tripod_black.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoB6KJfIuwmKiGca3q0bFPyBBQtAn2JPAaSir_0jC0aV-GaxNkGuz_BoCpUkQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_vl_200t_vl200t_professional_photography_led.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoLw78oON0RvTKsxR-O66NJUegbvSRUCukXoZmS5Yqz18_VZl6rbCNxoC_RYQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_v... These items come out to a total of about $1,000 and will vastly outperform any iPhone. Note that I am not recommending this particular setup as I am not a macro photographer, I just wanted to demonstrate what's possible. I'm also not saying you're wrong to wait for a better cell phone camera. Your preferences are your own and there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to provide some information.
  - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
    Compact cameras (under $500) usually have great macro lenses too, though you miss the flexibility of being able to change the lens. I've owned for quite a while a Micro Four Thirds camera from Olympus and that's a very good spot to be a hobbyist: not too expensive, but can do "pro things" like changing lenses, shoots raw, has a horseshoe socket, etc. Of course, the quality is not the same as a full frame camera, but then again, I'm not a pro :)
    - nl 5y ago
      The A6100 (linked above) isn't a full-frame camera either. It uses a APS-C sensor (dimensions of 23.5 x 15.6 mm). The Micro Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm Full Frame is 24 mm x 36 mm.
      - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
        Yes, and Sony has been really impressive with their cameras lately. It looks like finally Canon and Nikon woke up and start trying to match their (unfortunately for me, Olympus decided to sell their camera business? Did somebody buy them yet?). The thing about larger sensors, for those that aren't aware, is that they produce much better quality images because each pixel is larger, and can gather more light. More light equals a stronger signal, in a noisy ambient. I sometimes try astrophotography because it lets me combine my photography hobby with my programming passion, and I end up writing my own processing pipelines. With a compact camera, I could get the ghost of one of the brightest galaxies in the sky (Centaurus A in the southern hemisphere). With the MFT camera, using the included kit lens I got a little bit of detail, but it was just a few pixels wide. Switch on to a vintage lens I got for ~15 dollars, and I managed to get the galaxy and quite some detail. Not the same as a telescope image, but very impressive for a 1970's lens on a small camera! And the noise levels aren't even comparable. My old compact camera was Noisy with a capital N. Of course I didn't realize it when I bought it, but it was[0]. I see the same on phone cameras (the sensors are about the same size now). The MFT even on ISO 25600 (highest it goes to) isn't as noisy as the compact camera was at 3200. Most phones will cover that with a lot of computation, and that's fine for a small screen. But load your pictures on a large monitor and you'll start seeing the details and differences. However (and it has been said everywhere in the comments) phones are usually way more convenient because you always have it with you. [0] For reference, some 12 years ago I bought a Canon G12, then a G16, and then moved on to a Olympus OMD E10. On every change I got far better quality at about the same camera size, though the olympus is slightly more bulky, and you have to factor in the lens too.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >few hundred on apps I don't even understand what you think you're going to buy that will make you a good macro photographer for hundreds of dollars. Hundreds on apps instead of dedicated macro hardware? I can't imagine that will do anything but waste hundreds of dollars.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    What I was personally referring to when I mentioned "software" is a photo editing application like Photoshop, Lightroom, DxO Photolab, etc. The subscriptions/purchase prices of these type of software is $200+. There are free software versions of these apps but most photographers do not use them.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      You're going to need such software whether you use an iphone or a DSLR. There's no difference in cost except the hardware.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Sorry, to be extra clear, my point is that you will not get these results without such software, because photos almost universally require editing in order to look their best. But my belief is that Apple, with their "Shot on iPhone" marketing, is trying to convey that you will get these results straight out of the camera. This is unlikely to actually be the case. That's the sum of my point w.r.t. software.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        You can get 98% of the same capability with much cheaper software - you don't need spend several hundred on software (affinity photos does focus stacking raws, for example). But you're right the best looking photos are usually processed somehow.
    - Tagbert 5y ago
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  You can buy a competent macro lens for around 200$ (the Canon EF 100mm macro), and camera to slap it on for around 400$.
barrell 5y ago
I got the canon 100L macro lens last spring for my 6D mark II (after drooling over it for literally 10 years), and ended up getting the iPhone 13 Pro when it came out. So I'm a macro noob with no other equipment. Can confirm, everything out of my dslr + macro lens comes out perfect. It's ridiculous how hard it is to take a bad picture with those. Fluorescent lights, cloudy days, handheld, they're all perfect. That being said I've definitely used and shared more images from my iPhone macro mode. There have been a bunch of misfires, lighting is hard, sharpness is not there across the board - but it definitely scratches that itch and I find myself using my macro lens less. Although after writing this I fully expect to run around my house for an hour next time the sun is out to take some macro shots with the macro lens :D TL;DR - even as a pixel peeper the convenience of having macro on the phone puts dust on my dslr macro lens.
dylan604 5y ago
All Macro photography requires extra light, it's not just anything to do specific to cell phones. That's why there are so many flash rigs designed for this. Also, the iPhone 13 camera has ridiculously fast lenses[0]: Pro 12MP camera system: Telephoto, Wide, and Ultra Wide cameras Telephoto: ƒ/2.8 aperture Wide: ƒ/1.5 aperture Ultra Wide: ƒ/1.8 aperture and 120° field of view If you search for lenses for "real" cameras with those apertures and focal lengths, you'll find 4 digit price tags for each one. Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography [0]https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/
- kuschku 5y ago
  > If you search for lenses for "real" cameras with those apertures and focal lengths, you'll find 4 digit price tags for each one. The aperture is relative to the diameter of the first lens element. So you can’t just compare these values directly.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    Sure you can. The f-stop is the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. A aperture of f/4 means, the aperture is one fourth of the focal length. At the same f-stop, you get the same light density on the sensor surface. The catch is: a phone has a much smaller sensor, so at the same f-stop, across the whole sensor less light is gathered and consequently, you have a weaker signal.
    - skylanh 5y ago
      Wait until you start looking at transmission values... f-stop doesn't mean much other than the maximum that the aperture for that lens can open. It doesn't indicate lens or element quality, or aberrations. There's a reason that pixel peeping, gear games, and reviewers are so prevalent in high end photography. As a simple extension to this, most of my lenses work better a few stops before maximum f-stop. So, yes, but no.
      - 5y ago
duxup 5y ago
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment is pretty much the secret to ... everything, including knowing the internal software results you get ;) When photography was a bigger hobby for me I had an old digital camera that had a great lens, but tiny sensor and could be slow exposure wise. It did have a great set of built in color modes that I had trouble emulating in software ( and didn't want to spend time on that a great deal ) so I kept around and got a cheap-o mono pod and blamo it's slow nature was less of an issue. Folks with fancy new equipment seemed to struggle emulating what I got with relative ease. Now I probably couldn't emulate what they did in many situations, but I didn't try either, I knew what that equipment could do and it worked. The world of photography is a funky world of pixel peepers, TRUE---ish advice, and folks throwing tons of money at equipment and software and hours of editing and ... just sticking with some specific equipment for a while / learning it's nature can save you A LOT of time and money.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Great advice. It would be fun to see a behind-the-scenes of how some of these photos were taken > But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras. The iPhone camera really is fantastic for what it is (economies of scale are an amazing thing) but you're not wrong. Doing this sort of photography work on an iPhone is more about the challenge than the capabilities. One of the interesting things about photography is that so many capable cameras and lenses have been produced over the past couple decades that you can stop by eBay and pick up some truly capable gear for relatively cheap if you do your research. It's tempting to get pulled into the world of modern full-frame cameras and the latest glass, but the truth is that an older mirrorless camera combined with some known-good old glass will produce amazing photos.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  This is even true for digital gear. At base ISO, cameras like a D7100/7200 have as good image quality as it gets for that class, and you can pick those up for cheap. Even fairly high-end, high-resolution full-frame cameras can be had for less than 500 quid (e.g. D800) and those still have outstanding image quality; there really wasn't a whole lot of major improvements in image quality in the last ten years when you control the light (i.e. don't need high ISO). Things get expensive if you want... ... best low-noise performance (needs sensor from the last ~five years, older stuff usually has color shifts and other issues which are not easy to fix) ... video ... mirrorless ... fast AF (especially if you also want mirrorless) ... all of the above
  - kuschku 5y ago
    Not even necessarily – the Sony a6300 retails around 300 bucks used, which gives you 4K30 or 2K120 video at 8bit. It’s an APS-C mirrorless with fast AF, and its low-noise performance is (although a few years out of date) excellent for its price. And in real-life circumstances it’s better than a Google Pixel.
ghostly_s 5y ago
Most of the photos Apple highlights in this campaign are also shot with very expensive external lenses.
- Bud 5y ago
  False. Not a single one of them used any external lens at all, according to the page itself. This may be true for the campaign as a whole, but it's not true for the page under discussion in this thread.
  - ghostly_s 5y ago
    I see no claims on this page that no external equipment was used, and it's known that professional lens rigs have been used in these "Shot on iPhone" campaigns in the past. https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/ https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
- galaktus 5y ago
  Why would you make such false claims?
  - ghostly_s 5y ago
    Because it's true? https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/ https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
- camillomiller 5y ago
  This is false FUD.
dietrichepp 5y ago
I disagree that bigger cameras are better for macrophotography. I say this because of the physics of how light works in macrophotography, which matches my experience doing macrophotography with larger cameras (6x7cm and 4x5"). The long story short is that reducing the aperture has two effects on image sharpness. Smaller apertures increase the depth of field, bringing more of your scene into focus. Smaller apertures also introduce diffusion, which makes the whole image softer. This tradeoff means that there is a medium aperture which makes your image as sharp as possible. Photographing people with a 35mm camera, the aperture which maximizes sharpness is often achieved with apertures somewhere around ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8. It is advantageous to use a 35mm camera because the larger sensor size can reveal more detail and capture more light. 35mm also gives you access to larger apertures and those nice, blurry backgrounds. In macrophotography, large cameras just aren’t as advantageous. The small apertures that you typically use will produce soft images, and the soft images can be captured well enough on a small sensor. Small cameras give you very blurry backgrounds to begin with, so you wouldn’t choose a large camera to blur the background. Additionally, small cameras require less lens movement, proportional to their size, to focus at the short distances required for macrophotography. I do some macrophotography with my RZ67. Mostly pictures of flowers. It’s fun, but I know that it would be much more convenient to use a smaller camera, and I wouldn’t be sacrificing image quality. One of the big reasons I use the RZ67 is because it uses a bellows to focus, and the bellows is long enough that you can focus very close. However, there’s a lower limit to the size of the subjects I can comfortably photograph, and if I were serious about macrophotography, I would use a smaller camera. Summary: Large cameras are better at taking pictures of large things, small cameras are better at taking pictures of small things.
- petepete 5y ago
  This lines up with what Don Don Komarechka says on the subject. His images are fantastic and he shoots micro 4/3. https://www.donkom.ca https://www.donkom.ca
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I appreciate your perspective, but most folks who are at the top of the macrophotography game use 35mm cameras and macro lenses. It's not actually the case that smaller sensors are net beneficial for taking macro photographs, otherwise we'd see a different trend. Even if these folks were just looking for the "real camera" ergonomics, they'd be using m43, but few of them do. (Perhaps you get some advantage of more depth of field, but 35mm camera lenses can be stopped down to achieve the same effect, when it is desired.) There are exceptions, as my sibling comment points out, but if you go to a list of the top macro photographers and check each one out, 90+% of them will be using 35mm cameras.
mrbonehead 5y ago
Karawebnetwork 5y ago
> It's pretty cool that you can get such nice results from a phone. But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras. Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos? I am in a lot of entomology and myrmecology online groups and people are able to take clear photos of insects that look like professional macro photos using their phones. Before that, only a handful of pro/powerusers were able to share this kind of quality. When asked what camera he used, one popular youtuber (I cannot remember the exact context) explained that while expensive cameras are better on paper he often relies on his iPhone + a cheap ring light clipped on it. Animals often act in interesting ways when you are not ready for it. The ease of using the device that is in your pocket often outweight the potential increase in quality that would come from setting up a studio level setup. The best picture is the one you are able to take.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Well, I often have a "real" camera on my person, because I like cameras. It definitely gets me better results than when I use my phone camera. That's just my taste. I'm certainly not saying your average joe would be best-served by going out and buying a GFX-100S. I'm not sure what YouTuber you're referring to, but most popular photography YouTubers mostly use real cameras still. Occasionally they'll do a gimmick video where they use a phone, but it's the exception, not the rule.
  - Karawebnetwork 5y ago
    For sure, if I am on a trip I'll have my reflex big bulky camera around my neck. But day to day, commuting to work, at a friend's, etc., all I have is my phone.
- subhro 5y ago
  > Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos? Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the expectation of getting photos of similar quality as shown on the page, my question is, how often do you have a high quality ring light on your person along with a stable tripod?
foldr 5y ago
> (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light) Not sure if this is true for macro. For a given angle of view, the amount of light collected is determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture (as opposed to the f number). It’s rarely practical to use a very wide aperture for macro photography on a DSLR for depth of field reasons. People do all sorts of unnecessarily complex calculations with crop factors, but in this scenario all you have to think about is the diameter of the aperture in mm. The phone has an aperture of perhaps around 3-4mm. You’re unlikely to use a wider aperture than that shooting macro on APS-C or full frame.
balls187 5y ago
my Iphone 13 Pro has very (very) impressive low light performance.
galaktus 5y ago
> Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod. It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images. Like they do with "professional" cameras as well.
- camillomiller 5y ago
  Actually way less than with pro cameras
jacobolus 5y ago
> “Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight [...] hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit [...] analogous to the videos of fake hamburgers” You don’t have to speculate. Most of the photographers directly tell you how these were set up: > love going on early morning walks with my iPhone 13 Pro. The ‘golden hour’ brings the best out of nature > I’ve used a spot studio light on the lily with a dark background. > This one instance was during the sliver of golden hour when the sun is shining directly into my window, illuminating all of the tiny cells in each leaf. > I used two items that I found in my kitchen fridge: a strawberry and a can of soda. I placed a clear vase on my kitchen counter, poured the soda into the vase, and used a piece of black paper as the background. I then dropped the strawberry in the vase of soda and waited. Slowly, bubbles began to form on the surface of the strawberry, and its texture was completely transformed. > This image was taken along the edge of Riverside Park in Manhattan while on a morning walk with our puppy this winter. > This tiny, shimmering liquid jewel is delicately nestled at the base of a leaf after a tropical storm, almost imperceptible to the human eye. > The photo was taken when my 3-year-old son discovered the blossom of the tulip at home. I then appreciated the flower with my son and took out my iPhone, trying to capture the moment when the sun kissed the flower, which created a perfect shadow at the petals. As I moved my iPhone closer to the flower, it automatically turned on macro mode, It is entirely possible for someone on a tight budget to make their own studio-like lighting, and there are good photo editing tools available for free. Saying «don’t bother to be inspired by these lovely smartphone photos because some professionals spend thousands of dollars on lighting and Photoshop» is lazy cynical negativity in the extreme. And «people who win photography contests are typically more careful tool users than an average person with no experience» is hardly a deep insight.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  I am a little suspicious of some of these, though. For example in the last one, it seems a bit weird that his son discovered a tulip, and it just happened to be directly in front of a perfectly black background (?). I suspect some of the stories have been tweaked to play up the convenience of having the phone handy. But they are still very nice shots!
- 5y ago
gnicholas 5y ago
> the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod Why is a high-quality tripod needed? You can just set the camera to be on a timer so that it's not shaking (from you touching the shutter button) when it captures the photo. I think it's also possible to use an Apple Watch to trigger the shutter. > It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images. Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?
- rococode 5y ago
  I'm no expert but I think these shots often use slower shutter speeds, for example 0.5s instead of 0.01s. This increases the amount of light, but any movement that happens while the shutter is open will cause blur. Movement causes blur at fast shutter speeds too, but it's less noticeable because obviously you can move much less in 0.01s than you can in 0.5s.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    I get that, but even a cheap tripod (I use a Joby) will hold a phone still for .5 seconds, won't it? You can put the phone on a 10 second delay, so any movement generated by you touching the shutter button would have dissipated by the time the photo is taken.
- infinityio 5y ago
  > Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos? To my knowledge - yes
- mym1990 5y ago
  "Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?" This is going to depend on the genre of the contest, but for most contest types outside of the journalistic realm editing style will very much be a part of the process. You will typically submit the final print and no one will know what the original picture was. There are some contests out there with some pretty outrageous editing though!
HidyBush 5y ago
>Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). this is not true. the iPhone camera's sensor receives the same density of light from its f/1.8 lens than any old traditional camera using an f/1.8 lens. this means the stops are identical. of course the total amount of light that passes through the iPhone's lens is much smaller than a normal camera's, but that has no bearing on the photo's exposure. the real difference rests in the signal to noise ratio, which is determined by pixel density, and that's why smartphone photos are incredibly noisy.
- camillomiller 5y ago
  This
  - twoWhlsGud 5y ago
    That: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equival...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  You mentioned that the stops are identical, but then you said that the phone photos are noisier at the same ISO. You didn't mention this, but there will also be a deeper focus plane. So they aren't identical -- at least under the sense of the word "identical" that's useful to me. You need to use a much slower shutter to get the same noise level. Or a much faster aperture at the same shutter speed. That difference is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll generally find that a cell phone photo has about the same noise once if you divide the ISO by the square of the relative crop factor (and set exposure accordingly). Coincidentally, you also need to use an aperture that's faster by the relative crop factor to get the same level of background blur.
  - HidyBush 5y ago
    I never claimed taking photos on a minuscule sensor with a plastic lens is identical to doing so with a high end DSLR. Stops refer to exposure and noise and depth of field have no bearing on a photo's correct exposure. It seemed to me that parent was spreading a common misconception about how exposure works across different sensor sizes so I wanted to correct/clarify that. The whole topic of noise equivalency or depth of field equivalency is completely separate and I just mentioned it to make it clear what part of a camera influences which characteristic (light density for exposure, pixel density/pixel size for noise, sensor size for depth of field)
camillomiller 5y ago
Dude, have you ever even used an iPhone 13 Pro? Believe me, the macros you take with this phones are stunning. And lighting and stabilization are a determining factor for macro even with cameras, actually even more so for cameras than phones. These pictures btw were not taken this way. The reason I know is because I talked to the Italian winner and Apple about exactly that. Check this one out: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b1PRNfudllgp0q1LyuHrW1OQ#IMG_0452 https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b1PRNfudllgp0q1LyuHrW1OQ... Taken at dusk. No other lights.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  >F 1.8 1/83 sec 1.57 mm ISO 320 No flash For something taken at dusk, I'm surprised of the lack of sunset colors in the background. I would absolutely believe that shutter speed would produce that sharpness. And the depth of field looks like it would be aligned with a macro shot.
  - camillomiller 5y ago
    The sun had just set behind the clouds in Cabo Sao Vicente. The blue you see in the background is the Atlantic Ocean from the top of a high cliff.
Spooky23 5y ago
The whole point of a contest is to push the boundaries. I get your point, but at the same time the quality of casual shots on an iPhone is better than any camera I’m gonna see. Hell, the iPhone 13 camera can take night shots better than what I can see in some cases.

thr0wawayf00 5y ago

> But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern cameras. That's probably true but as a casual hobbyist, it's so much easier to justify spending $1k on a phone and a few hundred on apps than getting buying a legit macro camera setup, especially used camera equipment. I was frustrated by the macro limitations of the iPhone 13 pro and started perusing for macro camera setups and totally balked at the prices. It made more sense to hold out for another major camera spec bump in the next generation of phones (which is rumored).

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I don't know what your budget is, but it is not that expensive to get into a "real" macro setup, at least compared to the cost of a new phone. Try this on for size: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans_photoelectric_a112_e_60mm_f_2_8_sony.html/overview?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoM-ytlELC2I4lQRMxezReBjaYMQCMSNfnklScX2lfTYI-Q7q8U9YwBoCiXEQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1485795-REG/7artisans... https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=a6100&_sacat=... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto_mkcompactlt_bk_compact_light_tripod_black.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A6879&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoB6KJfIuwmKiGca3q0bFPyBBQtAn2JPAaSir_0jC0aV-GaxNkGuz_BoCpUkQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059024-REG/manfrotto... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_vl_200t_vl200t_professional_photography_led.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjw6dmSBhBkEiwA_W-EoLw78oON0RvTKsxR-O66NJUegbvSRUCukXoZmS5Yqz18_VZl6rbCNxoC_RYQAvD_BwE https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1459178-REG/viltrox_v... These items come out to a total of about $1,000 and will vastly outperform any iPhone. Note that I am not recommending this particular setup as I am not a macro photographer, I just wanted to demonstrate what's possible. I'm also not saying you're wrong to wait for a better cell phone camera. Your preferences are your own and there is nothing wrong with them. Just trying to provide some information.
- dr_zoidberg 5y ago
  Compact cameras (under $500) usually have great macro lenses too, though you miss the flexibility of being able to change the lens. I've owned for quite a while a Micro Four Thirds camera from Olympus and that's a very good spot to be a hobbyist: not too expensive, but can do "pro things" like changing lenses, shoots raw, has a horseshoe socket, etc. Of course, the quality is not the same as a full frame camera, but then again, I'm not a pro :)
  - nl 5y ago
    The A6100 (linked above) isn't a full-frame camera either. It uses a APS-C sensor (dimensions of 23.5 x 15.6 mm). The Micro Four Thirds sensor is 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm Full Frame is 24 mm x 36 mm.
    - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
      Yes, and Sony has been really impressive with their cameras lately. It looks like finally Canon and Nikon woke up and start trying to match their (unfortunately for me, Olympus decided to sell their camera business? Did somebody buy them yet?). The thing about larger sensors, for those that aren't aware, is that they produce much better quality images because each pixel is larger, and can gather more light. More light equals a stronger signal, in a noisy ambient. I sometimes try astrophotography because it lets me combine my photography hobby with my programming passion, and I end up writing my own processing pipelines. With a compact camera, I could get the ghost of one of the brightest galaxies in the sky (Centaurus A in the southern hemisphere). With the MFT camera, using the included kit lens I got a little bit of detail, but it was just a few pixels wide. Switch on to a vintage lens I got for ~15 dollars, and I managed to get the galaxy and quite some detail. Not the same as a telescope image, but very impressive for a 1970's lens on a small camera! And the noise levels aren't even comparable. My old compact camera was Noisy with a capital N. Of course I didn't realize it when I bought it, but it was[0]. I see the same on phone cameras (the sensors are about the same size now). The MFT even on ISO 25600 (highest it goes to) isn't as noisy as the compact camera was at 3200. Most phones will cover that with a lot of computation, and that's fine for a small screen. But load your pictures on a large monitor and you'll start seeing the details and differences. However (and it has been said everywhere in the comments) phones are usually way more convenient because you always have it with you. [0] For reference, some 12 years ago I bought a Canon G12, then a G16, and then moved on to a Olympus OMD E10. On every change I got far better quality at about the same camera size, though the olympus is slightly more bulky, and you have to factor in the lens too.
LegitShady 5y ago
>few hundred on apps I don't even understand what you think you're going to buy that will make you a good macro photographer for hundreds of dollars. Hundreds on apps instead of dedicated macro hardware? I can't imagine that will do anything but waste hundreds of dollars.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  What I was personally referring to when I mentioned "software" is a photo editing application like Photoshop, Lightroom, DxO Photolab, etc. The subscriptions/purchase prices of these type of software is $200+. There are free software versions of these apps but most photographers do not use them.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    You're going to need such software whether you use an iphone or a DSLR. There's no difference in cost except the hardware.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      Sorry, to be extra clear, my point is that you will not get these results without such software, because photos almost universally require editing in order to look their best. But my belief is that Apple, with their "Shot on iPhone" marketing, is trying to convey that you will get these results straight out of the camera. This is unlikely to actually be the case. That's the sum of my point w.r.t. software.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        You can get 98% of the same capability with much cheaper software - you don't need spend several hundred on software (affinity photos does focus stacking raws, for example). But you're right the best looking photos are usually processed somehow.
  - Tagbert 5y ago
sudosysgen 5y ago
You can buy a competent macro lens for around 200$ (the Canon EF 100mm macro), and camera to slap it on for around 400$.

barrell 5y ago

I got the canon 100L macro lens last spring for my 6D mark II (after drooling over it for literally 10 years), and ended up getting the iPhone 13 Pro when it came out. So I'm a macro noob with no other equipment. Can confirm, everything out of my dslr + macro lens comes out perfect. It's ridiculous how hard it is to take a bad picture with those. Fluorescent lights, cloudy days, handheld, they're all perfect. That being said I've definitely used and shared more images from my iPhone macro mode. There have been a bunch of misfires, lighting is hard, sharpness is not there across the board - but it definitely scratches that itch and I find myself using my macro lens less. Although after writing this I fully expect to run around my house for an hour next time the sun is out to take some macro shots with the macro lens :D TL;DR - even as a pixel peeper the convenience of having macro on the phone puts dust on my dslr macro lens.

dylan604 5y ago

All Macro photography requires extra light, it's not just anything to do specific to cell phones. That's why there are so many flash rigs designed for this. Also, the iPhone 13 camera has ridiculously fast lenses[0]: Pro 12MP camera system: Telephoto, Wide, and Ultra Wide cameras Telephoto: ƒ/2.8 aperture Wide: ƒ/1.5 aperture Ultra Wide: ƒ/1.8 aperture and 120° field of view If you search for lenses for "real" cameras with those apertures and focal lengths, you'll find 4 digit price tags for each one. Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography [0]https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-13-pro/specs/

kuschku 5y ago
> If you search for lenses for "real" cameras with those apertures and focal lengths, you'll find 4 digit price tags for each one. The aperture is relative to the diameter of the first lens element. So you can’t just compare these values directly.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Sure you can. The f-stop is the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. A aperture of f/4 means, the aperture is one fourth of the focal length. At the same f-stop, you get the same light density on the sensor surface. The catch is: a phone has a much smaller sensor, so at the same f-stop, across the whole sensor less light is gathered and consequently, you have a weaker signal.
  - skylanh 5y ago
    Wait until you start looking at transmission values... f-stop doesn't mean much other than the maximum that the aperture for that lens can open. It doesn't indicate lens or element quality, or aberrations. There's a reason that pixel peeping, gear games, and reviewers are so prevalent in high end photography. As a simple extension to this, most of my lenses work better a few stops before maximum f-stop. So, yes, but no.
    - 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment is pretty much the secret to ... everything, including knowing the internal software results you get ;) When photography was a bigger hobby for me I had an old digital camera that had a great lens, but tiny sensor and could be slow exposure wise. It did have a great set of built in color modes that I had trouble emulating in software ( and didn't want to spend time on that a great deal ) so I kept around and got a cheap-o mono pod and blamo it's slow nature was less of an issue. Folks with fancy new equipment seemed to struggle emulating what I got with relative ease. Now I probably couldn't emulate what they did in many situations, but I didn't try either, I knew what that equipment could do and it worked. The world of photography is a funky world of pixel peepers, TRUE---ish advice, and folks throwing tons of money at equipment and software and hours of editing and ... just sticking with some specific equipment for a while / learning it's nature can save you A LOT of time and money.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

Great advice. It would be fun to see a behind-the-scenes of how some of these photos were taken > But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras. The iPhone camera really is fantastic for what it is (economies of scale are an amazing thing) but you're not wrong. Doing this sort of photography work on an iPhone is more about the challenge than the capabilities. One of the interesting things about photography is that so many capable cameras and lenses have been produced over the past couple decades that you can stop by eBay and pick up some truly capable gear for relatively cheap if you do your research. It's tempting to get pulled into the world of modern full-frame cameras and the latest glass, but the truth is that an older mirrorless camera combined with some known-good old glass will produce amazing photos.

formerly_proven 5y ago
This is even true for digital gear. At base ISO, cameras like a D7100/7200 have as good image quality as it gets for that class, and you can pick those up for cheap. Even fairly high-end, high-resolution full-frame cameras can be had for less than 500 quid (e.g. D800) and those still have outstanding image quality; there really wasn't a whole lot of major improvements in image quality in the last ten years when you control the light (i.e. don't need high ISO). Things get expensive if you want... ... best low-noise performance (needs sensor from the last ~five years, older stuff usually has color shifts and other issues which are not easy to fix) ... video ... mirrorless ... fast AF (especially if you also want mirrorless) ... all of the above
- kuschku 5y ago
  Not even necessarily – the Sony a6300 retails around 300 bucks used, which gives you 4K30 or 2K120 video at 8bit. It’s an APS-C mirrorless with fast AF, and its low-noise performance is (although a few years out of date) excellent for its price. And in real-life circumstances it’s better than a Google Pixel.

ghostly_s 5y ago

Most of the photos Apple highlights in this campaign are also shot with very expensive external lenses.

Bud 5y ago
False. Not a single one of them used any external lens at all, according to the page itself. This may be true for the campaign as a whole, but it's not true for the page under discussion in this thread.
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  I see no claims on this page that no external equipment was used, and it's known that professional lens rigs have been used in these "Shot on iPhone" campaigns in the past. https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/ https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
galaktus 5y ago
Why would you make such false claims?
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  Because it's true? https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads/ https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/truth-shot-iphone-style-ads...
camillomiller 5y ago
This is false FUD.

dietrichepp 5y ago

I disagree that bigger cameras are better for macrophotography. I say this because of the physics of how light works in macrophotography, which matches my experience doing macrophotography with larger cameras (6x7cm and 4x5"). The long story short is that reducing the aperture has two effects on image sharpness. Smaller apertures increase the depth of field, bringing more of your scene into focus. Smaller apertures also introduce diffusion, which makes the whole image softer. This tradeoff means that there is a medium aperture which makes your image as sharp as possible. Photographing people with a 35mm camera, the aperture which maximizes sharpness is often achieved with apertures somewhere around ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8. It is advantageous to use a 35mm camera because the larger sensor size can reveal more detail and capture more light. 35mm also gives you access to larger apertures and those nice, blurry backgrounds. In macrophotography, large cameras just aren’t as advantageous. The small apertures that you typically use will produce soft images, and the soft images can be captured well enough on a small sensor. Small cameras give you very blurry backgrounds to begin with, so you wouldn’t choose a large camera to blur the background. Additionally, small cameras require less lens movement, proportional to their size, to focus at the short distances required for macrophotography. I do some macrophotography with my RZ67. Mostly pictures of flowers. It’s fun, but I know that it would be much more convenient to use a smaller camera, and I wouldn’t be sacrificing image quality. One of the big reasons I use the RZ67 is because it uses a bellows to focus, and the bellows is long enough that you can focus very close. However, there’s a lower limit to the size of the subjects I can comfortably photograph, and if I were serious about macrophotography, I would use a smaller camera. Summary: Large cameras are better at taking pictures of large things, small cameras are better at taking pictures of small things.

petepete 5y ago
This lines up with what Don Don Komarechka says on the subject. His images are fantastic and he shoots micro 4/3. https://www.donkom.ca https://www.donkom.ca
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I appreciate your perspective, but most folks who are at the top of the macrophotography game use 35mm cameras and macro lenses. It's not actually the case that smaller sensors are net beneficial for taking macro photographs, otherwise we'd see a different trend. Even if these folks were just looking for the "real camera" ergonomics, they'd be using m43, but few of them do. (Perhaps you get some advantage of more depth of field, but 35mm camera lenses can be stopped down to achieve the same effect, when it is desired.) There are exceptions, as my sibling comment points out, but if you go to a list of the top macro photographers and check each one out, 90+% of them will be using 35mm cameras.

mrbonehead 5y ago

Karawebnetwork 5y ago

> It's pretty cool that you can get such nice results from a phone. But you'd probably have an easier time of it on a five year old aps-c camera with a macro lens, to say nothing of modern 35mm cameras. Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos? I am in a lot of entomology and myrmecology online groups and people are able to take clear photos of insects that look like professional macro photos using their phones. Before that, only a handful of pro/powerusers were able to share this kind of quality. When asked what camera he used, one popular youtuber (I cannot remember the exact context) explained that while expensive cameras are better on paper he often relies on his iPhone + a cheap ring light clipped on it. Animals often act in interesting ways when you are not ready for it. The ease of using the device that is in your pocket often outweight the potential increase in quality that would come from setting up a studio level setup. The best picture is the one you are able to take.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Well, I often have a "real" camera on my person, because I like cameras. It definitely gets me better results than when I use my phone camera. That's just my taste. I'm certainly not saying your average joe would be best-served by going out and buying a GFX-100S. I'm not sure what YouTuber you're referring to, but most popular photography YouTubers mostly use real cameras still. Occasionally they'll do a gimmick video where they use a phone, but it's the exception, not the rule.
- Karawebnetwork 5y ago
  For sure, if I am on a trip I'll have my reflex big bulky camera around my neck. But day to day, commuting to work, at a friend's, etc., all I have is my phone.
subhro 5y ago
> Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos? Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the expectation of getting photos of similar quality as shown on the page, my question is, how often do you have a high quality ring light on your person along with a stable tripod?

foldr 5y ago

> (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light) Not sure if this is true for macro. For a given angle of view, the amount of light collected is determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture (as opposed to the f number). It’s rarely practical to use a very wide aperture for macro photography on a DSLR for depth of field reasons. People do all sorts of unnecessarily complex calculations with crop factors, but in this scenario all you have to think about is the diameter of the aperture in mm. The phone has an aperture of perhaps around 3-4mm. You’re unlikely to use a wider aperture than that shooting macro on APS-C or full frame.

balls187 5y ago

my Iphone 13 Pro has very (very) impressive low light performance.

galaktus 5y ago

> Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight, and the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod. It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images. Like they do with "professional" cameras as well.

camillomiller 5y ago
Actually way less than with pro cameras

jacobolus 5y ago

> “Most of these pictures were probably lit very carefully with high quality lights, or else were taken in bright daylight [...] hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit [...] analogous to the videos of fake hamburgers” You don’t have to speculate. Most of the photographers directly tell you how these were set up: > love going on early morning walks with my iPhone 13 Pro. The ‘golden hour’ brings the best out of nature > I’ve used a spot studio light on the lily with a dark background. > This one instance was during the sliver of golden hour when the sun is shining directly into my window, illuminating all of the tiny cells in each leaf. > I used two items that I found in my kitchen fridge: a strawberry and a can of soda. I placed a clear vase on my kitchen counter, poured the soda into the vase, and used a piece of black paper as the background. I then dropped the strawberry in the vase of soda and waited. Slowly, bubbles began to form on the surface of the strawberry, and its texture was completely transformed. > This image was taken along the edge of Riverside Park in Manhattan while on a morning walk with our puppy this winter. > This tiny, shimmering liquid jewel is delicately nestled at the base of a leaf after a tropical storm, almost imperceptible to the human eye. > The photo was taken when my 3-year-old son discovered the blossom of the tulip at home. I then appreciated the flower with my son and took out my iPhone, trying to capture the moment when the sun kissed the flower, which created a perfect shadow at the petals. As I moved my iPhone closer to the flower, it automatically turned on macro mode, It is entirely possible for someone on a tight budget to make their own studio-like lighting, and there are good photo editing tools available for free. Saying «don’t bother to be inspired by these lovely smartphone photos because some professionals spend thousands of dollars on lighting and Photoshop» is lazy cynical negativity in the extreme. And «people who win photography contests are typically more careful tool users than an average person with no experience» is hardly a deep insight.

bee_rider 5y ago
I am a little suspicious of some of these, though. For example in the last one, it seems a bit weird that his son discovered a tulip, and it just happened to be directly in front of a perfectly black background (?). I suspect some of the stories have been tweaked to play up the convenience of having the phone handy. But they are still very nice shots!
5y ago

gnicholas 5y ago

> the phone was probably held in a high quality tripod Why is a high-quality tripod needed? You can just set the camera to be on a timer so that it's not shaking (from you touching the shutter button) when it captures the photo. I think it's also possible to use an Apple Watch to trigger the shutter. > It is also likely that hundreds of dollars worth of software was used to edit each of these images. Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?

rococode 5y ago
I'm no expert but I think these shots often use slower shutter speeds, for example 0.5s instead of 0.01s. This increases the amount of light, but any movement that happens while the shutter is open will cause blur. Movement causes blur at fast shutter speeds too, but it's less noticeable because obviously you can move much less in 0.01s than you can in 0.5s.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  I get that, but even a cheap tripod (I use a Joby) will hold a phone still for .5 seconds, won't it? You can put the phone on a 10 second delay, so any movement generated by you touching the shutter button would have dissipated by the time the photo is taken.
infinityio 5y ago
> Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos? To my knowledge - yes
mym1990 5y ago
"Do photo contests typically allow entrants to heavily edit photos?" This is going to depend on the genre of the contest, but for most contest types outside of the journalistic realm editing style will very much be a part of the process. You will typically submit the final print and no one will know what the original picture was. There are some contests out there with some pretty outrageous editing though!

HidyBush 5y ago

>Cell phone cameras are multiple stops slower than "real" cameras (i.e. they take in 1/4 to 1/8th as much light). this is not true. the iPhone camera's sensor receives the same density of light from its f/1.8 lens than any old traditional camera using an f/1.8 lens. this means the stops are identical. of course the total amount of light that passes through the iPhone's lens is much smaller than a normal camera's, but that has no bearing on the photo's exposure. the real difference rests in the signal to noise ratio, which is determined by pixel density, and that's why smartphone photos are incredibly noisy.

camillomiller 5y ago
This
- twoWhlsGud 5y ago
  That: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equival...
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
You mentioned that the stops are identical, but then you said that the phone photos are noisier at the same ISO. You didn't mention this, but there will also be a deeper focus plane. So they aren't identical -- at least under the sense of the word "identical" that's useful to me. You need to use a much slower shutter to get the same noise level. Or a much faster aperture at the same shutter speed. That difference is exactly what I'm talking about. You'll generally find that a cell phone photo has about the same noise once if you divide the ISO by the square of the relative crop factor (and set exposure accordingly). Coincidentally, you also need to use an aperture that's faster by the relative crop factor to get the same level of background blur.
- HidyBush 5y ago
  I never claimed taking photos on a minuscule sensor with a plastic lens is identical to doing so with a high end DSLR. Stops refer to exposure and noise and depth of field have no bearing on a photo's correct exposure. It seemed to me that parent was spreading a common misconception about how exposure works across different sensor sizes so I wanted to correct/clarify that. The whole topic of noise equivalency or depth of field equivalency is completely separate and I just mentioned it to make it clear what part of a camera influences which characteristic (light density for exposure, pixel density/pixel size for noise, sensor size for depth of field)

camillomiller 5y ago

Dude, have you ever even used an iPhone 13 Pro? Believe me, the macros you take with this phones are stunning. And lighting and stabilization are a determining factor for macro even with cameras, actually even more so for cameras than phones. These pictures btw were not taken this way. The reason I know is because I talked to the Italian winner and Apple about exactly that. Check this one out: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b1PRNfudllgp0q1LyuHrW1OQ#IMG_0452 https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0b1PRNfudllgp0q1LyuHrW1OQ... Taken at dusk. No other lights.

geoduck14 5y ago
>F 1.8 1/83 sec 1.57 mm ISO 320 No flash For something taken at dusk, I'm surprised of the lack of sunset colors in the background. I would absolutely believe that shutter speed would produce that sharpness. And the depth of field looks like it would be aligned with a macro shot.
- camillomiller 5y ago
  The sun had just set behind the clouds in Cabo Sao Vicente. The blue you see in the background is the Atlantic Ocean from the top of a high cliff.

Spooky23 5y ago

The whole point of a contest is to push the boundaries. I get your point, but at the same time the quality of casual shots on an iPhone is better than any camera I’m gonna see. Hell, the iPhone 13 camera can take night shots better than what I can see in some cases.