31–40 of 152 posts
I feel the need to point out that Nikon has always called extreme closeup lenses micro instead of the oxymoronic macro the rest of the industry uses: https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/#special .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fixed issue in cameras. Stop down to F16, and use a ring flash, there you go, fixed.
Few who have ever taken macro photographs would claim this is a "fixed issue". Macro photography is a giant pain. Further the difference between a 4mm focal length and a 50mm focal length, as a function of DoF, is massively larger than that 50mm going between f2.8 to f16. You'd have to go to a hypothetical F/512 to get the same advantage in that particular realm (though in reality small apertures suffer from their ow…
You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512.
You don't need to use a 50mm lens though. Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so. So you need to shoot at F12 to have the same depth of field in reality, certainly not f/512...
And my camera actually moves the sensor AND the lens instead of just the lens. Because of that it can stabilize in the near field MUCH more efficiently than an iPhone ever could.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fixed issue in cameras. Stop down to F16, and use a ring flash, there you go, fixed.
Wouldn't this also involve needing to use a tripod?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few who have ever taken macro photographs would claim this is a "fixed issue". Macro photography is a giant pain. Further the difference between a 4mm focal length and a 50mm focal length, as a function of DoF, is massively larger than that 50mm going between f2.8 to f16. You'd have to go to a hypothetical F/512 to get the same advantage in that particular realm (though in reality small apertures suffer from their ow…
I have a macro lens in my hands and a stabilized sensor camera. I can take a picture of the crown of my watch with a fair amount of detail. You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512. You don't need to use a 50mm lens though. Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so. So you need to shoot at F12 to have the same depth of field in reality, certainly not f/512... An…
Humorously years back I had authored a giant depth of field essay with online calculators specifically because so many people just couldn't understand why their iPhone couldn't get bokeh. Yes, f/512 would be the impossible equivalent. This is easily calculated.
Regardless, the lens Apple uses for macro mode has a 1.54mm focal length. The 4mm example was just demonstrating how fundamentally small cameras win on depth of field, at least if you want maximal depth of field. Conversely they lose when you want to limit depth of field, which is why we have computational bokeh.
"Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so."
The smallest from most makers is 35mm, but the majority are 50mm+.
This conversation has turned weird. As someone who has had many SLRs, and many lenses, and has taken thousands of macro photos, I know that in the real world macro photography is a massive pain. That DoF is by far the number one obstacle (which is why focus stacking is simply necessary, often with ten or more varied focuses). Physics benefits small camera systems for that specific scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few who have ever taken macro photographs would claim this is a "fixed issue". Macro photography is a giant pain. Further the difference between a 4mm focal length and a 50mm focal length, as a function of DoF, is massively larger than that 50mm going between f2.8 to f16. You'd have to go to a hypothetical F/512 to get the same advantage in that particular realm (though in reality small apertures suffer from their ow…
I have a macro lens in my hands and a stabilized sensor camera. I can take a picture of the crown of my watch with a fair amount of detail. You have a 4mm lens at f/2. To get the same depth of field you'd need a 50mm lens at f/25, not f/512. You don't need to use a 50mm lens though. Macro lenses are typically 24mm or so. So you need to shoot at F12 to have the same depth of field in reality, certainly not f/512... An…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's how physics work. If iPhone Macro doesn't suffer the same issues, then it's a software trick
I wouldn't call it a "trick" but I suspect Apple is doing some focus stacking under the hood. The image pipeline in the iPhone gets more and more advanced with every IOS release. The state of the art for computational photography is pretty amazing.
Apple isn't trying compete with a $3500 Sony A7R4 with a $1000 90mm macro lens. They're aiming for people who see the example "macro" photos and say "neat! I want to try that". Or the people who have already bought a Moment macro lens (or one of the other clip-on/screw-on iPhone macro lenses) and are tired of carrying it around.
edit: formatting
But interestingly enough there's an image processing programming language called halide, too [2].
It is may be worth mentioning that it is very difficult to get such amazing pictures without a very stable setup -- both for the subject and for the camera. Even if you have enough light for a high shutter speed, it can be difficult to compose a macro shot if there is any motion at all. And, as was pointed out, lighting/shadows can be tricky when the "camera" lens is just a few inches away.
While the 13 Pro's lens is undoubtedly a marvel of engineering, I feel like all those 'mind.blown' reviews must have been written by youngsters who never used a dedicated macro lens on a (D)SLR.