6 ms·

I'm surprised that in no reviews of the iPhone 18 camera there is mention of the bad quality bokeh, it has heavy ring shapes that looks like what you'd get from

by matja 8d ago

I'm surprised that in no reviews of the iPhone 18 camera there is mention of the bad quality bokeh, it has heavy ring shapes that looks like what you'd get from a cheap catadioptric lens. Edit: e.g. the tree in one of the images in the page: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_Deep_AppleiPhone18Pro_DxOMark_05-00.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_D...

robotmay 8d ago
Ooh that's fun bokeh, it's like the doughnut bokeh from a mirror lens. Combined with the various computational tweaks made to the images that's a pretty bizarre effect, looks like micro motion blur at a distance and properly weird when zoomed in.
dofm 8d ago
That is from the normal (24mm) camera slightly stopped down (f/1.8), judging by the EXIF. Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. I would hope that the telephoto lens does not show this so severely (because it has a fixed round aperture) but all mobile phone lenses in my experience have had a tendency towards a sort of concentric-ringed, quasi-soap-bubble bokeh; it's a common part of the challenge of really tiny optics (that you either like or dislike). (The iPhone X was really distinctive in this regard). So it's not too surprising to see the aperture do this on top of that. As a general rule you don't see it in average images, but I guess sensors are now high-enough resolution that it's becoming more obvious, and the blades of a mechanical aperture might make it quite noticeable in some situations.
- gyomu 8d ago
  > Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. Why? Where can I read/learn more about this?
  - robotmay 8d ago
    This is usually due to the blade shape and quantity I believe. The aperture is most likely to be less circular on the widest apertures after fully open unless you have quite a lot of aperture blades, as the curve to make a rounder aperture is usually applied more towards the tip of the blade, and you're only seeing the base of the blades at wider apertures. That varies a lot by aperture design, however - if you have the more banana-shaped blades where the retaining pin and pivot pin are at opposite ends (like in a Yashica TLR) then I believe they can maintain a more consistent curve along the length. Those also suck massively to reassemble, but that's a different story. I haven't seen a diagram of how the aperture in this new iPhone is designed yet. There's a lot of different ways to do it, with lots of odd shape possibilities.
    - dofm 8d ago
      > This is usually due to the blade shape and quantity I believe. Also because of things like angle of incidence? The purely round lens will generally have nice round (or at least cats-eye) bokeh across the frame with an edge that degrades softly as a result of aberration, so beams of light from different angles tend to blur into each other. As soon as you get aperture blades, you lose that soft edge, get contrast but also a lot of competing shape influences at different angles. They will tend towards more rounded shapes as you stop down more. And that is putting aside that some aperture shapes are just really insane when they are nearly wide open, right? (Konica 40mm f/1.8 AR I am looking at you with your shuriken bokeh) > I haven't seen a diagram of how the aperture in this new iPhone is designed yet. There's a lot of different ways to do it, with lots of odd shape possibilities. Not a diagram but one closeup photo: https://petapixel.com/2026/09/19/apple-explains-why-the-iphone-18-pro-has-a-variable-aperture/ https://petapixel.com/2026/09/19/apple-explains-why-the-ipho... and an animation: https://petapixel.com/2026/09/09/iphone-18-pro-has-apples-fastest-lens-yet-thanks-to-variable-aperture/ https://petapixel.com/2026/09/09/iphone-18-pro-has-apples-fa... Six blades with a slightly rounded hook in them by the look of it. Very noticeable sun stars at f/1.8, nice looking results at f/2.8. Absolutely insane mechanical challenge and assembly challenge.
      - 8d ago
- CarVac 8d ago
  Polygonal aperture openings are not the cause of soap-bubble bokeh, it's the cause of polygonal stopped-down bokeh. Heavily ringed bokeh just comes from the optics.
  - dofm 8d ago
    > Polygonal aperture openings are not the cause of soap-bubble bokeh Errr, quite obviously not, indeed. But then I didn't say they were? I said all phone lenses tend to have soap bubble bokeh as a consequence of their optics. Almost all phone lenses don't have mechanical apertures; they have fixed ring apertures and also tiny aspheric lenses. (In the industry it's seemingly called "onion ring bokeh" to distinguish from soap bubble, presumably because it has more than one ring.) However! The first stop down of a mechanical iris has a tendency to have odd effects on the lens's bokeh. You get an interference of the aperture blades and the wide-open bokeh. With a lens that is prone to ring bokeh, slightly stopping down will smear the edge of the bubble, but in this case it is also clearly boosting contrast as you expect (and an irregular shape at different angles)
    - NuclearPM 8d ago
      > But then I didn't say they were? Is that a question?
      - jamiek88 8d ago
        I fucking love how the fact that English is totally, totally, literally non prescriptive breaks engineering type people’s brains. Perfectly fine use of colloquial commenting? Yes. Against the ‘rule’ you were taught in primary school English? Also yes. That’s why English is so interesting.
      - khazhoux 8d ago
        Thanks for asking, NuclearPM. It was not actually a question. In informal English a question mark can follow a plain statement, where then it indicates a non-specific uncertainty. In the case above, the sentence could be interpreted generally as: “I didn’t say they were... and I'm not sure what gave impression I did" or "I didn't say they were... I think you misinterpreted." Does that make sense?
- bookofjoe 8d ago
  An aside re: telephoto lens: Duo doesn't have one! It creates the effect of a 2x lens by enlarging the unmagnified image.
  - zamadatix 8d ago
    Following on for clarity, this is why the Duo lacks a dynamic aperture. Seems they must have been quite squeezed for space.l indeed. Even on the 18 Pro Max the 8x zoom of the telephoto lens is just the 4x using the same 12 MP crop of the 48 MP sensor to "double" the 4x optical zoom as the last generation. I hope we can get some level of optical zoom on a future Duo.
  - deleted 8d ago
    [deleted]
  - Kirby64 7d ago
    The 18 Pro does this too for 1x -> 2x. Same as the iPhone Air, as well.
- formerly_proven 8d ago
  Soap bubble bokeh comes from overcorrected SA. Onion rings and related brightness anomalies/unevenness in bokeh are mostly the result of molded aspheric lenses. Stopping slightly down has not significantly impacted bokeh (apart from apodized lenses) since rounded aperture blades have been invented about fifty years ago.
  - dofm 8d ago
    The iPhone 18 aperture does not have rounded blades (except the tip). Six hooked blades, very truncated hexagon aperture (perhaps exactly a regular dodecagon, it’s a little difficult to tell from the promo images)
mannyv 8d ago
Only professionals and enthusiasts care about bokeh. And I say that as someone that shoots my 50mm 1.2 wide open. Previously the blur on iPhone was all software, apparently. I've set mine to do wide open with no bokeh, and i'll put it in after. But to be honest, the iPhone is the camera I have on me, so the limits are acceptable. Can I force focus it? No. Can I get the glow? No. But iPhone + zoom + crop is better in some ways than my 50mm 1.2 with bokeh.
- ValentineC 8d ago
  > Only professionals and enthusiasts care about bokeh. I mean, consumers would probably just know it as "nice and pleasing blurred background", versus "this blurred background isn't as nice".
- qmr 8d ago
  That assertion is not true at all and your comment overall just reeks of Apple apologism. The average user may not understand the technical details of bokeh but they will certainly have an opinion on what is pleasing to the eye.
  - 0x457 7d ago
    I remeber photographers talking about X has "not very nice bokeh" probably since I met a first photographer when phones were monochrome and had no camera. No one beside photographer cared then, no one will care today. To most people its just blur and they don't care that it is not just blur.
    - virgilp 7d ago
      If your assertion was true, it logically leads to "camera quality doesn't matter man, only photographers care about that, to most people it's just pictures" There are details, all of these are details; but saying that "iphone5-level-cameras are good enough form most people" is both true (obviously it sold and millions were satisfied with it) and false (most people would notice today that iphone5s take worse photos than latest-gen). All the details add up to image quality that _is_ noticeable even to the laymen.
deleted 8d ago
[deleted]
baxtr 8d ago
Ring shapes on this image? I’m a not a professional and I don’t see them.
- computomatic 8d ago
  Zoom in on the large tree in the background. It looks as if it has ornamental balls hanging off it.
  - Gigachad 8d ago
    Specular light sources always like ornamental balls in out of focus areas. What's wrong with it here is they are much brighter along the outside than the middle, and they have a funny shield like shape. That said, I can't see this with the image open filling my 27" monitor, I can only see it zooming in. Perhaps if you are printing a wall sized photo, use a real camera.
- xn7 8d ago
  Zoom in on the tree leaves, it's very visible on those. They appear as green rings, slightly lighter on the edge, giving it the appearance of a ring. You can also see it very clearly in the spots of sky between the leaves, they appear grey with an almost white outline.
- tern 8d ago
  A good video from a pro going through why someone might deliberately choose characteristics like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zH7J_Vmg4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zH7J_Vmg4 (4:47)
tern 8d ago
Reminds of vintage Meyer-Gorlitz or Zeiss Planar. I'm kinda into it.
dylan604 8d ago
I've seen similar results from images I've taken using quality lenses but overly aggressive develop settings.
freetime2 8d ago
> I'm surprised that in no reviews of the iPhone 18 camera there is mention of the bad quality bokeh PetaPixel reviewed the bokeh, and called it "meh" and "not very nice". [1] A lot of the iPhone reviews are very rushed in order to have a review ready by the time the embargo is lifted. I think the PetaPixel review is quite thorough given the limited amount of time they had to actually use it. [1] https://youtu.be/XYH9RPdRfGs?si=gypqOkTU6dOOv19d&t=1714 https://youtu.be/XYH9RPdRfGs?si=gypqOkTU6dOOv19d&t=1714
deleted 8d ago
[deleted]
wodenokoto 7d ago
I’m having a very hard time telling the blur of the trees apart between the iPhone 18 picture and the iPhone 17 picture of the same subject also posted in the article available here: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_Deep_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_D...

by matja 8d ago

robotmay 8d ago

Ooh that's fun bokeh, it's like the doughnut bokeh from a mirror lens. Combined with the various computational tweaks made to the images that's a pretty bizarre effect, looks like micro motion blur at a distance and properly weird when zoomed in.

dofm 8d ago

That is from the normal (24mm) camera slightly stopped down (f/1.8), judging by the EXIF. Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. I would hope that the telephoto lens does not show this so severely (because it has a fixed round aperture) but all mobile phone lenses in my experience have had a tendency towards a sort of concentric-ringed, quasi-soap-bubble bokeh; it's a common part of the challenge of really tiny optics (that you either like or dislike). (The iPhone X was really distinctive in this regard). So it's not too surprising to see the aperture do this on top of that. As a general rule you don't see it in average images, but I guess sensors are now high-enough resolution that it's becoming more obvious, and the blades of a mechanical aperture might make it quite noticeable in some situations.

gyomu 8d ago
> Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. Why? Where can I read/learn more about this?
- robotmay 8d ago
  This is usually due to the blade shape and quantity I believe. The aperture is most likely to be less circular on the widest apertures after fully open unless you have quite a lot of aperture blades, as the curve to make a rounder aperture is usually applied more towards the tip of the blade, and you're only seeing the base of the blades at wider apertures. That varies a lot by aperture design, however - if you have the more banana-shaped blades where the retaining pin and pivot pin are at opposite ends (like in a Yashica TLR) then I believe they can maintain a more consistent curve along the length. Those also suck massively to reassemble, but that's a different story. I haven't seen a diagram of how the aperture in this new iPhone is designed yet. There's a lot of different ways to do it, with lots of odd shape possibilities.
  - dofm 8d ago
    > This is usually due to the blade shape and quantity I believe. Also because of things like angle of incidence? The purely round lens will generally have nice round (or at least cats-eye) bokeh across the frame with an edge that degrades softly as a result of aberration, so beams of light from different angles tend to blur into each other. As soon as you get aperture blades, you lose that soft edge, get contrast but also a lot of competing shape influences at different angles. They will tend towards more rounded shapes as you stop down more. And that is putting aside that some aperture shapes are just really insane when they are nearly wide open, right? (Konica 40mm f/1.8 AR I am looking at you with your shuriken bokeh) > I haven't seen a diagram of how the aperture in this new iPhone is designed yet. There's a lot of different ways to do it, with lots of odd shape possibilities. Not a diagram but one closeup photo: https://petapixel.com/2026/09/19/apple-explains-why-the-iphone-18-pro-has-a-variable-aperture/ https://petapixel.com/2026/09/19/apple-explains-why-the-ipho... and an animation: https://petapixel.com/2026/09/09/iphone-18-pro-has-apples-fastest-lens-yet-thanks-to-variable-aperture/ https://petapixel.com/2026/09/09/iphone-18-pro-has-apples-fa... Six blades with a slightly rounded hook in them by the look of it. Very noticeable sun stars at f/1.8, nice looking results at f/2.8. Absolutely insane mechanical challenge and assembly challenge.
    - 8d ago
CarVac 8d ago
Polygonal aperture openings are not the cause of soap-bubble bokeh, it's the cause of polygonal stopped-down bokeh. Heavily ringed bokeh just comes from the optics.
- dofm 8d ago
  > Polygonal aperture openings are not the cause of soap-bubble bokeh Errr, quite obviously not, indeed. But then I didn't say they were? I said all phone lenses tend to have soap bubble bokeh as a consequence of their optics. Almost all phone lenses don't have mechanical apertures; they have fixed ring apertures and also tiny aspheric lenses. (In the industry it's seemingly called "onion ring bokeh" to distinguish from soap bubble, presumably because it has more than one ring.) However! The first stop down of a mechanical iris has a tendency to have odd effects on the lens's bokeh. You get an interference of the aperture blades and the wide-open bokeh. With a lens that is prone to ring bokeh, slightly stopping down will smear the edge of the bubble, but in this case it is also clearly boosting contrast as you expect (and an irregular shape at different angles)
  - NuclearPM 8d ago
    > But then I didn't say they were? Is that a question?
    - jamiek88 8d ago
      I fucking love how the fact that English is totally, totally, literally non prescriptive breaks engineering type people’s brains. Perfectly fine use of colloquial commenting? Yes. Against the ‘rule’ you were taught in primary school English? Also yes. That’s why English is so interesting.
    - khazhoux 8d ago
      Thanks for asking, NuclearPM. It was not actually a question. In informal English a question mark can follow a plain statement, where then it indicates a non-specific uncertainty. In the case above, the sentence could be interpreted generally as: “I didn’t say they were... and I'm not sure what gave impression I did" or "I didn't say they were... I think you misinterpreted." Does that make sense?
bookofjoe 8d ago
An aside re: telephoto lens: Duo doesn't have one! It creates the effect of a 2x lens by enlarging the unmagnified image.
- zamadatix 8d ago
  Following on for clarity, this is why the Duo lacks a dynamic aperture. Seems they must have been quite squeezed for space.l indeed. Even on the 18 Pro Max the 8x zoom of the telephoto lens is just the 4x using the same 12 MP crop of the 48 MP sensor to "double" the 4x optical zoom as the last generation. I hope we can get some level of optical zoom on a future Duo.
- deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
- Kirby64 7d ago
  The 18 Pro does this too for 1x -> 2x. Same as the iPhone Air, as well.
formerly_proven 8d ago
Soap bubble bokeh comes from overcorrected SA. Onion rings and related brightness anomalies/unevenness in bokeh are mostly the result of molded aspheric lenses. Stopping slightly down has not significantly impacted bokeh (apart from apodized lenses) since rounded aperture blades have been invented about fifty years ago.
- dofm 8d ago
  The iPhone 18 aperture does not have rounded blades (except the tip). Six hooked blades, very truncated hexagon aperture (perhaps exactly a regular dodecagon, it’s a little difficult to tell from the promo images)

mannyv 8d ago

Only professionals and enthusiasts care about bokeh. And I say that as someone that shoots my 50mm 1.2 wide open. Previously the blur on iPhone was all software, apparently. I've set mine to do wide open with no bokeh, and i'll put it in after. But to be honest, the iPhone is the camera I have on me, so the limits are acceptable. Can I force focus it? No. Can I get the glow? No. But iPhone + zoom + crop is better in some ways than my 50mm 1.2 with bokeh.

ValentineC 8d ago
> Only professionals and enthusiasts care about bokeh. I mean, consumers would probably just know it as "nice and pleasing blurred background", versus "this blurred background isn't as nice".
qmr 8d ago
That assertion is not true at all and your comment overall just reeks of Apple apologism. The average user may not understand the technical details of bokeh but they will certainly have an opinion on what is pleasing to the eye.
- 0x457 7d ago
  I remeber photographers talking about X has "not very nice bokeh" probably since I met a first photographer when phones were monochrome and had no camera. No one beside photographer cared then, no one will care today. To most people its just blur and they don't care that it is not just blur.
  - virgilp 7d ago
    If your assertion was true, it logically leads to "camera quality doesn't matter man, only photographers care about that, to most people it's just pictures" There are details, all of these are details; but saying that "iphone5-level-cameras are good enough form most people" is both true (obviously it sold and millions were satisfied with it) and false (most people would notice today that iphone5s take worse photos than latest-gen). All the details add up to image quality that _is_ noticeable even to the laymen.

deleted 8d ago

[deleted]

baxtr 8d ago

Ring shapes on this image? I’m a not a professional and I don’t see them.

computomatic 8d ago
Zoom in on the large tree in the background. It looks as if it has ornamental balls hanging off it.
- Gigachad 8d ago
  Specular light sources always like ornamental balls in out of focus areas. What's wrong with it here is they are much brighter along the outside than the middle, and they have a funny shield like shape. That said, I can't see this with the image open filling my 27" monitor, I can only see it zooming in. Perhaps if you are printing a wall sized photo, use a real camera.
xn7 8d ago
Zoom in on the tree leaves, it's very visible on those. They appear as green rings, slightly lighter on the edge, giving it the appearance of a ring. You can also see it very clearly in the spots of sky between the leaves, they appear grey with an almost white outline.
tern 8d ago
A good video from a pro going through why someone might deliberately choose characteristics like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zH7J_Vmg4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zH7J_Vmg4 (4:47)

tern 8d ago

Reminds of vintage Meyer-Gorlitz or Zeiss Planar. I'm kinda into it.

dylan604 8d ago

I've seen similar results from images I've taken using quality lenses but overly aggressive develop settings.

freetime2 8d ago

> I'm surprised that in no reviews of the iPhone 18 camera there is mention of the bad quality bokeh PetaPixel reviewed the bokeh, and called it "meh" and "not very nice". [1] A lot of the iPhone reviews are very rushed in order to have a review ready by the time the embargo is lifted. I think the PetaPixel review is quite thorough given the limited amount of time they had to actually use it. [1] https://youtu.be/XYH9RPdRfGs?si=gypqOkTU6dOOv19d&t=1714 https://youtu.be/XYH9RPdRfGs?si=gypqOkTU6dOOv19d&t=1714

deleted 8d ago

[deleted]

wodenokoto 7d ago

I’m having a very hard time telling the blur of the trees apart between the iPhone 18 picture and the iPhone 17 picture of the same subject also posted in the article available here: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_Deep_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_D...