Let's talk cameras

[MonkeyJunky]

It's optical zoom if it remains on the same lens. All you're doing is switching to a different lens that's already established for a certain type of image.

It is switching to a telephoto lens which is magnified and stationary for 2x zoom. Optics being used to zoom in. This isn't rocket science guys. Optical zoom is a method of magnifying via lens optics. I think you both are confusing this with the idea of having an adjustable ZOOM LENS, which is a specific type of lens that has an adjustable zoom property.

 

[flyinion]

byebye , CanON

Sorry but no, I'll keep my Canon and collection of good lenses for anything serious. Until they start putting DSLR sized sensors in smartphones, the pictures from a phone can only possibly look good on other phones and maybe the computer screen. Nobody would deny that a DSLR has way better picture capability than a point & shoot camera, this is no different.

 

[mmartinet]

Canon and Nikon are going to be around until one or both no longer have professional photographers that trust them. The true photo pro needs high quality glass, big sensors and real zoom. The iPhone 7/+ cameras look great, but there is a reason Phil said Apple is not intending the phone to replace DSLRs

 

[iN8ter]

Revisiting your own post above, does the iPhone 7 Plus not use a two lens system? One being a wide angle, and one being a telephoto lens? A telephoto lens is simply a magnified lens for the purpose of zooming in on objects at a distance with better detail. The secondary camera lens on the iPhone 7 Plus uses a different optical lens to achieve a zoom function of 2x, and the rest is done digitally as they have been using (poorly) for years.

Does the new iPhone 7 Plus have an adjustable ZOOM lens? No, it does not. It has a lens with a longer focal length to achieve a magnified (zoomed in) photo on a particular subject.

So feel free to explain how using a magnified optical lens isn't optical zoom again? Because, frankly, you're wrong.

No. I'm not wrong.

But I do find it hilarious that you're so fannish that you're going to sit on a forum and argue about it with multiple people.

Because everyone is wrong but you, right?

There is no "optical" zoom in this phone. There is only the illusion of optical zoom by jumping for one sensor to another.

A human being can get almost infinite levels of optical zoom by moving themselves between their location and the subject. This is what Optical Zoom is. It simulates how the human eye would see the subject if the human themselves were to move themselves.

We do not zoom by switching eyeballs, we zoom by moving close and closer to the subject.

Cameras accomplish this by changing the focal length. This is why lenses on cameras go in and out of the camera body as you optically zoom. You can zoom to 1X, or 1.2X, or 3.8X, etc. The reason why there is no 1.2x on the iPhone 7+ is because there is no optical zoom - at all. It doesn't zoom between 1.0 and 2.0x. It simply jumps straight to a longer focal length camera sensor to give you the effect of "2x Optical Zoom" when it actually didn't zoom *at all*. It just switched cameras.

The effect is the same as if you had put your camera in your bag and pulled out another camera.

Yes, the effect may look like Optical Zoom to you, but it's not optical zoom - at all. It's okay for them to call it that, for the masses to at least try to understand what the effect is. Technically, however, it's not zooming. It's switching cameras. And it's switching to a camera with a completely different configuration than the main camera, as well (different focal length, aperture, etc.).

I'm not telling you to not be excited about the tech they're introducing in this camera.

I'm simply telling you that there is no optical zoom on this camera. It only switches lenses and then digitally zooms.

The end.

P.S. MonkeyJunky = Fresh account. Maybe I'm just being tr*ll*d?

 

[Quis89]

And that picture linked a few posts after this one looks absolutely awful and unnatural.

But I guess that's why Samsung cameras phones are considered "tops" now. People really do seem to prefer oversaturated, unnatural smartphone photos. They'll even take photos from a camera that produces more "natural" tones and make them look like they were shot with a defective Galaxy S7.

Or simply they prefer photos with colors that jump out at you. There's nothing "awful" about that photo. You just don't like it. Doesn't mean it's a bad picture. We can all agree that it looks unnatural. But I think it's a nice picture, personally.

 

[iN8ter]

Or simply they prefer photos with colors that jump out at you. There's nothing "awful" about that photo. You just don't like it. Doesn't mean it's a bad picture. We can all agree that it looks unnatural. But I think it's a nice picture, personally.

The colors are objectively awful when it comes to accuracy. Whether someone likes the inaccurate colors is their prerogative (subjective).

I didn't say the picture wasn't nice.

Also, he made the colors that way. I'm almost sure the phone didn't produce tones that off, as Apples ISP is conservative. I would expect something closer to this from a Samsung phone.

Which is why I made the comment I did.

I notice people editing iPhone photos to make them look the way a Samsung phone's photos look - straight out of their camera. This means I'm aware that the over saturation is pleasing to many, maybe even the majority of people.

It could also be that his display does not display the colors the way my displays here do. It may look different to him.

It just looks "unreal" when I see it. Like something touched up for a marketing campaign for beach resorts.

 

[MonkeyJunky]

No. I'm not wrong.

But I do find it hilarious that you're so fannish that you're going to sit on a forum and argue about it with multiple people.

Because everyone is wrong but you, right?

There is no "optical" zoom in this phone. There is only the illusion of optical zoom by jumping for one sensor to another.

A human being can get almost infinite levels of optical zoom by moving themselves between their location and the subject. This is what Optical Zoom is. It simulates how the human eye would see the subject if the human themselves were to move themselves.

We do not zoom by switching eyeballs, we zoom by moving close and closer to the subject.

Cameras accomplish this by changing the focal length. This is why lenses on cameras go in and out of the camera body as you optically zoom. You can zoom to 1X, or 1.2X, or 3.8X, etc. The reason why there is no 1.2x on the iPhone 7+ is because there is no optical zoom - at all. It doesn't zoom between 1.0 and 2.0x. It simply jumps straight to a longer focal length camera sensor to give you the effect of "2x Optical Zoom" when it actually didn't zoom *at all*. It just switched cameras.

The effect is the same as if you had put your camera in your bag and pulled out another camera.

Yes, the effect may look like Optical Zoom to you, but it's not optical zoom - at all. It's okay for them to call it that, for the masses to at least try to understand what the effect is. Technically, however, it's not zooming. It's switching cameras. And it's switching to a camera with a completely different configuration than the main camera, as well (different focal length, aperture, etc.).

I'm not telling you to not be excited about the tech they're introducing in this camera.

I'm simply telling you that there is no optical zoom on this camera. It only switches lenses and then digitally zooms.

The end.

P.S. MonkeyJunky = Fresh account. Maybe I'm just being tr*ll*d?

I like that you assume I'm all "fannish" as you called it about this new camera. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not all that impressed with it at all. I think they threw a gimmick on it to garner attention from your average consumer who doesn't know any better and assumes that this new feature is some "super high tech function" they've never seen before, when in reality, all it is is a slightly better (and I use that term loosely since it is such a minuscule achievement) and less efficient, way to have a small zoom function without relying on the incredibly terrible digital zoom smart phones have used for years.

But you keep telling yourself that I'm geeking out on it if it makes you feel better about explaining EXACTLY what I explained in my earlier posts. The new camera uses a lens to garner a magnified view of the same object the normal camera sees. It accomplishes this by using different optical lens over the secondary camera. This, by definition, is optical zoom. It is NOT an adjustable zoom lens, it is lens with a different focal length (again, something I myself touched on earlier) to garner a zoomed in perspective.

By switching to the other camera, it is optically zooming in on the photo by a small degree. Everything else is done in the horribly ineffective digital realm. The camera is actually switching to a different camera sensor with a totally different optical lens on it. If you take a DSLR and you put a different lens on it to magnify its visual range, you are using an optical lens to zoom in. This is no different, you just don't have to switch out any hardware, it does it for you.

And yes, I am new here, and I am an photographer by trade. I'm not here to pick a fight, but when someone starts spouting off about the definition of words and applying them in an overly narrow way, I like to clarify, even if it is met with argumentative assumptions. Optical zoom is a pretty broad definition, and that is what I was trying to relay to you, whether you want to see it or not, it doesn't change the fact that using an optical lens to magnify a picture is a type of optical zoom, its just not adjustable, and no one in this thread (or at least I anyways) was trying to argue that fact.

 

[iN8ter]

Of course you're a "photographer by trade" ;-)

Bye, guy.

If you were "geeking out" on it, you'd probably not be wrong about it.

I'm not going to argue the obvious any longer. It's not worth it and it's going to serve no purpose but to derail the thread. Believe what you choose to. I'm not here to change your mind.

Blocked because I don't want to waste anymore of my time discussing this. I'm sure you'd be an aviator next time you replied, if that was mentioned.

Have a great day.

 

[MonkeyJunky]

Perhaps you are just thinking too specifically on the definition of optical zoom. Given there are only two real standards of magnification in photography (optical and digital), what do YOU call the use of an optical lens to garner a zoomed perspective of the same photo?

 

[MonkeyJunky]

Of course you're a "photographer by trade" ;-)

Bye, guy.

If you were "geeking out" on it, you'd probably not be wrong about it.

I'm not going to argue the obvious any longer. It's not worth it and it's going to serve no purpose but to derail the thread. Believe what you choose to. I'm not here to change your mind.

Blocked because I don't want to waste anymore of my time discussing this. I'm sure you'd be an aviator next time you replied, if that was mentioned.

Have a great day.

It's ok to walk away from a conversation when you have nothing further to add. I'm not interested in the personal pot shots myself, even if that is what you feel you need to do now. You are/were wrong in the debate between the two of us, and I couldn't really care less if you believe me about my career or not, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day as I still do it day in and day out, and you'll still be either wrong, or strangely misguided with your continued thoughts on what optics are in terms of zoom features on cameras. I guess the photography standards need to add a new section for you to satisfy your overly narrow frame of reference, lol.

 

[Craig]

Jumping in very late... I am getting a 7 not a 7+ this time. So I will not be getting the new camera(s). The new cameras with the 28/56 was why I was leaning towards the plus. My hands are just not big enough for the plus, nor is my pocket to hold the phone. Just too much for me.

I am a Photographer, but closed my studio last June to take a job in Wa. My wife lost her job, and the studios are just not making the same money as they used to make. People can get sub-dslr cameras for a few hundred and with the phones, people don't care as much about pro-photography as before. My $5000 wedding package... others who purchased a camera this year, are offering the same for $200. I can't compete. Most don't care about quality or prints,l so it's moot. Regardless my wife and I got a job where we work and live together, so I closed the studio.

All that aside, regardless of what others say.. the 28mm/56mm at f1.2 will be an amazing setup. It will take outstanding photos. When the update the background blur (bokeh) in October, the software change for portraits will be awesome. You're roughly getting the same quality from your phone as I pay for a $2500 lens. I have over $15K tied up in lenses. But you're phone is going to do what a $2000 camera and kit lens out of the box can't.

Enjoy the camera, take amazing photos. No need to argue, the camera is going to be outstanding. Enjoy your purchase, take great images, express yourself and enjoy your new iPhone 7+

If you don't believe I am a Photographer, check my profile and website and/or ask for my Model Mayhem account. I am not shooting now professionally, but my sites are still live, as I may go back to it part time. I was just again on Japanese TV for Kanya Sessor, no legs no limits, my photos were again featured.

This post was about you.. the phone, the cameras and a great set up coming to the iPhone plus. Can't wait to see images posted next week for those lucky enough to get theirs this coming week / weekend.

Enjoy!

 

[MonkeyJunky]

Not to mention the ease of use related to the iPhone and it's abilities vs. your every day consumer picking up a DSLR with multiple lenses and a book full of settings to navigate through. People take some incredible pictures with the iPhone, and they do it without the extensive learning curve that most of your mid range to high range DSLR and mirrorless cameras require.

These smart phone cameras are really blending the lines of what higher end cameras can do with the ease of use of point and shoots. I don't even understand how point and shoot cameras have a market anymore to be honest.

 

[Craig]

Not to mention the ease of use related to the iPhone and it's abilities vs. your every day consumer picking up a DSLR with multiple lenses and a book full of settings to navigate through. People take some incredible pictures with the iPhone, and they do it without the extensive learning curve that most of your mid range to high range DSLR and mirrorless cameras require.

These smart phone cameras are really blending the lines of what higher end cameras can do with the ease of use of point and shoots. I don't even understand how point and shoot cameras have a market anymore to be honest.

I shoot only manual settings, and change lenses often. So you're 100% right, getting things right takes a lot of time on a DSLR. I agree point-shoot will be dying a fast death, but full frame and some crop sensor DSLRs will still remain. We still need other lenses and are in other situations that a iPhone or Samsung will never suffice. The demo of the camera at the keynote was good. I also feel that the flash over killed some images and I saw some areas that I felt were blown out. Overall though, and amazing camera.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Adobe DNG Raw! Thats nice! About time!

 

[Craig]

Adobe DNG Raw! Thats nice! About time!

Since my flow is from Camera (.CR2) to Adobe Bridge to Camera Raw (9), to Photoshop CC, having the ability to save RAW is a nice feature. Will I use it.. not often if at all. I can't imagine why I would, unless I feel it's a shot I will either want to feature / sell. If I happen to be somewhere and find an amazing scene, or a great old barn and I don't have my camera (or my backup kit that I leave in the car)... then sure.. RAW is good. However I am waiting for all the people to save RAW files and then at a loss what to do with them. I am not sure many will realize what RAW means. We will see, will be interesting.

 

[erwaso]

The phone can zoom in. That's cool on its own lol.

 

[Craig]

The phone can zoom in. That's cool on its own lol.

Zoom is an interesting word in this case.. remember you have two camera lenses 28mm and 56mm. Your eyes basically see at 35mm. So you have a slightly wide angle lens and a somewhat telephoto lens. Those optics are fixed. Anything past that is software / digital zoom. Depending on how good the camera software is, and the sensor is.. will decide the clarity of the image and the amount of noise within the image.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Zoom is an interesting word in this case.. remember you have two camera lenses 28mm and 56mm. Your eyes basically see at 35mm. So you have a slightly wide angle lens and a somewhat telephoto lens. Those optics are fixed. Anything past that is software / digital zoom. Depending on how good the camera software is, and the sensor is.. will decide the clarity of the image and the amount of noise within the image.

I'm not much of a camera aficionado but I think that second lens would have been a lot better with at least 75mm-85mm zoom. Kinda sucks that Apple couldn't get it to there, but I'm sure it'll suffice as it stands at the moment.

 

[Craig]

I'm not much of a camera aficionado but I think that second lens would have been a lot better with at least 75mm-85mm zoom. Kinda sucks that Apple couldn't get it to there, but I'm sure it'll suffice as it stands at the moment.

85mm F/1.2 with IS is a $1900.00 lens. One of the best portrait lenses out there. I have an 85mm F/1.4, but the 1.2 was out of my price range. I use my 50mm F/1.4 often, especially for boudoir. That being said, if Apple could have pulled off an 85mm F/1.2 I may have caved and got the iPhone 7+ over the 7. That would have been amazing. Not sure if they an get that lens that small. Hmmm.. we will see what the future brings.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Since my flow is from Camera (.CR2) to Adobe Bridge to Camera Raw (9), to Photoshop CC, having the ability to save RAW is a nice feature. Will I use it.. not often if at all. I can't imagine why I would, unless I feel it's a shot I will either want to feature / sell. If I happen to be somewhere and find an amazing scene, or a great old barn and I don't have my camera (or my backup kit that I leave in the car)... then sure.. RAW is good. However I am waiting for all the people to save RAW files and then at a loss what to do with them. I am not sure many will realize what RAW means. We will see, will be interesting.

It appears that you need a 3rd party camera app to take advantage of RAW capture. I am looking at the Obscura camera app.