Jump to content
Dallas

iPhone 11 Pro Super Wide Angle Camera

Recommended Posts

I just watched a video on the iPhone 11's ultra wide angle camera. It will provide a 120˚ angle of view, which is significantly wider than the 107˚ angle of view I get on my Pan/Leica 8-18mm wide angle lens. There is also a low light or "dark" mode that shoots HDR which brings in good shadow detail and recovered highlights as the camera is capable of shooting multiple frames in a fraction of a second and then blending them in software. 

 

For me the implications of this are quite serious because this technology will enable realtors to produce much better imagery than is currently the case. I will touch on this in greater detail in an AOV post a bit later on. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we say around here, another nail in the camera maker's coffin.

  • Like 1

Aguinaldo

www.aguinaldodepaula.com

Nikon / Zeiss

"You are not a loser when you're defeated.
You are a loser when you quit".
(Dr. House)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, atpaula said:

As we say around here, another nail in the camera maker's coffin.

 

Or another day closer to developing a rebirth of something more 'organic'?

 

nMtHE5K.jpg

 

(My Carl Zeiss range of glass in the Pentacon Six kit is now complete, save for the 5,6/1000 Mirror lens, which I have neither the interest in, nor bank account to afford. :D )

 

 

 

Edited by Alan7140
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People confidently predicted colour TV would replace cinema. It didn't.

People confidently predicted that the CD would replace vinyl. It didn't - vinyl sales are increasing.

People confidently predicted digital would replace film. It didn't - film sales are increasing.

I don't think in-phone cameras with their tiny sensors will replace real digital cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may not replace them, but they will certainly affect the market for them as well as their newly inflated costs. Also, remember that there are generations behind ours who don't care all that much for our nostalgia. Vinyl records may be on sale again in music stores, but they are still bloody inconvenient things to handle, play and store. Have you seen what they are charging for new pressings compared to CD's? 3-4x the price of a new CD which I just laugh at. Plus I am still unconvinced of their alleged "superior" sound quality. One has to spend an inordinate amount of money on audio gear just to begin to approach the sound from a CD, or even a decent FLAC file played through a good DAC. Personally I have abandoned all stored media and now subscribe to Apple Music. Couldn't be happier paying around $4 a month for access to most of the music ever recorded.

 

As for going to the cinema... 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that the generations behind ours don't seem to understand that the image quality of the small sensors in todays phones cannot compete with the IQ obtained from either a regular digital or film camera with any sensor/film size of M43 or above  At least we have some perspective on what outcomes a particular technology can deliver and not be hoodwinked by certain tech companies that the younger set seem to be slavishly addicted to.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Dallas said:

They may not replace them, but they will certainly affect the market for them as well as their newly inflated costs. Also, remember that there are generations behind ours who don't care all that much for our nostalgia. Vinyl records may be on sale again in music stores, but they are still bloody inconvenient things to handle, play and store. Have you seen what they are charging for new pressings compared to CD's? 3-4x the price of a new CD which I just laugh at. Plus I am still unconvinced of their alleged "superior" sound quality. One has to spend an inordinate amount of money on audio gear just to begin to approach the sound from a CD, or even a decent FLAC file played through a good DAC. Personally I have abandoned all stored media and now subscribe to Apple Music. Couldn't be happier paying around $4 a month for access to most of the music ever recorded.

 

As for going to the cinema... 🙄

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh_3170 said:

What bothers me is that the generations behind ours don't seem to understand that the image quality of the small sensors in todays phones cannot compete with the IQ obtained from either a regular digital or film camera with any sensor/film size of M43 or above  At least we have some perspective on what outcomes a particular technology can deliver and not be hoodwinked by certain tech companies that the younger set seem to be slavishly addicted to.

 

 

I'm not despairing.

 

They said that painting was dead when the first Daguerreotypes were seen. Here we are nearly 200 years later and modern photography has been reduced to temporary digital files stored on what were devices originally designed for verbal communication, yet new paintings are still being made, hung in art galleries and often bring prices way in excess of what any photograph has a hope of doing, and as well 'dead' silver technology photographs are on the increase in popularity.

 

The question then is - what is closer to death now? Hence my observation that silver halide photography and prints are on the cusp of a new, more exclusive era of popularity, whereas digital photography will probably morph completely into some form of electronically recorded virtual reality medium and be lost through obsolescence of storage formats and the bling of newer digital technologies.

 

Being "easier" or "cheaper" doesn't necessarily apply for everyone.

 

The bulk of digital photos ever taken are probably destined for obscurity at best, or just outright deletion (if indeed a large portion of those have not already gone that way - which means billions and billions of images never to be seen again on a daily basis). Each day many more digital photos are taken worldwide than were ever taken with film. The sheer volume of them alone guarantees their lack of ultimate longevity.

 

However, almost each day collections of negatives from decades, if not over a century past still surface to be printed again, marvelled at and maybe even digitised to be posted/publicised online. That will simply never happen with most photos taken on phones in particular, or even with digital cameras in general. As soon as the storage device becomes obsolete, the storage account fees are left unpaid, or the storage format itself is made redundant, those images will as good as cease to ever have existed, and few will remember their existence, anyway.

 

All that is needed for film-based photography to make a proper comeback is for new camera equipment to recommence being manufactured again, just as happened with Vinyl records - useless until the turntables were made again, but now readily available new and freshly designed and manufactured. They're not for everyone, of course, but the market has said "we want", and so it happened.

And - In my messenger today: " Hi Alan, I'd love to take you up on furthering my black and white adventure with some mentoring and thoughts and gear ... i am hoping i could come and visit and discuss after we get back from school hols which is Oct 14. let me know if/when it could work. thanks! x amy" - and this is now happening more often. People who have only ever taken digital photos (and I've known this individual virtually since she interviewed me as a cadet photographer - digital of course - at a newspaper over 15 years ago) are obviously feeling a disconnect with the impermanence and over-saturation of digital cameras and phones, and are looking for a more tactile and hands-on way to become immersed in the art of producing photos that exist completely as physical entities - "photos graphe" ('light drawing') - and not just an electronic interpretation of a bunch of ones and zeros presented on an LCD screen or spat out by an inkjet printer in accordance with a computer programmer's parameters.

 

I've offered her a medium format film camera and a couple of lenses to borrow, it'll be interesting to see how someone who is already a proficient photographer (and makes her living now as a freelance photographer) reacts to this slower, heavier and more considered and careful approach to taking photographs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan wrote: "All that is needed for film-based photography to make a proper comeback is for new camera equipment to recommence being manufactured again, just as happened with Vinyl records - useless until the turntables were made again, but now readily available new and freshly designed and manufactured. They're not for everyone, of course, but the market has said "we want", and so it happened."

 

The Nikon F6 film SLR is still in production and can be bought new. It is a top-flight professional camera, compatible with almost all Nikon lenses ever made.

 

So can the Leica M-P film rangefinder camera, which was introduced only a couple of years ago. Compatible lenses are available from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander.

Edited by vivionm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, this analog stuff is all still available and there are certainly members of society willing to learn how to use and enjoy it. But... as far as professional deployment goes, it no longer fits the bill simply because it is inconvenient to use it in such a manner when digital methods outshine it in that regard. This iPhone 11 will, I believe (as Aguinaldo says), drive further nails in the coffins of lower end digital cameras. The video capability alone makes it a formidable weapon in the arsenal of any freelance filmmaker. Stills, we'll have to wait and see, I guess. 

 

I personally would also love to use a medium format film camera, but I understand that the use thereof will only be for my personal edification. I won't be putting it to use for my real estate photography. Maybe if I ever go back to Namibia it will be a welcome tool to use for landscape work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of old technologies survive.

 

People still ride horses.

 

People drive vintage cars despite the comfort, expense and inconvenience.

 

But as far as the mainstream is concerned they are irrelevant.  Same with film cameras and LPs.

  • Applaud 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dallas said:

I personally would also love to use a medium format film camera, but I understand that the use thereof will only be for my personal edification. I won't be putting it to use for my real estate photography. Maybe if I ever go back to Namibia it will be a welcome tool to use for landscape work. 

 

MF in Namibia, now that sounds interesting!  Only downside with that will be keeping the dust out - a lot of the film I shot when I was last in Namibia has a scratch along the bottom of the frame due to a grain of sand getting stuck in one of the film guides or rollers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crowecg said:

 

MF in Namibia, now that sounds interesting!  Only downside with that will be keeping the dust out - a lot of the film I shot when I was last in Namibia has a scratch along the bottom of the frame due to a grain of sand getting stuck in one of the film guides or rollers.

 

It certainly is dusty there, but there again you highlight another reason why digital wins. Imagine you had been on an assignment for Nat Geo and turned in all your film with a dust scratch... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2019 at 21:38, Dallas said:

 

It certainly is dusty there, but there again you highlight another reason why digital wins. Imagine you had been on an assignment for Nat Geo and turned in all your film with a dust scratch... 

 

One of the weakest arguments I've yet heard, Dallas - seriously? :D :D 

 

 I'm sure more people have had more problems with dust on sensors than a scratch on film - and the dust is then on every image until the user notices it and cleans it off.

 

.A scratch on medium format film is also highly unlikely as the film comes with its backing paper protection between it and the pressure plate, and doesn't really get dragged across anything static as with 35mm film's cassette light trap or the film itself contacting the pressure plate - the only part of a 120 film camera that generally touches the film emulsion  itself are a roller at each end of the film gate which turns with the film (so can't leave a drag scratch) and the top and bottom edge of the film gate outside the image area, so nothing can really lay a scratch mark on the image itself in those circumstances.

 

I've shot a veritable busload of 120 film in my time in all sorts of conditions and the only scratches I've ever incurred in the camera are along the very edges of the film (outside the image area) where it runs along the polished flat rails at bottom and top of the film gate - and is therefore of no consequence.

 

18D16AQ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Alan7140 said:

 I'm sure more people have had more problems with dust on sensors than a scratch on film

 

Probably, but definitely not Olympus mirrorless users, that's for sure. Shooting OM-D since 2012 on 3 different bodies and I have only ever seen 1 dust spot that didn't get shook off by the IBIS and ultrasonic blaster thing they use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/09/2019 at 22:15, Alan7140 said:

A scratch on medium format film is also highly unlikely as the film comes with its backing paper protection between it and the pressure plate, and doesn't really get dragged across anything static as with 35mm film's cassette light trap or the film itself contacting the pressure plate - the only part of a 120 film camera that generally touches the film emulsion  itself are a roller at each end of the film gate which turns with the film (so can't leave a drag scratch) and the top and bottom edge of the film gate outside the image area, so nothing can really lay a scratch mark on the image itself in those circumstances.

 

18D16AQ.jpg

That definitely looks better than the inside of a 35mm system (at least the ones I’ve seen) in regard to places to scratch the film.  And of course the backing paper gives a 50% reduction in scratching possibility compared to 35mm.  Perhaps not such a bad idea after all.

 

now to find some cameras, choose  which films to use ( a mix of colour and b&w I suppose) and pick an itinerary (plus get approved by the financial controller).😀

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/09/2019 at 15:00, crowecg said:

That definitely looks better than the inside of a 35mm system (at least the ones I’ve seen) in regard to places to scratch the film.  And of course the backing paper gives a 50% reduction in scratching possibility compared to 35mm.  Perhaps not such a bad idea after all.

 

now to find some cameras, choose  which films to use ( a mix of colour and b&w I suppose) and pick an itinerary (plus get approved by the financial controller).😀

 

 

Leave colour to digital, I reckon. Colour film manufacture is a bit dodgy these days in the small runs reduced demand has caused, and processing is definitely variable with the demise of well-run and busy colour labs. I see more online comment on colour film processing problems than anything else regarding film.

 

B&W is where film, handled well, still trounces digital in appearance, the main reason being that Digital has a linear tonal response curve, film doesn't. While one can do a software curve adjustment to mimic film, it doesn't add tones to make up the "stretching" by increasing the steepness of the curve in the mid-tones, nor does it properly compress tones in the shadows or highlights where the film curve flattens out. Hence the frequent observation of "muddy" mid-tones with B&W digital. Film isn't confined to multiples of a base 8-bit 256 tonal separations (jpeg basic), either - it's tonal variability is potentially infinite between its black and white ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan7140 said:

 

Leave colour to digital, I reckon. Colour film manufacture is a bit dodgy these days in the small runs reduced demand has caused, and processing is definitely variable with the demise of well-run and busy colour labs. I see more online comment on colour film processing problems than anything else regarding film.

 

Even slide?  If I do ever get round to shooting film, I'd probably go for Fuji Velvia.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alan7140 said:

 

B&W is where film, handled well, still trounces digital in appearance, the main reason being that Digital has a linear tonal response curve, film doesn't. While one can do a software curve adjustment to mimic film, it doesn't add tones to make up the "stretching" by increasing the steepness of the curve in the mid-tones, nor does it properly compress tones in the shadows or highlights where the film curve flattens out. Hence the frequent observation of "muddy" mid-tones with B&W digital. Film isn't confined to multiples of a base 8-bit 256 tonal separations (jpeg basic), either - it's tonal variability is potentially infinite between its black and white ends.

 

If anyone ever tried a serious b&w digital (I know Leica have tried it), I bet they'd still include JPEG.  I'm surprised no image format has challenged JPEG even the updated JPEG2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a long period of reflection, I have decided not to revert to film.

I regret this decision but, in all the circumstances, it is the right decision for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vivionm said:

After a long period of reflection, I have decided not to revert to film.

I regret this decision but, in all the circumstances, it is the right decision for me.


B&W film is where I'm most at home, but obviously it's not for everyone, nor would anyone reasonably expect that to be.

 

With my foray into teaching/mentoring B&W film process to novices, I'm finding that their losing the ability of shooting many exposures and "checking the screen immediately" is proving a major hurdle to most of the participants, despite initially showing much eagerness and interest, so I guess that this modest film revival will largely be engaged in by people such as myself who have already used the medium extensively and are comfortable with the completely different equipment and approach to shooting it entails, which in turn suggests that after a resurgence it may well die back again and closer to the levels it did when digital first hit as us older practitioners die out.

I've perhaps gone further than most would contemplate as well - I've completely lost interest in digital (at least for the time being), and can honestly say that I'm really enjoying photography again, having realised that digital was where things went sour for me, even though I explored every avenue I could. Three different sensors and systems (Nikon/Bayer, Fuji/X-Trans and Sigma/Foveon), all manner of image processing and manipulation software - HDR, focus stacking, multiple-row pano stitching, 360° panos, multi-row panos combined with focus stacking and HDR - you name it, I reckon I tried it.

 

In the end I guess I felt that all I was doing was pushing sliders and applying commands to get a computer to enact some programmer's idea of how things should be, and show results on a monitor that some other technician had set the parameters of display resolution and colour, and maybe then print an interpretation of that as decided by an inkjet printer manufacturer's ideas of how a print should be produced by spitting ink at paper according to some programmer's algorithm.

 

B&W film has given me back full control of the process, from loading a 100% manual camera with film of my choice all the way through to producing a final bromide print in my own, 100% hands-on preference, like I did for decades before the digital takeover.

 

I've had several friends remark on how much happier I seem in general these days, which I'll put squarely down to re-engaging with film again. That being the case, I'm certainly not going to upset that by changing back to digital. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that to a large degree there has been a romanticism of film photography by many who espouse it as a means of artistic expression. Yes, there's something about the equipment and processes used that makes it special. I can still look at a Nikon F2, get googly eyed and try to make up reasons to get that camera again, but I know in my heart of hearts that I will probably not enjoy the photographic output as much as I do when I am shooting with the digital gear I currently have. There's simply no good reason for me to ever go back there (to 35mm) again.

 

This morning I was looking at the wedding photos I took at the beginning of the month and it reminded me just how far photographic quality has come since my 35mm film days. There is simply no 35mm camera in the world that could even come close to the quality that I can get out of my almost 6 year old Micro Four Thirds cameras. I will state that categorically and stand by it forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did shoot film for three years, with a rangefinder camera (a Zeiss Ikon). Each exposure was carefully considered before I executed it. I achieved a high percentage of "keepers". I did not miss being able to "chimp" on a screen, in fact I almost never "chimp" now when using a digital camera.

 

I really enjoyed the process, but did not enjoy having to send my film to the Netherlands for processing, nor the difficulties inherent in scanning film to digital.

Edited by vivionm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dallas said:

I think that to a large degree there has been a romanticism of film photography by many who espouse it as a means of artistic expression. Yes, there's something about the equipment and processes used that makes it special. I can still look at a Nikon F2, get googly eyed and try to make up reasons to get that camera again, but I know in my heart of hearts that I will probably not enjoy the photographic output as much as I do when I am shooting with the digital gear I currently have. There's simply no good reason for me to ever go back there (to 35mm) again.

 

This morning I was looking at the wedding photos I took at the beginning of the month and it reminded me just how far photographic quality has come since my 35mm film days. There is simply no 35mm camera in the world that could even come close to the quality that I can get out of my almost 6 year old Micro Four Thirds cameras. I will state that categorically and stand by it forever.


Until you shoot B&W, as I mentioned. As soon as one gets around the mistaken concept of grain being a 'flaw', one realises that the way that film renders things as opposed to the way desaturated digital looks is different, and you come away with a different perception of the two as separate entities. It also depends what you mean by 'quality'. If that means colour accuracy and that mythical thing the Internet calls "sharpness" as being the overriding thing, then yes, colour film doesn't come close.

 

But no-one with normal vision sees in black and white - there is therefore no point of comparison from life experience, and the presentation of the final image can truly be said to be what the photographer intends you to see, not what you think it may have looked like initially.

 

Maybe it's too subtle a thing for most to pick up on, or maybe it's because most people see most photographs these days on a relatively low resolution, dynamic range limited LCD screen of some description, but once you see a proper gelatin silver-bromide or chloro-bromide print from a silver-halide negative image, the difference becomes obvious. For one thing the actual print resolution is way beyond the paltry 1920, 2560, 3840 or 4096 pixels over the long dimension of most current screens, even if the grain of the negative image chops things up in that particular image.  Film also most definitely provides a different print using traditional methods than when it has been digitised and screen-displayed or ink-jet printed, the latter's maximum of around 1440x1880 dots per inch being so far short of the potential of photographic paper that it shouldn't even need a mention.

 

I can try to explain 'til I'm blue in the face, obviously, and anything I post online has even less resolution thanks to compression and downsizing and being displayed electronically, but I know what my B&W photographic prints look like, and there is simply no way anything I've achieved through all that money- and time-wasting experimentation with digital comes within a bull's roar of a good chloro-bromide print from a well exposed and processed negative in actual appearance. To that end there is therefore often little point in posting my photographs online these days, and I tend to confine that activity to film-groups who get what I'm talking about here through their own use of the medium, or in examples to demonstrate a point or equipment use.

 

As I no longer take photographs to earn a living by pandering to the electronic viewing market, I can go back to appreciating and enjoying the results, process, and yes, even the equipment that I spent over 30 years using to do just that before digital upset the apple-cart. For me, B&W film and print trounces the digital method, and with only myself to please now, that's all that has to matter to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One needs to satisfy oneself. Sometimes ignorance can be bliss. Lord knows I don’t need to covet any more methods or photography gear! 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alan7140 said:

Maybe it's too subtle a thing for most to pick up on, or maybe it's because most people see most photographs these days on a relatively low resolution, dynamic range limited LCD screen of some description, but once you see a proper gelatin silver-bromide or chloro-bromide print from a silver-halide negative image, the difference becomes obvious. For one thing the actual print resolution is way beyond the paltry 1920, 2560, 3840 or 4096 pixels over the long dimension of most current screens, even if the grain of the negative image chops things up in that particular image.  Film also most definitely provides a different print using traditional methods than when it has been digitised and screen-displayed or ink-jet printed, the latter's maximum of around 1440x1880 dots per inch being so far short of the potential of photographic paper that it shouldn't even need a mention.

 

I can try to explain 'til I'm blue in the face, obviously, and anything I post online has even less resolution thanks to compression and downsizing and being displayed electronically, but I know what my B&W photographic prints look like, and there is simply no way anything I've achieved through all that money- and time-wasting experimentation with digital comes within a bull's roar of a good chloro-bromide print from a well exposed and processed negative in actual appearance. To that end there is therefore often little point in posting my photographs online these days, and I tend to confine that activity to film-groups who get what I'm talking about here through their own use of the medium, or in examples to demonstrate a point or equipment use.

 

Please don't stop posting your photographs - there is so much to see and learn from them, even within the restrictions of LCD screens.  

 

This is probably a question for Dallas, Given that HDR is a current buss-word among screen manufacturers ( both phone and TVs) is there any movement towards supporting greater dynamic range on websites?  Or are the screen manufacturers still playing catch up to the 8-bit per channel that we've been stuck with for years.

 

 Does Fotozones software support jpeg2000 even if not all browsers do?  Perhaps that could be a specialist channel for those that appreciate and have a suitable screen/browser.  However, please don't call it an HDR channel as many people overdo it as a processing technique and end up with a wired look.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, I can only answer that from the software perspective and that answer is no. If there was going to be support for extended HDR it would probably have to come from the hardware manufacturer (whoever makes the screen you're looking at). I think also that the terms HDR means slightly different things when it comes to photography and viewing hardware. 

 

JPEG2000? No idea, sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.