selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The default zoom level can be overridden by spreading two fingers apart on the screen while framing.

The lenses on the back of the camera are not specifically wide angle, normal or telephoto although the main lens appears to be #3. It might be difficult to predict which one is used.

If you focus on a nearby subject and cover each lens in turn you might end up using #1 for 0.5x, #3 for 1x and 2x and #2 for 5x.

Different lenses are used selected based on focus distance and zoom level (0.5x, 1x, 2x and 5x). There may be other factors like subject brightness.

The zoom levels on the iPhone Pro can range from 0.5x to 25x. The lens used might change at any intermediate level. There is probably a more limited zoom range for the 48MP capture (1x +/-?) and for a non-Pro version with only two lenses.

#1 top right, #2 middle left, #3 bottom right

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The issue is not the lens.

Here are three shots taken at 5x (120mm), 10x (295mm) and 27.75x (666mm). All were converted to 12MP and the focal length in the JPEG shows 15.7mm. These must have been constructed from the 48MP original.

Good enough for sharing on the internet or in small thumbnails. Beyond 120mm they are not good enough for other purposes.

120mm equivalent

(Download)

295mm equivalent

(Download)


(Download)

OldTrojanFan

I follow these discussions because we make 2-3 big trips a year--3 weeks flying across oceans. I still can't bring myself to leave my "real camera" behind, but it's a pain in the backside for a 77 YO to lug around traveling by train.

I take several hundred photos on a trip, hoping to get 1 or 2 to print on my Pro-1000 and hang on the wall, mostly landscapes and castles. There is no question that in "most" difficult situations (birds at d distance or in flight, fast objects in poor light) that the big boy camera works better, and certainly the reach of a 400-600 lens is interesting.

Just returned from London--first photo that really got my attention was an iPhone14 pic taken a 12MP main lens, standing on the Westminster Bridge capturing the Eye with amazing light and sky. Did absolutely nothing to the photo other than a small crop to 16X20 and there is no way that anyone looking at that print without a loupe would have any idea about its capture. Can't compare to my other camera because we set out that morning knowing we would walk at least 7-8 miles in an area we had already seen.

Since my main goal of the trips is the travel and the photography is secondary (I only shoot what I stumble upon and use the available light), I think our next trip I will gamble and take only the phone, but I've been thinking that for a couple of years.

BTW, I bought a strong, collapsable selfie stick and a remote shutter release and have a ton of fun just playing with that.

Attached file:
(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Nice image! It's a good example of what can be done with 12MP and a normal field of view.

When the full frame D700 showed up in 2008 it showed that 12MP could produce images that could be printed at any size (so long as you backed off to see the full image. When we 24MP we have probably reached the sweet spot, the limit of affordable lens performance.

So 12MP is a logical target for smartphones. Without larger sensors there is little point in ultra-high MP counts unless it is used as an intermediate stage to extend the zoom range like Apple did with the iPhone 15.

Smartphones cover the vast majority of the public's photographic needs. That doesn't include birds in flight, action sports, astronomy, macro, etc.

Those of us who want to push the limits and address the most challenging situations will spend the extra money on larger sensors and lenses.

srt101fan

That's a great bottom line to quote everytime that silly "real camera"-vs-smartphone-camera argument rears its ugly head!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I may have a reasonable grasp on the obvious. The why and how much takes a little more research.

srt101fan

But "the obvious" unfortunately is not that obvious to a lot of people!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Another "obvious" issue that gets dispelled - the amount of dust and lint on the surface of the lens doesn't seem to be critical.

MJPerini

Using any historical perspective, and applying criteria such as image quality and ease of use, you have to conclude both 'cameras' are off the charts good. All of us who love photography have never had a better choice of tools.
In the real world we all live on a continuum that balances ease of use against ultimate quality.
The answer for most enthusiasts is to have both tools, but smartphones have enabled more casual photographers to be taking the best pictures and video that has ever been available.
Enthusiasts generally recognize that they ARE different tools and each excels at a different feature set, so comparisons between them don't get to the heart of the matter.
Smart phones have long ago surpassed sufficiency of image quality for most folks, especially when combined with instant sharing of one or a whole album if pictures, and very smart algorithms for exposure and simple editing.
And the latest dedicated cameras offer a level of quality and ease of use that is astounding.
But, comparing the two, in my opinion misses the point of the digital abundance we currently have.

jimpitt

This is clear proof that iphones are for those who are taking snapshots and do not care much about quality.
We, as professional and semi-professional photogaphers, will always need cameras. The quality and size of the lens is what is important. A lens half the size of a pea will never compare to a lens the size of a peach. My Zfc at 21MP takes far better pics than my wife's i14. Not even close.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

That has always been true. The Kodak Instamatic was not ‘even close’ to SLRs of the time, but moments were ‘caught’ by the Instamatics because they were there.

OldTrojanFan

Curious, what do you do with your photos after they come out of the camera? Where do you see a significant difference with a photo that fits the iPhone range? There is no argument about the "difficult" shots. If you see a difference in print, how large are you going?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Print? I seem to vaguely remember that.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Helpful, illustrative information

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I made ‘large prints’ with my Instamatic.
They were not for “close scrunity”, but in my view, no print should be viewed with a ‘magnifying glass’.