iPhone X Takes on M43

We all assume that a mirrorless or DSLR camera is going to pulverise an iPhone concerning image quality, but, there are degrees of pulverisation.  Questions my dear reader come into play, like…

Are we talking about shooting in good light or poor light?

Are we comparing a fixed focal length lens to the equivalent on the iPhone X?

How big are we going to print?

……and so on.  It’s not a straightforward comparison to make.

On the surface it seems ridiculous to even consider making this comparison, the outcome is evident before we even start….. or is it?

When I was testing the telephoto lens on the iPhone X and 8 models I came to a conclusion pretty quickly that these dinky little glass constructions were mighty fine from the optical perspective, so that raised my initial question.  How might the iPhone in telephoto mode compare to my M4/3 camera at the same focal length?

Which then led to another question, well then what about the standard wide-angle lens….

Which begat the idea of what if I shot a mild panorama and compared that to a wide angle on the M4/3…….

Which naturally led to, yeah, but how about cropping the telephoto shot and seeing how it compares to M4/3 with a 40mm lens…….

And on it goes, so many questions, so many possibilities.

So here we are with my, “let’s shoot the same test pics at my trusty test location on both devices and see what flows from that”.

Test image iPhone X telephoto, full frame, Goulburn Railway Station.
My Standard lens and camera test location, problems show up very quickly due to straight lines, lots of fine details and high contrast subject, this is a test frame taken with the iPhone X telephoto lens. Looks good but let’s​ see how the iPhone X compares to M4/3

Students and iPhones

I’ve had more than a few students in my classes claiming their iPhones produced photos as good as their DSLR and Mirrorless cameras, I don’t discount their claims either, but like you, I want to see some hard evidence?

To be fair we can’t make comparisons under very low light situations (though I have, but that’s another story), that would be kind of meaningless, we can take it to the bank that a small sensor camera like the iPhone will be severely disadvantaged and underwhelming in low light. But what about in reasonable to good light, you know, the sort of light that most folks have when they take their holiday snaps etc.  I never get students making grand claims about shooting starfields with their iPhones etc. All of these “iPhone boosters” are talking about regular daylight type stuff.

NOTE:  I have run a series of test on the low light options including stacking, HDR etc, If you want a sneak peek at one of the single frame capture comparisons have a look on my other blog at this article:    


Of course, my students are referring to JPEG output, I’m more interested in absolutes, so it’s DNG/RAW only here guys, but a tremendous RAW result should translate to a good JPEG result unless the camera maker is doing something completely crazy in the processing department. (We shouldn’t discount the power of all the computational imaging methods used for iPhone compressed files either, but that’s too much to deal with for one article)

Obviously, a comparison like this is not about depth of field rendering abilities, if you’re seeking shallow depth of field control, you wouldn’t be using a smartphone in the first place, so I’m not going to entertain any arguments/comments about DOF.

I chose to compare the iPhone X Tele to my Olympus EM5 MK 2, which is an M4/3 format device.  Lens choice on Mr Oly was the 12-40 f2.8 zoom, it’s a well-known player regarded as a stellar performer.  The Olympus was shot at the lowest 200 ISO (regular range) and the iPhone at 16/25 ISO. In other words, I tried to make it optimal for both devices.

All test have been carried out using RAW/DNG files, and the processing of those files was handled by Iridient Developer on my Mac 5K. Iridient was also used for images that needed to either upsized or downsized.  Generally, I think I’ve done a reasonable job of making the comparison fair.

Aperture-wise I chose to use f5 on the Oly to give roughly the same depth of field look regardless of the focal length for both devices, the shutter speeds on each camera generally ended up being pretty similar, within 1/2 stop typically, so it makes for a fair comparison from a utility perspective.

Both devices shoot natively in a “Three to Four” aspect ratio, and I chose to compare the results for 12mm, 14mm, 17mm, 25mm and 40mm on the Olympus, these correlate to 24/28/35/50/80mm on full frame cameras.  To make the comparisons some of the iPhone images have to be cropped and upsized or in the case of the 12mm equivalent a two frame panorama stitch made.  The chosen focal length range represents what most people would shoot with a kit lens on a DSLR or mirrorless camera. I must emphasise however that the Olympus 12 to 40mm is a much higher quality lens than any kit lens, so the results for that side of the equation represent a best-case scenario for M4/3

It’s hard to get colours and tonal renderings identical, but overall I was more interested in the lens performance and detail. Nonetheless, I did try to get a similar white balance and colour rendering.

There’s an additional complication, the Olympus is 16 megapixels and the iPhone 12 megapixels, so I chose to test it both ways.  First, upsize the iPhone files in the RAW converter to match the Olympus and second downsize the Olympus in the converter to match the iPhone.  Neither approach is perfect but what else can you do? In the end, I have presented the files here at the Olys 16Mp size, which gives the Oly a bit of built-in advantage I guess.

Finally, I had to think about my target rendering, I could have gone for the web, small print etc.  In the end, I felt that judging for a file that could produce an excellent 8 x 11-inch print would suit best as this would easily cover most bases for most folk.

Initial Comparison

Alright, the obvious question out of the way first!

Yes, of course, the iPhone shows a bit more noise.

Would it matter? Probably not because I normally couldn’t see the noise differences at a 50% view on my 5K Mac screen, you have to zoom into a 100-200% view to pick it easily. Even then the noise in the iPhone images was in no way objectional and purely of the luminance variety.

And here’s a fun fact for you, many Pro Printers and Editors actually add noise to the file to make the image print more organically, just the sort of noise the iPhone DNG files exhibit in fact.  Trust me, noise is not necessarily the enemy!

Surprises were in store, however, first up, looking at the uncropped standard and telephoto iPhone images on my iMac it’s easy to see the cross frame sharpness of the iPhone tele and standard lens are a little more even than the equivalents on Olympus 12-40 f2.8.  That’s a serious wrap, cause the near $900 Oz dollar Oly lens is very highly regarded for its consistency, especially in the mid-focal length range.


So Which one is the iPhone and which is the Olympus 12-40mm? Ok, the lower one is the iPhone, at this size they look pretty close, there are tonal, and colour differences but the differences are not vast.

Even more impressive both iPhone lenses actually seem to natively resolve a little more fine detail.  I’m very confident that if you were sitting next to me looking at the image pairs on screen at 100% views, you’d pick the iPhone shots as slightly more detailed and sharper (though a little bit noisier).  I realise that sounds heretical, but I stand by those words 100%.

But here’s the clincher, the uncropped iPhone shots are often sharper when both up-rezzed to the Oly’s 16 mp or the Oly is down-rezzed to the iPhone’s 12 mp, I imagine there are quite a few folk who did not want to hear that, I was one of them.

Now I can hear a whole bunch of Sony, Nikon and Canon fans out there saying so what, APSC is bigger than M4/3 and it will eat your puny iPhone Tele and Oly for lunch and then take your afternoon tea as well.  Mmmm, I wouldn’t be too sure about that, I didn’t test that, but I have tested enough of all of those brands and their kit lenses to make a couple of comments that just might have some bearing on this comparison.

Yes the APSC models will have lower noise, but in the good light like this at low ISOs, the difference between APSC and the M4/3 sensor is small, small enough to be a non-issue.  More importantly, the lenses for APS-C are very rarely as good as the 12-40mm Oly is, if you were comparing to any Nikon, Sony, Canon kit lens then forget it, I’ve tested several, they’re not even close, you’d have to be talking about a Pro-Grade lens.

I’d suggest in the washup the central core of the APSC images will be comparable maybe a tad better, but the outer edges and corners will be worse than the iPhone X lenses.  But I’m happy to be proved wrong if someone wants to do some rigorous testing (using correctly processed raw files of course).

APSC cameras also have a different aspect ratio, so in an “apples to apples” comparison, you need an 18 mp APSC to directly compare to the 16mp M4/3 regarding matching the vertical dimension.  Frankly, there’s very little difference between the 20 and 18mp sensors in performance or resolution so I expect it would it only be with the 24mp sensors that an APS-C camera may gain some resolution ground and only if the lenses were really up to snuff.

So if the iPhone lenses are possibly sharper, what about the dynamic range, vignetting, chromatic aberration and all that other stuff everyone pixel peeps and gets excited about?


Edge crops to show resolution difference between iPhone X and M4/3, daylight at Marsden Weir Goulburn.
100% edge crops. Again the iPhone is on the bottom, detail-wise there’s very little in it, the iPhone seems a little more resolved, but you trade that off for a bit of luminance noise, which would be invisible in print. Both original files have been outputted at the Olympus EMs 16 megapixels, which should disadvantage the iPhone.

Chromatic Aberration.

The Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is an excellent performer for CA, it shows very little if any at most focal lengths and is easily corrected, in short, its vastly better than most kit lenses, many of which are dismal CA performers only made good by extensive software correction in the processing stage.

But, take a look at the samples frames made from the left side of the 14mm shot, these are uncorrected RAWs, if you compare the Oly and the iPhone 4mm X lens it’s clear who is eating whose lunch as far as CA goes.

The iPhone X lenses are as close to CA free in the native state as I’ve ever seen, you have to zoom in too 200% or so to see any CA at all, correcting it is not really required at all.

I know photographers gloss over CA performance, saying it’s easily fixed in software, but you’ll always get better results from a lens that requires no correction.  The CA fix softens the edge and corner detail a little, anyhow the iPhone X lenses look to be gems of modern lens design in this regard.

These two crops also show that if you factor the iPhones higher noise out of the equation, it displays slightly more detail on the edges of the frame than the Oly does at 14mm in the native RAW state.


Comparing native chromatic aberration of iPhone x 4mm with M4/3 Pro lens.
You’re looking at 100% views of uncorrected Raw images taken from the left side of the 14mm frames, yep, this is how your RAWs/DNGs look under the hood. The top one is the Olympus 12-40mm and the bottom the iPhone 4mm. Disturbing telltale CA is visible in the Olympus frame whereas the iPhone has no visible CA and needs no correction.


To see the vignetting in pics from either device you have to turn off the Raw Convertors built-in profile, resulting in the somewhat rubbish looking images below which reveal the unvarnished truth.  For this test, the Oly is set at 14mm and the iPhone X on the 4mm standard lens.

Those two pics are straight extractions with everything zeroed out except for a little brightness/gamma boosting to make things a bit clearer for you all to see.

Neither of the devices shows any issues with vignetting at 25mm on the Oly or with the iPhones’ X 6 mm Tele, so I have not included samples here.

It’s an interesting exercise which reveals a couple of significant points. First, the Olympus lens is very even in the scheme of things, most kit lenses show vastly more vignetting than this in their native state.  On the other hand, the iPhone X 4 mm lens is not exactly a weak performer either, sure there’s vignetting, but it’s only in the sky areas that this is really obvious and regardless, it’s well within the easily fixable range.

Next, we can see that the Olympus lens has a much broader angle of view when the lens profile is disabled, this is normal by the way, it allows for software correction of distortion, and folks, we do have some reasonably noticeable barrel distortion here.

The iPhone X 4mm has virtually zero distortion, I tried flicking the profile on and off and couldn’t really see any difference, and I can’t see any noticeable curvature of straight lines in this sample.  That’s great news because it means the edges and corners of the image don’t get degraded by the correction process, all of which probably explains why I found the processed 14mm shots from the Oly were not quite as well resolved as the iPhone X 4mm along the edges and into the extreme corners.

Uncorrected RAW frame of Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 at 14mm, showing distortion and vignetting in native file.
The Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 at 14mm without any corrections/adjustments applied to the RAW file. Vignetting is quite low in comparison to most lenses. Barrel distortion is evident, and the angle of view is wider than the iPhone as the Olympus uses the extra angle of view to allow for the needed distortion corrections. Once corrected the coverage is the same as the iPhone X at 4mm.
The iPhone X 4mm shows more vignetting than the M4/3 Pro Lens but is devoid of distortion. The native file does look far more subdued than the M4/3 file, but this has little effect on the final edited colour reproduction.
The iPhone X 4mm shows more vignetting than the M4/3 Pro Lens but is devoid of distortion. It is possible the iPhone does some distortion correction to the file in writing the DNG file, but I have no documentation of this. The native file does look far more subdued than the M4/3 file, but this has little effect on the final edited colour reproduction.

Dynamic Range

Well, oddly there’s very little difference between them, at least for the shots I took on both cloudy and sunny days, (note: cloudy days are more demanding on the dynamic range than you might think when white cloudy skies are included in the frame). All of the files have similar levels of tonal recoverability, you just get a little more shadow noise with the iPhone shots.

The unprocessed images above show basically the same RBG numbers in both the highlights and deep shadows, though obviously the mid-tone tonality and saturation are far punchier on the native Oly files.

Importantly your editing choices will have an enormous effect on the results so your mileage may vary depending on your skills and software, but either device will render files that are about equally malleable.

I’ve no doubt any full frame camera would eat both alive and spit out the bones, but many APS-C cameras, especially older sensor Canons will be little if any better in this area.

Ultimately I think the limit for both of the X lenses is the noise on the sensor, there’s undoubtedly no optical issues to be concerned about, and the native dynamic range is really not too bad at all.

What about Crops?

17mm Equivalent.

This test surprised me, the iPhone X didn’t win, that would be crazy, but it was nothing like a walkover either.  Consider that to get the equivalent of the 17mm lens you have to crop the iPhone down to just 8 megapixels and then blow it up to equal the Olympus EM5 Mk2s 16 megapixels!

The path I took was slightly more circuitous, I cropped the file in the RAW state and then upscaled it 200% on export, tweaked it in Photoshop CC and then resized it to match the Olys 16Mp. But my friends, facts are facts, if the pixels and detail aren’t good to start with no process will make any difference, you’ll just end up with more mush than you started with.

At a 100% view, the Oly looks a little more resolved, hell it would be the digital equivalent of walking on water if it didn’t, but here’s the thing, at a 50% view or for an 8 x 11-inch print size the images look almost identical regarding detail. Differences?  The Oly shows less luminance noise in the blue sky and very dark greys, and the tonality on the iPhone shots looks more filmic and to my eyes nicer (Yes I could probably get a perfect match, but oddly the Oly files just don’t seem quite as flexible).

There would be another way to skin this digital cat, you could shoot a two frame stitch with the Telephoto lens on the iPhone, I’m pretty sure judging from extensive tests I have made with that lens, the iPhone would then wipe the smile right off Mr Olys face.

Honestly, I reckon most people could shoot the iPhone X wide angle in DNG and crop the image to 17mm equivalent (or 35mm for you FF shooters) and get a result that is absolutely fine for 95% of non-pro needs.


comparison of 17mm focal length with iPhone X cropped to match
At the top is the Olympus 12-40mm at 17mm and below is the iPhone 4mm cropped and upsized to match. This would equal 35mm for full-frame shooters. There’s little apparent difference in clarity and tonality, though there are some visible differences in colour reproduction which are easily tuned in editing if desired.


Centre crops comparing 17mm equivalent output for iPhone X at 4mm and Olympus EM5 mk 2, 12-40mm f2.8, the iPhone X is much better than expected.
It’s only in these 100% centre crops that any real advantage for the M4/3 is visible, the larger sensor resolves a little more effortlessly, whether you could see this in print is open to debate. Considering the iPhone image is both cropped and upscaled from its native 12 megapixels to match the Oly’s 16 megapixels the result is mighty impressive.

80mm Equivalent.

Whoa there, now we are really stretching the bounds of credibility because to pull this trick off you are turning just 5.2 megapixels of iPhone X tele into 16 megapixels. Doesn’t sound like much of a contest, does it?

So you have two options here to get your 80mm full-frame equivalent, upsize the RAW file after cropping before export and make the most of a single frame or take a multi-frame capture and then stack and blend them in Photoshop.  I tried both.

Now neither of the above approaches gave a result that looked close to the Olys 40mm shot at a 100% view but I was surprised that a 50% view seemed about the same in detail and I kind of preferred the cropped non-stacked version of the X file.  This held true for the 8 x 11-inch test print crop as well.

The stacked version comes tantalisingly close for detail, but it just looks a little more forced and digital at a 100% view.

In the end, I’d have no qualms at all in cropping the iPhone X frames to the equivalent of 30-35mm, I feel the 40mm crop is excellent for web stuff and moderate size prints, but if I need to blow the image up, I’d much rather start with the Oly.

I imagine that if you saw any of these versions in isolation, you’d be perfectly fine with the print or screen image, so from a practical point of view, yes, you could shoot your iPhone X RAW in the tele mode and severely crop for that longer tele framing.



iPhone 6mm X lens DNG cropped to compare with m4/3 40mm lens.
Ok so now we are pushing the envelope, the top image is the Olympus at 40mm, the middle one the iPhone 6mm X Tele lens cropped severely to match the Olympus. This image is Ok but lacks the detail of the Olympus as expected, and the noise level is easily noticeable. The bottom frame is a 4 frame image stack which was blended in Photoshop, it is much less noisy and competes reasonably well with the Oly version. The stacked version has ghosting on the quickly moving foliage, it was a very windy day, but I actually quite like the effect.


iphone x crop to match 40mm M4/3 image using DNG files.
Top, is the 100% crop from the Olympus at 40mm and below we have the iPhone 6mm which has been cropped and upsized to match the Oly’s 16 megapixels. The differences are apparent, but the iPhone is better than I expected, the stacked version, not shown here is much closer to the Olympus.

Say what about 100mm?

Got to be kidding, right?

You’re surely not going to get a great result with a crop like this from a single frame, but I did try an 8 frame stack which involved cropping the raws, exporting at 16 megapixels then doing a blend of the 8 frames in Photoshop.  This is not as radical as it might seem, there are several iPhone Apps that do something very similar on the iPhone in either JPEG or TIFF.

So what did that taste like?

Well not perfect by any stretch but the result would be excellent for a 5 by 7-inch print or for web use, with the right stacking/blending method the result is likely better than you might expect.

100mm equivalent stacked frame image from iPhone x 6mm DNG, railway station test image.
Yes, this is a pretty serious crop. The image was created with an 8 frame stack using the 6mm iPhone X lens, the movement in the trees is due to the stacking though this is possible to avoid with a different stack method. This image would easily make a nice 5 by 7-inch print, maybe even larger, the option could get you out of trouble in a pinch. I find these stack images give a lovely long tonal range look.

And the Panorama Option?

I’ve got all sorts of lenses in several formats, but the one thing I don’t have is an ultra wide M4/3 jobbie, 12mm is as wide as I can go, which by the way is usually just fine.  Sometimes I want more, and I’ve become pretty adept at making holiday panoramas that cover the 8 to 12mm range with my M4/3 gear using stitch options.

Simulating the equivalent of 12mm with the iPhone is simple enough, just shoot two frames in the vertical orientation with about 20% overlap and stitch them in your favourite editing application.  I prefer Photoshop CC, but many other apps will also do a great job.

The more obvious alternative is to use the Panorama mode on your iPhone via the standard App, again this is super easy, but the results are nowhere near as good as those you can achieve via the DNG/RAW file image stitch pathway. The Attached pics make the differences easy to pick.

First, the iPhone Panorama mode produces nicely sharp results, surprisingly sharp in fact, but there are a few deficits compared to the two other options.  First, you get an image which doesn’t have straight lines, and while it’s possible to correct this in editing, it’s by no means easy to do well.

Second, even if you’re very careful and keep everything entirely on the level, you’ll still get small stitching errors which ruin the result, though you probably won’t see these in small prints and on-screen views.

The last issue with the panorama mode relates to the rendering of highlight tones and colours.  Highlights are often severely bleached/clipped and colours sometimes a bit over-cooked.  You can control the exposure, but it’s usually impossible to get an exposure level that gives an optimal result for the entire image, especially skies.

Ultimately you could use the Panorama mode as an alternative in many situations, provided you wanted a quick and dirty result, but post editing an in-iPhone panorama to get a top-drawer final result is likely far more work than the other two RAW options, and remember the panorama mode is a JPEG once exported.

The Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is really stellar at the 12mm setting, you’d have to be super picky to find fault, and honestly, for an overall result it wins the contest, but it’s very close.  In the centre of the image, there’s nothing to pick between iPhone two-frame stitch and the Oly @ 12mm for clarity.  It’s only on the edges of the frame where the necessary panorama transformations and slightly higher iPhone noise level conspire to allow the Oly to win the contest, but again you’d need to be pixel peeping at a 100% view to see it.  I seriously doubt you’d notice any differences in clarity between them in an 11 by 8-inch print.

Tonally for this, I preferred the look I got from the iPhone DNGs, the highlights look nicer though the shadows are an even contest, meaning, the dynamic range seems to be about the same, heretical I know but I stand by that statement.

In the end, the only downsides in shooting the wide shots with the iPhone X are that it doesn’t suit moving objects, you lose the instant “in-camera” result, and there’s a little extra work in the editing phase.  On the other hand, you probably have the iPhone on you anyway, the results give next to nothing away in detail and actually the process is more flexible as you can easily go much broader if you want from the same two captured frames.  Personally, I wouldn’t hesitate to go down this path when I need something wider than my M4/3 gear offers or don’t have the Oly with me.



comparison of 12mm wide angle image from M4/3 to iPhone X panorama and two frame stitch.
Three versions of 12mm, the top image is the Olympus 12-40mm, the middle one is the iPhone Panorama version and bottom, the iPhone two frame stitch. There will always be differences in the perspective, but generally, the two frame stitch is more flexible and gives nothing away in quality.


Centre crops iPhone two frame stitch and Olympus 12-40mm at 12mm
Finally centre crops from the 12mm Oly and iPhone X two frame stitch. Oly at the top and iPhone bottom, there is really nothing in it, either is excellent and suitable for any practical purpose.

What to Choose and Why?

So there it is, both lenses on the iPhone X are terrific and offer excellent imaging potential for DNG shooters and the iPhone 8 Plus is very similar.  That the X competes favourably with my M4/3 gear in reasonable to good light is quite extraordinary.

My iPhone X won’t replace my M4/3 gear, I didn’t expect it would, to do that, low light performance would need to improve by another couple of steps. However, the potential shooting envelope is much wider than with previous iPhone models and the gap between the two formats in “reasonable to good” light is very much closer than I expected and probably closer than you expected also.

And let’s not forget, you’ve been looking at RAWs from both devices processed in a state of the art RAW converter known to extract more detail than most converters. JPEGs from either camera are far less well resolved than the samples shown here and most folks are just fine with the JPEGs, that said, the iPhone gains far more from the RAW/DNG option than the Olympus does.

It’s the addition of tele lens that makes all the difference for the iPhone, I couldn’t consider the single lens models as a complete potential “personal camera” replacement.  Hence I always needed to have my regular camera with me at all times while on Holidays and at family events, the tele lens bridges an enormous gap and the improved image quality of the new iPhone models in RAW/DNG strengthen that bridge.

The most significant impediment for serious shooters would be the lack of depth of field control with the iPhone rather than image quality deficiencies.  Truth be told the majority of photos most folk shoot are not dependent shallow depth of field to work and ultimately computational imaging methods may well render this a non-issue within just a few years, the portrait mode on the iPhone and other smartphones is indeed promising.

Ultimately with RAW/DNG files, it’s the potential of the file that matters, if the file is malleable, well resolved, contains all the data you need to push and prod the tones into shape, the results can be excellent.  A combination of excellent optics and remarkable sensor performance on the iPhone X and 8 provide a great starting point, if you don’t get good or even great results you’ve either fluffed the capture or haven’t yet nailed the processing end of things.

For now my M4/3 wins, sort of, but in another couple of years, the result could well be a tie or even a loss. In the interim, I’ve no worries about using my iPhone X for a wide array of Photographic tasks in full confidence that quality wise it will deliver.


iPhone X tele lens part 2 the Raw truth


  • 6 Elements
  • 56mm equivalent
  • 12 megapixels
  • Fixed Aperture f2.4
  • Image stabilised
  • Autofocus via focus pixels
  • Body and face detection








Ok, let’s dive into the good stuff.





Yes, what?

Yes, this iPhone telephoto lens resolves very nicely indeed.







So moving on, what have I found?








Edge Definition























Corner crop iPhone X telephoto lens, test image Goulburn railway Station







Colour Shift







Chromatic Aberration
































Underexposure vrs ISO Gain












16 ISO no noise reduction, unedited


32 ISO iPhone X Telephoto Garden scen test


50 ISO Garden Test shot, iPhone X, Telephoto lens.


100 ISO test frame Garden, iPhone X

ISO Range performance





TLC Tractor


















iPhone X Tele Lens, How Good? Part One

Most casual iPhone followers think the telephoto lens in the X and 8 series are the same, they’re not, the aperture is wider on the X 2.4 versus 2.8 and the lens/sensor module has image stabilisation on the X version.  Those differences alone are important and should make for better images under many situations, especially if the light level is low, note however that when shooting with the standard camera app the iPhone 8 and X will both revert to a cropped version of the image from the standard lens when the light level really drops off a cliff.

I had several questions I wanted to be answered regarding the Telephoto lenses and options on the iPhone 8 and X models.

Regarding the comparison between the two models I want to know:

Are the lenses optically identical?

Is there any difference in dynamic range between the two lens/sensor modules?

How does the native “depth of field” rendering compare?

Moving beyond those basics,  I also want to know:

How well resolved are the corners?

Does either lens show significant native vignetting?

Are there any issues with Chromatic Aberration?

How good or poor is the image noise?

Eventually, I will answer all of these questions in detail but for today lets look at the portrait mode.

In a more general sense, the Portrait mode is fascinating and I thought it would be good to initially look a little deeper into this option. I’ve seen a few comparisons online between the iPhone and Android versions of the concept and though no smartphone cameras have come close to perfectly simulating the shallow “depth of field” you get with your DSLR or Mirrorless camera, the results for most casual needs are more than passable.

I must add that at this point we are looking at first and second generation products, I’ve no doubt the next five years will see enormous gains in the final quality provided by portrait mode options.  Your DSLR is certainly not yet a dead end but it will increasingly become a threatened species.

Just so we are clear, some of my questions relate to the compressed HEIF or JPEG files produced by the regular camera apps, specifically the portrait mode option but I also wanted to uncover the unvarnished truth and determine “the true potential” of the iPhone X Telephoto lens when used optimally, for that we must look to the DNG/RAW files.

This is going to be an in-depth examination so I’ve decided to break the coverage into three parts.

Part 1 Using the portrait mode

Part 2 Shooting DNG Telephoto on the iPhone X

Part 3 Comparison of the iPhone 8 and X telephoto lenses


Let’s get started then…


Old peoples home, artwork by Sun Yuan captured with iPhone X in portrait mode, monochrome.
Hyper Real Exhibition, National Gallery Of Australia, “Old Peoples Home” 2007 by Sun Yuan, in this case, the portrait mode worked perfectly.


Is the Tele Lens any good?

Cutting to the chase first, for those who have not used an iPhone with a Tele lens option, the simple answer is yes, it’s a terrific option and I couldn’t imagine going back to an iPhone without one.  The lens quality is solid and produces sharp results while the focal length helps me at least, to create photos in situations where I would otherwise have chosen to use a regular camera.

Some testers have pointed out that you’re limited by the lens in low light situations because the aperture is smaller (f2.4) than the wide angle lens (f1.8), true, but it’s nothing like a deal breaker for most needs.

I far prefer the natural perspective the tele lens provides and in particular I value the ability for more selective composition by virtue of avoiding the background distractions which tend to more easily encroach when I shoot with the standard wide angle lens.

Technically the extra lens is not one you’d normally classify as a telephoto, coming in at around 56mm full-frame equivalent.  A 70mm equivalent lens would have suited me better but strict physical limits apply when your camera is only a few mm thick.  On the other hand, the 56mm equivalent focal length is long enough to suit a great many needs, there’s a whole bunch of reasons why the 50mm focal length became the most used choice for film photographers…it basically works better more often.

Just in case you are wondering if the Tele lens might give a better result that one of those add-on lenses you’ve seen on eBay or even one of the more expensive ones, trust me,  there’s no comparison, the iPhone Tele eats them alive, especially in the corners of the frame.  Not one of the add-on tele lenses I have tried offered anything like sharp corner resolution, maybe there is a perfect option floating around out there but I very much doubt it.  By the time you pay for a good quality one plus the mount/case needed to adapt it to your iPhone your getting much closer to the price of the iPhone 8 dual lens model, and let’s not even bother getting into the practical aspect of a chunky bit of glass added to your slip in the pocket device.


10 month old baby, iPhone portrait mode, close up head shot, taken in shade.
A lovely snap taken by my wife Wendy or our Grandson, Milton using portrait mode on the iPhone 8, a result that would no doubt please most nannas and poppas.

The Portrait Mode

My wife Wendy is a great fan of portrait mode, she feels it gives her noticeably nicer results when taking family pics and especially so when she takes photos of our Grandson, Milton.  I’ve included some of her pics in this article as examples.

Wendy is not what you would call a picky photographer, she just loves to take photos of the things in her life that matter or need to be recorded, just like most iPhone camera users.  I could, of course, point out to her the technical deficiencies of the mode and she’d just as likely say, “so what”, she’s just a happy iPhone camper.

Here’s the point, most consumers won’t care about the techy stuff that most hobbyists and serious photographers fret over, they just want nice looking portraits with a minimum of fuss, for them, portrait mode using the standard iPhone camera app delivers and for those of us who do sweat the small stuff, well the tech is only going to improve and we have other options if we want to use them.

On the other hand, I’m sure when the mode is further refined and the results improved most users would notice the benefits but in the interim, most owners have no deal-breaking issues with portrait mode.

Me? I find it OK, really I don’t expect perfection, I am just grateful that it works at all.


10 month old boy on play gym, smiling broadly, teeth and tongue showing, iphone 8 portrait mode.
My wife captured this pic of Milton whilst he was in action on a play gym, there’s a little bit of blur but the result is really lovely, again the portrait mode has worked very nicely.

But the articles on this site are for those who want to take things to a higher level so critique the portrait mode I must and along the way offer some advice to help you get more out of it.

How does it work?

First up, let’s differentiate between the two parts involved in the option. The basic function is to simulate the shallow depth of field effect you’d expect if you’d shot using a DSLR or Mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens and wide aperture.

The second part is to apply lighting effects to give the portrait a look that channels studio lighting etc.  Currently, there are 5 options, natural, studio, contour, stage and stage light mono, no doubt Apple or other third-party app developers will add to this set as time goes by.

At this point I’d say the mode is much better at the former aspect, the lighting effects are very patchy in practice, sometimes the result is great, but often it’s just awful and even casual users, my wife included, have noticed this.

There’s some confusion here because most people it seems have assumed that portrait mode refers to the combination of lighting and depth of field effects, not true they are separate, the depth of field effect can be turned off “in post” and the lighting effects still applied.  To do this you simply hit the edit option on the top of the screen in the photos app and then tap on the yellow “portrait” tab, the DOF effect is removed but the Lighting effect option is still active.

Remember that none of this is destructive, the original image is still intact, we are just applying an instruction set to the image so it looks like the image has been adjusted when we view it….in other words, no pixel is harmed in the process!  What is critical however is that the file is shot using the HEIF format because that’s the only way we can save the depth map needed to create the shallow DOF simulation.

You can read about the HEIF format here: 


Ok, all good info but how does it work? There are two lenses on the iPhone 7/8+ and X models when you shoot in portrait mode both of these are used.  The telephoto is used for the image and a combination of the standard wide angle and tele lens is used to create a depth map of the image.  Say what! Depth Map!

Yes, that needs a little more explanation.

So we have two eyes, this allows us to gain a great perception of depth when viewing our world because each eye sees a slightly different view, which means we can sort of see around things.  The upshot of it all is that our very clever brain is able to take these two images and blend them together so we see in 3D.

Our sense of 3D is excellent for close up objects but as the distance increases the effect disappears, this is easy to, well, see.  Close one eye and look at a scene, straight away you have lost the sense of 3D, open them both and we have 3D, that’s obvious, isn’t it.

Now, look at a distant object and close one eye, it looks pretty much identical because both eyes see it almost from almost exactly the same viewpoint.  Now look at something about a metre away and do the same, the difference between what each eye sees is quite profound, it’s simple really, the closer the object the more pronounced the difference is between the view seen by each eye.

With me so far, good.  Now it should be obvious that the view seen by each eye will not line up if you layered them over the top of one another, closer objects would show more misalignment than mid-range objects and distant objects would show virtually no misalignment at all.

Now if we measured the misalignment differences we would be able to work out how far from the camera the scene objects are.  This is the principle behind rangefinder camera focus systems so there is nothing new under the sun here.

Here’s the cool bit, if we can work out the distance of those objects we could create a map of the scene which can be overlayed on the image and used to control or mask a blur filter.  In other words near objects don’t get blurred and more distant objects or scene elements do.

It all sounds simple enough but in practice it’s very complicated because a whole bunch of parameters have to be determined, like at what distances does the blur stop and start, how much do you blur the image, how can you blur without cutting into fine details like hair, leaves, edges of fabric etc, it’s enough to make a tech-heads cranium spin.

Creating the depth map is the simple part, the tricky part is the post-capture processing and I have no doubt Apple will significantly improve this given time.


Hyper Real, Mark Sijan, Embrace 2014, monochrome image of sculpture, taken Brad Nichol, iPhone X portrait mode.
Photo of an exhibit at National Gallery of Australia, Hyper Real exhibition, Mark Sijan, “Embrace” 2014. The Portrait mode was just perfect for this image, the monochrome edit was done in Snapseed over a coffee in the NGA cafe.

Currently, there is a fair degree of AI used in the processing of the images in Portrait mode and I expect that Apple will increase this over time, this will make a significant difference, the potential is well demonstrated by the Google Pixel 2XL. The Pixel has only has one lens and relies to a much greater degree on AI for processing, it produces great results, sometimes better in fact than the tele portrait option on the iPhone.

At the capture level, the iPhone is hamstrung somewhat by the distance between the two lenses, it’s not much more than a centimetre, which limits the accuracy of the depth map.  Basically, the further apart the two capture lenses the more accurately object distances can be measured, now you know why the wide gap between the two viewing windows on a Leica rangefinder is so important, it allows for very precise focus setting, which is especially important when using wide aperture lenses.

A second complication is that both lenses are not identical, so I presume the image from the wide angle has to be cropped internally to build the depth map but this would mean the system is working with a lower resolution image, but bear in mind Apple don’t exactly spell all this out, so who really knows?

If Apple were to increase the distance between the two lenses the accuracy of the depth map would be better and combined with smart processing would probably mean the system would be less prone to blurring fine details and other errors but I doubt that Apple will venture down this path in future, it would compromise the practicalities of the iPhone too much.


Hyper real exhibit, Mark Sijan, Cornered, 2011, portrait mode, iPhone X, Brad Nichol
Another NGA exhibit by Mark Sijan, “Cornered”. Portrait mode has little problem with simple subjects against plain backgrounds like this and produces a nice result, again this was edited in Snapseed with the vignette applied in post, which is a much better look than that obtained with the “Stage Light Mono” option.

There are other ways of building depth maps, take a lot of photos at different distances in very quick succession and then selectively blend the images together using depth information. Use infrared beams to map the scene and create a depth map from that information, which is exactly what the iPhone X does with the front-facing camera. Use artificial intelligence to analyse scene elements and make depth judgments based on comparing the relative size of those elements and machine learning. The latter option is the method used by the Google Pixel 2 XL which also uses information gained from the phase detection focus pixels.

Beyond that, we have sonar, which was used to determine focus with the old but lovely Polaroid SX70. It should also be possible to create a very accurate depth map by taking the actual photo then moving the camera left and right to capture additional frames which could be used for the map but not the photo, there have been examples of cameras doing a version of this too.

Basically, there are many ways to skin this digital cat but for smartphones, practicality is almost always an over-riding issue, in the end, it is likely to be a combination of methods that wins the day.

I suspect the next high-end iPhone will use the iPhone X front camera method for portrait mode on the rear camera to build a more accurate depth map, I’m sure Apple didn’t go to all that trouble on the front facing camera just so we could unlock our phone and take better selfies!  I also suspect that long-term the iPhones portrait mode will also use much more machine learning and probably more sophisticated multi-shot capture methods.  Remember, all of these options currently exist in some form or other, we’re not talking about inventing the new wheel but rather combining current technologies in more sophisticated ways.


Baby in bath with toys, looking up and smiling, sepia low saturation colour tint, taken iPhone X portrait mode.
Milton loves his bath and the portrait mode worked perfectly here. The trick is to keep the exposure “just right” so as not to burn off any of the highlights. The edits were in Snapseed, which included a vignette and sepia tint with low saturation. Honestly, this would look lovely as a large scale canvas print.

The main current limitation of the built-in portrait mode is that it only works in a range of around one to two and a half meters due to the small distance between the two lenses and you have no control over the blur effect. There are other third-party apps which now use the depth map to create blur effects so watch this space because I’ve no doubt that even with the current hardware the results could be improved by better processing algorithms and perhaps even capture options.

The new APIs (Application programming interfaces) that Apple opened up with iOS 11 has meant that developers are free to create new apps to work with the portrait mode and depth maps, If you want to try the better current alternatives, which by the way allow you to vary and control the DOF effect, check out these options:





These apps really need their own articles, there’s some serious power on offer, but for today I’ll stick with the standard option as much as possible.


Is “Portrait Mode” just for portraits?

In short no, you can use the mode to capture objects other than heads and a lot of folks are doing just that, some even creating passable results for “product” photography needs.

The front facing camera can also be used to shoot objects but it seems more attuned to portraits and it’s very difficult to get it to work on static objects reliably.

The main limitation is the mode does not work if you go too close, which in the scheme of things is not very close at all, basically about a meter. I’ve found this close distance is quite variable, sometimes it will work a little closer up. You’ll know if it’s going to work before the shot cause it tells you right there on the screen “move further away”.  This limit has nothing to do with the minimum focus distance for the telephoto lens which is around 35cm.


Photo of wooden steering wheel on vintage car taken with iPhone X portrait mode.
Although portrait mode is not really intended for non-portrait images is does an excellent job on occasions, this is one of them, but the results can be very patchy. Fortunately, the effect can be turned off after the shot is taken.

In theory, the mode should be able to work even better at close range as the difference between the positions of the two lenses should be better suited to more close up shooting distances than for further away, so I’m not really sure why the close distance limit is so far out.

The good news is the effect is seen as a live view, you know up front how the result will look, the bad news is the effect is often too strong, blurring parts of the objects you want to be left alone and when editing in the standard camera app you can only turn the effect on or off, there is no way to paint on the mask (which you do not see at all) to moderate the effect. (Remember there are Third party apps that can solve this limitation).

I’ve seen some pretty good photos of flowers, cameras, hands etc taken in the portrait mode so it’s definitely worth trying but presently portrait mode will probably prove frustrating when you want consistency, and that’s my main gripe, much of this probably comes down to the limits of the AI being currently used.  I can accept that it might not be perfect, but I have not been able to work out exactly when it’s likely to succeed and fail, it’s just some damned random and the one thing I hate in photography is randomness of results, I like to know that if I do certain things I will get a predictable result.  With more usage, I may become more intuitive with the option but I’m not convinced that’s how it will pan out, I suspect portrait mode is still a bit, shall we say, quirky for things other than portraits, which is no surprise.


Using Halide on iPhone for Depth map, photo of car
I took a shot of my Lexus using Halide to see if I could get any depth effect at all, you certainly can’t with the standard Apple app. If you look closely, you can see that the background is indeed blurred a bit and the leaves on the tree closer to the camera are more resolved. Sure it’s not blurred in the way you would get with a DSLR, but the effect is better than nothing at all, so a handy trick to have up your iPhoneography sleeve.

So What are the main Issues?

Only works really well with faces.
Only works in the range of approximately 1 to 2.5 meters.
Blur is not adjustable. (with the Apple app)
There is a tendency to get blurred edges and fuzzed up fine details, especially hair.
Works best if the background is well behind the subject without any encroaching details from the sides.
The lighting effects are hit and miss and often far too strong.
Still not a replacement for your DSLR. (like that is a surprise)
You cannot zoom within the mode.
All of the above leads to the next question, is there anything we can do to make the results better and more predictable, or to put it another way, Brad, can you give me some killer tips.

I think I can, try these on for size.


Be very careful with the exposure, it is not a RAW file and doesn’t respond near as well to tonal adjustments “after the fact”.  This especially applies to the highlights which once lost tend are impossible to recover and often end up with weird colour shifts.

Portraits live and breath by their ability to properly render lighter skin tones and texture without clipping, bleached white patches on the skin just look wrong.  There are three things you need to attend to.

One, make sure you have the HDR option enabled, with IOS11 this is done within the “settings” menu, not within the app itself.  Just make sure you have the Auto HDR option enabled.

Two, once you have focused slide your finger up and down on the screen to adjust the overall exposure, ensure that the skin tones you want to be recorded with detail actually are before you press the shutter.  The newer iPhones are much better at controlling noise than previous models, a dark photo can be easily lightened in editing without turning into a noisy mess, and frankly, the pics often look more analogue when treated this way.

Last, if you are going to use the lighting effects, pay attention to how the effect is interacting with the exposure, it’s way too easy to overcook things at this point.  Note: You can turn the effect off after the shot is taken so that’s not the problem, the real issue is that it makes it much harder to accurately judge the optimal exposure level.

My advice is to shoot without any lighting effects and then add the effect in post if you want it.


indoor portrait iPhone X portrait mode, tungsten light, Korean restaurant.
My son grabbed this hot with my iPhone X, the colour is a little too intense being taken under tungsten light, but the effect of the portrait mode blur is quite lovely. Ideally, the exposure would need to be shorter to prevent the clipping of the highlights on Wendys’ shirt and my shirt collar. This shot would likely edit fine, the tip is to allow for the editing when shooting, sometimes a darker initial capture is better.


Stupidly the iPhone still offers no way to control the white balance in the standard camera app, it’s not normally a drama as the iPhone is surprisingly good at setting an accurate auto WB most of the time, in fact far better than most DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras.  But it can still mess up under odd lighting conditions or if the subject is dominated by one colour range, especially scenes with lots of yellow or red and sometimes blue in them.

There’s no easy workaround because the focus/exposure/white balance are all set with the same tap on point, though the camera does examine the whole image for WB.  You could point it at a grey object then lock the AF/AE lock but that will also lock the focus so unless the subject and the grey object are at the same distance from the camera your subject may well end up not in focus.

Why has Apple failed to provide a white balance option, probably they just wanted to keep it simple but other brands of phone certainly don’t dumb things down this much for those with a desire for a bit of WB tweaking.

The answer would be to use another app that allows you to adjust the White Balance and still capture a depth map.  In this case, you’d capture the portrait shot using the 2X camera with the depth map option turned on, the file would then be saved to the “Photos” app and edited as normal, where you can apply the Depth of Field and Lighting effects.  The downside being you would not see the DOF effect when you take the photo, in that respect, it would be a bit like the Google Pixel 2 XL, where the image must be processed first.

Currently, there are few apps that can record a depth map, Halide is an example of one which can, but none I’ve tried allow you to adjust the WB when using the depth map option.  I hope Halide addresses this soon as it would be an easy option for more serious shooters, better yet Apple how about you just give us a WB option…please.

Ultimately unless your WB is way off kilter it can be adjusted in post editing, if it looks like the colour is going to be beyond help then consider shooting against a less intensely coloured background and keep a close eye on the highlight exposure level.

Vintage vehicle interior against bight background, iPhone X portrait mode, bright colours, some background clipping, good shallow depth effects.
In this case, the portrait mode worked well, despite the non-portrait subject. Generally, the mode performs poorly on regular subjects when you go closer than about 1.25m. One issue I’ve found is that often the colour is too ramped up by default under bright light, but this can be adjusted in editing so long as you are careful not to clip the colour data, in other words, err on the under-exposure side if in doubt. The cyan on the car in the background is quite over-cooked compared to real life. The main fault here is the mirror on the far side of the red car, it is far too blurred.


Extending the Focus Range

Like I said the standard range is around 1 to 2.5 meters, this cannot be changed as the iPhone just switches automatically to regular shooting mode if the subject distance does not comply with the design parameters.  However,  if you use “Halide” with Depth Map enabled it seems to be able to extend the close focus mode down to around 40cm or so, maybe even a bit closer.  If you go to close the editing in “Photos” seems to mess up the blurring and cause all manner of weird artefacts but it is useful for times when you want to shoot product photos.

Halide also seems to be able to get the depth option working at a greater distance than the standard camera app does, so it represents a nice addition to your iPhoneography toolset.  Note, you cannot blur foreground objects when you focus on something more than say 2.5 meters out and generally the blur in front of the object is less convincing than the background blur.

Unfortunately, you can only control the exposure compensation when in Depth mode in Halide but that’s better than nothing.

Another option for creating blur effects it to transfer the HEIF files into Photoshop and then use it too create the blur using the depth map, that would need a whole extra article so I won’t go any further here.

Just in case anyone is wondering, and I know you were, you cannot yet shoot RAW in any Portrait mode, in other words, no depth map option for portrait mode because the depth map can only be recorded using the HEIF format. An option could be to record both RAW (DNG) and HEIF together, so far I haven’t come across this option, it would require more complicated post-processing however to implement.


Radiator gauge on antique vehicle, red, iphone X portrait mode, good result, nice background blur, hupmobile.
Sometimes with close up non-portrait subjects the portrait mode nails it, bear in mind I took a few similar shots and only about half were acceptable. My frustration lies with the randomness of the results, I’m sure this will rapidly improve over the next couple of years.

Adjusting the Blur

Presently if you wish to adjust the degree of blur you will need to use another App such as the ones I mentioned earlier or Photoshop to process the image. You have options, but there is no way around the on/off choice if you stick with the regular app. Once you start using third-party apps you can apply any degree of blur you wish.


Blurry Edge Details

This one is tricky, as I explained it’s a combination of having a less than perfect depth map and the intelligence of the algorithms used to apply the blur effect.

One thing you can do is avoid shooting against very detailed or messy backgrounds, for example, Portraits taken against blue skies with a bit of cloud tend to work well as do portraits taken where there is a big distance between the foreground and background. It’s no accident that Apples’ sample shots tend to conform to this style.

The results also look better if there is a good level of subject/background contrast when the tones and colours in both are very similar the algorithms seem to get confused and randomly blur the wrong bits.

Another scene element type that causes grief is when you have foreground objects with cutouts in them which allow you to see through to the background elements, in this case often the areas inside the cutout are not blurred as you might expect, of course this is not an issues with human heads, heaven forbid we should have holes in our craniums but it does mess with product photography work.  Obviously, it’s hard to avoid the issue but being aware and picking it up before you press the shutter button will at least give you a chance to rejig the shot before you shoot.


Antique motorcycle hand oil pump, iPhone X, portrait mode.
Results with complicated close-up shots can be very random, often background areas that appear within voids within the subject fail to blur, in this case, that’s only an issue in a couple of the small regions. The actual blur (Bokeh Effect) is nice, though the fall-off into blur is quite abrupt, other apps are able to give much better control over this so falloff control is not beyond the capability of the technology.
Metal sculpture NGV, iPhone X portrait mode, failure to wok properly, blur in wrong spots.
Sometimes for no apparent reason, the portrait mode fails miserably, in this case, it blurred one side of the sculpture in the middle, a monochrome version without the effect is below. Ideally, I would like the background blur, but it would need to be done in post, I made several attempts to coax the portrait mode into working with this pic but nothing succeeded.



Better Lighting Effects.

Basically, they are all a bit too much for my delicate and easily offended eyeballs, but I do have a workaround.  This might sound tricky but you can do it, so long as you have an editing App that can work with layers, I suggest Snapseed, which is both excellent and free.

Take the photo using the portrait mode without any lighting effects applied and then duplicate the image on the “photos” app.  Open the first image and apply the lighting effect you want and leave the second one alone.

Now open the first in Snapseed and then using the “Double Exposure” tool open the second, you can now blend the two together as you see fit.  You need to have a look at the tutorials for Snapseed to see how to do this, but rest assured the results can be pretty good.

Of course whilst you are in Snapseed you have a whole bunch of other terrific effects on offer to use, so double the joy for those with a sense of adventure. There are of course a wide array of apps that can work with layers, Snapseed just represents a nice easy option for those not deeply into editing.


Modify the Light

Want to really get great results for portraits, why not try using light modifiers just like we do with any other regular camera, reflectors, blockers, diffusers and artificial light sources all work with iPhones too you know.

Think about it, isn’t this what Apple is trying to synthesise with the Lighting FX anyway, well why not try the real thing!

Lady in library, Victoria state library, iPhone X portrait mode, blurred foreground to match background, monochrome.
I took this pic of Wendy at the Victoria State Library in Melbourne, it’s one of those times the portrait mode worked well producing a very nice background blur effect, I applied a little blur to the foreground in Snapseed to match. Therein lies a lesson, often you need to treat the image a starting point as most seem to benefit from a little careful tweaking, especially if you’re after a nice monochrome look.


10 month old boy, colour, iPhone X portrait mode, looking left of frame and up, grey shirt.
No, this isn’t one of the pre-potted lighting effects, it is a product of the lighting on the subject, the apple of my eye and my Grandson, “Milton”. The pic has been edited in Snapseed to add some vignetting and a filmic simulation. The key is not to over-exposure the original capture, or you will lose those delicate skin tones.


Define Your focus.

I’ve noticed that most times when people use the portrait mode they don’t actually set focus, they just leave it up to the iPhone to decide, which is often perfectly Ok.  But the blur effect can be significantly different depending on where exactly you set the focus and this can be seen on the screen when using the standard iPhone app.

Accurate focus setting is especially important for “product” style photography but also applies to portraits.

Try it, just move the focus point a bit and tap, you might be surprised to find the effect looks better, or perhaps worse.

Crop Away

No, you cannot use the zoom when in Portrait mode but you can certainly crop the image in post which can be helpful for product shots or when you want a more closely framed portrait. Chances are you will still end up with 6 to 8 megapixels in the cropped image which is more than enough for regular prints and way beyond what you need for most social media pics.

It’s not a DSLR

Well Doh Einstein, of course not.

No, you’re missing my point, we have all sorts of cameras and they are suited to some needs way better than others, I think many cameras get a bad rap when people try to use them for something they were not designed for in the first place.

See I get a little bit testy with camera reviewers saying things like iPhones are rubbish cameras because they can’t shoot wildlife, distant sports, studio portraits etc.  Well sure they won’t excel at that, but then your DSLR makes a pretty crap pocket camera too.

It all boils down to this, is it sufficient for the job you have in mind or is it the wrong tool for the job, only you can decide, all I’m saying is don’t expect your iPhone to be something it isn’t, a DSLR replacement, work within its design parameters and I’m sure you’ll find it fine for the task.


I’m sure that we’re going to see massive development in the area of “portrait” mode on smartphones over the next few years, really the technology is just in its infancy and probably 5 years short of full market maturity.

I can see that over the next year or so we will have many apps coming to market that leverage off the depth Map option and possibly do a much better job than the standard iPhone app does.

In the meantime, it remains a great feature that handily expands the shooting envelope for most smartphone users and the results while not perfect, are superior to what you get by using the standard wide angle lens for portraits and product shots.

Next Up I will look I will look at the DNG files taken with the Tele lens on the X, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.















Gone to Ginza with an iPhone

Modern buildings in Ginza strip, showing glass, stainless steel, acrylics and concrete. Taken at night, traffic light and ginza sign.

When on holidays I take both my iPhone and my Olympus M4/3 camera kit, the Oly gets a workout on the more serious stuff, mainly when I need more reach or better low light capability, and the iPhone serves for most everything else.  I thought some of my readers might be interested in seeing a little photo story of the Ginza district in Tokyo captured on my iPhone while my wife and I wandered the shiny streets of Ginza.  I have another version of this article on my regular site with some extra pics taken on the Olympus EM5 MK 2, you can check that out here:


Ginza is 87 hectares of high end, over the top, consumerist worshipping retail nirvana for Japanese with money to burn and a need to proclaim their superior economic status. The greater Ginza area provides a fascinating insight into the culture of modern Japan and presents photographers with a veritable feast of options, both for the tummy and the lens.

My wife and I along with our Son Aaron and his partner Jain spent 6 days in Tokyo recently, staying in a hotel in Ginza.  https://www.gardenhotels.co.jp/eng/millennium-tokyo/ .  The lodgings were superb and ideally located for access to the Ginza district, subway system and great eateries where you can exercise your gastronomic muscles.

Like many high-end shopping precincts around the world, Ginza is dripping with the usual brands, except perhaps the presentation is little more excessive than usual. Considering that Ginza is home to some of the worlds most expensive retail real estate in “dollars per meter squared” terms, that excessiveness becomes all the more impressive, especially when you compare the retail space sizes to the residential spaces of Japanese units and homes.

Ah Ginza, it’s all “be-on-neon, sidewalk fashion parade and busy with a purpose”.  But, my friends, in case you think it would be like, say Times Square or some similar location in other parts of the western world be assured that Ginza has a flavour that is entirely different and in many ways uniquely Japanese, which is what makes it so fascinating.



Ginza strip at Dusk, city lights and neon
Ginza Strip at Dusk.



As always the store window displays are works of art but not dissimilar to the same store displays in other locations around the world, as you might expect in these days of corporate uniformity and branding.


Window displays of Ginza, Halloween period, aliens
Aliens on Harumi-Dori, part of a large contingent who have descended upon Toyo for Halloween.


The whole Ginza edifice is built on the concept of consumption rather than materialism, the joy is in the shopping, browsing, touching, and ultimately parading the high-end bags along the streets post-purchase.  Of course, most non-food purchases fall into the category of a “declaration of status” rather than fulfilling any real need for body covering, personal hygiene or life’s practical necessities.

I read an interesting article yesterday on the issue of consumerism and materialism, it’s well worth a look if you have the time and probably typifies the drive behind Ginza more than anywhere else in the world except perhaps Dubai.


But now for something completely different. Ginza is also home to some incredible Japanese department stores that sell brands and foods that are uniquely Japanese, examples being Mitsukoshi, Matsuya and Wako.  You may not wish to buy anything at all, but I promise a walk through the food halls alone will leave the average westerner agog at the quality and presentation of the foods and even more impressed at the range on offer.


Multi level high end fashion display in Ginza strip
Uni Qlo, Fashion store Ginza Style.


Beyond the department stores, you have speciality shops that are uniquely Japanese, such as the G.Itoya stationary store and Hakuhinkan toy store (or more accurately, emporium).

It is possible to explore Ginza at a subterranean level moving from shop to department store etc. via the subway paths, convenient in Typhoons and many folk choose this option to avoid traffic and crossings. Move out onto the streets, and you’ll notice several other aspects.  First, while there are a few high-end European cars, the vast majority of vehicles are taxis, and almost all of them are black old-school Toyota Crowns that seem ideally suited to their purpose and are immaculately clean.  In fact, all vehicles in Tokyo including commercial trucks seem to be fresh from the carwash, which may be a little thing perhaps but quite profound when compared to cars in most cities around the world.  The link below will give you some insight into the Tokyo taxis.



Lexus 430 on Ginza, air bags, gold, parked, jacked up
Modified Lexus LS430 on the Ginza Strip, the LS series are very popular with Japanese Modders.


Nissan display for 2017 Tokyo Motor show, Nissan Corner Ginza
Nissan hyper sports concept car waiting to pounce from behind glass on Nissan Corner, Ginza.


Private passenger vehicles in Ginza tend to by high-end Toyotas and Lexus, there are few other brands on display, maybe the occasional high-end Nissan, and frankly, I think about half the worlds fleet of Lexus HL600s must reside in Ginza alone.

The most unique Japanese vehicle you’ll see in Ginza are the Toyota Century sedans, Japans most prestigious vehicle and almost always chauffeur driven.  The conservative but exquisitely built Century is the vehicle of choice for CEOs, Government Officials and the very wealthy, it’s the ultimate Japanese automotive statement.  Oddly a Century with the Chauffeur in situ seems able to be parked anywhere with complete immunity from harassment by Police or parking officers.  The Century looks bland in photos, but in reality, upon the Ginza pavement, a century seems imposing, regal and stylish in an old school way.


Toyota Century waiting on Ginza Strip, dark blue, series 2, V12
Deep blue Toyota Century in waiting on the Ginza Strip, the ultimate Japanese automotive status symbol, a luscious V12 provides the motivation in almost complete silence.



The streets are a combination of broad avenues and narrow thoroughfares, and most are one way, but regardless of width, they are spotlessly clean, absent of buskers, beggars, pavement furniture, advertising boards and other physical impediments.

People move with purpose, but in an orderly fashion, there’s no pushing and shoving, talking loudly on phones, or aloud to one another, you could say those manners are pivotal to daily life in Ginza, but that’s true of Japan generally.

Regarding fashion, Ginza is conservative, the Japanese women do not flaunt sexuality but rather dress immaculately in beautiful materials, exquisitely cut and tastefully trimmed with discrete jewellery, refinement is a word that sums up the style.  Men tend towards the universal black suit, black shoes and white shirt, in other words, the typical business uniform one would expect to see in the financial districts of Manhatten.

Of course, Ginza is not all about shopping, there’s much eating to be done as well.  From the food halls in the basements of the department stores, through to the myriad of speciality restaurants, there’s an option for almost every palette, except perhaps for those looking for typical American style fast food.  KFC and McDonalds are present but much rarer than in other cities.


teashop in Mitsubishi department store, three staff, fancy packaging.
Typical of the displays you see in the food halls in the basement of most Japanese department stores, in this case, the tea counter. Japanese packaging is exquisite.


One constant however are coffee shops, there are Starbucks and equivalent style shops on every block, but I’d say for “Coffee Culture” loving Aussies like ourselves the coffee is generally a disappointment except for a few specialist coffee shops.

Ginza is close to many of the other Tokyo delights such as the Imperial Palace and Gardens, the Fish Market, Tokyo Tower and a wealth of other tourist delights.  The metro system is highly efficient and cheap, placing you within striking distance of almost anything you could wish to see within around 30 mins or maybe less.  For Aussies used to the vagaries of Sydney trains and buses, forget everything you have ever experienced, Tokyo despite its massive 24 million population just works, on time, every time!


Hibiyakoen, a park near Ginza, Tokyo, gardens, ponds, zen style.
Hibiya Park, a short walk from Ginza, sitting on the edge of the Government Agency District, almost universally Japanese parks are places of serenity and always spotlessly clean.


East Garden of the Imperial Palace, Tokyo, Japan, pond, autumn.
East Garden of the Imperial Palace, you need to walk a little further afield, but it’s well worth the time and effort.


Just to finish up on the technical side of things, the pics are mostly DNG captures, but there are some JPEGs shot on the standard app when it suited, and the multiple exposures were all JPEGs shot using Average Cam Pro.  As always the DNG files were extracted in Lightroom Mobile (now known as Lightroom CC), and I’ve done a little fine tuning on Snapseed.  The frames were created in Photoshop on the PC, and in some cases, a few small selective edits were made while there.


Composite image, Ginza strip, neon lights and cars, modern architecture.
Bright Lights Ginza Strip.


Multiple exposure, Tokyo plaza crossing, Tokyo Ginza district.
Crossing in front of Tokyu Plaza, Ginza, the intersection of Sotobori and Harumi-Dori.


Abstract art, window display, orange tones, Ginza Tokyo, Japan
Abstract art created from window display opposite Nissan Corner, Ginza.


Rain in Typhoon season, Ginza, Japan, from High rise.
Yes, it rains in Tokyo, our second Typhoon of our visit made for damp times, taken from level 9 of G.Itoya stationary store.


Lady standing in street under umbrella, Ginza, Japan, during Typhoon season, roads clear of cars.
No cars of many Ginza streets on a Sunday, Wendy, my wife takes shelter under the standards clear umbrella as the Typhoon rains soak the city.


Fish market near Ginza, Japan, seller, dried fish product.
The Fish Market area, a short walk from Ginza is home to a vast array of restaurants and specialist shops, wall to wall people on most days.


Stainless steel, glass, and acrylics are used to stunning effect throughout the Ginza area.


lady in rain in Ginza lane in drenching rain, running, neon door surrounds in background.
Drenching rain in a laneway, keeping dry in Typhoon season can be a challenge.


Tea on table in high end tea cafe, Ginza, includes timer, cup, pot and gold strainer.
It’s not often that you tea comes with a golden strainer and a timer, Ginza Miyuki-Kan Ginaza Gochome, one of the more specialized coffee and tea houses.


G.Itoya stationary store in Ginza, papers on display.
Japanese take paper very seriously, I have never seen such an array of paper types in my life, G.Itoya has a whole floor just devoted to papers, Photo papers also come in a bewildering variety of options not seen in most other parts of the world.


Don’t forget you can learn how to make your RAW, DNG iPhone files rock by purchasing my “Ultimate iPhone DNG” book from the iBooks store.  It’s the most comprehensive eBook around on the use of DNG on the iPhone and is the first in a series of 6 planned iPhone Photography publications from Zero One Imaging.

Buy it on the iBooks Store, click on this link:









How Good is DNG on iPhone 8 Plus


























Alrighty, let’s get down to it….


Angle of View



 Depth of Field






Compared to the 6S Plus


iPhone 8S Plus colour rendition for DNG, neutral colour renderings.







Compared to the iPhone 6S


mixed light kitchen



So what did I find, no competition here at all?




Compared to the iPhone 6S


Crop from Verandah test image, iPhone 8Plus DNG,
100% view of iPhone DNG files, iPhone 8S Plus







Compared to the iPhone 6S


Dynamic Range




Compared to the iPhone 6S


Crop colours iPhone 8S plus DNG file, Detail and tonal rendering

Lens Quality





Compared to the iPhone 6S



Chromatic Aberration







Compared to the iPhone 6S Plus


Just One Thought



Colour Banding





Compared to the iPhone 6S Plus









Response to Editing






Monochrome conversions from iPhone 8Plus DNG, vacant shop interior Coolamon NSW

Compared to the iPhone 6S Plus


Where to From Here?













Do Image Stackers Really Work

Image stacking apps for creative iPhoneography and improved image quality.

The theory behind image stacking to reduce image noise and increase resolution is solid, we’ve been doing this for years in Photoshop. Can this be done automatically inside your iPhone?

These days there are several iPhone photography apps claiming they can produce much better photos by stacking several quickly captured frames on top of another, and then blending them down, even the iPhones standard camera app uses a version of this idea.

Do the image stacking option really deliver on the promise?

The answer is sometimes……but find out a little more about this by watching this short video.


Buy Ultimate iPhone DNG from the iBooks Store:


Check out the video here:

Depth of Field and iPhone DNG

Yes, yes it’s true the iPhone doesn’t have the capacity for shallow depth of field rendering in the way your DSLR or Mirrorless camera does unless of course, you go very close to your subject.

However, there are some differences between what you can expect in terms of depth of field rendering from iPhone DNG and JPEG versions. Here’s a short video that discusses the differences, it may cause you to do a little re-evaluation of the accepted wisdom.

If you want to know more you can always buy my “Ultimate iPhone DNG” eBook on the iBooks store.


Check out the video here: