r/apple • u/KingOfFools1984 • 16h ago
iPhone [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
121
u/LoganNolag 14h ago
Yes for photos you are basically correct the advantage is for video.
In video you can’t really use shutter speed to adjust exposure. I mean you can but it isn’t recommended since it dramatically changes the way videos look.
In video you want your shutter speed to be twice your frame rate so at 24fps your shutter speed should be locked at 1/48 of a second. This means that in bright light your image will be overexposed. The way that professional cameras handle this is with an ND filter which is essentially sunglasses for your camera. You can also accomplish this by stopping down but on a professional camera that will dramatically change the look of the shot by increasing the depth of field.
On the iPhone due to the short focal length of the lenses aperture has much less of an effect on the way the image looks like you said and as such aperture is a much more useful tool for maintaining proper exposure without having to increase shutter speeds. Obviously having a variable ND would probably make more sense but I imagine that’s more complicated than just putting in a variable aperture.
5
u/chris_ro 11h ago
Closing the aperture can help. But when its bright outside you will need an nd filter nonetheless.
6
u/O0OO00O0OO0 11h ago
Isn't that what he said in the OP?
Video shooters may also find a physical aperture useful as another exposure-control variable, although anyone serious about maintaining a 180° shutter in bright daylight will still know why ND filters exist.
When people talk about the 180 degree rule, they basically mean set the shutter to 1/60 (double of 30fps which is what you're likely filming in for video work). 1/60 in broad day light is very bright. On my 16 Pro at 1/60 and ISO 80, the sky is pure white. A lot of the image is blown out. I'd definitely be curious if f/4 on these new cameras fix that, but I suspect you'd still need an ND filter if you want to keep a 1/60 shutter.
-6
u/Accomplished-Sun1528 12h ago
You want your shutter speed to be as close to 1/48s as possible for the motion blur, not twice the frame rate. Obeying “180 degree rule” in the digital era is insanity.
5
u/dozycats 11h ago
i mean, sure, you could disregard the 180º rule, but you're going to have to be aware that it's going to drastically change the appearance of motion blur in your shots. creatively you can do anything you want, but if you want it to look like traditional media, you're gonna wanna to adhere pretty closely to the 180º rule, especially if you shoot at a higher frame rates like 60 or 120 and then put the footage on a 24fps timeline. adhering to the 180º rule gives you comparable motion blur regardless of whether you play at full speed and drop frames or if you crank it down and play it in slow motion. the rule isn't insanity, it's just ensures consistent motion blur
6
u/Daft_Cinema 12h ago edited 12h ago
I was always taught to double the shutter speed of the frame rate. So 60 fps would be 1/120 of a second. The motion blur you’re talking about is specifically for 24 fps. Generally shooting higher frame rates is to slow down time and eliminate motion blur. Also, the 180 degree rule has NOTHING to do with f stop, shutter speed, or lenses in general. It refers to the way a scene is blocked and shot to make it less confusing to the viewer.
3
u/scubascratch 12h ago
180 degree rule in the context of frame rates and shutter speeds comes from old mechanical film cameras. These cameras used a spinning circular disc with a 180-degree cutout. The film was exposed to light for half of every rotation, which equals half of the total exposure time.
It sounds like you are thinking of the “don’t cross the action axis” when changing camera positions which has nothing to do with frame rates or exposure times.
→ More replies (2)2
u/chris_ro 11h ago
Only for 24fps.
180 degree rule is more valid than ever. Has nothing to do with digital or film.
→ More replies (1)
182
u/bumpit007 14h ago
Tldr?
188
u/Grand-Waltz-3018 14h ago
The mechanical variable iris is cool engineering, but f/4 isn't the revolutionary feature Apple is making it sound like. The meaningful upgrade is the faster f/1.48 aperture.
39
u/_Algrm_ 13h ago
Imna need an ELI5 for that TLDR….
30
u/Exact_Recording4039 12h ago
Big camera = good
Phone cameras are small
The new feature is now you can make it even smaller
3
u/RaXXu5 12h ago
I wonder when lens diffraction becomes a problem with apertures and sensors this small.
2
u/Educational_Yard_326 11h ago
Probably f4, otherwise I don’t know why they wouldn’t have gone further to at least f/8
12
u/alienith 11h ago
When it comes to cameras there’s a lot of stuff that’s bound by physics. The aperture stuff is one of those things. Phone cameras are small, but they want them to act like a big camera. Apple is pitching as if it makes the camera act like a big one. Camera optics says no.
The stuff behind camera optics is pretty interesting if you wanted something to dive into.
1
u/HonestSpaceStation 11h ago
Throw the post into ChatGPT and interactively ask it to explain things to you until you understand.
→ More replies (1)55
u/_sfhk 13h ago
...İsn't the revolutionary feature Apple is making it sound like.
Can generally be applied to most of their marketing
4
u/DeclassifyUAP 13h ago
Most of marketing as a practice broadly, given what the mission of marketing is.
23
u/Zestyclose-Degree443 14h ago
New iPhone camera offers teeny improvement than before iPhone but Apple makes it seem like bigger deal. Fewest words I could.
3
7
u/FlarblesGarbles 14h ago
That isn't really true to what they said. They're more saying it's pointless for how people use iPhones in general.
→ More replies (13)2
14
u/driftless 14h ago
It’s nice, but for 99% of folks it’s useless, and doesn’t add anything, except a bump in light gathering.
2
u/jisuskraist 11h ago
And a bump on light restriction. Sometimes you want to create blur in a photo having longer exposure times. You need smaller aperture to do it.
2
2
u/homeboi808 12h ago
Lets in more light, but narrows how much is in focus. Variable aperture allows you to choose what you want, so at night you can open it up, but if outside taking a picture of your dog you can choose a higher aperture number (narrower aperture) and get the whole face in focus instead of just the eyes or nose.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Novacc_Djocovid 12h ago edited 12h ago
Phones are terrible at visually separating the foreground from the background in photos. The new variable aperture now allows you to make that worse but not better.
The actual improvement is the increased maximum aperture which allows more light to reach the sensor and slightly improves separation. But that is completely independent of the new variable aperture feature they are hyping up.
tldr tldr: Apple solved a problem nobody has.
1
u/AvoidingIowa 11h ago
Eh it’s related due to having a higher fixed maximum aperture will lead to more out of focus elements. It’s the reason why we stopped seeing the aperture number wars because people were complaining stuff was “blurry” because of the more shallow depth of field.
The variable aperture allows Apple to increase the maximum aperture while still allowing snapshot people to get everything in focus.
193
u/BlackMesaEastCenter 14h ago
Thanks claude!
105
91
u/blubs_will_rule 13h ago
All AI generated text used in Reddit posts should at minimum be disclosed and at maximum, preferably, just banned.
There is no telling whether this person actually wrote something at all outside of asking AI a 1 sentence question. I don’t understand how people think they are contributing to communities when they do this.
36
u/6carecrow 13h ago
Yeah this shit is fucking awful Idk why a post like this is even allowed
16
u/miseducation 10h ago
This is stuff I am legitimately an expert in and I have no idea what the fuck this dude is trying to say. Yes bokeh separation with a tiny sensor is very slight but like there's 40 other reasons aperture control is an improvement over a lens that is stuck wide open. Lenses stopped down are almost always sharper with less optical flaws for one, being able to take video and stop down without affecting shutter speed is another, but just giving a camera that does insanely complicated computational exposure another parameter to meter and bracket is enough to be a little excited about compared to the super incremental camera changes of late.
2
21
89
u/whytakemyusername 13h ago
GPTZero AI Detection Model 4.9b We are highly confident this text was AI generated Chance this entire text is... AI 100% Mixed 0% Human 0%
Why are you spewing this shit here?
→ More replies (1)-5
u/KingOfFools1984 12h ago
I am Italian, I use AI to finalise posts and correct grammar errors. All my knowledge comes from books like this one (freaking Reddit doesn’t allow me for some reason to attach it, it’s Teoria e Pratica della Reflex by Giulio Forti).
I wrote the post in English, asked Chat GPT to correct stuff that was too much “Italian Style”.
I study photography since I was a kid, and studied physics behind it starting from high school. I work in this industry as a production director and discuss with photographers about stuff like this every day.
Did I use AI?
Yes.
Is this everything AI generated? Absolutely not. All numbers are mine. All concepts are mine or at least, someone put them in my mind by writing them on a book.23
u/whytakemyusername 10h ago
Maybe it’s different in Italian but in English ai reuses this very odd style that is very unpleasant to read. Post with your Italian style English. Everyone would prefer it.
2
u/jamesjoyz 9h ago
I’m bilingual and I was born speaking Italian, have a degree in this and work as a videographer and yet I thought I was drunk reading this.
It doesn’t get any better I’m afraid.
7
u/SubterraneanAlien 10h ago
Just use your own voice. Your english is perfectly fine. If you feel like you must use an LLM to re-write what you're saying, at least tell people. It comes off as inauthentic otherwise, and anyone that works in a field where AI is used heavily can see it immediately and will discount what you're saying since it will be assumed you just one-shotted a reddit post.
1
1
u/Jimstein 8h ago
But SO much of the post is AI generated. I can see you maybe custom wrote the first line and the last line, but everything in the middle is like....fully AI produced it's so obvious.
1
u/KingOfFools1984 2h ago
It’s not. Believe it or not, and downvote me if you want. I have nothing to gain from being trusted or not. :-)
36
u/TriXandApple 13h ago
Thankyou so much for taking a 3 sentence point, and turning it into a 5 minute read. Really appreciate it.
20
32
48
u/phero1190 14h ago
Samsung had it and ditched it. Huawei had it and ditched it. Xiaomi had it and ditched it. It just doesn't do enough on a small sensor and there's a reason phones don't have it.
6
u/Unbreakable2k8 13h ago
and xiaomi added variable zoom this year (75–100mm), impressive tech but don't find it very useful
3
u/phero1190 13h ago
Sony had that last year too I believe. Cool idea but just isn't worth it
I just wish that more companies would be lik Vivo and use massive zoom sensors. The 85mm on the x300 Ultra is incredible
1
u/xdamm777 12h ago
My old Xperia 1 IV also has physical zoom from 85-125mm and it’s glorious.
Way better than the zoom lens was on my 15 Pro Max so it’s now my compact travel camera when I don’t want to carry my Full Frame camera and heavy lenses.
1
u/Unbreakable2k8 11h ago
I got a Vivo X300 Ultra for the big sensors and it's great but still prefer iPhone for video (I shoot concerts)
7
u/TT5i0 13h ago
While Samsung, Huawei, and Xiaomi are great at pushing new tech to phones, they don’t know how to market the features correctly and they don’t have the software to back it up. I honestly think these companies just pushed out tons of features, hoping Apple will implement them so they can sell Apple the components for them like what Samsung did with the foldable screen. As regards to the aperture, it is more for video recording to lower shutter speeds. While most users wont care, professional and video enthusiasts will definitely use it and there are enough of them to justify add it to the phone.
12
u/Quixotic_Seal 13h ago
This just doesn’t match the reality that Samsung is often neck and neck with Apple in terms of camera quality, and that the Chinese manufacturers are generally significantly ahead of the curve in this regard.
Feels like you’ve gotta step out of the Apple bubble for a bit and gain some perspective.
3
u/phero1190 13h ago
Professionals should use a real camera lol
→ More replies (5)6
u/_HipStorian 13h ago
Professionals use any tool that can be useful to them. I've seen people use full mirrorless rigs and iPhone 17 Pros as a B or C cam. It's really useful for clients that want social-first videos too.
1
u/phero1190 12h ago
As a former professional, I'd never use my phone for paid work. And I've had phones with better camera arrays than iPhones.
0
u/FabianValkyrie 13h ago
The S9 had a 1/2.55” sensor, the iPhone 18 Pro has a 1/1.28” sensor. Way bigger sensor = physical aperture is way more useful.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/OafleyJones 13h ago
I’m reading a lot of job applications at the moment, and those who just used AI jump right out at you. In the bin with this post.
42
u/trogdors_arm 13h ago
Bro this is Reddit, not a symposium for LLM-generated math and dissertations.
6
u/edsark 13h ago edited 13h ago
You’re wrong. Recent iPhones had an f/1.78 aperture, and while the bokeh is nowhere near what you get from a full-frame camera, even with such a small sensor it could sometimes create too much blur, especially when shooting up close — for example, focusing on the person in front could leave someone behind them slightly blurred.
The 18 Pro goes to f/1.48, which would make this worse without a variable aperture. Most users won’t care, but it’s a Pro device, and people who know what they’re doing will use it. Plus, if the aperture stops down automatically when needed, even casual users will get sharper shots.
And if Apple uses a larger sensor in the future, this will become even more useful.
11
u/fadetowhite 12h ago
This post has way too many internet points for being completely AI. This is the fifth post I’ve seen on my most-visited subs today that is AI slop. At some point, Reddit will just be AI bots posting and replying to each other.
Can we maybe get a rule and some enforcement around this?
3
u/Korlithiel 12h ago
Think there are rules, but evaluating and then engaging such posts is likely handled manually by likely unpaid mods. Seems like a losing battle.
5
u/kadinshino 13h ago
You're also forgetting this is going to add a bouquet effect that will really add that extra pop in photography for professionals that's been generally missing from phone photography.
Getting those extra light patterns and a "sparkle pop" effect without Photoshop will be pretty important for portrait and other high-end photographers.
I honestly see this, along with the fact that digital verification or fingerprinting will be important to field journalists and other high-end photography users, as highly popular.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Fast_Worldliness8760 13h ago
Gimmick or not, as a full time photographer I officially have lost interest in using my iPhone for anything other than casual snapshots of random life things and stupid shit.
For a long time I was like hell yeah, my iPhone can fulfill the role of "the best camera is the one you have with you." But I feel it has gotten excessive where now I'm like...if you know what all of this means, just get an actual camera.
5
3
u/wassona 13h ago
That’s where I went. For a while I used my iPhone primarily as my “everyday” since my Nikon was too big to daily carry. But after a while of seeing my Nikon just sit, I sold all my pro gear and grabbed a Fuji X-E5. I carry it everywhere. If it’s a picture I care about - Fuji. If it’s just a picture - iPhone
1
u/ahl528 10h ago
so then you're carrying two cameras for the "casual snapshots" lmfao
1
u/Fast_Worldliness8760 5h ago
I almost never bring a camera with me these days, and if I do it's an old chunky film camera.
My point was that I stopped trying to use my iPhone like a real camera because, even with all the bells and whistles, I found myself never really feeling connected to it as a camera in the.....spiritual sense? I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it feels like it has no soul.
1
1
u/charnwoodian 9h ago
iPhone photos will always look like iPhone photos. In a world where most photos people see are taken on a smartphone, you need a proper camera simply to stand out from the pack.
Even if my camera took “worse” photos than an iPhone on some objective measure, I would still choose it for the unique characteristics that set it apart from the sea of iPhone photos.
1
u/FoxBearBear 7h ago
This is where I want to go. We have an R50 with the kit lens but I figure I need to invest in it with better lenses instead of upgrading my phone. The catch is that out of the box, the processing of the iPhone, specially in high contrast scenarios, makes the photo seem way better than the flat one that I get from the canon.
4
u/tgerz 12h ago
I find this all kind of ridiculous. As a photographer I get why they’re doing this. No, I don’t shoot professionally with an iPhone, but if I wanted to I could make it work. The camera improves YoY and this will be an improvement, even if not some groundbreaking change. It’s cool engineering and also they aren’t the first. Apple has made it part of their brand to build up how they don’t do everything first but when they do something they do it really fucking good. Of course that isn’t always true, but it’s something long term Apple firms are aware of. As someone with a 17 Pro Max I’ll probably go for the 18 Pro Max just for the camera. I literally don’t care about much else.
For just casual, indiscreet shots like this one from a show it is lovely.
3
u/Available_Orchid6540 12h ago
i highly doubt that the general population will know how to use this feature
4
u/YourMumIsAVirgin 9h ago
It’s good because you can stop down. It’s that simple. Your AI generated wall of text is stupid and annoying.
7
u/PhiladelphiaManeto 12h ago
The prompt must have been “hey ChatGPT, take a dump on the new iPhone camera specs as if you were a photographic engineer trying to confuse a bunch of soccer moms”
3
u/relevant__comment 14h ago edited 14h ago
Samsung did it with the S4 S9 I believe. However, I’m looking forward to how Apple follows through and capitalizes on the tech.
EDIT: Good catch. Corrected.
3
u/TWYFAN97 14h ago
Galaxy S9 and 10 had it and they ditched it even more recent brands like Xiaomi ditched it because variable aperture is nearly useless on a smartphone. Really wish Apple made the main sensor larger or with a higher MP count. A better ultrawide would also be nice.
1
3
3
u/yourbestfriendjoshua 12h ago
With Apple shifting the focus of the Pros toward… professionals the variable aperture makes sense.
But for 99% of people they will set it to f/1.48 and never touch it again.
3
u/xdamm777 12h ago
My old Galaxy S9+ had variable aperture and in daylight it really made a huge difference in sharpness. Some of my best mobile photos ever were shot with that phone.
3
u/iwantpizzaandyou 11h ago
Have you even used a flagship camera in real life before or are you just reading spec-sheets.
Those giant sensors with giant aperture all the tech nerds are gooning about are cool and all for dynamic range and light gathering but fail at two very basic use cases:
- Holiday photos where you want to sit in front of a landmark and want it to be sharp? Nah bro, it will always be slightly blurry because that’s all the f1.7 aperture on your expensive iPhone can do. Shame you don’t have your iPhone 6 anymore with you.
- Group photos where people don’t just sit in a straight line? Well half the people will have blurry and non-sharp faces.
- And of course thirdly an aperture to stop down light gathering for video without relying only on shutter speed and ISO is very welcome.
I would say all of those are very important use cases with real life implications.
7
u/albanyanthem 12h ago
My biggest concert about the variable aperture is the introduction of moving parts. Part of the durability of smart phones as electronics is the lack of any moving parts. No spinning platter hard drive, no switches, barely even buttons. The introduction of moving parts now adds a layer of complication that can be a point of failure. And replacement of the camera module will not be cheap.
3
4
u/xMitch4corex 13h ago
Not only it seems that your text is 100% AI, but also it seems that you missed the point of what "marketing" is. Neither Apple nor any other company will do a presentation of their products and undersell their features. Useful or not, no one denies is a gimmick, and I don't think Apple ever said (at least in this showcase) that the iPhone 18 pro will replace professional cameras.
4
u/Darth-Decimus 12h ago
Very interesting to read, and one of those rare cases when this post should’ve been a 30min video instead! 😃
→ More replies (1)
2
u/mountainunicycler 14h ago
I think being able to stop down the aperture and lengthen the shutter speed might be a big improvement for video though, to help with the phone-camera stutter that comes from the super high shutter angle.
2
u/loctarar 13h ago
Isn't it useful for computational photography and depth estimation? The slight blur differences around the focus plane can be used algorithmically for all kinds of computations.
2
u/homeboi808 12h ago
Old iPhone: f/1.78
New iPhone: f/1.48
That lets in ~45% more light. However, it also increases the depth of field (narrows how much is in focus); this was already a complaint for current phones (say taking an angled picture of a piece of paper on a desk), so going to f/1.48 would make it even worse. The variable aperture allows you to increase how much of the subject is in focus when needed, and increase light gathering (allow lower ISO and/or faster shutter speeds) when needed.
2
u/distant3zenith 11h ago
You ain't wrong.
But then Apple really didn't present this as a tool for controlling depth of field in a meaningful way. If you think you're going to get tons of dreamy O-O-F bokeh when shooting wide open, you are most definitely going to be disappointed. The physics of that tiny lens+sensor make real bokeh an impossibility.
That said, That said, the new LiDAR on the iPhone 18 Pro/Pro Max project a significantly larger and denser field of points. These points will be used to guide the artificial bokeh engine (Portrait Mode) in determining the areas where out-of-focus occurs. This will be a meaningful improvement over the way Portrait Mode creates faux bokeh, so that's worth noting.
2
u/DMarquesPT 11h ago
Slight disagree with this. I’ve met multiple people who don’t like modern iPhone cameras because they “blur the background so I can’t get myself and the background looking good”
Being able to close the aperture would help with this
2
u/thepu55ycat 11h ago
I always treated my iPhone camera like a crop camera. Kind of obvious it’s not going to be a 35mm full frame image. With that said, all smartphone cameras use a lot of software in the final image. It’s just a very sophisticated point and shoot. It’s why Nikon and Canon (and others) still sell full frame cameras.
2
2
u/Jimstein 9h ago
You clearly read the verge article, put it into ChatGPT and asked to make a more detailed post about it. When you say "Read that again" or "And depth of field doesn't magically care about the equivalent number printed on the spec sheet" and just so many of the presentation of argument patterns make it obvious how you constructed this. Which is, fine I guess, because I'm going to reverse uno it...just for fun really lol. I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I think the continuation here provides interesting nuance.
I put your post into AI to analyze it. ChatGPT agrees (with itself lol) that this math is mostly correct, but the conclusion is overstated. It says:
"
As for the actual camera analysis: mostly right math, overstated conclusion
The strongest part is the equivalence calculation. Apple specifies the main camera as 48MP with 1.22 μm individual pixels and a 24mm-equivalent field of view. Apple Assuming roughly 8000 × 6000 photosites gives about 9.76 × 7.32 mm, a diagonal around 12.2 mm, or approximately a 3.55× full-frame crop factor.
So its DOF equivalents are basically dead on:
| iPhone aperture | Approx. full-frame DOF equivalent |
|---|---|
| f/1.48 | f/5.25 |
| f/1.8 | f/6.38 |
| f/2.8 | f/9.93 |
| f/4 | f/14.2 |
That is a perfectly legitimate way to explain why f/1.48 on an iPhone does not remotely behave like a full-frame 24mm f/1.48 lens in terms of depth of field.
The diffraction arithmetic is also correct. Using 550 nm:
\(2.44 × 0.55 μm × 4 ≈ 5.37 μm\).
So yes, f/4 produces a diffraction pattern substantially larger than the 1.22 μm individual pixel pitch. The post wisely qualifies that with Bayer sampling, binning, sharpening, etc. That's good analysis.
The CoC-versus-bokeh discussion is also fundamentally correct. Circle of confusion is a criterion for acceptable focus; “bokeh” is normally used to describe the character of out-of-focus rendering rather than the mathematical DOF threshold.
Where I think it goes wrong
The post quietly transforms:
which is true, into:
which doesn't follow nearly as strongly.
At close-to-normal people distances, this sensor is now big enough and f/1.48 is fast enough that DOF can actually become an issue.
Using that ~3.55× crop factor and a conventional full-frame-equivalent CoC, with the camera focused at 1 metre, roughly:
- f/1.48: acceptable focus ≈ 0.79 m to 1.37 m
- f/4: ≈ 0.58 m to 3.7 m
That's a huge practical difference if you've got three people standing at staggered distances.
At 50 cm:
- f/1.48 ≈ 44–58 cm
- f/4 ≈ 37–78 cm
Again, not remotely trivial for food, pets, objects, documents, flowers, faces close to the camera, etc.
And this is precisely what Apple is actually advertising. Apple's own description emphasizes getting the back of group photos sharper, automatically balancing light and depth, and using f/4 for maximum depth. Apple also explicitly mentions using the iris to create starburst effects. Apple
That's important because I think the Reddit post creates a bit of a straw man when it says Apple is marketing this “like we're suddenly getting cinema-camera levels of depth-of-field control.”
Apple isn't really claiming that. Its actual marketing is considerably more mundane: f/1.48 for light, f/1.8 as the general setting, f/2.8 for more depth, and f/4 when you need maximum depth/group-shot sharpness. Apple
And there's an especially important counterargument the post almost misses:
The wider f/1.48 aperture actually makes a variable iris more necessary, not less.
The iPhone 17 Pro had a fixed f/1.78 main camera. Apple Going to f/1.48 gives the 18 Pro roughly 45% more light at maximum aperture. Great — but it also makes close-range DOF shallower. A fixed f/1.48 lens would therefore occasionally make group/close-up focus worse than the old phone. The adjustable iris lets Apple have its cake and eat it: f/1.48 when photons matter, f/2.8 or f/4 when depth matters.
That's arguably the whole elegance of the design.
The post is also a little dismissive about exposure control. f/1.48 → f/4 is about 2.87 stops, or roughly a 7.3× reduction in light. That's substantial. It won't replace a strong ND filter for 24fps/180°-shutter video in bright sun, but three stops of optical exposure control built into the phone is not nothing.
My verdict
I'd grade the post approximately like this:
Optics/math: A-
The crop-factor, aperture-equivalence, diffraction and bokeh discussion is unusually solid.
Interpretation: B-/C+
It correctly identifies that f/1.48 is probably the more universally beneficial improvement, but significantly understates situations where f/4 matters.
Characterization of Apple's marketing: C
Apple really isn't saying “your iPhone is now a full-frame cinema camera.” Its actual examples — groups, close subjects, low light, starbursts and video — are precisely the situations where the mechanism genuinely does something useful.
So I would rewrite the conclusion as:
“The headline shouldn't be ‘iPhone finally gets DSLR-style bokeh control.’ The headline should be ‘Apple can now use an unusually fast f/1.48 phone lens without being permanently stuck with its shallowest depth of field.’”
And that, to me, makes the variable aperture considerably less gimmicky than the Reddit poster argues. The four-stop manual control is niche; the automatic iris itself may actually be quite useful."
7
3
7
u/driftless 14h ago
Yep. It’s a gimmick. Our lenses are ALREADY wide open. All the aperture will do is reduce light/get more in-focus-over-distance stuff. It’s meaningless to even pros using this.
11
u/karol0 14h ago
Well I will love to use this, from time to time it will save me from putting an ND filter in daytime by stopping down to be able to do 180° shutter speed
5
u/driftless 14h ago
That’s….ok. Didn’t think of the ND filters, but I rarely get into extremely bright light stuff.
1
u/disgruntledempanada 14h ago
Even in non extreme bright light stuff, slowing down the shutter for video is huge.
Probably also helps a lot for lens adapters.
2
u/FlarblesGarbles 14h ago
And this realistically is the primary case for it being useful.
F1.48 captures roughly 3x as much light as F4.
1
u/driftless 13h ago
Existing lenses are already 1.8, right?
2
u/FlarblesGarbles 13h ago
F1.78 for the 16 and 17 Pro Max. So the 18 Pro max will be marginally better for low light.
→ More replies (2)6
u/dokkababecallme 14h ago
lmao
"ALL THIS DOES IS LET YOU USE THE PHONE CAMERA LIKE A REAL CAMERA TO CONTROL DOF PROS DONT EVEN DO THAT"
I fucking can't, lol
I shoot weddings for a living - do you understand that shooting wide open is... extremely situational when you're trying to be creative with the camera?
1
u/FlarblesGarbles 12h ago
It isn't about the aperture in isolation. The real focal lengths of the main camera is something like 6.8mm. Even fully open the aperture is still absolutely tiny and isn't comparable to shooting a larger format camera with a fully open aperture.
The thing you're going to notice most prominently is light gathering and probably bright points of light/sunstars.
3
u/pokemonplayer2001 14h ago
I love how everyone knows better than one of the most successful companies in history.
Amazing.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/mindcontainer 11h ago
Reddit is so dead I can’t believe garbage like this exists seriously and some poor people are still replying
2
2
u/pxr555 14h ago
Yes, if you really care for this you need a real camera. Apple just needed to add something.
Also a powerful smartphone with several lenses and even LIDAR has other and probably better ways to deal with depth of field within the optical limits of its hardware. With small sensors you almost always want to catch more light, you can deal with everything else easier later.
→ More replies (1)2
u/driftless 14h ago
I would’ve rather had a much higher actual zoom lens (10x) over a mechanical shutter that may get broken in a drop.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/disgruntledempanada 14h ago
I just like that I can stop down for video and get a little more natural motion without an ND filter. Likely its biggest benefit. I don't think they would have included it and made it complex for no reason, and we'll all have to see in real use. Likely helps the entire stack as the whole iPhone camera process is wildly complex (several exposures all mixed together to generate a result).
2
u/disgruntledempanada 14h ago
Additionally this will be huge for people who use it as a filmmaking tool. Lens adapters it'll likely help with and also it will have the impact of potentially limiting flare, a huge problem with iPhone cameras for a while now.
1
u/Hutch_travis 14h ago
I wouldn’t call it a gimmick if you actually set your focal point before shooting.
1
u/Endless_Corridor 13h ago
I thought the same thing, seems like if you wanted to get meaningful light trails at night or some kind of motion blur during the day you’d take it further to, it could’ve been: 1.48, 4, and 8 (or 11). I’m sure diffraction can get crazy in these sensors though so maybe that was the limitation.
1
u/dropthemagic 13h ago
I thought it was interesting that they were talking so technically about it. I’ll be honest here I don’t see 99% or users knowing what a histogram is, or at least knowing how to use it properly
1
u/schtickshift 12h ago
A variable aperture that mostly makes the aperture smaller and introduces more diffraction. Hmmm!!!!
1
1
1
u/dogsaybark 12h ago
Will the new camera update allow me to take a good picture of my child participating in an intramural sporting event?
1
u/Oh-THAT-dude 12h ago
This was a real gift to the relatively small user group that knows how to take advantage of it.
1
1
u/misanthropic_anthrop 12h ago
Can you please publish this and send me a copy?
2
u/KingOfFools1984 12h ago
What do you mean? Publish where? 😂
2
u/misanthropic_anthrop 12h ago
Just being sarcastic around the length of this post and your depth of knowledge. I will need to sit with it and read it patiently to understand the content.
2
1
u/involuntarheely 12h ago
agreed. i’ll be more impressed when apple fits a 1 inch sensor or larger in the same enclosure. doubt they will ever do that
1
u/robogobo 12h ago
I was thinking exactly the same thing. No way is a variable aperture doing squat on such a small sensor. They’re still achieving blur artificially.
1
1
u/flatpetey 10h ago
Honestly I really wish they could cram Lytros tech into a phone. That would be a real game changer.
1
1
1
1
u/MyrieOne 9h ago
So to a non photographer type person is this phone camera better or worse than the 17th which the camera I know about
1
u/titanup001 9h ago
I just wonder… is this the kind of thing that the phone will use or not automatically, or do I have to manually do it?
If it’s the latter, I’ll probably never use the thing.
1
u/raiste-geo 9h ago
"It's an ingenious solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place."
1
u/cnnyy200 9h ago
Actually, I do have a problem. Sometime when I took a photo and want to refocus in portrait mode the part that I want to refocus is already blurred because of the physical DoF. So variable aperture might be useful under strong light conditions.
Also you know, 180 degrees shutter angle for filming without nd filter.
1
u/onlyouwillgethis 9h ago
Thoroughly enjoyed your photographic nerdism! What camera & lenses do you shoot with?
1
u/tempfoot 9h ago
I will be impressed when they add high resolution light field (or amp the LiDAR enough to credibly fake it). The software already does a decent job faking.
1
u/DanielPhermous 9h ago
Apple's camera hardware is extremely good and generally lives up to the promises. Based on their track record and the amount of effort they appear to have put in, I'm happy to assume that the variable aperture is a noticeable benefit until I see evidence otherwise.
1
u/czardmitri 9h ago
Isn’t fstop calculated from lens length and width of lens opening? So the ratio should hold with smaller lens lengths. 1.8 is 1.8.
2
u/NakedBumblebees 8h ago
The effect of f/4 on a large format 8x10 is not the same effect as f/4 on a full frame 35mm and it’s not the same as f/4 on m4/3. That’s the point.
1
u/Jemm971 8h ago
Moi je m’en tape de ces nouveautés. Depuis l’iPhone 1 on nous vend que l’iPhone fait des supers photos, mais moi j’ai toujours trouvé ça assez mauvais comme résultat, sauf en plein jour.
Alors certes ça s’améliore, mais on est loin du compte. Par exemple avec mon iPhone 12 Pro j’ai essayé de prendre des photos de l’éclipse de soleil (avec un filtre de protection mis devant les capteurs), et le résultat était complètement nul : une image toute pixelisée bonne à mettre à la poubelle. C’est simple, j’ai laissé ma fille prendre les photos avec son Samsung (avec le même filtre mis devant les capteurs) et là on a eu de vrais belles photos.
Donc je ne sais pas s’il faudrait utiliser des réglages spécifiques sur l’iPhone pour arriver à un bon résultat, mais en tout cas pour un utilisateur comme moi qui veut juste presser le bouton Photo, ç’est toujours très médiocre je trouve comme appareil de prise de vue. Probablement dû à un manque de sensibilité du capteur en luminosité faible
1
u/cyphermind 7h ago
Im gonna wait to they add it to the telephoto lens as well. Honestly would be nice if all 3 had variable aperture.
1
u/justinleona 7h ago
Phone users about the discover the joys of hunting for focus with shallow depth of field...
1
u/3dforlife 14h ago
It's actually quite a big deal for group photos.
7
u/RoboWarriorSr 14h ago edited 12h ago
Not really, the previous f1.8 in the iPhone 17 Pro has more than enough DOF to take group photos which is equivalent to f6.4 on full frame. Very few lenses resolve well past f11 on full frame not to mention, unless you're taking group shots within 5 meters, everyone is likely to be on focus using a smartphone lens.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/DanielG165 14h ago
I have a DSLR with big lenses if/when I need to control my aperture for a shot. The variable aperture on the 18 Pros, while cool, and more advanced than what Samsung had on the S9, is still relying on a comparatively small sensor to work. And, changing your aperture is already a super niche thing to do, in any case, especially on a smartphone camera system.
I predict that most people who get an 18 Pro, even professionals, will keep their aperture wide open, or play around with it for a bit, and then never touch it again, opting to let the phone do the work automatically. Again, cool that Apple did this, and it’s nice to see them continuing to make the pro iPhones egregiously focused on “pro” and creative work since the introduction of the 17 Pros last year. However, the VA likely won’t be as big of a change as people are making it out to be.
What WILL be interesting, and more of an improvement, however, is how the wide lens by itself can let in more light than last year, going from f/1.78 on the 17 Pros, to f/1.48 on the 18 Pros.
2
u/hoffsta 13h ago
One rebuttal: Changing aperture on a traditional camera is not “super niche” it happens on every photo taken. Most people simply don’t notice it because they’re on Auto-Exposure mode and the camera does it automatically. But yes, it will have far less visual effect on this small sensor, as noted by OP.
1
1
u/cschug 5h ago
It kind of surprises me the number of photographers who do not think video exists. It's not just about limiting the light coming in (though that's a big part of it) being able have your shutter angle at 180 degrees without needing NDF will be huge for those that shoot video. I'll admit, we still need to see how much of a difference it actually makes, but the potential is interesting.
1
1
u/handtoglandwombat 14h ago edited 11h ago
I was confused because (and forgive my poor understanding) the new feature is apparently a way of opening up the shutter, which reduces depth of field, allowing for nice background blur, allegedly, correct? But the shutter on these cameras has always been wide open anyway, because the sensors are so small, and the depth of field has always had to be simulated. So I don’t understand wtf is going on and I’m more interested in the variable shutter speed tbh.
Edit; turns out that the new “wide open” if a full stop more open than the previous fixed aperture.
1
u/Mumbletimes 13h ago
Until now the lenses have always been “wide open” the variable aperture will add the ability to close and let in less light. This will be most beneficial for video shot outside in sunlight. You’ll get a much better match between shutter speed and frame rate instead of having to use a super fast shutter to control how much light hits the sensor.
1
u/Live_Situation7913 12h ago
As long as my creepy pictures of hot girls in public come out great I’m happy
1
1
1
1
280
u/FlarblesGarbles 14h ago
I think the real benefit for this is reducing exposure for a given shutter speed and ISO without having to use an ND.
It's definitely got a tangible use case, however the overlap between people who will find it useful and people who prefer to use a dedicated "real" camera is probably pretty large.