I use a Canon G5X ii instead of my iPhone for photography. I prefer the process of picture taking and the output from the Canon. Skin tones, colour gradation and tonal balance is, to my eye, far more appealing on the 1” sensor.
Apple Pro Raw isn't RAW (and it isn't "Pro" either). But, Apple provides a programming interface that lets you modify the local tone mapping - apps like Raw Power (on the Mac App Store) has a slider that lets you adjust the strength of the tone mapping - or turning it off entirely. I find that Pro Raw looks the best with the Apple tone mapping reduced to about 70-80%.
You didn't need to go to m4/3, you could have used 1inch sony or 11/7. While phones are great and beat some cameras in some categories of photography, they still have some limitations. For the average person a phone is all they need. For the enthusiasts, the majority will still prefer a camera, IMHO. My old elph 330 out resolves my s22+ on any given day but can't touch it when the light gets low, for example.
The question with smartphones is not "have they become better than..." but "are they good enough to be used for casual everyday photography?" Always in the pocket, and easy to send photos within 1 minute or so. No camera can do that. There is a reason that iPhones are the most used cameras in the world, by far. Good enough in many situations. And I still have 3 different "real cameras" with various lenses.
They have always been good enough to just take a convenient picture. The argument that is being made among some tech companies is that AI processing will let their post processed image quality surpass what you can produce with an interchangeable lens camera, or at least match it. I really enjoyed this video for what it is. I do hope to see one that compares the best image each camera can produce. Tough to do since it is such a convoluted topic, but without it you are really misleading people.
The good enough bar continues to progress fast in the phone space, slowly in the camera space. A vintage camera like the Canon 5D classic, will produce nicer photos, but nobody wants to be inconvenienced.
@@CharlieVN photography hobbiest almost always want to learn more and understand more about their hobby, for that canon 5d classic is propably best digital camera that you can buy today, taking photo with iPhone wount teach you anything new about photography even if you have as litle as 20000 image experience with slr/dslr, but 5d can, by the way is there way to fire multble strobes / speedlights in groups with iPhone?
Unfortunately you need a third party app to shoot RAW. If you have a creative cloud subscription you can use Lightroom. Otherwise you can pick from one of the other apps on the app store. I use Halide and I'm very satisfied with it.
Thank you. This clarifies a few points for me, although not all were visible on the UA-cam video. My policy will be to take landscapes with my phone and portraits (the kind of photo that gives me most joy) with my dedicated camera. Ditto for compositions requiring more reach. Unless my interests evolve, I will no longer shop for wide angle lenses. As for file format, I appreciate your recommendation but have mixed feelings. I love to compose and take pictures but see any editing work as a necessary evil at best.
@@cameraprepper7938 You are not alone. Many people prefer landscape to portrait. I do not. The phone is good enough for landscape pictures in my case. I thought I expressed that clearly, but I guess not. Do you understand me now?
This is a gretat great video... I miss only a comparisson with action, fast moving subjects.. for instance, skate.. Is it possible to shoot iphone proraw in this situation? what about shutter lag and motion blurr?
It would probably be very noisy even in daylight. If you to try to shoot sports, for instance, you'd need a 1/250 shutter, which would prevent a lot of light from entering the sensor.
@@timothymatthews6458 Daylight provides plenty of light for the small aperture of iPhones. Daylight photos will be taken at the lowest ISO with fast shutter speed (at least 1/500) even on a cloudy day or in the afternoon.
I'm not familiar with that camera so I'm afraid I can't answer your question. My guess is that the lumix fz200 has the bigger sensor but better do some research to be on the safe side.
@@Fastfast0103 Try to get a more recent cheap dslr and you'll be good to go. There are plenty from canon and other brands that can easily outperform any phone out there.
@@marvelousdecay is dslr better than digital cameras? My purpose of use is for Real Estate. Just pics of houses. Apartments. Rooms. Etc. I’ll prefer less setup and quick sharing to Mac. I was using iPhone 13 in 0.7 but it lose quality. And 0.5 is too open.
I recently bought a Panasonic GF2 (same sensor as GF1) and it takes better pictures than both my smartphones (Samsung and Pixel). Bear in mind that not all of us have the latest phone with the best camera and the GF1/2 are a fraction of the cost of an iPhone. The Samsung phone takes the best pictures and in some ways might appear to outdo the GF2 but the images look artificial due to aggressive post-processing. I'm not a photographer but I own a couple of Panasonic travel zooms that I like to use when I travel. The zoom is a game changer even if you just use it in a simple minded way like me to frame the picture. A few weeks ago I came accross a rainbow and took a picture with the Samsung phone but I made the mistake of digitally zooming so the picture came out bad. A cheap travel zoom would have taken a much better picture.
I am not a photography expert but recently returned from a trip to vietnam,thailand, indonesia, didnt take a dedicated camera with me because its heavy, takes up extra space in my luggage , is another device i need to keep charged up , instead relied on my google pixel 3 , i was seriously impressed with the photos it produced, its portable, easy to keep charged, pics can be easily uploaded to facebook, has gps tracking, seems to be able to produce acceptable pics in almost any light condition and for me, it was a great easy option rather than a dedicated camera....still looking for a compact camera that can produce as good pics for the cost of the pixel....95 percent of the pics the pixel took were fine, when i use a dedicated camera its hit and miss whether the photos are good....
I have a iPhone 13Pro and I was thinking about getting the GF3 model but I don’t know if it has a external mic 🎤 input🤷🏾♂️ if there’s is a way that I can bring out the audio with the GF3 can you please let me know what I need to get?
Not utilizing the no1 advantage of smartphones which is processing/stacking does not seem fair to me. Of course sensor to sensor alone the bigger sensor is gonna beat the smaller one.
The processing happening on the HEIC format doesn't actually produce better results. Apple is being very aggressive with noise reduction and sharpening. With RAW you actually have more control over the final image. If I compared the HEIC format to the GF1s RAW, the results would be even worse.
@@marvelousdecay In almost every smartphone these days, when you shoot a low light photo it actually shoots multiple photos and then combines them. In some phones you should specify it for example 'night mode'.This gives a big advantage to the phone compared to a 12yr old mft sensor. When you only take a raw it is to be expected that it will be very noisy.
If you notice in the video I mention the ISO I’ve used on both cameras. Because I shot both with a tripod I used iPhone's lowest ISO possible. So the noise you see is the absolute minimum. Also the stacking that happens with Apple’s night mode doesn’t make things better. It actually makes them worse. Have a look at the other video I made from a couple of years ago. Let me find the link
Found it. It's this one here: ua-cam.com/video/yZqUyXRvMMU/v-deo.html Go to 12:12 There you will see how processed Apple's night mode is. The better solution is actually the RAW file because you can control pretty much everything. From the ISO to the amount of processing.
HEIC is better than JPG when it comes to compression and being able to display HDR content but the image processing applied is the same on both formats.
15:11 i don't think shooting at 48MP will bring any improvement if not getting worse. The iPhone sensor is "Stacked", meaning it shout 4 pictures of the same pixel and average the results. It is the same technology you have in the lastest M43 20MP sensor and many FF cameras. It helps with ISO and noise and keeps the images more natural.
Stacked sensor means the DRAM is integrated in the circuitry directly to allow fast reading of the sensor. That's a hardware design and is different from photo stacking, which is a software feature and stacks multiple shots on top of each other.
people still refer to this video often, so please do a wide lens comparison of GF1 vs 48MP pro raw . Its very clear the GF1 shows much less detail in normal lighting conditions (most relevant) than the iphone in pro raw mode and still you feel no need to mention that fact. I fully agree on your general take that the phone is a lesser photographic tool, but the way you made your comparison seems heavily biased.
Seems you didn't provide the aperture and shutter speed. As iphone is always auto mode, if you set the GF1 Manuel, iso 100 low shutter speed with tripod, of course it can beat iphone. but in general case, i am very sure, the old camera with old CCD sensor will lose a lot. I compared an apsc 13 years old Canon, iphone is definitely the winner.
You can setup manual mode on the iPhone too, where you can adjust ISO and shutter speed, so the two cameras were actually setup quite close. What you see in the video is the best case scenario for the iPhone. Once you move out of iPhone’s ISO 50, 64 things turn bad real fast. You get a ton of noise and a big loss in detail and color reproduction. So the GF1 in low light settings has an even bigger advantage. So your APSC camera could fare even better. Not sure how you’ve conducted your testing but considering re-testing.
@@marvelousdecay Thanks for your reply. you talking about the best case scenario, I find that my mind is snapshot while you talk about photography. so yes, I agree that GF1 can shoot better photography under the best case scenario. But for snapshot, i think iphone is the winner. iphone is designed to shoot stupid handy fast snapshot, refined by software. No tripod. No Post-production. especially HDR, 10 years old camera don't have HDR, I don't think it can handle sunlight contrast. btw, I also use Sony a7c. In general case, a7c wins iphone a lot.
I shoot photo's with my fuji xt30 and xt100 cameras whenever I can. The only time I shoot with my phone camera is when I didn't bring my fuji cameras. Thats also the reason I buy midrange price phone because really the reason you will buy flagship phones are for their cameras unless you are a gamer which Im not. This way buying midrange phone Its not painful on my wallet when I upgrade to a new phone every 2 years.
and with todays advancements they could probably create a really slim and compact camera that packs a punch. Of course it wouldn’t be able to compete with big sensor cameras but it could be a nice introduction to more ‘advanced’ photography.
@@marvelousdecay Couldn't agree more. I also wish more companies would do what Ricoh did with their GR III: Pack a big sensor into a really small, pocketable body.
There is the GX9. It is a compact 20Mpx camera. I have a M43 and a Canon FF equipment.The biggest advantage of FF is when you need ISO higher than 1600. These small cameras are perfect for prints up to at least 30cm x 40cm.
You don't even try to hide your biases do you? You must have already known the camera looks like garbage when compared to the PoRAW files so you don't use the ProRAW, so that you can complain how noisy the phone image is.
@@marvelousdecay There's no need to check your comments, I have the phone and it does just "magically solve things", I never ever shoot normal RAW because there's zero reasons to do that other than artificially claim victory for your ancient camera. In almost every one of these tests you did in the video ProRAW would smash the GF1 in image quality, but I know you already know that, it's just not the result you want.
@@PeterKoperdan what a joke... the floor shows less detail because it's OUT OF FOCUS also since this guy is not gonna use Lightroom for some reason, who knows what those shots are.
@@christofabt8958 without the computation real camera pics just look more natural. Even for my 1/2.3 TG-6. Yes it may blown some highlight but especially with RAW it is less sharpen, no over brighten shadow and so keep the contrast. Unless one process phone RAW, phone jpeg just don't look natural including pixel (over-sharpen, shadow too bright, color too saturated..etc)
apple/samsung jpeg are for most people. Problem is they don't even know what's the problem of over-sharpen or lack of contrast flat image. They don't see a problem and think the picture look nice. Can't blame them. If I haven't been using real camera for 15 years i won't understand the problem too.
@@jefftam18 Honestly I think they're for people who aren't going to look at the picture. I.e. if you look at it for less than 5 seconds scrolling by on "insert platform here", they're great. They're displayed small, and you're not exactly paying a lot of attention. And I'm perfectly fine with that for pictures I don't care about. If you're a person who for whatever reason wants to look at a picture as art - it's pretty quick to see the difference, even if you're mostly used to phone pictures. I've seen it with many people I know just sending them a text with a "real camera image" all compressed and they will say back to me "you didn't take this one with your cellphone did you? It didn't look possible for the cellphone", and this is even for non telephoto / non obvious landscape or snapshots.
RAW is better than ProRAW because it doesn’t have any of the computational processing baked in. In most cases Apple’s processing doesn’t lead to any better results.
@@marvelousdecay but RAW only got 12MP, right ? I understand, especially if sharpeing is bake in than ProRAW is useless. I mostly process RAW to avoid over-sharpening
In fact modern high-end smartphones can compete with 15 years amateurs/premium cameras and 20 years old professional ones. And never forget in the same period, DSLR/Mirrorless sensors/processors/pp improved the same way as for smartphones. It means today's cameras could be beaten in 15 years if smartphones still exist.
I mean yeah something dedicated to doing something and only doing that thing will probably be better at that thing. The iPhone camera is a better system for the vast majority. Actually most smartphone cameras are the better solution for the vast majority I can pull out my phone, take a quick picture, and post it immediately for my friends and family. I can quickly edit the picture with my smartphone if needed and get results that will look amazing. Can’t do that with the 13 year old camera you are using And that’s why smartphone cameras are actually better most of the time. The only time they aren’t better is when professionals want to take professional pictures or enthusiasts want to go out and take a really high quality image and tweak it in photoshop to get the best quality picture possible. For nearly everyone else their smartphone will create an amazingly detailed image that works
I'm going to pick up a used EM10 mk ii which includes 20mm and 45mm primes this week. I used to use dslr, then m43, then compact sports, but I miss the quality from larger sensors and primes. I love thin sections and creamy bokeh. My phone is great, but as your video shows, they still aren't anywhere near "real" cameras with proper sensor sizes.
I got a pretty high end Fujifilm bridge camera that was about 8 years newer than my old Olympus E-500. It had these "amazing" advance dynamic range features. The image quality of it's 16mp sensor couldn't hold a candle against the old 8mp four thirds sensor. From there, I determined I would never spend any money on a smaller sensor point and shoot camera. I buy inexpensive MotoG phones or if the Carrier is offering a free phone that is decent for everyday watching UA-cam or browsing online.
The biggest problem I have with Phones now is that they're almost impossible to change the battery in. So it's like buying a car with a transmission you know is going to grenade in 30-60k miles. "Ok if you have *no* other choice" so I will buy one, but because I know it's going to last at best 3ish years, I want a cheap one. And for some reason, camera tech no longer trickles down to lower end phones. The low end phones still have cameras that were flagship in say 2014ish, i.e. ok to document stuff or be a "scanner" for a black an white text document, but not really any threat to any cheap APSC camera, forget about higher end ones. I feel much better about buying cameras for a lot of money because I know they're not "designed to fail", so while they're eventually wear out, as we see, it's not rare to see fully working 10 plus year old ones. And a big part of that is that the batteries and storage cards are easy to swap out and expected to do so just for more storage and power every day of use. Anyway, rant over.
Here's a side not discussed here. Comparing single shot performance was close, but when you consider computation photography that can be achieved with modern smart phones where multiple frames are used to get the final result, smartphones can outperform classical cameras in certain tricky situations, they are also unbeatable when it comes to portability.
There's compact cameras like the Ricoh GR iii that are as good as smartphones in the portability department. A GR in one pocket, smartphone in the other.
Computational photography doesn't really help. At least the way it's currently implemented on the iPhone. The images stacked are over sharpened and noise reduced. You will get much better results with a RAW image
@@marvelousdecay Don't see how tinkering with photos in Raw editing can beat the ease iPhone gives you automatically. It does the stacking automatically and gets you sharp result in low light, HDR and other perks. Great performance from a portable device. Perfect for travel.
He showed Apple ProRAW for the low light comparisons and it's not that great. That said, I think the pictures were taken on a tripod. A more useful comparison would be to take handheld shots with both cameras and compare those (you can't take a 1s exposure handheld).
Ignoring the main feature of the new iphone (48MP) for dubious reasons and concluding the 12mp GF1 is better for wide angle when clearly theres more detail even in the 12mp comparison (at 4K video resolution) seems kind of strange. Others find its close to 24MP APSC or 20MP FF, here even 12MP m43 is better? Surely there are big trade offs to make with phone optics, but the 48mp 14pro will likely outperform a 12mp gf1 in terms of details in an unbiased comparison.
I haven't ignored the 48MP images of the iPhone at all. I've mentioned that already in the video and you can see some of the results of the 48MP iPhone images at 11:58. The main problem is that the iPhone's 48MP image is a ProRAW file and not RAW. That means that all of Apple's adjustments are baked in to the file. Which severely degrades the image. As you can see at 11:58 onwards, the details of the 48MP images are all smeared and the GF1's 12MP image holds a lot more detail than the 48MP file. If at some point Apple or third party apps allow us to shoot 48MP RAW files then things might be different, but for now the 12MP GF1 files can still beat the 48MP Pro Raw iPhone files. Think of it this way: Get a photocopy of a photo and scan it at the highest possible resolution. No matter how much resolution you use, the image will never look good because the base of your scan is just a photocopy. So going back to the iPhone 48MP images: The fact that we can get an 8000x6000 pixel image doesn't really matter if the image is already degraded: 48MP night mode images already have a bad starting point so adding thousands of pixels more won't make a difference. There isn't any detail there to resolve. The same goes for macro shots. Even if we could shoot 48MP macro shots on the iPhone which we can't, they would still look much worse than the 12MP GF1 images. Go back to 3:35. The iPhone fails to resolve any details. Even if you added 50.000 more pixels it would still look bad because it just cannot resolve the details in the first place. Don't get me wrong. I love the iPhone 14 Pro and what it can do but I also need to be pragmatic. There are limits to what it can do and when it comes to photography, as hard as it might be to believe, yes a very old 12MP camera can still beat the iPhone's 48MP images.
@@marvelousdecay thanks for explaining. I still think in many situations pro raw will look just fine and show more details than possibly even a 20mp m43 sensor. From what i've seen, the 48mp pro raw mode doesnt show the baked in oversharpening anymore, which is the biggest deal for me.
@@marvelousdecay You pulled the 48MP in low light which seems to be a bit odd for me, because it is obvious that sensor size is the important factor in low light. Would have been nice to see if there is more details in the 48 ProRaw shots in good light situations.
It is sad to see people using a phone exclusively for all their photos, including family events and holidays. The quality of these pictures may look pretty good on a phone screen but once you transfer them on a computer screen the quality falls apart. I personally do not enjoy using my phone for photography in general.
You should see some of the crazy emails I got over this video… Some people just don’t want to accept that a phone just doesn’t have the same abilities as a dedicated camera.
He never put the IPhone in portrait mode for the flower pictures...It would of had the same blurry background and the shot would have looked identical...its really just a matter of time before they start putting bigger sensors in phones
Portrait mode doesn’t work in this close distance. You need to be more than 15 or so cm away from the subject. So portrait mode in this case would not help at all. Putting bigger sensors in phones is not as easy as you might think. A bigger sensor requires a bigger lens. While phones could become slightly fatter to accommodate a slightly bigger lens we won’t be able to see a sensor the size of micro four thirds on a phone. It’s just not possible.
at this moment processing Apples ProRaw is a pain. All photos look dark and yo can't apply profiles and presets on a simple way. You have to pick the Apple ProRaw profile for nice looking shadows and details. Remember the sensor in an iphone 14pro is a quad-bayer sensor with 48 mp resolution, but only 12 mp color resolution. This is the case with all these artifacts. By the way: Nice video with a lot of informations. I like the way you order and present it
How does this comparison make sense if you don't actually use the full sensor of the iPhone? I actually think you should he ashamed to sell this as a legitimate, truth-seeking video. (I don't have a dog in this fight, I neither have a 14 Pro nor a Panasonic, I'm on E-Mount. But stuff like this annoys me. People look up to you for educational purposes and because they want to learn something. Take that responsibility seriously and actually use the phone's 48MP sensor! It's the *headlining* feature of the 2022 update!)
As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments the 48MP file is ProRAW and not RAW. That means there's still processing happening in the file which actually makes things worse not better. Check 11:58 . There I'm using the 48MP ProRAW and there's not more detail resolved compared to the GF1. Check also my response to PhouFoo's comment here in this video.
To be fair Apple should be ashamed, because they led you to believe that if you make12mp pics with their camera you don't use the full sensor while their 48mp sensor is designed to take 12mp photos. My android phone also has a 48mp Sony sensor with quad-Bayer filter and the 12mp pics are actually better than the 48mp ones. It is designed to take 12mp pictures.
The iPhone and any smartphone for that matter are great computing devices. No one’s trying to dispute that. The video simply explores the capabilities of the phone as a camera. Testing it out to find the limits of the device. What it’s strong points and weak points are and best practices.
13 years difference in the IT is an eternity... its faster to shoot with a GF then on any smartphone. i bought a GF1 for 35$, with 5000 shoots... so , thnx for nothing Iphone ;)
It's all great and correct but how many people really care? Majority of folks snap photos just as memories. Most photos will be dumped in family albums and rarely looked at.
We can't be sure. Would it be better without this information was kept secret? Maybe some would care if they known that a 10+ years old ~50$ garbage bin camera takes better pictures instead of just seeing the marketing materials for expensive phones. My own experience with this topic is that about 2years ago I thought about buying some old dslr after my nephew was born. I was content with the pics I got with my then relatively new flagship killer phone, but I thought my parents getting older by the day and the last proper photos of them were made in the film era. Before I finally got a camera my mother died and all the photos we have of her from like the last 10 years are shitty pics made with phones scattered around Google photos accounts. Since then I bought a camera and even the shittiest pics I made are better than phone pics since the mistakes I make in composition would be still there, but the picture is technically much better and for example the real bokeh is much more pleasing and interesting than portrait mode. Plus we are speaking about a 1000$ phone with one of the cameras ever. The first camera and lens combo I bought costed about 300$. It was a Lumix G5 with a kit lens and a separately bought 25mm f1.7. Since then that camera was passed down to my significant other, because she too wanted a small and light camera and I bought an aps-c pentax, so by buying some half decent glass, stands, bags, etc. I spent about 1200-1300$ across two systems in a year and gained a quasy hobby. Taking photos with a phone is imo a sub McDonald's equivalent of photography. The experience is much worse as well. The physical controls, ergonomy, the shutter sound, mirror slap, looking through a viewfinder are a joy. I'd much rather buy a cheap, but usable phone and spend 1000+$ on camera gear than buy an 1000$ iPhone with an inferior camera which has the picture quality as one of the main selling points.
Here, saved your time. This is just another clickbait. 6:20 Lets take a look at this image, its really hard to tell which is which, the detail on both images is the same 7:31 nitpicking over tiny details that confirms that cannot be visible from our perspective 9:47 - images are very very close, the photo coming from the iphone comes very clean and natural, and holds the same amount of detail with the GF1. 8:51 both look almost identical, even under close inspection. iPhones make better photos out of the box.
This is quite a technical comparison and it is sad that you have the need to misinterpret the results so that they suit your pro-iPhone bias. Everyone agrees that iPhone 14 Pro takes incredibly good photos for the small form factor. However, small phone sensors and computational wizardry haven't yet reached a point where they truly exceed the quality of mirrorless cameras when looked at purely from a technical image quality perspective. Let's also take into account that the video shows a very old smallish 12MP sensor. Contemporary APS-C sensors are in another league entirely.
Great video that needed to be done. Getting sick of people assuming that modern smartphones are "DSLR quality".
Yeah its always an oversharpenned image... its clear but different from one taken with a proper camera.
I use a Canon G5X ii instead of my iPhone for photography. I prefer the process of picture taking and the output from the Canon.
Skin tones, colour gradation and tonal balance is, to my eye, far more appealing on the 1” sensor.
No matter how good is the iPhone camera , I will still use my camera to take photos, the joy of using a camera blew the phone into water!
Apple Pro Raw isn't RAW (and it isn't "Pro" either). But, Apple provides a programming interface that lets you modify the local tone mapping - apps like Raw Power (on the Mac App Store) has a slider that lets you adjust the strength of the tone mapping - or turning it off entirely. I find that Pro Raw looks the best with the Apple tone mapping reduced to about 70-80%.
Yeah, using standard RAW on the iPhone is a handicap. The magic lies in the ProRAW.
Pro means Processed in the case of ProRaw
Love this gf1 comparison
You didn't need to go to m4/3, you could have used 1inch sony or 11/7. While phones are great and beat some cameras in some categories of photography, they still have some limitations. For the average person a phone is all they need. For the enthusiasts, the majority will still prefer a camera, IMHO. My old elph 330 out resolves my s22+ on any given day but can't touch it when the light gets low, for example.
The question with smartphones is not "have they become better than..." but "are they good enough to be used for casual everyday photography?" Always in the pocket, and easy to send photos within 1 minute or so. No camera can do that. There is a reason that iPhones are the most used cameras in the world, by far. Good enough in many situations. And I still have 3 different "real cameras" with various lenses.
They have always been good enough to just take a convenient picture.
The argument that is being made among some tech companies is that AI processing will let their post processed image quality surpass what you can produce with an interchangeable lens camera, or at least match it.
I really enjoyed this video for what it is. I do hope to see one that compares the best image each camera can produce. Tough to do since it is such a convoluted topic, but without it you are really misleading people.
The good enough bar continues to progress fast in the phone space, slowly in the camera space. A vintage camera like the Canon 5D classic, will produce nicer photos, but nobody wants to be inconvenienced.
@@CharlieVN photography hobbiest almost always want to learn more and understand more about their hobby, for that canon 5d classic is propably best digital camera that you can buy today, taking photo with iPhone wount teach you anything new about photography even if you have as litle as 20000 image experience with slr/dslr, but 5d can, by the way is there way to fire multble strobes / speedlights in groups with iPhone?
11:50 I'm not a pro but
Either the CPU heat leaks to the CMOS sensor or the voltage regulator on it is so pathetic it's killing the chip.
Amazing video! Your videos actually inspired me to pick a GF1 along with my iPhone. I’d like to know what lens are you using for your GF1.
Mostly prime lenses. 20mm, 45mm, 60mm,14mm. With the exception of the the Olympus 60mm the other lenses are from Panasonic.
Thanks for this comparison. Very useful. Do you have any iPhone 14 RAWs to share for evaluation?
Can you explain how to set the iPhone 14 Pro to shoot RAW vs ProRAW? I can't find any controls in the camera settings for simply RAW.
Unfortunately you need a third party app to shoot RAW. If you have a creative cloud subscription you can use Lightroom. Otherwise you can pick from one of the other apps on the app store. I use Halide and I'm very satisfied with it.
Great I agree mostly except if you are out at night without a tripod the iPhone will crush the GF1 on low noise and usable long exposure modes.
Thank you. This clarifies a few points for me, although not all were visible on the UA-cam video. My policy will be to take landscapes with my phone and portraits (the kind of photo that gives me most joy) with my dedicated camera. Ditto for compositions requiring more reach. Unless my interests evolve, I will no longer shop for wide angle lenses.
As for file format, I appreciate your recommendation but have mixed feelings. I love to compose and take pictures but see any editing work as a necessary evil at best.
It will be better to take both Landscape and portraits with a REAL Camera, many details in a Landscape disappear on the phones !
@@cameraprepper7938 You are not alone. Many people prefer landscape to portrait. I do not. The phone is good enough for landscape pictures in my case. I thought I expressed that clearly, but I guess not. Do you understand me now?
@@RoderickJMacdonald No, a pity you do not appreciate Landscape more. I hate to see details, light and colors destroyed by a phone !
@@cameraprepper7938 Perhaps that is why I enjoy landscape paintings by Impressionists or the group of seven.
Good testing, thanks very much.
This is a gretat great video...
I miss only a comparisson with action, fast moving subjects.. for instance, skate..
Is it possible to shoot iphone proraw in this situation? what about shutter lag and motion blurr?
It would probably be very noisy even in daylight. If you to try to shoot sports, for instance, you'd need a 1/250 shutter, which would prevent a lot of light from entering the sensor.
@@timothymatthews6458 ow, and just a tip, i believe the Halide app lets you take 48 MP raw photos!
it does not. the option is there but unfortunately the app crashes once you try and shoot with that. I show the issue near the end of the video.
@@timothymatthews6458 Daylight provides plenty of light for the small aperture of iPhones. Daylight photos will be taken at the lowest ISO with fast shutter speed (at least 1/500) even on a cloudy day or in the afternoon.
@@PeterKoperdan Examples?
Is the iPhone 14 Pro better than LUMIX FZ200 bridge camera? Which has the bigger sensor?
I'm not familiar with that camera so I'm afraid I can't answer your question. My guess is that the lumix fz200 has the bigger sensor but better do some research to be on the safe side.
I’m trying to buy lumix Fz40. But idk if it gonna be good
@@Fastfast0103 Try to get a more recent cheap dslr and you'll be good to go. There are plenty from canon and other brands that can easily outperform any phone out there.
@@marvelousdecay is dslr better than digital cameras? My purpose of use is for Real Estate. Just pics of houses. Apartments. Rooms. Etc. I’ll prefer less setup and quick sharing to Mac. I was using iPhone 13 in 0.7 but it lose quality. And 0.5 is too open.
Btw Thanks for answering 👍🏼
I recently bought a Panasonic GF2 (same sensor as GF1) and it takes better pictures than both my smartphones (Samsung and Pixel). Bear in mind that not all of us have the latest phone with the best camera and the GF1/2 are a fraction of the cost of an iPhone. The Samsung phone takes the best pictures and in some ways might appear to outdo the GF2 but the images look artificial due to aggressive post-processing. I'm not a photographer but I own a couple of Panasonic travel zooms that I like to use when I travel. The zoom is a game changer even if you just use it in a simple minded way like me to frame the picture. A few weeks ago I came accross a rainbow and took a picture with the Samsung phone but I made the mistake of digitally zooming so the picture came out bad. A cheap travel zoom would have taken a much better picture.
I am not a photography expert but recently returned from a trip to vietnam,thailand, indonesia, didnt take a dedicated camera with me because its heavy, takes up extra space in my luggage , is another device i need to keep charged up , instead relied on my google pixel 3 , i was seriously impressed with the photos it produced, its portable, easy to keep charged, pics can be easily uploaded to facebook, has gps tracking, seems to be able to produce acceptable pics in almost any light condition and for me, it was a great easy option rather than a dedicated camera....still looking for a compact camera that can produce as good pics for the cost of the pixel....95 percent of the pics the pixel took were fine, when i use a dedicated camera its hit and miss whether the photos are good....
I have a iPhone 13Pro and I was thinking about getting the GF3 model but I don’t know if it has a external mic 🎤 input🤷🏾♂️ if there’s is a way that I can bring out the audio with the GF3 can you please let me know what I need to get?
Not utilizing the no1 advantage of smartphones which is processing/stacking does not seem fair to me. Of course sensor to sensor alone the bigger sensor is gonna beat the smaller one.
The processing happening on the HEIC format doesn't actually produce better results. Apple is being very aggressive with noise reduction and sharpening. With RAW you actually have more control over the final image. If I compared the HEIC format to the GF1s RAW, the results would be even worse.
@@marvelousdecay In almost every smartphone these days, when you shoot a low light photo it actually shoots multiple photos and then combines them. In some phones you should specify it for example 'night mode'.This gives a big advantage to the phone compared to a 12yr old mft sensor. When you only take a raw it is to be expected that it will be very noisy.
If you notice in the video I mention the ISO I’ve used on both cameras. Because I shot both with a tripod I used iPhone's lowest ISO possible. So the noise you see is the absolute minimum.
Also the stacking that happens with Apple’s night mode doesn’t make things better. It actually makes them worse. Have a look at the other video I made from a couple of years ago. Let me find the link
Found it. It's this one here:
ua-cam.com/video/yZqUyXRvMMU/v-deo.html
Go to 12:12
There you will see how processed Apple's night mode is. The better solution is actually the RAW file because you can control pretty much everything. From the ISO to the amount of processing.
isn't the HEIC supposed to be better than JPG, but based on assumption that there is no image processing?
HEIC is better than JPG when it comes to compression and being able to display HDR content but the image processing applied is the same on both formats.
does iphone 13 pro or 13 pro max have Raw ?
If I want to go out and shoot amazing photos, I always take my M43 camera and good lenses.
15:11 i don't think shooting at 48MP will bring any improvement if not getting worse.
The iPhone sensor is "Stacked", meaning it shout 4 pictures of the same pixel and average the results.
It is the same technology you have in the lastest M43 20MP sensor and many FF cameras. It helps with ISO and noise and keeps the images more natural.
IMO the iPhone already looked better in the 12mp comparison, so with 48MP the outcome seems clear, at least to me.
Stacked sensor means the DRAM is integrated in the circuitry directly to allow fast reading of the sensor. That's a hardware design and is different from photo stacking, which is a software feature and stacks multiple shots on top of each other.
I've seen the 48 MP sample images. It looks like it can outresolve an A7 IV. FF has to go 100 MP unless it wants to be left behind.
Lol
people still refer to this video often, so please do a wide lens comparison of GF1 vs 48MP pro raw . Its very clear the GF1 shows much less detail in normal lighting conditions (most relevant) than the iphone in pro raw mode and still you feel no need to mention that fact. I fully agree on your general take that the phone is a lesser photographic tool, but the way you made your comparison seems heavily biased.
Seems you didn't provide the aperture and shutter speed. As iphone is always auto mode, if you set the GF1 Manuel, iso 100 low shutter speed with tripod, of course it can beat iphone. but in general case, i am very sure, the old camera with old CCD sensor will lose a lot.
I compared an apsc 13 years old Canon, iphone is definitely the winner.
You can setup manual mode on the iPhone too, where you can adjust ISO and shutter speed, so the two cameras were actually setup quite close.
What you see in the video is the best case scenario for the iPhone.
Once you move out of iPhone’s ISO 50, 64 things turn bad real fast. You get a ton of noise and a big loss in detail and color reproduction. So the GF1 in low light settings has an even bigger advantage.
So your APSC camera could fare even better. Not sure how you’ve conducted your testing but considering re-testing.
@@marvelousdecay Thanks for your reply. you talking about the best case scenario, I find that my mind is snapshot while you talk about photography.
so yes, I agree that GF1 can shoot better photography under the best case scenario.
But for snapshot, i think iphone is the winner.
iphone is designed to shoot stupid handy fast snapshot, refined by software. No tripod. No Post-production.
especially HDR, 10 years old camera don't have HDR, I don't think it can handle sunlight contrast.
btw, I also use Sony a7c. In general case, a7c wins iphone a lot.
I shoot photo's with my fuji xt30 and xt100 cameras whenever I can. The only time I shoot with my phone camera is when I didn't bring my fuji cameras. Thats also the reason I buy midrange price phone because really the reason you will buy flagship phones are for their cameras unless you are a gamer which Im not. This way buying midrange phone Its not painful on my wallet when I upgrade to a new phone every 2 years.
Hope panasonic would bring back this GF or GX series of cameras, Compact and affordable.
and with todays advancements they could probably create a really slim and compact camera that packs a punch. Of course it wouldn’t be able to compete with big sensor cameras but it could be a nice introduction to more ‘advanced’ photography.
@@marvelousdecay Couldn't agree more. I also wish more companies would do what Ricoh did with their GR III: Pack a big sensor into a really small, pocketable body.
The GX80 is an underrated gem of a camera
There is the GX9. It is a compact 20Mpx camera. I have a M43 and a Canon FF equipment.The biggest advantage of FF is when you need ISO higher than 1600. These small cameras are perfect for prints up to at least 30cm x 40cm.
@@marvelousdecay yep like gx9 spec in a gf3 or lx100 body
You don't even try to hide your biases do you? You must have already known the camera looks like garbage when compared to the PoRAW files so you don't use the ProRAW, so that you can complain how noisy the phone image is.
Just check my other comments here about ProRaw. It doesn't magically solve things.
@@marvelousdecay There's no need to check your comments, I have the phone and it does just "magically solve things", I never ever shoot normal RAW because there's zero reasons to do that other than artificially claim victory for your ancient camera.
In almost every one of these tests you did in the video ProRAW would smash the GF1 in image quality, but I know you already know that, it's just not the result you want.
@@chengong388 can you show us some example? like posting some comparsion with any mirrorless camera(with good lens) ?
He shows low light ProRAW comparison at 11:56 and it looks worse than GF1.
@@PeterKoperdan what a joke... the floor shows less detail because it's OUT OF FOCUS
also since this guy is not gonna use Lightroom for some reason, who knows what those shots are.
Wow this is a great video I thought that the iPhone 14 would hold up
that's the problem. no need to buy new camera if one know what u are doing
This is true. People underestimate the capabilities of old M43 or APS-C cameras and overestimate the importance of high pixel counts.
@@christofabt8958 without the computation real camera pics just look more natural. Even for my 1/2.3 TG-6. Yes it may blown some highlight but especially with RAW it is less sharpen, no over brighten shadow and so keep the contrast. Unless one process phone RAW, phone jpeg just don't look natural including pixel (over-sharpen, shadow too bright, color too saturated..etc)
apple/samsung jpeg are for most people. Problem is they don't even know what's the problem of over-sharpen or lack of contrast flat image. They don't see a problem and think the picture look nice. Can't blame them. If I haven't been using real camera for 15 years i won't understand the problem too.
@@jefftam18 I think you have summed it up perfectly
@@jefftam18 Honestly I think they're for people who aren't going to look at the picture. I.e. if you look at it for less than 5 seconds scrolling by on "insert platform here", they're great. They're displayed small, and you're not exactly paying a lot of attention. And I'm perfectly fine with that for pictures I don't care about. If you're a person who for whatever reason wants to look at a picture as art - it's pretty quick to see the difference, even if you're mostly used to phone pictures. I've seen it with many people I know just sending them a text with a "real camera image" all compressed and they will say back to me "you didn't take this one with your cellphone did you? It didn't look possible for the cellphone", and this is even for non telephoto / non obvious landscape or snapshots.
I don't know iPhone have RAW, I think it only have ProRAW. RAW is better ? no 48MP in RAW, i believe
RAW is better than ProRAW because it doesn’t have any of the computational processing baked in. In most cases Apple’s processing doesn’t lead to any better results.
@@marvelousdecay but RAW only got 12MP, right ? I understand, especially if sharpeing is bake in than ProRAW is useless. I mostly process RAW to avoid over-sharpening
In fact modern high-end smartphones can compete with 15 years amateurs/premium cameras and 20 years old professional ones.
And never forget in the same period, DSLR/Mirrorless sensors/processors/pp improved the same way as for smartphones. It means today's cameras could be beaten in 15 years if smartphones still exist.
I have the suspicion you didn’t actually watch the video.
I mean yeah something dedicated to doing something and only doing that thing will probably be better at that thing. The iPhone camera is a better system for the vast majority. Actually most smartphone cameras are the better solution for the vast majority
I can pull out my phone, take a quick picture, and post it immediately for my friends and family. I can quickly edit the picture with my smartphone if needed and get results that will look amazing. Can’t do that with the 13 year old camera you are using
And that’s why smartphone cameras are actually better most of the time. The only time they aren’t better is when professionals want to take professional pictures or enthusiasts want to go out and take a really high quality image and tweak it in photoshop to get the best quality picture possible. For nearly everyone else their smartphone will create an amazingly detailed image that works
Even with MFT system, iPhone 14 can't even compared
I'm going to pick up a used EM10 mk ii which includes 20mm and 45mm primes this week. I used to use dslr, then m43, then compact sports, but I miss the quality from larger sensors and primes. I love thin sections and creamy bokeh. My phone is great, but as your video shows, they still aren't anywhere near "real" cameras with proper sensor sizes.
Finally someone who does not want to feed the iPhone hype!
No surprise ! Not ANY phone have a decent camera !
I got a pretty high end Fujifilm bridge camera that was about 8 years newer than my old Olympus E-500. It had these "amazing" advance dynamic range features. The image quality of it's 16mp sensor couldn't hold a candle against the old 8mp four thirds sensor. From there, I determined I would never spend any money on a smaller sensor point and shoot camera. I buy inexpensive MotoG phones or if the Carrier is offering a free phone that is decent for everyday watching UA-cam or browsing online.
The biggest problem I have with Phones now is that they're almost impossible to change the battery in. So it's like buying a car with a transmission you know is going to grenade in 30-60k miles. "Ok if you have *no* other choice" so I will buy one, but because I know it's going to last at best 3ish years, I want a cheap one. And for some reason, camera tech no longer trickles down to lower end phones. The low end phones still have cameras that were flagship in say 2014ish, i.e. ok to document stuff or be a "scanner" for a black an white text document, but not really any threat to any cheap APSC camera, forget about higher end ones. I feel much better about buying cameras for a lot of money because I know they're not "designed to fail", so while they're eventually wear out, as we see, it's not rare to see fully working 10 plus year old ones. And a big part of that is that the batteries and storage cards are easy to swap out and expected to do so just for more storage and power every day of use.
Anyway, rant over.
people spend thousands dollars hoping the thing beats 50 bucks camera
Here's a side not discussed here. Comparing single shot performance was close, but when you consider computation photography that can be achieved with modern smart phones where multiple frames are used to get the final result, smartphones can outperform classical cameras in certain tricky situations, they are also unbeatable when it comes to portability.
There's compact cameras like the Ricoh GR iii that are as good as smartphones in the portability department. A GR in one pocket, smartphone in the other.
Computational photography doesn't really help. At least the way it's currently implemented on the iPhone. The images stacked are over sharpened and noise reduced. You will get much better results with a RAW image
@@marvelousdecay Don't see how tinkering with photos in Raw editing can beat the ease iPhone gives you automatically. It does the stacking automatically and gets you sharp result in low light, HDR and other perks. Great performance from a portable device. Perfect for travel.
He showed Apple ProRAW for the low light comparisons and it's not that great. That said, I think the pictures were taken on a tripod. A more useful comparison would be to take handheld shots with both cameras and compare those (you can't take a 1s exposure handheld).
@@PeterKoperdan You totally can with mft cameras. The ibis is crazy good
Ignoring the main feature of the new iphone (48MP) for dubious reasons and concluding the 12mp GF1 is better for wide angle when clearly theres more detail even in the 12mp comparison (at 4K video resolution) seems kind of strange. Others find its close to 24MP APSC or 20MP FF, here even 12MP m43 is better? Surely there are big trade offs to make with phone optics, but the 48mp 14pro will likely outperform a 12mp gf1 in terms of details in an unbiased comparison.
I haven't ignored the 48MP images of the iPhone at all.
I've mentioned that already in the video and you can see some of the results of the 48MP iPhone images at 11:58. The main problem is that the iPhone's 48MP image is a ProRAW file and not RAW. That means that all of Apple's adjustments are baked in to the file. Which severely degrades the image. As you can see at 11:58 onwards, the details of the 48MP images are all smeared and the GF1's 12MP image holds a lot more detail than the 48MP file.
If at some point Apple or third party apps allow us to shoot 48MP RAW files then things might be different, but for now the 12MP GF1 files can still beat the 48MP Pro Raw iPhone files.
Think of it this way: Get a photocopy of a photo and scan it at the highest possible resolution. No matter how much resolution you use, the image will never look good because the base of your scan is just a photocopy.
So going back to the iPhone 48MP images: The fact that we can get an 8000x6000 pixel image doesn't really matter if the image is already degraded:
48MP night mode images already have a bad starting point so adding thousands of pixels more won't make a difference. There isn't any detail there to resolve.
The same goes for macro shots. Even if we could shoot 48MP macro shots on the iPhone which we can't, they would still look much worse than the 12MP GF1 images. Go back to 3:35. The iPhone fails to resolve any details. Even if you added 50.000 more pixels it would still look bad because it just cannot resolve the details in the first place.
Don't get me wrong. I love the iPhone 14 Pro and what it can do but I also need to be pragmatic. There are limits to what it can do and when it comes to photography, as hard as it might be to believe, yes a very old 12MP camera can still beat the iPhone's 48MP images.
@@marvelousdecay thanks for explaining. I still think in many situations pro raw will look just fine and show more details than possibly even a 20mp m43 sensor. From what i've seen, the 48mp pro raw mode doesnt show the baked in oversharpening anymore, which is the biggest deal for me.
@@PhouFoo If you use a good lens, the iPhone doesn't match a camera. It is very lens dependant.
@@marvelousdecay You pulled the 48MP in low light which seems to be a bit odd for me, because it is obvious that sensor size is the important factor in low light. Would have been nice to see if there is more details in the 48 ProRaw shots in good light situations.
Video for my friend, non-believer, states that iPhone beats (or will beat in the future even my Fujifilm GFX), loool.
It is sad to see people using a phone exclusively for all their photos, including family events and holidays. The quality of these pictures may look pretty good on a phone screen but once you transfer them on a computer screen the quality falls apart. I personally do not enjoy using my phone for photography in general.
You should see some of the crazy emails I got over this video… Some people just don’t want to accept that a phone just doesn’t have the same abilities as a dedicated camera.
He never put the IPhone in portrait mode for the flower pictures...It would of had the same blurry background and the shot would have looked identical...its really just a matter of time before they start putting bigger sensors in phones
Portrait mode doesn’t work in this close distance. You need to be more than 15 or so cm away from the subject. So portrait mode in this case would not help at all.
Putting bigger sensors in phones is not as easy as you might think. A bigger sensor requires a bigger lens. While phones could become slightly fatter to accommodate a slightly bigger lens we won’t be able to see a sensor the size of micro four thirds on a phone. It’s just not possible.
That fake bokeh doesnt hold a candle to real bokeh
at this moment processing Apples ProRaw is a pain. All photos look dark and yo can't apply profiles and presets on a simple way. You have to pick the Apple ProRaw profile for nice looking shadows and details. Remember the sensor in an iphone 14pro is a quad-bayer sensor with 48 mp resolution, but only 12 mp color resolution. This is the case with all these artifacts. By the way: Nice video with a lot of informations. I like the way you order and present it
they're dark because the file is generated with ETTR in mind for maximum dynamic range....
@@chengong388 I think the latest update fixed this issue today
How does this comparison make sense if you don't actually use the full sensor of the iPhone?
I actually think you should he ashamed to sell this as a legitimate, truth-seeking video.
(I don't have a dog in this fight, I neither have a 14 Pro nor a Panasonic, I'm on E-Mount.
But stuff like this annoys me. People look up to you for educational purposes and because they want to learn something. Take that responsibility seriously and actually use the phone's 48MP sensor! It's the *headlining* feature of the 2022 update!)
As I've mentioned in the video and in the comments the 48MP file is ProRAW and not RAW. That means there's still processing happening in the file which actually makes things worse not better.
Check 11:58 . There I'm using the 48MP ProRAW and there's not more detail resolved compared to the GF1.
Check also my response to PhouFoo's comment here in this video.
To be fair Apple should be ashamed, because they led you to believe that if you make12mp pics with their camera you don't use the full sensor while their 48mp sensor is designed to take 12mp photos.
My android phone also has a 48mp Sony sensor with quad-Bayer filter and the 12mp pics are actually better than the 48mp ones. It is designed to take 12mp pictures.
🤩
I wish that camera could email, watch movies/youtube, do my banking etc etc etc 🤔
The iPhone and any smartphone for that matter are great computing devices. No one’s trying to dispute that.
The video simply explores the capabilities of the phone as a camera.
Testing it out to find the limits of the device. What it’s strong points and weak points are and best practices.
The clue is in the video title bro. Strictly about the cameras
Thank God it can't do that! Then it would become obsolete in a few years like phones do.
13 years difference in the IT is an eternity... its faster to shoot with a GF then on any smartphone.
i bought a GF1 for 35$, with 5000 shoots... so , thnx for nothing Iphone ;)
My conclusion after this video: I will shoot even less on my iphone 😅
It's all great and correct but how many people really care? Majority of folks snap photos just as memories. Most photos will be dumped in family albums and rarely looked at.
We can't be sure. Would it be better without this information was kept secret?
Maybe some would care if they known that a 10+ years old ~50$ garbage bin camera takes better pictures instead of just seeing the marketing materials for expensive phones.
My own experience with this topic is that about 2years ago I thought about buying some old dslr after my nephew was born. I was content with the pics I got with my then relatively new flagship killer phone, but I thought my parents getting older by the day and the last proper photos of them were made in the film era.
Before I finally got a camera my mother died and all the photos we have of her from like the last 10 years are shitty pics made with phones scattered around Google photos accounts.
Since then I bought a camera and even the shittiest pics I made are better than phone pics since the mistakes I make in composition would be still there, but the picture is technically much better and for example the real bokeh is much more pleasing and interesting than portrait mode. Plus we are speaking about a 1000$ phone with one of the cameras ever. The first camera and lens combo I bought costed about 300$. It was a Lumix G5 with a kit lens and a separately bought 25mm f1.7. Since then that camera was passed down to my significant other, because she too wanted a small and light camera and I bought an aps-c pentax, so by buying some half decent glass, stands, bags, etc. I spent about 1200-1300$ across two systems in a year and gained a quasy hobby.
Taking photos with a phone is imo a sub McDonald's equivalent of photography.
The experience is much worse as well. The physical controls, ergonomy, the shutter sound, mirror slap, looking through a viewfinder are a joy.
I'd much rather buy a cheap, but usable phone and spend 1000+$ on camera gear than buy an 1000$ iPhone with an inferior camera which has the picture quality as one of the main selling points.
Smartphone cameras are OVERRATED!!!
Really bad comparison. Of course it wont be good as dedicated hardware...
Here, saved your time. This is just another clickbait.
6:20 Lets take a look at this image, its really hard to tell which is which, the detail on both images is the same
7:31 nitpicking over tiny details that confirms that cannot be visible from our perspective
9:47 - images are very very close, the photo coming from the iphone comes very clean and natural, and holds
the same amount of detail with the GF1.
8:51 both look almost identical, even under close inspection.
iPhones make better photos out of the box.
This is quite a technical comparison and it is sad that you have the need to misinterpret the results so that they suit your pro-iPhone bias. Everyone agrees that iPhone 14 Pro takes incredibly good photos for the small form factor. However, small phone sensors and computational wizardry haven't yet reached a point where they truly exceed the quality of mirrorless cameras when looked at purely from a technical image quality perspective. Let's also take into account that the video shows a very old smallish 12MP sensor. Contemporary APS-C sensors are in another league entirely.