Yep. Silver in da house here and it looks great.
The antenna bands are why I chose the silver over the gold and rose gold, based on the pics. I have a gold 5S and my wife a rose gold 6s, and the white antenna bands still stick out. Plus, it should wear the best since it is the native colour of the metal, and it matches my MacBook Pro.
Jet black seemed like a bad option in terms of fingerprints and scratches, and matte black, while looking good, just seemed like the one people were buying to announce they had a 7.
Mind you, had there been a baby blue like my now defunct iPod mini, I would have bought it.
Photos of your grey 7 please?
I find that if you use a soft TPU clear cover it looks funny at times because the cover sticks to the back of the metal and gives it a different wet-like appearance. Right now I have a cheap bumper on (first pic), but I've ordered a Spigen case with grey sides and clear hard back. I wanted the white sides to match the white front, but it was not on sale. Actually, the case I ordered is made for the Jet Black.You use a translucent cover on jet black so you don't get scratches and fingerprints. That is what I would use if they sold it in 32 Gb
DisplayMate rates the iPhone 7 screen the best mobile LCD screen they've ever tested.In regards to screen resolution, if it is not broken, don't fix it at least for another year! I think if and when Apple moves to OLED displays, the 4.7" and smaller models will get 1080p. And 5.5" May get QHD (2K) resolution.
Things that are not "broken" get fixed all the time. You do not know what you are missing until you see something better.In regards to screen resolution, if it is not broken, don't fix it at least for another year! I think if and when Apple moves to OLED displays, the 4.7" and smaller models will get 1080p. And 5.5" May get QHD (2K) resolution.
The weird fringing you sometimes get in the pics is pretty bad. But I will see for myself.Hmm, so the portrait mode is looking pretty unimpressive so far. Hopefully it improves, a lot.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/21/hands-on-with-the-iphone-7-plus-crazy-new-portrait-mode/
Another take with more emphasis on the shortcomings:
https://www.thurrott.com/music-videos/80612/first-hands-iphone-7-plus-portrait-mode-disappoints
The Nikon is clearly better but that Apple one isn't bad. Good enough for family snapshots.
The Nikon is clearly better but that Apple one isn't bad. Good enough for family snapshots.
Not really that comparable, but for snapshots it will be enough.Just the fact that a phone is comparable to a $3,500 camera is amazing.
The depth mapping that this feature uses is a byproduct of there being two cameras on the device. It uses technology from LiNx, a company Apple acquired, to create data the image processor can use to craft a 3D terrain map of its surroundings.
This does not include the full capabilities of the Primesense chip Apple purchased back in 2013 (we have yet to see this stuff fully implemented), but it’s coming.
Er, didn't Google introduce this as a post-processing software feature? Where you could selectively blur parts of the image giving the "portrait" effect? Plus, isn't Apple just doing it software as well?
I'm not trying to completely disparage Apple, as this is a first iteration, but seems like the best thing would have been to put a larger and higher MP sensor and lens. How accurate is the depth sensing aspect? Multiple sensor definitely offers plenty of interesting applications, but this portrait mode didn't need it, and the zoom is not that impressive. And as far as I know they're not really leveraging other things they could do much if at all.
Also it highlights exactly why I hate this iterative advancement in the whole industry.
Now unless Apple has been putting the hardware necessary for this in for a while and will software update, we keep getting this "its coming", where we can kinda start to see some promising things that bring real tangible improvements, but its so slow and so fairly straightforward things still offer the best real improvement (for instance, Samsung going to 12MP with larger pixels and changing the lenses brought significant improvement to low light performance; we've seen the potential of just putting high MP sensors in as well, as those do tend to show more detail and it has benefits for things like bokeh effect).
For a side note, has anyone checked out the DxO camera module? I hadn't heard about it at all until I went to the site after googling it (I'd forgotten what it was called and never see it referenced on here any more, but it was pretty popular for a while there). $499 is pretty high (and I'd personally put that towards something like the Nikon 360 camera), but seems like there's still plenty of room for a company to make some real camera add-ons for smartphones that would get low-hanging fruit. For instance, I feel like Apple would have been better off making a case that housed an improved flash and lens (a big lens with an electronic mechanism allowing it to adjust a bit to offer some zoom as well as other focal capabilities, all controlled by the phone; and as a bonus it could have provided a 3.5mm jack for optional headset/mic, and even a battery boost for those that want it; it'd be heralded by everyone, and they could sell it for $200 easy). Of course with the placement of the camera itself, it limits what Apple could offer for the lens (which yes, putting it where Apple does limits the camera bump, but still just seems non-optimal).
You can do all sorts of stuff manually through post processing, but the whole point here is not to have to do post processing manually.Er, didn't Google introduce this as a post-processing software feature? Where you could selectively blur parts of the image giving the "portrait" effect? Plus, isn't Apple just doing it software as well?
I respectfully disagree. This is a great, great, great feature to have, if implemented correctly. One of a few things I've always hated about smartphone cameras is the deep depth of field. It almost always makes portrait shots on a smartphone look cheezy and crappy. If they can get this to work consistently and reduce the edge blurring, it will be truly great. If it stays the same as it is now, it will merely be good.I'm not trying to completely disparage Apple, as this is a first iteration, but seems like the best thing would have been to put a larger and higher MP sensor and lens.
Another thing I hated most about iPhone cameras is the lack of zoom. Now they've got that covered as well, with a 2X zoom. No, it's a not a 10X optical zoom or anything, but it's a huge step forward for iPhones.How accurate is the depth sensing aspect? Multiple sensor definitely offers plenty of interesting applications, but this portrait mode didn't need it, and the zoom is not that impressive. And as far as I know they're not really leveraging other things they could do much if at all.
People don't design revolutionary products every day. Things need time to progress. Now granted, Apple also tends to "iterate" its releases in order to keep momentum in its sales, but it's not as if Apple actually develops and builds camera sensors. And for the portrait mode, they bought that a few years back by paying $20 million for a company called LinX.Also it highlights exactly why I hate this iterative advancement in the whole industry.
DxO would never sell that thing in super high numbers. Basically it makes a simple interface and form factor suck. I'd rather just go whole hawg and take my Canon 7D instead, or perhaps a Sony RX100.For a side note, has anyone checked out the DxO camera module? I hadn't heard about it at all until I went to the site after googling it (I'd forgotten what it was called and never see it referenced on here any more, but it was pretty popular for a while there). $499 is pretty high (and I'd personally put that towards something like the Nikon 360 camera), but seems like there's still plenty of room for a company to make some real camera add-ons for smartphones that would get low-hanging fruit. For instance, I feel like Apple would have been better off making a case that housed an improved flash and lens (a big lens with an electronic mechanism allowing it to adjust a bit to offer some zoom as well as other focal capabilities, all controlled by the phone; and as a bonus it could have provided a 3.5mm jack for optional headset/mic, and even a battery boost for those that want it; it'd be heralded by everyone, and they could sell it for $200 easy). Of course with the placement of the camera itself, it limits what Apple could offer for the lens (which yes, putting it where Apple does limits the camera bump, but still just seems non-optimal).
This is the same as SSDs, the more discrete NAND you can parallelize, the faster the storage is. I'm not saying it's 'OK', but i'm also not surprised. Apple is, to my understanding, treating these as SSDs, with their own designed-in-house controller.Memorygate. Hopefully not too many of you buy the 32gb storage option.
http://m.gsmarena.com/the_32gb_ipho..._slower_storage_our_tests_show-blog-20943.php