Apple iPhone 18 Pro Camera test
dxomark.com
dxomark.com
Edit: e.g. the tree in one of the images in the page: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_D...
Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open.
I would hope that the telephoto lens does not show this so severely (because it has a fixed round aperture) but all mobile phone lenses in my experience have had a tendency towards a sort of concentric-ringed, quasi-soap-bubble bokeh; it's a common part of the challenge of really tiny optics (that you either like or dislike). (The iPhone X was really distinctive in this regard). So it's not too surprising to see the aperture do this on top of that.
As a general rule you don't see it in average images, but I guess sensors are now high-enough resolution that it's becoming more obvious, and the blades of a mechanical aperture might make it quite noticeable in some situations.
Why? Where can I read/learn more about this?
I haven't seen a diagram of how the aperture in this new iPhone is designed yet. There's a lot of different ways to do it, with lots of odd shape possibilities.
Also because of things like angle of incidence?
The purely round lens will generally have nice round (or at least cats-eye) bokeh across the frame with an edge that degrades softly as a result of aberration, so beams of light from different angles tend to blur into each other.
As soon as you get aperture blades, you lose that soft edge, get contrast but also a lot of competing shape influences at different angles. They will tend towards more rounded shapes as you stop down more.
And that is putting aside that some aperture shapes are just really insane when they are nearly wide open, right? (Konica 40mm f/1.8 AR I am looking at you with your shuriken bokeh)
> I haven't seen a diagram of how the aperture in this new iPhone is designed yet. There's a lot of different ways to do it, with lots of odd shape possibilities.
Not a diagram but one closeup photo:
https://petapixel.com/2026/09/19/apple-explains-why-the-ipho...
and an animation:
https://petapixel.com/2026/09/09/iphone-18-pro-has-apples-fa...
Six blades with a slightly rounded hook in them by the look of it. Very noticeable sun stars at f/1.8, nice looking results at f/2.8.
Absolutely insane mechanical challenge and assembly challenge.
Edit: just saw your update with the photos of the mechanism. Wow that's impressive miniaturisation. The hexagonal shape looks surprisingly good. I wonder what's causing the odd effects in the OP. I have noticed in the past that iPhone cameras produce square specular highlights through tree foliage, so I wonder if it's an extension of that oddity.
I found myself looking at it when I was considering making a DIY aperture for my DIY lenses. (I've personally settled on swappable Waterhouse stops for now but I might fit an eBay microscope aperture, many of them have loads of blades).
Oh and now I'm going to end up looking on eBay for a Minox 35ML or 35GT again. Seriously, never do this while logged in; Minox 35 sellers may be among the most desperate I've ever seen in terms of sending you offers, it's relentless.
Coincidentally I think I have a non-working 35GT in my market stall (https://camerasetc.wales), so if you want a project drop me an email as I'll send it to you for the cost of postage. I have too much in my repair backlog and those things are fiddly little bastards at the best of times :D
I too have too much clutter so I will have to turn down your kind offer but I will peruse your sites and I may ping you a note sometime about a particular lens I have been looking for — quite a random cheap old one I regret parting company with. (I'm in Kent but I have a friend in Cardiff and if my wallet does not protest I may pop in on your stall)
That reminds me that I need to do a new update post, whoops. I've had an absolute buttload of Pentax K mount gear the past couple of months, which is quite annoying as I don't have that many customers that shoot it. I'll have to big up the Pentax cameras a bit more haha.
Do swing by if you're ever in town when the market's open! I've always got lots of fun cheap stuff kicking about, and a bin of broken shit if you need parts :D
Because they are a nightmare to own. So lovely when they work but so frustrating because you keep readjusting the shutter mechanism with those tiny screws and you end up wasting so many rolls (and pictures) in the process.
I own a 35GT, barely use it but wouldn't sell it because I have too much empathy. It would feel like receiving money to spell a malediction on someone.
Professional camera lenses carefully control this. It's actually one of the only intentional "flaws" added to lens. Technically bokeh with a slight ring on it (on point lights) usually results in a tack sharp lens. You can see this in most macro lenses.
Portrait lenses are sort of the opposite - they want super smooth bokeh (point light sources in the blurred out of focus area will have a nice gradient that is soft and gradually drops off toward the edges). This results in a lens that has slightly less sharpness on the in focus portion. It's not that noticeable though on a great lens.
Most lenses are a balance. When shooting professional cinema many lenses are intentional chosen for their bokeh qualities. "Nervous" bokeh is more on the side of rings and is often found on older Russian and East German glass.
There are two lenses where the amount of spherical aberration is not baked into the lens. They were made by Nikon called "Defocus Control". The 105mm 2.0 DC and slightly older 135mm 2.0 DC both have a second ring that looks another aperture ring but allows adjustability of the spherical aberration from "nervous" to "smooth". They were marketed poorly and misunderstood but are some of the best glass you can get - they test insanely well and have huge flexibility.
I almost never change the defocus control on the 135/2.0 from neutral, yet I believe the lens makes it almost impossible to take a bad portrait. The only reason to keep a DSLR around instead of a mirrorless is that this lens has an old-school camera driven auto-focus, which Nikon's F-to-Z adapters don't support. While manually focusing that lens can be done, the shallow depth of field makes it very challenging for moving subjects.
Heavily ringed bokeh just comes from the optics.
Errr, quite obviously not, indeed. But then I didn't say they were?
I said all phone lenses tend to have soap bubble bokeh as a consequence of their optics. Almost all phone lenses don't have mechanical apertures; they have fixed ring apertures and also tiny aspheric lenses.
(In the industry it's seemingly called "onion ring bokeh" to distinguish from soap bubble, presumably because it has more than one ring.)
However! The first stop down of a mechanical iris has a tendency to have odd effects on the lens's bokeh.
You get an interference of the aperture blades and the wide-open bokeh. With a lens that is prone to ring bokeh, slightly stopping down will smear the edge of the bubble, but in this case it is also clearly boosting contrast as you expect (and an irregular shape at different angles)
Is that a question?
Perfectly fine use of colloquial commenting?
Yes.
Against the ‘rule’ you were taught in primary school English? Also yes.
That’s why English is so interesting.
Does that make sense?
Even on the 18 Pro Max the 8x zoom of the telephoto lens is just the 4x using the same 12 MP crop of the 48 MP sensor to "double" the 4x optical zoom as the last generation. I hope we can get some level of optical zoom on a future Duo.
Previously the blur on iPhone was all software, apparently. I've set mine to do wide open with no bokeh, and i'll put it in after.
But to be honest, the iPhone is the camera I have on me, so the limits are acceptable. Can I force focus it? No. Can I get the glow? No. But iPhone + zoom + crop is better in some ways than my 50mm 1.2 with bokeh.
I mean, consumers would probably just know it as "nice and pleasing blurred background", versus "this blurred background isn't as nice".
The average user may not understand the technical details of bokeh but they will certainly have an opinion on what is pleasing to the eye.
To most people its just blur and they don't care that it is not just blur.
There are details, all of these are details; but saying that "iphone5-level-cameras are good enough form most people" is both true (obviously it sold and millions were satisfied with it) and false (most people would notice today that iphone5s take worse photos than latest-gen). All the details add up to image quality that _is_ noticeable even to the laymen.
This is largely true, when it comes to photos of other people/people they care about.
I'm a wedding & family photographer part time, and at nearly every wedding I shoot, the photos the clients and their guests favorite the most from the galleries are usually the quick candid snaps where the subject has an expression they like or are doing something fun. It could be a blurry, grainy, dark mess of a photo and it will consistently be their favorite photo of the day.
For most non-photographers, the subject of the photo is what matters and is all they will notice. Almost no one is making a distinction between bokeh shape, or noise (unless its so obvious as to completely ruin the photo), composition, etc.
All that to say, photo quality is only one very small part of the equation.
Well, yeah. f1.2 is a nice gimmick but opening up so wide rarely translates into better photos. Don't get me wrong - you can get some beautiful portraits with that lens. But in practice, my 24-70 f2.8 zoom lens gets way more use than a 50mm prime.
There's a reason high end phones have multiple cameras on them. It's because not every photo wants to be taken at the same focal length.
I'd much rather a mirrorless camera with a 24-70 than an iphone. A mirrorless camera with just a 50mm prime will take some beautiful photos. And some photos you won't be able to capture at all.
You can’t have bokeh without blur but you can have blur without bokeh.
Yes. There are many camera apps with manual focus. Just not the default app.
That said, I can't see this with the image open filling my 27" monitor, I can only see it zooming in. Perhaps if you are printing a wall sized photo, use a real camera.
PetaPixel reviewed the bokeh, and called it "meh" and "not very nice". [1]
A lot of the iPhone reviews are very rushed in order to have a review ready by the time the embargo is lifted. I think the PetaPixel review is quite thorough given the limited amount of time they had to actually use it.
DXOMARK sells test equipment and consulting services for (among others) camera tuning.
Naturally, they won't attack the image quality of a customer who purchased their test equipment and/or consulting service (usually not publicly known who did that), so they often tone down some of their statements when they review a device (and shift the attention to other areas).
Always interesting to check out the scores of DXOMARK competitors in parallel, e.g. VCX[0] which strives for an objective scoring scheme (but didn't test the device yet, indicating that they at least didn't have an early sample)
the difference will be in things like low-light, telephoto lenses, video capability, HDR, and lots of other things that don't show up in most photos (including that one)
I wish there is some tech in the pipeline, that in the next 5 - 10 years we could get decent pictures quality without the huge bump.
With video OTOH, the improvements are much more noticeable. I also suspect that is why Apple focuses so much on video as its a harder problem to solve and so much easier to differentiate your hardware from competitors.
Where are the measurements? All I see are vague generalities like "well-rendered images with improved contrast and natural-looking skin tones". I guess those are the "perceptual analyses"? Is there a "See full measurements" button I'm missing? How do they come up with numbers like "157 Portrait", "172 Outdoors"?
https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AppleiPho...
and then more context, especially for the less objective categories, in this test protocol description:
https://www.dxomark.com/smartphone-camera-image-quality-test...
It was a little annoying to find (About Us > How We Test) but not awful I suppose.
I am quite sure they have those analysis behind a paywall.
The site IS the one calculated score and calming marketing. I am not sure what you are referring:
- the studio photos are not provided
- those seemingly same images have slightly different angle what is actually a huge difference, AND only for 2-3 phones, not for all
PS: e.g. different clouds on the portrait example: huge dynamic difference
But recently he seems to prefer fire or stadium audiences in the background.
I use GrapheneOS for my own phone and have always been forced into iPhones at work.
iOS, after 12 years of use, is still so terrible that I can't just get over it.
I open my MacBook and will do whatever needs to be done from there.
I should probably get an iPhone for private use too though. It would surely stop me from being on my phone more than I'd like to.
The launchers were fine, but the app experience being abysmal just made Android a non-starter. I don’t understand how people don’t see this.
RCS didn’t even work as well as it does on iPhone.
And this isn’t a walled garden comparison - I don’t use iCloud or any Apple services aside from iMessage (for people who don’t have signal).
Try using a self-hosted calendar on Android - absolutely impossible if you have any expectation of it being usable. And no, an unreliable third party app that promises to sync in the background does not count, mostly because it doesn’t work well. iCalendar works. You should not need to buy Business Calendar 2 to get a worse version of what iPhone users get for free.
There are a half dozen apps at least I could tell a similar story about.
I also strongly dislike the iOS Calendar UI, though that's possibly also because of iOS itself being rather unintuitive. Floating buttons in four corners of the screen just isn't very clear. In my opinion Google Calendar, even on iOS, is much better. More reliable on iOS too, but Google's app syncing better with Google's servers isn't really a good comparison.
I have no problem syncing with DAVx5 across various iCal sources on my phone. iOS seems pretty funky about its protocol requirements (and if it fails to understand the protocol, it's hard to tell why it failed). Apple practically invented the protocol, they should offer some kind of explanation of why it's not working.
That said, I do think Google should invest more into getting third party calendar support into their GCalendar apps. I don't want to need a third party app even if the app works fine, it should be part of the standard calendar app.
The big differentiator is speed of input. On iOS I can drag and drop to move, and also to adjust the start and end time of events, all without clicking into every event. This is huge if you time block your day. It was insane to me that Android just couldn’t support this workflow without being brutally, painfully slow.
> Floating buttons in four corners of the screen just isn't very clear.
It’s just a toolbar with a transparent background. I don’t see how that causes confusion. It’s not like they move around or something. And this pattern is used in basically all apps. Not nearly as bad an abomination as the FAB, IMO.
Also Syncthing to automatically sync files between the phone and my home server. I download podcasts and audiobooks into a folder on the server and they're automatically on my phone ready to play.
Immich to connect to my self-hosted media. And ntfy to get notifications from my home stuff.
Tasker to automatically activate my wifi hotspot for the car's Android headunit when it sees the car's bluetooth.
I have another tasker job to take the 2-factor authentication numbers from SMS and forward them to ntfy, so I don't even have to look at the phone, I get a popup on my PC with the 2-factor code.
And the best of all, Firefox with uBlock Origin add-on and Revanced Apps. Because ads are cancer.
And I still have a headphone socket.
Can all that be done on iOS?
Mockery aside: it's all the same. They're all good enough for portraits where all you want is some depth of field & contrast, they're all good enough for landscapes where they capture colors pretty well, and they're all catastrophic past 5x zoom. You can take the top 10 of DXOMark (hell, the top 20) and you won't realistically find a difference unless you're pixel peeping. Which, we all know your phone pictures are just being sent compressed over Whatsapp, it doesn't matter. If you want camera quality pictures, get a camera. Even a 15 year old shitty Canon will take better pictures than the 18 Pro.
You're confusing a personal preference for a fact.
That closeup zoom 18 eye shot has that classic AI smooth skin look AI influencers all have.
But even with that they are still behind Android phones, while they dominated some years ago
Flagship Android and iOS device cameras have been 1a/1b for awhile. It's video where Apple dominated. Did Android make some huge strides in video lately?
For video I think the iphone hasn't been dethroned yet.
For instance th Xiaomi Ultra 17's main camera is faulted for having shallow depth of field or "autofocus decision errors", which I assume just means the auto selected subject wasn't the person straight in front of the camera ? [0]
These tests seem to be about versatility and predictability more than sheer performance.
Oh god that plasticization of the faces is absolutely horrifying. Like a bad image gen AI from 2022. Or reptilians wearing cheap rubber masks.
Edit: what's with the downvotes?
Presumably because others disagree. I also do not see it here. Zooming in there are clear pores and skin texture. Is it somewhat smoothed? Yeah, it has that feel. Does it look like a cheap rubber mask? No. And that phrasing is frankly very insulting to the pictured subjects.
It's smartphone cameras, squeezing blood from a stone is pretty hard.
This is a heavy walk-back from reptile wearing a rubber mask. It should not be hard to understand why that statement can be seen as insulting.
> You can clearly see that the arbitrary part of the face of the girl in front is literally blurred
Not really. It’s a bit smoothed but the smoothest parts of her face are also where the skin is stretched tightest from smiling. It is actually smoother in those areas. I don’t see a ton of difference in the foreground between the skin texture in the different photos.
Background is different but as you said, that’s blood from a stone. The data just isn’t there.
It's very hard to understand. It doesn't make sense that a criticism of the camera would be an insult to the subjects of the photo.
The criticism is that the image isn't an accurate representation of the subjects. If B is bad, and B != A, it doesn't follow that A is bad.
Your reaction is?
a. “Yeah, the slight over processing definitely turned my wife into a lizard person.”
b. “Fuck you.”
Some people really like that style, though. I think it's a matter of preference, and it seems like the people who like that style are exactly who Apple is optimizing their image algorithms for.
This particular iteration seems to increase the hallucinations a bit more than previous models, though. Unless one of the models did actually have one eye with eyelashes and one without for the iPhone shoot.
This is just because the eye without eyelashes is on the side of her face that's in shadow. That means there's less contrast between the black of the eyelash and her skin tone (which is darker in the shadow area), and so the denoising algorithm wipes out the lash. All of this image processing happens way too fast on an iPhone for anything deserving the label of 'AI' to be involved. People are just going nuts over the unsurprising artefacts of a completely standard image processing pipeline.
The only surprising part is how good the results are: there is no leftover color noise that I can see, the window doesn’t have any color fringing, the high-frequency detail of the table setting and the drapes hasn’t been destroyed, the small backlit hairs on the sides of the face of the girl in front haven’t been smeared over oil-painting style. It’s strange how one eyebrow (in the back) got completely obliterated while the other looks completely fine, and it’s even stranger how the texture of the collar (in front) is basically perfect on the left where it’s unobstructed but basically destroyed on the right where some hair escaping from the braids was in front of it, so perhaps there is some image-gen-adjacent stuff going on here.
The skin looks bad, don’t get me wrong. But the degree of badness seems fair for the situation, and as a whole the result has no business looking as good as it does to my 2016-camera-trained eye.
(Also, don’t photograph people with a wide-angle lens from up close, it’s always freaky at best—like here—and ugly at worst. Just don’t.)
As I mentioned in another comment, even this isn't strange when you consider that the areas where detail is lost are in shadow (compared to the similar areas where more detail is preserved). That means less contrast, which means more detail lost to denoising.
https://www.cined.com/lab-test-of-the-iphone-17-pro-rolling-...
Thankfully we have access to raw DNGs in phones after the 4S, so we can create our own image processing pipeline.
But for "out of the camera" JPGs, the 4S is still supreme.
Dxomark sells test tools and reports
https://web.archive.org/web/20260920202324/https://www.dxoma...
Even just carrying around a small Micro 4/3 camera gets you 3x the sensor surface area of a smartphone. An APS-C Fujifilm like an x100V gets you 5.2x the sensor surface and is still mostly "pocketable" (in a bag).
What the iPhone has effectively replaced though are the old point and shoot digicams, which now have smaller sensors than the iPhone.
In recent times I have travelled some insanely hot places. And every extra thing that you carry with you feels like such a burden. But the phone you always have with you.
This is like saying most users will never adjust the shutter speed. Of course they won't, because the software automatically adjusts it, just like it does on any traditional camera. For the aperture capable lens, the software adjusts the aperture automatically depending upon light and/or depth of field requirements of a scene.
And yes, photographs are still spectacularly important.
But...I don't get it regardless. You know that video also uses apertures on every such equipped device, right? Better depth of field if the environment allows it is a good thing.
> Apple appears to only care about still pictures up to a certain point
I feel like people are just saying silly bullshit now. Apple has made video a core part of their product reveals for years now. And current iPhones take outrageously good videos.
I mean, one of the uses is the statement "Its variable aperture is a particular strength, significantly improving the camera’s ability to maintain sharpness in complex scenes and when multiple subjects are present.".
DXOMark is a technical test with generally little narrative, so I'm not sure what your point even is. Would it surprise you that their reviews of SLR lenses, where the aperture is a critical element of the lens (and it would be a joke not to have one), they generally don't mention it at all?
I wonder if newer phones / camera apps are better.
Excited to use this feature in 2-5 years when I can get one cheap.
Samsung in the past has also held that distinction, being able to take very good still pictures, but they too fell down when it came to hardware and software, particularly when you start adding in video performance, which requires better software/hardware chops. Nothing is gonna beat Apple chip hardware right now.
iPhone, Samsung, Chinese phones, they all do fake moons now.
Computational photography isn't just the smoke-and-mirrors of AI upscaling faking information. You really can get around the limitations of physics on a traditional lens with non-generative computational photography techniques, incorporating real information, like the time-series data over the length of an exposure, the data from other sensors like the accelerometer or lidar, or data from an array of lenses (as others have pointed out).
Even without those tricks, the Pura 80 Ultra specifically uses a much larger camera sensor than most phones.
As someone who has only been an Apple user for phones (and Canon, Sony and Leica elsewhere), AI or otherwise, Apple is not immune to relatively heavy post processing in software. They're certainly not inserting moons, but even the raw sensor data has had some uplift to it.
And I fear the more tech reviewers do these pixel peeping side by side comparisons between phones, the greater the incentive to cheat.
The amount of post-processing in them makes them look fake, like somebody took a photo of the background, and then photoshopped the subject on top of it.