Yesterday we released the iPhone Bikini Shoot, a video in which I do a professional quality photoshoot with minimal gear. The point of the video wasn't to say that the iPhone was a better camera than a professional DSLR, it was meant to inspire photographers to use the gear they currently own to create beautiful images. Obviously the iPhone is infinitely worse than any current DSLR for stills but surprisingly it appears to be a far better video camera than my $3000 DSLR when there is enough light present.
You may have seen my 4k comparison video released last week in which I put the Sony AR7II up against the iPhone 6s. Thankfully the $4500 Sony 4k system out performed the iPhone but the footage from the phone was still incredible. Someone suggested that I compare the iPhone's video footage to our go-to cameras (Nikon D810s and D750s). I used a Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 lens and locked it at around 35mm. I did some color/contrast tests and found that the footage out of both cameras looked about the same if I set the Nikon to "neutral." I then walked around a park near our office and grabbed a few shots. It was impossible to tell which footage looked best in the field but once we got back to the office the comparison was pretty shocking. The iPhone's 4k footage downscaled to 1080p was significantly better than the Nikon D750.
"You're an idiot, the iPhone sucks in low light and you can't capture shallow depth of field or easily add lenses."
Thanks for your brilliant observation, stereotypical internet commenter. Obviously image quality in bright light is only one of many details to consider when it comes to comparing video cameras but it's still pretty freakin' important.
I'm not mad that the iPhone can take amazing video, I'm totally impressed with it. I'm just mad that consumer level products are getting features that professionals have been wanting for quite some time. Sony has been taking over the market by adding the features that photographers and videographers really want while Canon has been putting 4k footage in their ultra expensive line of cameras and Nikon is leaving it out altogether.
Usually new features cost a premium at a professional level and overtime the technology trickles down to the affordable consumer level. Why is it that 4k and Raw video seems to be showing up in the ultra expensive and ultra cheap markets while completely skipping the mid level products? I just want my camera to shoot footage that is at least comparable to the world's most common smartphone. Is that too much to ask?
And let me remind you. I don't want 4k video so that I can export video in 4k. There are many other reasons to shoot 4k.
"Because there are more photo cameras which has the same or better results in photo and video"
^^^^ If you and a number of people are so SURE of that statement, then PLEASE help us Apple Idiots™ and point us to some verifiable and/or authoritative comparison links.
Did I say PLEASE?
The reason we used the iPhone is because......it's the one we own! It's the same reason we tested the D750 instead of the 5DRs or the MK III. It's crazy how people think our videos are an advertisement for this or that brand when if push came to shove I bet most of the companies would prefer us NOT do the videos we are producing.
Here you have one link which is comparing Cell phones cameras...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aybrBYKmqZg
You`r welcome
Seriously: THANK YOU! That was exactly what I was looking for!
They 6s and S6 are BOTH great camera-phones, each having unique strengths and weakness... yet more than capable when averaged together for a score. I do believe the 6sPlus should've received more screen time... but regardless, a really thorough GREAT review(!)
I was really impressed with the front-facing camera and overall better mic quality on the S6. And of course the natural color rendering of iPhones. Camera RAW format for Samsung would alleviate that advantage, and also IMO put the S6 ahead of the iPhone.
If these were only going to be used as cameras, dare I say it would be the same Canikon debate and war. But these are NOT only camera systems, so now it all depends on which OS you're most invested in, feel comfortable with AND you can trust that you will receive at least 2 years worth of security, support and updates.... and a little love from developers and usable apps.
I can not help you anymore ..... you already chosen your path ...
There are so many iPhone articles in a short period of time, too many that I actually missed the last one! But honestly while it's entertaining to watch your videos the result from the iPhone6s shoot wasn't what I'd hope for. I mean those shots were heavily retouched even though you tried to BTS your setup. I think they were a bit too complex and unnecessary for iPhone snaps. Snap with natural light and find natural reflector and call it a day. The model (or neighbour your called) look good partially due to retouching.
In short, I was hoping to see you guys could jump out of the box to shoot it differently from what a normal fashion photographer would have done with their camera. I'm being critical i know. ; )
Did you or anyone stating "those shots were heavily retouched" take a look at the model's profile photos on Facebook? , Mel T - https://www.facebook.com/the.mela.t
Not all, but a fair number of her pictures are retouched with a very "heavy hand" to say the least, and any of the pictures that Lee took would fit in far better with the "natural but enhanced" editing that many people including the models like rather well.
AND... for the 50% of the people that can only exclaim "I wish I had a top-model looking neighbor":
1) creativity knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever regarding the subject. YES.. even a granny, "odd-looking" or simply everyday face in the crowd can be photographed to be interesting and go viral. No bikini necessary... uh... well they should be wearing something(!)
...and...
2) step up your game, work your butt off, take chances that your vision or idea might cause controversy... stand behind it 100%... and maybe YOU TOO can afford to live in an area where the chances of ***having a neighbor like Mel T*** are slightly better than average.
*** Seriously, I'm not sure if it's an advantage at all, and very well could be an unwelcome distraction to getting things done... but y'all have to ask Lee on that one, and individual preferences and discipline might vary ;)
There are many different ways of retouching. What I was saying was that instead of using good lighting to shape, much contouring was applied to make (or enhance) model's face look more 3D. It's fine since almost everybody does fashion retouching is doing it but I guess I was expecting a more creative SOOC approach since we are using iPhone.
There's no need to live in a rich area to get model neighbours. If the photographer is good models will find you. Maybe Mel moved in there because of Lee. ; )
I think there comes a point when you begin to realize that everything you see has been retouched. Even the most chiseled faces still have dodge and burn done to accentuate the contours. I'm not much of a retoucher but what I did was very very common in the industry. I tried a few new techniques that altered tone a lot but I never used any liquifying or cloning tools to change Mela's face in anyway (except maybe some hair here and there). Making a person's face look 3d is a skill that every photographer should invest more in because like it or not it is the retouching that will take your work and business to the next level. Don't get left behind in the game, make sure you get the best models, the best locations, the best concepts, and the best retouching.
Where is the line though? I agree that every photographer should be able to make the subject look 3D, but that's by carefully placing the light, choosing the modifiers and positioning your subject. If your article and videos were about photographic skills then it should have been proven on set, not in post. Yeah we live in a world that Photoshop seems to be able to achieve everything but that's not the point of why photography was so fascinating at the first place. Don't let the world drift you, aim high and set a high standard.
The line is anywhere you want it to be. I used to believe that all the images I saw in magazines were perfectly shot by photographers who know the mastery of lighting....and then I shadowed a bunch of them and realized that all those cool things I saw in magazines were 70% lighting and 30% retouching. It's easy to buy into the modifier propaganda and there is a place for all those modifiers, but most of the super high end stuff you see is a little bit illusion.
That is so true Patrick. Magazines just like to retouch everything. I just attended at a talk last night where the photographer explained how she shot those covers and iconic portraits. Actually a lot of working photographers and creatives rely quite a bit on photoshop - let's just fix this and that. Magazine isn't a good reflection of photography as it's not their ultimate goal, more like a tool. Magazine may retouch skin, fix reflection in glasses, change background colour, copy&paste hair here and there, but no post will fix bad photography. If it's a good magazine they will hire a capable photographer who will take care of most things during the shoot.
So I believe it depends on the purpose. If we are on a paid job then efficiency is paramount. It will determine whether to reshoot a photo or simply fix in post. However when it comes to pure photography in an art form. We should not compromise as long as we are capable of accomplishing more. This way we will grow to become a better photographer.
Lee,
you make a very good, but unfortunate point.
Camera manufacturers seem to be caught in 2 minds. They are not sure if they should join the new world with rapid releases, very short product cycles and vastly improved software, or stick with what they know.
My guess is their management structures need time to adjust, however, they are running out of time.One has to imagine some of the "major" manufactures in this space will not make it through the next decade. Feels like we have seen this film before, during every transition.
I don't know that it's unfortunate. It's just a different business model that serves a different clientele. As someone else pointed out, if you rush out new technology on a very expensive dSLR and it fails, your customers will be p****d. If your cellphone's video fails, who would know or care? For good or bad, the average cellphone user wouldn't notice the difference.
Yes, indeed, I have heard that argument many times, and it does have some merit, however even military grade and ultra high technology firms are reducing product cycles, rapidly, its the new world we live in.
Camera manufacturers do not have the long cycles they are used to anymore, and yes if their products fall, people will move to the next manufacturer that can deliver.
It's certainly not the case we do not have the technological ability at this point to develop faster and more reliably. It's more of a management and culture issue.
The guys over at Film Riot did a short sketch filmed with an older Iphone (4s) a few years ago and they go into detail about the pros and cons of the camera/phone.
https://youtu.be/Ptz_ybNRavg
I have a Galaxy Note 4 that also does 4K and in good light it's pretty decent, especially if you then compress that down to 1080 so you can mix it in with 5DMk2 footage, you lose some of the noise then.
I purchased a better video app (Cinema FV5) because honestly the base video recording app is HORRIBLE!
Love it. It also makes me really sad. How can our extremely expensive cameras not compare to a phone... ugh.
Thanks for putting out a ton of content lately guys. I'm really impressed with everything you've been doing!
I am confused, what do you mean by 4K? Define 'Video' for me
Did I hear Sony A7RII...yes yes I did :)
Honestly I don't understand why everyone is losing their mind on Lee for this. What is he really saying? He is saying HEY NIKON WAKE UP....4K is the standard for professionals. Guess what! Lee is correct. Nikon and Canon lost the video market to Sony! Why? Because Sony gave us what we need! Pro level features and quality.
Don't forget about Panasonic. :)
I do not know why people are expecting Photo camera to be a Professional video camera...
When they were pro video cameras ,then all the really pro Video cameras can be thrown out ?
Why not to compare this to real pro video cameras ?
I take video in Photo camera like some type of bonus... but i will never expect to do it professionally.
And why not compare RED SCARLET with Phone ?
4K-K-K-KAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
I'm already on a 5K monitor from dell and shooting 16K in my dreams.
I've made a career out of it
I used to laugh at Apple and Sony cameras, but not any more. Apple and Sony have proven that they have the right technology and corporate strategy to innovate at a much faster pace than Nikon or Canon. Apple and Sony cameras cannot outperform DSLRs in all situations, but for most consumers this is far less important than it used to be.
Nikon and Canon need to figure out quick how to innovate faster and deliver camera systems that the consumer wants now, or they may become the next Kodak.
I would disagree with you on one small thing, Nikon has shown us that they are good at one thing and will continue to be good at one thing, the aspect of photography, a DSLR to nikon is for photos Period. They dont need to be good in video, as you see they dont have a video camera line, they will be around for a very long time because of the name and the photos they take... p.s. i do know they use sony sensors.
Photo and video will eventually be the same thing. Obviously many photographers don't shoot video at this point but in the near future most of them will. Nikon could survive as a photography only company like Leica but they would be a niche brand. If they want to be an industry leader they need to make cameras that shoot quality pictures and video.
I'm sick to death of people stating what the future will be. Maybe you're right but you don't know that any more than I know you're wrong. History is littered with people who were wrong. You can't easily name them because they've been forgotten.
Being that almost every single camera on the market can shoot both video and stills makes me believe this isn't some crazy idea.
But is that a result of consumer demand or checking off items on a marketing list? Or, perhaps, a case of 'it doesn't really cost anything to do it so why not'?
My point is: I've seen surveys asking people if they shoot video or not and the majority don't. My camera shoots video and I never even remember the fact. I can't tell you how many times I'll take pictures of an action event and later think, "dang (or something that sounds a lot like that), I should have taken a video of it!"
"Photo and video will eventually be the same thing." No. "Still" images have and will continue to have a very valid place in media, and there will be plenty of photographers who want to concentrate on stills and have no interest in videography. I think you are guilty of projecting your own wants, needs, and artistic path onto the rest of the photography community with that statement. Many of us have little to no interest in being a hybrid photographer/videographer.
That said, if Nikon can add all the features videographers want without impacting the ability to take top-notch stills, then I'm all for it, but as someone who has no interest in going the video route, I want Nikon to concentrate on still photographer foremost.
P.S. To both you and other contributors to fstoppers: I have to concur with other readers that this veritable flood of iPhone posts has become more than a little annoying. Even if you folks aren't receiving any money or incentives from Apple, it's coming across as excessive.
Don't worry, we have plenty of non iPhone video posts coming this month that will make your your temperature rise I"m sure. Our most fun one starts tomorrow :)
hey here is a novel idea... how about a DSLR that is only a DSLR... if you want video go buy a video camera.. I hate that the cost of a new still camera includes video, something I will never use it for.
Adding video features to cameras has not raised the price of them. The Nikon DF has purposely removed the video feature and it costs more than the D810.
I love the fact that I can pick up one camera system and it can do every single thing I need. I shoot stills and video at every wedding I shoot and I am not going to carry around a separate video system on a tripod as I move from shot to shot.
The trashy D750 sensor is one of the best sensors in any DSLR on the market :/
Yeah the D4 sensor isn't really that great now. That camera is the flagship because of it's frames per second and autofocus but it doesn't win the ISO or megapixel award anymore. The D5 will no doubt be the best when it comes out but towards the end of the flagship cycle, the lower end cameras almost always beat the image quality of the D3/4 series.
4k is supposed to be coming out on the D5, which means it will be on the next round of semi-pro nikons as well; Nikon knows 4k is a desired feature and I'm sure when they make it more readily available, it will be excellent.
Side note: 1080p Flat Profile nikon video MUST BE GRADED to unlock all the potential within, it is a base for adding color/contrast/sharpness to make the finished product look however you want.
Keep in mind that I didn't shoot flat. I shot neutral which is far more constrasty than flat.
"Standard" was too contrasty and "flat" looked too flat. Neutral looked VERY similar to the iPhone
you should shoot flat and grade it though, seriously, it will make a huge difference, and you can even make some LUTs that will get you an excellent image with a few clicks. There is a world of difference between camera sharpened images and computer processed sharpness, which is also where the downscaling is gaining an edge. Also, I asked below, but I am getting an iPhone 6s+ and wanted to know if you exported the footage as 1080p and then reimported to do 200% test? If you just did it on PP timeline, it's not really a fair test.
I plan on using my phone (at weddings when we are filming also) as a time lapse and b-roll 4k solution when i actually want a deep dof (which is rare) Is there a limit on recording times in 4k?
But then I would have to get a third party app and do that for the phone as well.
but that is kind of (well, not exactly) like saying that a particular raw d750 image looks worse on my computer than the iPhone jpeg does (especially in terms of color reproduction). The d750 image, like d750 video, should be edited to taste, and there is way more image in there than you are able to see by the poor in-camera grading. My biggest problem is that Nikon hasn't created a better system for in-camera processing i guess.
[UPDATE:I added one example of this from a quick youtube search with 50mm @f11 between standard profile and graded flat profile, and even thought the exposure is weird you can see what the difference could be. I will do my own test and post it as well]
hmmmn, upload really shrunk it down small...
did you export the 6s footage and re-import before you punched in to 200%?
I did not. I considered it but I didn't want to double export it and then have Youtube compress a third time.
that is a contributing factor in how the image is actually downscaled, and would hurt your argument a bit. Still, a big fan of this post and think it is a great discussion to have about the future of nikon products
Lee or Patric: How did the iPhone look when using 1080 instead of downscaling the footage? Just as bad as Nikon or still better? I know that it's not showing of the phones full potential, but still, might be good to know.
I noticed that, even if Nikon looks blurry, some parts has some heavy artifacts/pixelations when there are huge amount and small details, e.g. the grass behind the child that runs. Is that in the video or is it youtube-shenanigans?
I tested this as well but the NIKON was in standard mode and a bit more contrasty than the iPhone. I still think the iPhone looked better though but it wasn't huge.
The most important question.
What happens if your iPhone receives a call during filming :-p
Great question! I never thought of that.
I was about to go on a commenting rage when I got to the end and you finally mentioned the the Samsung phone (S6). Still I wish someone would have done this 5 month ago when the S6 came out.
The Verge, in their comparison of the 6s, S6 and LGG4 gave the edge quite a few times to Samsung, a phone that came out way before the Iphone 6s.
I guess is Samsung´s fault for not knowing how to create a fan boy culture.