Apple Launches iPhone 18 Pro With Variable-Aperture Camera System (techcrunch.com) 41
Apple's iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max were announced today and keep last year's overall design but put the emphasis on camera upgrades, including a 48-megapixel variable-aperture system, new manual controls, and 4K Dolby Vision recording. Prices for the devices start at $1,199 and $1,299, respectively. TechCrunch reports: The new Pro series camera features a 48-megapixel camera with variable aperture, made with six thin blades. This system will likely improve low-light photography quality and speed. There are also new pro controls in the camera software, including white balance, shutter speed, aperture and histogram. There are also new photographic styles with texture and grain controls. [...]
The new camera can record 4K videos in Dolby HDR Vision, and also apply cinematic effects after shooting the footage. The new Pro devices also have a smaller dynamic range island on the front of the device, which now allows you to track three live activities instead of two.
Both phones are powered by Apple's latest A20 Pro silicon and feature a newly designed vapor chamber for improved cooling. The company has also improved the battery with a better design. Apple also said the iPhone 18 Pro supports video playback of 36 hours, and the 18 Pro Max has 45 hours of playback capacity. Apple Unveils the iPhone Duo, Its First Foldable iPhone
The new camera can record 4K videos in Dolby HDR Vision, and also apply cinematic effects after shooting the footage. The new Pro devices also have a smaller dynamic range island on the front of the device, which now allows you to track three live activities instead of two.
Both phones are powered by Apple's latest A20 Pro silicon and feature a newly designed vapor chamber for improved cooling. The company has also improved the battery with a better design. Apple also said the iPhone 18 Pro supports video playback of 36 hours, and the 18 Pro Max has 45 hours of playback capacity. Apple Unveils the iPhone Duo, Its First Foldable iPhone
As a person who does photography.. (Score:4, Informative)
Having the ability to control aperture is pretty cool, but since the sensor size is super small, I guess it doesn't really matter for photographs. Even at f2.8, the background is still going to be pretty sharp. However it is pretty important for taking videos, and making sure you get proper motion blur for 24fps, 30fps, or 60fps footage.
Re: (Score:3)
Depth-of-field [seekingalpha.com]. Sometimes it's not all about sharp.
This reminds me: Have they ever fixed the phone camera landscape mode problem yet? Hint: Use it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the OP's point. Small sensors create very large depths of field which make aperture control somewhat meaningless. As it stands the phones often currently fake a narrower depth of field. Also the iPhone 18's sensor is smaller than those of Chinese flagship cameras which would benefit from this more.
Re: (Score:2)
Small sensors create very large depths of field
Not really. Depth of field depends on f-stop, not aperture or sensor size. Field of view is affected by these other factors, as is magnification.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on focal length as well as f-stop (shorter focal length gives more depth of field at the same f-stop). Smaller sensors need shorter focal lengths for the same field of view, so a "50mm equivalent field of view" f/2.8 lens for a smaller sensor will have more depth of field than a "50mm equivalent field of view" f/2.8 lens for a larger sensor.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Depth of field depends on f-stop, not aperture or sensor size. Field of view is affected by these other factors, as is magnification.
Yes really, the three are interlinked. Field of view is not optional. It's the goal of the photo. If you fix field of view along with positioning and placement, you end up alternating the focal length with sensor size, and that change of focal length due to sensor size (e.g. 18mm instead of 24mm for APCs cameras vs FF) results in a different depth of field.
Sensor size is a very fundamental driver in this, providing it is you actually want to compare apples and apples and actually take the same picture with
Re: (Score:2)
Depth of field =/= field of view.
They are related by the optics' parameters, but two different effects.
I've said that for years! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is incredibly false and outdated thinking. What you say is true when it applies to fixed sensors which read the entire image in the same way and produce an imagine directly with a result. Cameras haven't worked that way for years.
Those 200mpx cameras actually produce better and lower noise results, and more importantly do not generate 200mpx images precisely because the additional pixels allow for far more advanced processing. Higher resolutions allow for better noise rejection algorithms and produce a
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
... camera with variable aperture, made with six thin blades. This system will likely improve low-light photography quality and speed.
I wouldn't expect this to improve low-light photography specifically over what would be available from the same sensor without a mechanical aperture. In low-light conditions you likely need the aperture to be wide open anyway.
I WOULD expect much better control over depth-of-field in brighter lighting though. If closing down the aperture still allows sufficient light levels at the image sensor, then more of what's in the field of view can also be more sharply focused.
A continuously variable aperture on a ph
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
The chip is larger so it collects more light and thus improves low-light photography, but this would make bright-light photography worse (by reducing depth of field). The aperture fixes this for bright light, thus allowing the better low-light performance.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually probably not the chip is larger, but the lens is larger. The aperture allows it to be less blurry in bright light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I assume they're fitting it with a larger aperture than they have previously. Larger aperture, better low light performance. They probably didn't do it in their fixed aperture cameras because having a large depth of field is generally good for point and shoot photography because it gives you a better chance of having the thing you want in focus actually in focus.
Checked: the new camera's maximum aperture is f1.48. The 17 Pro Max is a fixed f1.78.
Re: (Score:2)
Checked: the new camera's maximum aperture is f1.48. The 17 Pro Max is a fixed f1.78.
Thanks for doing the homework. I remember from using 35mm film cameras that f1.4 lenses were usefully faster than f1.8, but not dramatically so. Still, every extra stop is welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
2/3 more light, probably more like half again in Apple's case, isn't nothing. Clearly it's also getting into the region where there's a noticeable depth of field effect too, so you have the option of using that rather than faking it with post processing.
Re: (Score:2)
I WOULD expect much better control over depth-of-field in brighter lighting though
The advantage for me with a smaller aperture would be the ability to use a slower shutter speed. A few weeks ago I wanted to take a picture on a sunny day of waves splashing ashore. I wanted to blur them with a slower shutter speed, but I couldn't because the camera in the phone didn't have the option for a smaller iris to compensate for the slower shutter speed.
A bit expensive (Score:2)
$1199 for the iphone 18 Pro. After the initial flurry of people who will just buy anything new from Apple, I'll be curious to see how these sell at that price point. I'm guessing the plain Jane iPhone 18 will come later on.
Re: (Score:2)
The first "Pro"-branded iPhone, the 11, launched in 2019 at $999. That's ~$1300 today. For $100 less you get a phone with more storage, a better camera, better CPU, better battery, etc.
If the $1200 price point is a problem, it's at least not a new problem.
Re: (Score:1)
I"m currently on the iPhone 12 Pro Max and the better life is starting to get a bit weak and the electronics are starting to show age a bit....I want to be able to shoot RAW and such on it for video...so, it's about time for me.
As you can tell, these phones last me a LONG time, so I drop some cash....but over time It seems worth it to me. An extra $100 or so? No big deal.
Re:No Qualcomm modem? Ew. (Score:4)
Looking online you can find plenty of people bitching about Apple C2 modems.
Who is going to bitch about a C2 modem when Apple has never shipped one? Weird claim to make.
Dude it's a new product (Score:1)
I guess technically you're right the older Apple modems are what I'm comparing to but they are kind of crap just like the Google modems are kind of crap. Apple is prioritizing a short-term profit gain by using their own chips over a much better known and more reliable technology.
Maybe you're right and Apple has fixed the connectivity issues but I don't think so because Qualcomm seems
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is prioritizing a short-term profit gain by using their own chips over a much better known and more reliable technology.
It seems the opposite to me. Developing these chips in-house had to be much, much more expensive in the short term than continuing to buy Snapdragons from Qualcomm.
I guess you could argue that they should have spent a few more years investing in R&D before deciding that what was released as the C1 was "good enough". But, outside of places like Slashdot, I don't think anyone has any idea what modem is in their phone and I haven't heard of any widespread connectivity complaints, so it seems like the "
Sounds risky. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds risky. (Score:4)
Never buy a rev 1 Apple product.
Re: Sounds risky. (Score:2)
Mac user since the '90s here, and Parent speaks the truth. Mod parent up.
Just get a real camera already (Score:5, Interesting)
An afterthought camera system welded onto a smartphone is fun for when
you need to take a quickie photo of some random thing and it's the only
thing you have.
Just like a DSLR / Mirrorless setup cannot outperform a dedicated video
unit, a smartphone will never match what a quality dedicated camera system
can do.
The smartphones really should concentrate on improving in the one area
they usually suck at. Being a phone.
Can anyone claim the quality of the actual call doesn't need improvement ?
Re: (Score:3)
a smartphone will never match what a quality dedicated camera system can do.
"The best camera in the world is the one you have with you."
Can anyone claim the quality of the actual call doesn't need improvement ?
Yes? The cellular network in my area could use improvement, but my smartphone makes and receives calls just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been thinking about getting a DLSR for years, but stick with a phone. Carrying a DLSR means one more thing to pocket, one more thing to charge. They are also harder to use, and while they do have better sensors and optics, the actual photos are often no better, or only marginally so, compared to a really good phone.
I wish someone would make a DSLR that was compact and as easy to use as a phone. I'd be interested in that. Fixed lens would be okay, I'm not going to carry a second one anyway. Even just
Re: (Score:1)
DSLRs are old tech...go for a modern mirrorless camera.
Go take a look at the Fuji compact mirroless cameras they even have a few fixed lens offereings that might suit your use case...give them a look.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I mean, yeah, a mirrorless. But I haven't found any that really seem to meet my needs of being compact, decently wide, good in low light, and good on auto. Maybe one of the Sony alpha series, but looking at phone like the Honor Magic 8 Pro and the coming 9 Pro, I'm not convinced that it is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone claim the quality of the actual call doesn't need improvement ?
What is this "call" thing you speak of? Do you actually ... talk to people on your phone? Are you some kind of a super-boomer? Not even my dad does that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a video by a photographer and he points out that the quality of photos is not the reason to buy a dedicated camera. After all, you can buy a $2000 Ricoh that only takes black and white photos now; the iPhone will, in most circumstances, take 'better' photos, or at least more true-to-life photos.
But a dedicated camera focuses your attention. If you carry your camera, you're concerned with photography. You're not distracted by texts or whatever. And so your photography is likely to be better--you're pay
Meh, the sensor is still small (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping for a new SE. (Score:2)