Is the iPhone 7 camera the end of DSLRs?

[Ysarex87 81]

So the iPhone 7 can make bokeh...software simulated of course. Yeah, that's going to look awesome.

You mean it can simulate extra background blur. Bokeh is a unique characteristic of a specific lens. If you're going to simulate it in software then what specific lens are you trying to simulate -- an Imagon, a Zeiss Sonnar, an Apo-telyte?

Joe

See for yourself. Its toward the bottom of the post.

iPhone 7 and 7 Plus Announced: Dual Cameras for Zoom and Bokeh

Is it just me or does it look cheesy?

As I suspected -- they just don't know what the word bokeh means. This is a common error in the pop-fauxtog vernacular. Bokeh is not an out-of-focus blurred background. Here's where they get confused:

"Apple engineers are also working on bringing shallow depth of field to the iPhone camera. Using the 2 camera system in the iPhone 7 Plus, engineers are working on creating a depth map to keep subjects in focus and to artificially blur the background. There’s a new “Portrait” style in the camera app that adds a Depth Effect to your photos of people. You’ll be able to see a live preview of the bokeh in the background of your shots."

"...shallow depth of field" is not bokeh.
"...to artificially blur the background" is creating artificial background blur -- which is not bokeh.
They're using the word bokeh incorrectly to refer to the blur caused by shallow DOF.

Apple is using software to simulate the blur we see from shallow depth of field. They are not trying to simulate bokeh. The fauxtography writers at PetaPixel are smoking something or they've been watching Tony Northrup videos.

Joe

P.S. To understand what bokeh is: Kiev Cameras

 

[nerwin]

I know the difference between background blur and bokeh. Everyone wants bokeh. Bokehlicious. I mean..Nikon even made lenses with defocus control to change the way out of focus elements "bokeh" look.

But unfortunately...people confuse (myself included sometimes) background separation with bokeh. You can take a portrait with a fast 300mm 2.8 and completely make the background blurred out without any bokeh.

But Apple did use bokeh in their photo to represent their new shallow depth of field function.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

I know the difference between background blur and bokeh. Everyone wants bokeh. Bokehlicious. I mean..Nikon even made lenses with defocus control to change the way out of focus elements "bokeh" look.

But unfortunately...people confuse (myself included sometimes) background separation with bokeh. You can take a portrait with a fast 300mm 2.8 and completely make the background blurred out without any bokeh.

No you can't. Bokeh is the visible character of the background blur and is always present when background blur is present. Bokeh is not the blur itself. Bokeh is also not blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture.

But Apple did use bokeh in their photo to represent their new shallow depth of field function.

To the extent that they are simulating the performance of lenses then their simulated blur will have bokeh characteristics. It's just that a specific bokeh is not what they're trying to achieve; they're trying to simulate shallow DOF.

Joe

 

[nerwin]

I know the difference between background blur and bokeh. Everyone wants bokeh. Bokehlicious. I mean..Nikon even made lenses with defocus control to change the way out of focus elements "bokeh" look.

But unfortunately...people confuse (myself included sometimes) background separation with bokeh. You can take a portrait with a fast 300mm 2.8 and completely make the background blurred out without any bokeh.

No you can't. Bokeh is the visible character of the background blur and is always present when background blur is present. Bokeh is not the blur itself. Bokeh is also not blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture.

Joe

But Apple did use bokeh in their photo to represent their new shallow depth of field function.

Ok, I'm stupid. But this happens when you type "bokeh" in google image search bokeh - Google Search

Everyone is going to refer to that as bokeh whether it's right or not.

I see it all the time from comments on Flickr "oh nice bokeh" "Oh nice DOF" - When they say nice bokeh, they are referring to the "blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture". But when they oh nice DOF, they are usually referring to the shallow depth of field whether it has "blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture" or not.

So WHAT is the best overall term to use that represents the shallow depth of field that is created by the lens?

 

[table1349]

I know the difference between background blur and bokeh. Everyone wants bokeh. Bokehlicious. I mean..Nikon even made lenses with defocus control to change the way out of focus elements "bokeh" look.

But unfortunately...people confuse (myself included sometimes) background separation with bokeh. You can take a portrait with a fast 300mm 2.8 and completely make the background blurred out without any bokeh.

But Apple did use bokeh in their photo to represent their new shallow depth of field function.

To add to what Joe said, the bokeh from the 300 f2.8 is fabulous. As rich and smooth as the 85 f1.2. I know, I own a 300 f2.8 as well as the 85 f1.2.

 

[nerwin]

I know the difference between background blur and bokeh. Everyone wants bokeh. Bokehlicious. I mean..Nikon even made lenses with defocus control to change the way out of focus elements "bokeh" look.

But unfortunately...people confuse (myself included sometimes) background separation with bokeh. You can take a portrait with a fast 300mm 2.8 and completely make the background blurred out without any bokeh.

But Apple did use bokeh in their photo to represent their new shallow depth of field function.

To add to what Joe said, the bokeh from the 300 f2.8 is fabulous. As rich and smooth as the 85 f1.2. I know, I own a 300 f2.8 as well as the 85 f1.2.

So would you say the 300 2.8 and 85 1.2 is bokehlicious?!

 

[Ysarex87 81]

I know the difference between background blur and bokeh. Everyone wants bokeh. Bokehlicious. I mean..Nikon even made lenses with defocus control to change the way out of focus elements "bokeh" look.

But unfortunately...people confuse (myself included sometimes) background separation with bokeh. You can take a portrait with a fast 300mm 2.8 and completely make the background blurred out without any bokeh.

No you can't. Bokeh is the visible character of the background blur and is always present when background blur is present. Bokeh is not the blur itself. Bokeh is also not blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture.

Joe

But Apple did use bokeh in their photo to represent their new shallow depth of field function.

Ok, I'm stupid. But this happens when you type "bokeh" in google image search bokeh - Google Search
Everyone is going to refer to that as bokeh whether it's right or not.

I did say it was a common error. Welcome to photography. Try typing "lens perspective compression" into Google and see what you get. Reconcile that with this fact: Perspective in photography is not a function of lens focal length.

We can start working on a long list......

Story for you: I was young once like you and photography (and women of course) was all I lived for. Wound up working behind the counter at a camera store in the 70s. The guy who ran the store was an excellent photographer and knew his stuff. My first awakening happened one afternoon when I was showing the DOF calculator on a lens to a customer. The common rule of thumb that DOF distributes around the focus plane 1/3 front and 2/3 back had been taught to me by then and I had accepted it. But as I looked at that scale it hit me. Woah! that's not a 1/3 -- 2/3 distribution. So I went back later and asked the boss. He reached behind his desk and pulled down a book -- The Leica Manual (this was like the 1940s edition). He handed it to me and said you'll find your answer in there -- do the math. I did. Then I asked, OK, what else have I been taught wrong?

We can start working on a long list......... Ever heard of the exposure triangle? That's a good place to start.

I see it all the time from comments on Flickr "oh nice bokeh" "Oh nice DOF" - When they say nice bokeh, they are referring to the "blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture". But when they oh nice DOF, they are usually referring to the shallow depth of field whether it has "blurred highlights that reflect the shape of the lens aperture" or not.

So WHAT is the best overall term to use that represents the shallow depth of field that is created by the lens?

Shallow depth of field seems to work.

Joe

 

[KmH]

So that thing on the end of my arm is a hand?
No wonder people looked at me weird when I called it a foot.
Who knew?

 

[Designer]

See for yourself. Its toward the bottom of the post.

iPhone 7 and 7 Plus Announced: Dual Cameras for Zoom and Bokeh

Is it just me or does it look cheesy?

(quote) "Apple engineers are also working on bringing shallow depth of field to the iPhone camera. Using the 2 camera system in the iPhone 7 Plus, engineers are working on creating a depth map to keep subjects in focus and to artificially blur the background.

There’s a new “Portrait” style in the camera app that adds a Depth Effect to your photos of people. You’ll be able to see a live preview of the bokeh in the background of your shots."

I do wonder why they named it "Portrait" style.

So now everyone with an iPhone7 can blur the background and make "professional" portraits! The pros might as well sell their formerly professional equipment while they can still get cents on the dollar for it.

 

[Designer]

Ok, I'm stupid. But this happens when you type "bokeh" in google image search bokeh - Google Search

Everyone is going to refer to that as bokeh whether it's right or not.

No, you're not stupid.

The definitions of words are constantly changing. It is not by accident.

Try to find a correct definition of "inflation".

I've got some old dictionaries dating back to the 1940's in which the definition is seen in flux. Since then all modern dictionaries have the incorrect modern definition.

All done on purpose.

 

[astroNikon]

The iPhone 7 will be announced tomorrow and everyone is raving about the new "dual lens" camera system that Apple has been developing which I guess is suppose to be just as good if not better than a DSLR or could it just simply be a gimmick? or could it be the end of DSLRs?

I guess we'll find out tomorrow...I'm scared

who is everyone?
and please don't say "many, many great people are telling you this"

But the important thing is .. do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?
If so, then buy the iPhone 7 and sell your d600 then you won't have to worry about the demise of the DSLR any more.

 

[nerwin]

The iPhone 7 will be announced tomorrow and everyone is raving about the new "dual lens" camera system that Apple has been developing which I guess is suppose to be just as good if not better than a DSLR or could it just simply be a gimmick? or could it be the end of DSLRs?

I guess we'll find out tomorrow...I'm scared

who is everyone?
and please don't say "many, many great people are telling you this"

But the important thing is .. do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?
If so, then buy the iPhone 7 and sell your d600 then you won't have to worry about the demise of the DSLR any more.

Well most of all them were from Apple fanboy blogs so go figure I guess..

 

[astroNikon]

The iPhone 7 will be announced tomorrow and everyone is raving about the new "dual lens" camera system that Apple has been developing which I guess is suppose to be just as good if not better than a DSLR or could it just simply be a gimmick? or could it be the end of DSLRs?

I guess we'll find out tomorrow...I'm scared

who is everyone?
and please don't say "many, many great people are telling you this"

But the important thing is .. do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?
If so, then buy the iPhone 7 and sell your d600 then you won't have to worry about the demise of the DSLR any more.

Well most of all them were from Apple fanboy blogs so go figure I guess..

I think that categorizes itself as a "cult" type following.

everything Apple does is great. I still remember when they originally relocated the earbud port. All the "OOO"'s and AAAh's like it was some magical thing. Now they just got rid of it.

I was like .. "so what"? Now I have to put my iphone upside down in a cupholder when i"m charging it or have it plugged into my phone connector.

Go check the Android blogs and see what they think. Apple is late to the game for camera functions.

you still haven't answered the important question ... do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?

 

[nerwin]

The iPhone 7 will be announced tomorrow and everyone is raving about the new "dual lens" camera system that Apple has been developing which I guess is suppose to be just as good if not better than a DSLR or could it just simply be a gimmick? or could it be the end of DSLRs?

I guess we'll find out tomorrow...I'm scared

who is everyone?
and please don't say "many, many great people are telling you this"

But the important thing is .. do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?
If so, then buy the iPhone 7 and sell your d600 then you won't have to worry about the demise of the DSLR any more.

Well most of all them were from Apple fanboy blogs so go figure I guess..

I think that categorizes itself as a "cult" type following.

everything Apple does is great. I still remember when they originally relocated the earbud port. All the "OOO"'s and AAAh's like it was some magical thing. Now they just got rid of it.

I was like .. "so what"? Now I have to put my iphone upside down in a cupholder when i"m charging it or have it plugged into my phone connector.

Go check the Android blogs and see what they think. Apple is late to the game for camera functions.

you still haven't answered the important question ... do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?

No, I don't think the iPhone is better than my DSLR lol.

 

[astroNikon]

... you still haven't answered the important question ... do *YOU* think the iPhone will be better than *YOUR* DLSR for what *YOU* use it for?

No, I don't think the iPhone is better than my DSLR lol.

And thus the answer to your thread topic.

I see camera phones taking pics with great DOF, and software to blur out everything but the subject (oh wait, you already can since the Samsung 5). But will it offer the same blur as 9 curved aperture blades? Will anyone really notice ?