11 ms·
Apple iPhone 14 Pro Camera test
- yalogin 4y agoI am coming across this site for the first time, is this a reputable one? What is the global ranking they use?
- jeswin 4y agoAmong the most reputed. They've been rating cameras and lenses forever, and also make software for post processing and corrections (https://www.dxo.com/ https://www.dxo.com/). I think they're now different companies, but the site is quite credible.
- londons_explore 4y agoYes. It is the gold standard test for phone cameras. However, they do take payment for conducting tests on prerelease hardware, and there have also been controversies when they adjusted the test methodology to advantage certain new features - for example when they added a 'zoom' category just as apple added in a zoom lens, making that years iPhone win.
- solardev 4y agoThey're old now, but I remember when they were used to show off the first Pixel photos. Not sure if that was astroturfed. Their scores are their own composite rankings. But does it matter anymore? Everyone just picks a side now and sticks with it. Objectivity doesn't really factor into it anymore, sadly...
- least 4y agoIt is a fairly reputable one, but it had become so "reputable" at one point that there was some weird possible conflicts of interest with them working with camera manufacturers/phone manufacturers to improve their cameras which kind of brings into question the neutrality of those reviews. For a while on a yearly basis there'd be some new smart phone that would pass all the other ones and get a new all time high DXO mark. With that being said, they do pretty good coverage at least with regards to camera lenses and sensors, including the ones in phones. It's quite a thorough review and they provide a lot of sample images for you to peruse through to make your own judgements.
- raihansaputra 4y agoI know by scores the iPhone 13 Pro is just slightly below iPhone 14 Pro, but the 14's telephoto is way sharper than the 13s. It's a bit of a letdown that the 13 got a 3x (too tight) and less sharp lens as an "upgrade".
- jeswin 4y agoPhones now consistently/always outperform high-end cameras in brightly lit conditions involving the sky, water, snow etc. It's nearly impossible to get the same results with camera gear on account of them still having not figured out how to merge multiple exposures milliseconds apart. If camera makers don't radically alter image processing on their bodies, they'll soon find themselves in a place even smaller than what's already a niche.
- FredPret 4y agoI have an entry-level mirrorless and a top-level camera phone. The results are not in the same league, nevermind the phone being better. A bigger sensor and lens will always win.
- solardev 4y agoI wish someone just made an SLR with Android and Google Photos and the Google Camera, ie good lenses paired with good computational photography and easy sharing. Sony tried a few years back, but then Sony got it the way...
- spockz 4y agoYes. I still don’t get why none of the camera makers outfits their camera with something on the level of the iPhone. Maybe there is less to be gained in dSLR because of the mirror. But mirrorless with the constant exposure should be a ready match.
- Arcanum-XIII 4y agoI think mostly because they don't need to have that much processing power compare to a smartphone, due to their bigger lens/sensor - so they don't need to use higher end processing unit. You can delay the postprocessing to a dedicated (external) software so to say. One big advantage you have with dedicated hardware also is the reduced need to have a virtual interface (though UX is quite often in dire need to be improved on them, especially for advance configuration). A bit like knob are better in a car in a general way. But to be honest, at the end, it's clearly a difference of philosophy. I'd wager that the smartphone maker have better understood the market than the camera maker for a while.
- solardev 4y agoSomeone should do a few double blinds...
- nhoughto 4y agoNever heard of the #1, Honor Magic4 Ultimate, but it looks like it aims for camera quality at the cost of everything else. iPhone looks like a much better set of tradeoffs at #2!
- rjzzleep 4y agoHonor used to be Huawei's budget brand. They then split it off and now it's making flagships. I personally think it was the response to the sanction war waged against Huawei, but of course they deny it.
- aeyes 4y agoBut when you look through the detail photos in the post the Honor phone is miles ahead in every category. I don't know how the overall rating ended up so close, maybe the video quality makes the difference.
- wodenokoto 4y ago> Please note that throughout this article we compare the Apple iPhone 14 Pro to both the iPhone 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max, which achieved identical results in last year’s tests. I don't know how to parse that sentence. Are they saying that the two iPhone 13 perform the same as they did last time they were tested (why shouldn't they?), or are they saying the 14 Pro performs the same as the two 13s?
- toxicFork 4y agoThey are saying i13pro == i13promax I would have expected the max to be better, but it seems it's not
- thelibrarian 4y agoFor many years the max models did have better cameras, but for the 13 and 14 both pro models have identical cameras.
- dagmx 4y agoWasn’t it only the 12 Max that had a differentiator? Otherwise they’ve been the same I thought
- thelibrarian 4y agoThe 8 Plus was the first to have extra camera capabilities on the Plus/Max model.
- lazzlazzlazz 4y agoThey're saying that the two 13s performed identically when they were tested.
- tourist2d 4y agoThey achieved identical results in last year's tests.
- ricardobeat 4y agoThis iPhone review left me thoroughly impressed with the “Honor Magic4 Ultimate”. The dynamic range is wild and it has almost a film look. Why cant Apple have this!?
- Gigachad 4y agoA quick search shows the cameras on that phone are absolutely massive and it costs more than the iPhone pro.
- zimpenfish 4y agoSeems to be only available in China, too, which kinda limits its usefulness.
- M3L0NM4N 4y agoIn all honesty, if the iPhone 14 had a 10x zoom lens like my S22U and USB C, I would buy it.
- musha68k 4y agoI'm a bit fed up with "computational photography". The image reconstruction on the iPhone 13 is super fascinating from a technical perspective - crazy what can be achieved with the given constraints - but I do prefer less of it like it was still the case with my old "more honest" iPhone X. I should probably finally test the Pro Raw mode, I guess it will give me what I'm missing? Still, I'm wondering if anyone has a rec for a slightly less handy yet purpose built and somewhat comparable modern "snap & shoot" camera? Even after reading this well done review / comparison the iPhone 14 Pro upgrade is just not worth it to me at this point.
- fab1an 4y agoIf I bought a point and shoot, it would probably the Ricoh GR series. Super classic format and amazing sensor + lense.
- aspyct 4y agoI wish there was a Ricoh GR with a 80-90mm lens. That would be sick!
- remlov 4y agoI pulled the trigger on a GR IIIx about a year ago. It's mind bogglingly amazing and several orders of magnitude better than anything my iPhone 13 Pro nor my Pixel 6 XL can muster. It goes everywhere my smartphone does as it is very pocketable.
- FeistySkink 4y agoCan it do clean HDMI or DP out to be used as a webcam at full resolution?
- Xeoncross 4y agoI've found there comes a point where your webcam can be too good.
- 4y ago
- mrkwse 4y agoSeems a strange omission not to evaluate the ProRAW capture. I can understand having the rankings being in the typical/regular mode (as competitors may not have comparable modes), but surely there's value into evaluating what the enhancement offered by the top-quality mode offers? It's a bit like evaluating the drive characteristics of a sports car but not once taking it out of comfort mode.
- kossTKR 4y agoKnowing little about photography all of these photos look like an obscure combination of fake and dull. Like over saturated HDR-era style photos with too little depth. It's like those voice compression algos where at a certain threshold "the character" of the person talking has just completely disappeared then magically reappears at a high enough bitrate. These photos seem compressed in a way that takes away the "soul" of what's photographed. Mirrors the way heavy loudness compression and autotune has become standard in pop music, and audiences now prefers "metallic" voices and very little dynamic range - so people will probably prefer this ghostly aesthetic to actual reality going forward.
- chrisseaton 4y ago> with too little depth There's a limit to what you can do with these tiny optics to get depth via separation with a shallow depth of field.
- freetime2 4y agoI’ve always felt that my eye handles high dynamic range scenes much better than cameras. In the past I would shoot a photo and the shadows in the photo would be much darker than they appeared to me in person, and the sky would be blown out with no color. These compressed images feel closer to me to the way I actually perceive the world. The colors do sometimes get a little funky though.
- neogodless 4y agohttps://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/if-your-eyes-were-cameras-what-would-the-specs-be https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/if-your-eyes-were-ca... Human Eye - 21 stops Best Camera - <= 15 stops
- jsjohnst 4y ago> I’ve always felt that my eye handles high dynamic range scenes much better than cameras. Depending on what you mean by “eye handles”, yes, you have far more dynamic range than most cameras. The reason I caveat is that just like how modern smartphones with their “computation images” are really combining multiple shots together, so is your brain. I forget the exact numbers, but I think the retina itself is around 5-8 stops of dynamic range and what your brain “sees” when you are looking around is something like 15-20 stops.
- pweezy 4y agoMostly off-topic, but I love the scale used for score bars on this site. Each category has a scale from 0 to {highest score of all devices of this class}. So every category where the current phone is the best has a 100% full bar. Where it’s not, you can immediately visualize if it’s 70% as good as the best device or 99% as good - even if the high score for that category is, say, 136. A lot of stricter review sites will say something like (made up example) “no phone gets above a 4/10 score for zoom; only a DSLR/mirrorless exceeds that.” Which is totally valid! But I want to know how the device I’m reading about scores within its category. Those smaller bars make it look like this gadget has one major weakness despite its other high scores, when the reality might be that it actually has the best - or close to the best - zoom ability out of all devices in this class.