iPhone 15 vs Z7
Nov 2, 2023 17:13:09 #
I captured the same scene with both cameras.
The iPhone main camera is nominally 48MP with a 4:3 aspect ratio and a full frame equivalent of 24mm.
The Z7 is nominally 45.7PM and a 3:2 aspect ratio. I used an AF-S Nikkor 24mm 1.8G lens at an aperture of f/6.3 to replicate the DOF of the iPhone.
Both raw files were developed in Capture One 23 to achieve about the same appearance.
As you will see in the next post, the difference is in the sharpness of the lens, not in the resolution of the camera.
The iPhone main camera is nominally 48MP with a 4:3 aspect ratio and a full frame equivalent of 24mm.
The Z7 is nominally 45.7PM and a 3:2 aspect ratio. I used an AF-S Nikkor 24mm 1.8G lens at an aperture of f/6.3 to replicate the DOF of the iPhone.
Both raw files were developed in Capture One 23 to achieve about the same appearance.
As you will see in the next post, the difference is in the sharpness of the lens, not in the resolution of the camera.
Nov 2, 2023 17:16:58 #
Other than the obvious difference in aspect ratio, the images are very close.
But if you download each image and view them at 100 you will see a significant difference in detail and sharpness.
But if you download each image and view them at 100 you will see a significant difference in detail and sharpness.
Nov 2, 2023 17:17:32 #
Megapixels don't mean much. How they are arrayed and what sensor and lens are involved makes all the difference.
Nov 2, 2023 17:18:46 #
kpmac wrote:
Megapixels don't mean much. How they are arrayed and what sensor and lens are involved makes all the difference.
It's all in the lens and the size of the sensor.
Nov 2, 2023 18:00:39 #
Nov 2, 2023 22:40:24 #
therwol
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
But if you download each image and view them at 100 you will see a significant difference in detail and sharpness.
There is a very big difference at 100 %. Look at the shingles on the tops of the buildings.
Nov 2, 2023 23:21:06 #
selmslie wrote:
Other than the obvious difference in aspect ratio, the images are very close.
Did you look at the roof tiles? How is that "close"?
Nov 3, 2023 03:25:50 #
Pixel-peeping aside, to my eye one of the more telling differences is in the sky. The iPhone is showing the limitations in dynamic range that I would expect from any small sensor camera. The brights are too bright, the darks are too dark, and despite that stretch in contrast there's a loss of detail in the clouds in the mid-tones. The Z7's clouds are more vivid, detailed and coloured more strongly, and with the iPhone the colours in the sky look a bit flaky compared to the Z7 image.
These differences are more than just PP issues. The Z7 gives a superior starting point, as one would expect, and that difference would become more obvious the more one wanted to PP the images.
These differences are more than just PP issues. The Z7 gives a superior starting point, as one would expect, and that difference would become more obvious the more one wanted to PP the images.
Nov 3, 2023 06:28:21 #
Grahame wrote:
Did you look at the roof tiles? How is that "close"?
It’s close in the thumbnail, not when you pixel-peep. That’s my point!
Nov 3, 2023 06:41:46 #
R.G. wrote:
Pixel-peeping aside, to my eye one of the more telling differences is in the sky. … The Z7 gives a superior starting point, as one would expect, and that difference would become more obvious the more one wanted to PP the images.
The two images were taken a few minutes apart and the clouds were moving fast. In more favorable weather the differences in the thumbnails would have been less apparent.
Regardless, the way they got 48MP from such a small sensor is questionable. It’s not likely that the pixels are 1/4th the area. Even on a computer twice as many MP is difficult. In a smartphone 4x as many is going to have some problems.
Nov 3, 2023 09:37:51 #
I don’t believe that you can make a phone call or check your email on the Nikon!! So I guess the best phone that can have is the one to have in your pocket.
Nov 3, 2023 09:42:24 #
selmslie wrote:
It's all in the lens and the size of the sensor.
Like the difference I saw when I went from a Kodak Instamatic to a 35mm rangefinder camera using the same film emulsion.
Nov 3, 2023 09:45:46 #
selmslie wrote:
Regardless, the way they got 48MP from such a small sensor is questionable. It’s not likely that the pixels are 1/4th the area. Even on a computer twice as many MP is difficult. In a smartphone 4x as many is going to have some problems.
Regardless, the way they got 48MP from such a small sensor is questionable. It’s not likely that the pixels are 1/4th the area. Even on a computer twice as many MP is difficult. In a smartphone 4x as many is going to have some problems.
Not at all questionable; there are MILC’s with comparable sensors, but a smart phone can make use of its prodigious computing power.
Nov 3, 2023 09:50:03 #
rehess wrote:
Not at all questionable; there are MILC’s with comparable sensors, but a smart phone can make use of its prodigious computing power.
Capture One 23 is no slouch but it can’t make a quality 48MP image from a 12MP image made with a tiny lens on a very small sensor.
Nov 3, 2023 12:23:45 #
selmslie wrote:
Capture One 23 is no slouch but it can’t make a quality 48MP image from a 12MP image made with a tiny lens on a very small sensor.
and a mediocre lens - don’t leave that part out.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.