iPhone 13 Pro camera review: Tanzania
austinmann.com
austinmann.com
It's near impossible to make ugly photos in Tanzania, even with low-end skills or gear. The subjects, scenery and light conditions are naturally very beautiful on their own. The output will be visually attractive and you'd not easily notice any lack of technical attractiveness.
Compare this to photographing technical test charts or you walking the dog at night. As the subjects themselves are unexciting, it would be better suitable to analyze technical image quality.
Another interesting aspect of analyzing the quality of mobile photography is that counter intuitively, mobile phone screens are drastically superior to most desktop monitors. Mobile screens increasingly are OLED for deep contrast, wide gamut for richer colors, and have a pixel density that is a multiple of desktop screens.
Most photos taken on a mobile phone completely fall apart when viewed on a big screen, as it then becomes obvious how much of a smudge they are.
That said, we've come a long way, and I am impressed.
The site states $126/year.
> I guess everything is relative nonetheless.
Right, $126/year might not sound much for someone holding a STEM job in the US, but unfortunately a lot of people live well below that comfort level.
This is an article about the iPhone 13 Pro camera. If you can afford it, you can afford $126/year.
As GP said, everything is relative.
Some people who purchase iPhones can't really afford them in the sense of having hundreds of dollars of disposable income, and either save their asses off to treat themselves or take loans.
Apple controls a 20% market share of the smartphone market. Do you really think 20% of the whole world can simply spend $1k without batting an eye?
Even in the US close to 40% of it's population cannot afford an emergency expense of up to $1k, and the US is one of the nations leading in purchasing power.
There is more to life than well-paying STEM jobs in the US.
I bought a Sony Xperia 5 II - thinking the OLED would give me a better picture - and it objectively looks much much worse than my much older LCD based Xiaomi 5 Note Pro (the camera is also amazingly worse)
I then went to the electronics mall nearby, and I noticed that the OLED laptops (from Asus) will have a much less vibrant image than a something like a Macbook or Huawei
I dunno if this is just a personal-preference/psychosomatic, or if there is really something to what I've observed. Would be curious if anyone has more info
Objectively? How did you measure that? Or did you mean subjectively?
if it's "well i like this one better but maybe someone else could like the other one more" then its subjectively subjective
as opposed to here, where its so bad i cant see that happen
I progressively upgrade my gaming rig and my video card is from the stone age (2017), when I eventually get around to upgrading I won't be able to compare it to newer cards.
I'd like to see review sites progressively update their tests so you can at least track progress by comparing A to B to C to D even if you can't directly compare A to D.
They are the benchmark for phone reviews and technically reproducible experiments. Anandtech is amazing too, but they they have very low coverage over phones and are usually pretty late to the party.
See links here:
https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?idType=4&idPhone1=10906...
https://www.gsmarena.com/vidcmp.php3?idType=3&idPhone1=10906...
It was a revelation that the warm colors and soft morning light I'd seen in National Geographic images of Africa as a child were real. In Ghana during the Harmattan, every morning and evening just look like that; it is incredibly beautiful. With that knowledge, I'm prepared to believe that other places in Africa might be similar.
The iPhone 13 review primarily made me want to go travel.
Technically, I still prefer the output from more-traditional imaging systems. The ergonomics of phone-cameras don't yet work for me, either.
What I was struck by from the article, though, was that the iPhone images were good-enough to be publishable from a photojournalism context. As these imaging systems are generally incremental improvements, that means the camera in your pocket right now can do it, too.
Find interesting subjects in compelling light, frame them in a way that says something you wish to convey or remember, and push the button. f/8 and be there.
So I just stick to using the onscreen dot (which, as you all have said, has other ergonomic issues).
When looking at individual frames mid-motion (anywhere in the videos), the iPhone 13 has a noticeable lack of background detail (blocky and smudged backgrounds).
The video shared here proves that photography skills such as using shallow depth of fields, golden hour lighting, fast motion, wide angles, etc can produce a result that hides camera limitations and is potentially more enjoyable than poorly thought out shots on an expensive camera.
I'll bet I could botch some photos in tanzania.
That said, I think in this era of "free" photos due to vast memory, and "choose your effect" postprocessing... hmmm.
Don't get me wrong, it's still valuable to see what CAN be accomplished, but most people aren't going to spend that amount of time, so show us how much work you had to put into post-processing for those results. Otherwise it just kind of feels like an advertisement for Apple.
> As I watched this piece, particularly the interview in Cinematic mode, it dawned on me that we’re moving beyond the world of just computational photography and into the realm of computational videography. The release of Cinematic mode marks another one of those fundamental shifts where software, unbounded by the limitations of hardware, has opened up entirely new possibilities in the creative process.
This is not a new experience, it's just one that Apple put inside your iPhone. Reading stuff like this really makes me wonder how critical they're being here, because it seems like "it shoots photos better than the last one" is enough to warrant a perfect review. And if that's the case, every camera system on every phone ever is perfect and there's no point to reviewing them at all, because you can rest assured knowing your next phone will have 25% better digital zoom, or whatever.
I do agree though that it would be useful to state how much time and effort was spent in lightroom and PS.
Asking for someone to post the unedited version of a raw photo is a big misunderstanding of what that format even means.
I have a DSLR and I now don't bring it along anymore. I have three kids, so I already have to carry around a lot of stuff and children, so there is no more room or energy for my DSLR. My phone is always in my pocket though.
I recently invested in some phone lenses by Moment and I am very excited about them. They also fit in my pocket and I can pop one on my phone in about 10 seconds.
For the average consumer who doesn't know how to play music at all, maybe the ukulele would be a nice option. If you hand a professional guitarist a ukulele, and tell them it's a proper guitar, they will probably laugh at you.
That a ukulele is smaller is actually the opposite of what I'm looking for. I don't need a smaller guitar. I need a nice one, that plays and responds like I'd expect a guitar to.
I would never use a ukulele as a way to somehow replace a recording of a traditional guitar, even though it's more convenient.
There are thousands of photographers who feel this way about DSLR's.
If it doesn't fit your current/busy lifestyle, cool - the ukulele works for you. But don't pretend the ukulele is / can be a guitar. Popping lenses onto an iPhone camera is like putting an amplifier onto the ukulele. You're still trying to make something better that is, due to its size alone, never going to have the depth or quality a guitar or DSLR would have.
Also, I'm not dissing the ukulele, here. I'm trying to provide an example that just because a tool can work for a purpose, doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.
From personal experience, if you hand a professional guitarist a ukulele, he will play the shit out of it and make it sound better than you've ever heard a ukulele sound.
OP, is making a weird comparison is all I'm sayin I guess.
this is the reason I loved the Ricoh GR series of cameras, an APS-C sensor that genuinely fits in almost any pocket is incredible, it's not for everyone but I wish there were more companies trying this, even the X100 cameras are too big for that
I also have kids, and no phone without seamless, automatic cloud backups and the ability to transparently take "Live Photos"[0] is at all interesting to me now. I don't care how good the stills are, if it doesn't have those two things.
[0] Live Photos are a feature of Apple phones where it captures a few seconds of video before and after you snapped a photo, including sound. Tap and hold on the photo to play the video. They're basically magic, especially if you have kids. Like the moving photos in Harry Potter. They also make photos with waterfalls in them really cool instead of reliably terrible.
It is a pocket camera, and it does very well.
But I agree - it's clearly not a substitute for even a mid-range prosumer SLR.
In digital, all “unedited” means is using camera firmware’s interpretation of raw values; especially with complex processing in modern phones this isn’t a very good measure as scene recognition can be hit or miss and the algorithm is a black box.
(What could be indicative is posting scene raws alongside exhaustive development presets, of course.)
With enough effort you can basically do whatever you wish, especially when it comes to increasing quality (see for example this one https://gizmodo.com/deep-learning-can-now-flawlessly-correct...).
* I don’t know about Apple’s ProRAW.
There are many, many, many more reviews out there on the internet that show casual, unedited photos from this camera. I think this person's use case and exhibition are interesting due to his entire workflow.
Maybe I'm getting old but I find it difficult to shoot good photos even with the bulkiest of phone cases, while also being able to hit the shutter without shifting my camera drastically.
I personally use a Note so the S pen works great as a built in remote shutter (especially nice for tripod shots) but I can't for the life of me get good shots with the UI shutter or even volume/side button rockers. Sure you have voice controls or shutter timmers but timmers are not ideal in most shooting conditions from my experience, unless you have humans. You can also burst or drop frames from video but ick, shooting professional photos with a phone as is seems unnecessarily uncomfortable to me.
This is directed towards those taking pictures for social media. Advertising (that's what this is) in this way implies that you, yes you, could be as good as a professional photographer. Except, you also have to dedicate the time and vast expertise, like a professional photographer would, to get pictures like theirs. They cleverly leave that part out.
I can accept that he really likes the product, but even then, the point of the article is broken.I cannot imagine any scenario in which a professional photographer would use a mobile device for legitimate client work, unless he is paid by Apple. There is no way in hell it is on par with professional equipment. The battery alone is a huge detriment to field work.
To your points, these are nice new features. That in no way means that a professional photographer should say "you can be as good as me with these new features!"
This is a professional photographer writing a review targeted at other professional photographers, so it feels appropriate to post photos shot and developed as a professional photographer would.
Regardless, the article is more about features like the new macro mode with short focus distance and the performance of the telephoto lens. Those don’t depend on manual post-processing.
Take a look at photos taken with iPhone 8. They are gorgeous.
https://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-8-camera-review-india
If you are a professional photographer AND you are in Tanzania (or any other picturesque place), every photo is going to look like a piece of art.
The iPhone's camera is great for what it is, but it's definitely not anything close to a replacement of an entry level DSLR and shouldn't really be marketed as such.
You always carry your phone, but not your dslr. For an untrained eye, the iPhone 11,12 photos look gorgeous.
For professionals of course there is no debate, regardless what Apple marketing is claiming.
I used to carry a small camera at all times in my bag, yes. Mostly a Canon G11 and at times an Olympus XA. But this was a long time ago as I no longer pass by any points of real interest (to me) on my commute.
But, let me get back to what I am trying to convey. From my perspective, phones on cameras (combined with social media) created a new class of photographers that would be most closely related to those that previously had cheap point-and-shoot cameras (if even a camera at all) with fixed lenses that are easy to operate but gets the job done to document something. The results will be subpar, but that does not matter as the point is not something abstract like “bokeh”, the desire is to document something visually to have it become a memory or communicate an event to someone else visually in a less artistic sense than a “real” photographer. This is why I find discussions about how digital depth of field is not authentic largely to miss the point. This class of photographers do not care, they want good aesthetics – yes – but it is not something they actively seek out like a “true” photographer.
But here is the kicker, I doubt that without a readily available camera in their phone these people would ever have become photographers in the first place and this is why the camera phone vs DSLR discussion annoys me. This new class of photographers did not make a conscious choice between shooting with a phone, point-and-shoot, mirrorless, or DSLR. They used what was already there to communicate and when a new camera phone comes around they enjoy the fact that they get better aesthetics out of it than their old one. In a sense, I doubt they even view their phone as a camera in the first place.
So, it is a spectrum ranging from camera phone up to medium format madness. But I think most of these discussions are had by the 5% such as myself (and yourself) that consider weight, dynamic range, glass, etc. Rather than the 95% who probably do not even perceive themselves as photographers in the first place – although they certainly are.
Regarding portability, yes point-and-shoots are portABLE, but in reality you don’t have them in your pocket 100% of the time, like you have a smartphone. You need to think about packing one more thing, that you may or may not need, so you won’t bother.
In summary, with a point-and shoot you are making two compromises: 1)photo quality 2)availability. In my opinion they are worse both than a DSLR and a good smartphone.
That's the thing, though. Many of us, especially men (but many women as well, including my wife) do not carry around a bag or wear a bulky jacket with pockets big enough for even the smallest mirrorless. So packing one along everywhere I go wouldn't be any more convenient than just grabbing the bag with my 7D.
No way I’d do that with an (outdated) DSLR though.
Speaking for myself, if I'm going out without any special goal, I'll just have my phone, keys, and wallet.
The iPhone isn’t intended to compete with DSLRs because it’s literally a phone that fits in your pocket.
Phones don’t compete with DSLRs because they serve different purposes.
I can’t realistically carry a DSLR or mirrorless camera everywhere. I can, however, keep my phone in my pocket all the time. That’s why it’s so great to have these reviews from professional photographers to show what’s capable in the context of the phone.
It’s not about DSLR versus iPhone. It’s about what’s possible from the device I always have in my pocket.
I'm not sure how you measure "intent", but I think there's fairly strong evidence that smartphone cameras have harmed the DSRL market. Sales are about half of what they were in 2008. This isn't just people moving to mirrorless either. Sales of all camera formats are down. Smartphones basically killed the market for compact cameras, whose sales today are down about 90% in the same timeframe.
The high end stuff is doing well with content creators and professionals. You can see this in the move upmarket of things like Sony A6600 ($1400 APS-C camera) and RX100 series ($1300 compact camera) that are aimed at creators in the attention economy. I think from here on we'll see smartphone needs driving sensor development, but that doesn't mean the camera market is dead.
The high end stuff keeps getting better, just like every technology keeps getting better, but I don't know if it's "doing well" in the sense that overall sales of high end camera gear are increasing.
As far as I can tell, that entire market segment is shrinking. I'm not saying it's dead or even dying, but I do think it's getting smaller.
I like shooting outdoor on telephoto (135mm+), and there the phones are nowhere as competitive, and won’t be for a long time, if ever. Actually that’s where the progress in standalone cameras is: more compact telephoto lenses, sharper zooms, faster autofocus, even less noise. And no, multiframe fusion won’t help when you’re shooting quick action.
The one thing that can’t really be replaced is zoom.
Edit: The point is that a smartphone camera may never compete with a DSLR on quality but its portability and convenience are unparalleled.
Just look at all these 'pros' who are promoting iPhone photography: they're lugging all kinds of gear (tripods, cages, lenses) with them to help them make use of the phone. Seems like a small stretch to me to also bring a proper camera instead of a phone.
However, I also recently purchased an Olympus OM-D EM5 Mark III because I wanted more control and the ability to take better photos. This is a Micro Four Third's camera, and I think this is really the ideal "middle ground" for getting great shots without the weight of a full-frame mirrorless or DSLR.
It's not quite "pocket" sized, but small enough to throw in my over-the-shoulder bag, and I'll regularly take it on bike rides around the city I live in.
As others have pointed out, the best camera it he one you have with you, and the iPhone does quite well in more and more situations, but if you want the best of both worlds: interchangeable lenses, world class IBIS, full manual control in a small package that won't wear you out after a few hours, the MFT cameras are great.
Sticking with one high quality lens & bringing no accessories helps a lot with the overhead. Pick up a tiny USB battery cradle & reuse your phone charger...
Not recommending my gear choices, just acknowledging I wasn’t getting those results with a 18-55 on a Rebel.
Let me review the camera and nobody will buy the phone.
Also you never carry around a DSLR, you carry a huge bag with multiple lenses, tripods, among other add-ons. So I guess it's even worse haha
This one: https://www.freshnessmag.com/.image/t_share/MTM2NjQ3MjI5MTMz...
IIRC the results had become fairly close between the 1020 and modern phones by late 2019, with the 1020 being markedly superior with post-processing turned down.
^ considered significant as it was far superior at the time to every other phone camera and most point-and-shoots; also found in a more rudimentary form in the Nokia 808 from the year before
^^ For reference, the iPhone 13 seems to have a 1/1.65" main sensor in a 'Pro 12MP camera system'. IIRC, 48 MP sensors from Xiaomi in early 2020 were the first to surpass the 1020 in megapixel count, and a few uncommon phones over the years have had sensors of larger area.
[1] http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/24099_Bypopula...
The Iphone clearly does a better job now. When I highlighted the Lumia it was not in absolute terms, but the jump in quality from my previous phone, and Im hoping the I13 is a similar jump. Currently I have the X and it takes really bad photos.
But overall, I just loved everything about Lumia/Windows. Very non-intrusive. The e-ink layout took almost no power to run, had no apps in the store so very fast.. :)
One app in particular, a WP original and exclusive, now comes to mind: Logic Games, a diverse collection of grid-based logic puzzles, had an extreme but effective take on this kind of navigation: nested horiz/vert scrolling formed a grid of phone screen-sized pages for puzzle types, and each page contained a grid of tiles for individual puzzles (sadly, 4D chess was not among them). I've yet to come across a more extensive unified set of grid-based puzzle implementations, though Simon Tatham's collection has similar spirit:
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/
Looks like it's still listed in the store at:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/logic-games/9wzdncrfhmwc
Though from the screenshots, I've just realized that it actually uses not Pivot, but Panorama controls:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131124064955/http://msdn.micro...
Reviewing the docs in the Wayback Machine, Pivot was toned down in UWP to a tab-like appearance and recently deprecated in WinUI by NavigationView.
For what an iPhone goes for these days it’s possible to buy a used high grade camera body and a good prime lens if you can handle shooting with something a generation or two old. If you spend your time taking photos instead of reading blogs and taking photos of charts, you will be very happy.
They have to make some compromises because of their size, so a pro with a DSLR is always going to win. But for the rest of us, phone cameras make it so much quicker and easier to get a good photo. And you don't have to lug gear around with you everywhere and spend ages fiddling with settings, tripods and lenses.
So, as a non-pro, I prefer my phone camera, even for once in a lifetime experiences - it actually means I get to experience more myself, rather than my experience being taken up by the camera.
> And you don't have to lug gear around with you everywhere and spend ages fiddling with settings, tripods and lenses.
I feel like if you’re lugging a lot of gear around it should be to take a photo that is difficult or literally impossible to take with a phone anyway.
When faced with that fact, you can choose to feel that it elevates the importance of accurate recreation of the past in our photographs.
I'm more on the opposite side; I don't look at old photos to remember what happened. I look at them to remember how I felt when it happened. I'll never look at an old photo and think "what the; the goldenrod shade of that lion's mane had a 0.54% deeper saturation in real life, this camera sucks!" I'll be thinking "that lion was fucking awesome, and this photo makes him look fucking awesome."
So, maybe camera phones over-process and produce a dream-like representation of what happened. That's how everyone remembers how it happened anyway. There's certainly value in accuracy, but I'm not the New York Times.
Compared to that, these AIs are mostly overhyped noice reducers.
I had an older mirrorless Sony that I really enjoyed using and taking pictures -- and honestly, I did enjoy the process but it was partially because I could take much better pictures than anyone who was just using a phone.
While shopping for a new camera, I just couldn't get past how much better phones have become and how much more convenient they are. I'm sure I'll still use my existing camera, and maybe look at buying an upgraded one used in a few years, but in terms of "Good Images per Dollar", it's just a no-brainer to spend that $1,000 on a 13 Pro instead of a new body.
The new iPhone pro has a fairly decent 3x (71mm equivalent)
For birds (depends on the kind of bird) you're looking at the 300-800 mm supertele range.
Only later I realized that it was pure manipulation.
[1] - https://youtu.be/H7bStLePvKo
There are others like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceblrDsG-aw https://www.cnet.com/news/1080p-shootout-iphone-4s-vs-canon-...
Same for the 5D Mark 2 comparison. The phone has blown out highlights anywhere there's bright light.
Most people in 2021 are looking at these images on small phone screens and whatever sub-HD screen came with their laptop. That's fine until they want to print the memories they want to capture or get a better screen. I thought the photos I took with my 2007 PowerShot were great...until I got a D5600 and a full sRGB screen. The dynamic range and colors were atrocious, but they looked good when my frame of reference ruined color and dynamic range on any image or video.
Apple banks on people not thinking about what happens when display technology forges ahead and even entry-level screens reveal the flaws in the computational photography behind all their important memories.
And that's my issue: as soon as we jump in to explore some uncharted and new territory and capture and preserve it in an authentic way, we're capturing a false state. Even if raw can be captured, I fear most won’t. Consider that if you use Google photos to store your iPhone images, Google dings you for capturing raw (I remember from advertising literature some time ago that storage capacity was unlimited if you agree to have your images rescales, but limited if you choose to store them unscaled and unprocessed). What a confusing and strange pass to our posterity.
Yes.
> My assumption is that would produce a file w/o the AI processing applied that you could then process yourself…
You are correct.
A real-world side-by-side comparisons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nty5sWZFbA and https://www.inputmag.com/reviews/iphone-13-pro-max-review-a-.... tl;dr:
- slightly better tele
- slightly better in the dark
- macro mode (but there is video macro autoswitch, which everyone finds annoying)
- in other conditions practically no difference even if comparing side-by-side
[1] Yes, just before iPhone 12 Pro release; I am impatient + was in an urgent need.
Having a tiny, powerful backup camera is a joy for shooting. It'll never be my main, but it has salvaged a shooting day here and there.
But when you stop down and focus on composition and best possible result in camera, you need a diferent tools.
For the general public smartphones are ideal to "capture" the moment.
But quality cannot be accomplished without a biger than smartphone lens. Even entry level Sony RX has a Zeiss in it.
Comparing smartphone computational photography to professional photography is simply a marketing trick. Full frame sensor and adequate lens will give you always more data to push in post.
Smartphones have stagnated as innovation, so manufacturers are seeking differentiation and buyers motivation trough "better pictures".
And I dare say, some are succeeding in delivering "better pictures" (quotes yours). I have compared pics from iPhone 6s and iPhone 12 Pro taken in the same conditions, and I can tell you the improvements are very real.
The smartphones cameras in general are good enough for general public and not so many of this audience will see the differences, especially when the most of the UX is to apply filters and post on Instagram, Facebook or other social channels which compress the heck out of the photos anyway.
Photographing an interesting composition with a camera of mediocre image quality is superior to not snapping a picture at all because you left the expensive DSLR at home.
“The best camera is the one you have with you”[1] because the one you don’t have with you can’t take the picture.
The professional will create meaningful photography with lowest quality tools available. The amateur on other hand, will produce meaningless pictures even with most expensive and advanced camera or some smartphone labeled "Pro".
For usual memorabilia use cases normal people will be fine with a smartphone from 2014.
But if you are professional, who has knowledge and desire to capture a moment with enough quality, you will never leave your house without a camera. And this camera never will be an iPhone or any other smartphone. This use case will be the extreme exception from the rule.
If we are in the digital realm of photography, here are some cameras that will be considered adequate:
* Fujifilm X100V
* Ricoh GR III
* Sony RX100 VII
With this you can produce award-wining work, with iPhone you will produce mainly self-esteem or some form of social validation.
Just because people are not submitting photos to competitions doesn’t mean they can’t see noise, blurriness or plain having completely dark pictures when in a dim room.
The quote, as I understand it is mainly used so people don’t invest into expensive and heavy gear they will ultimately rarely use. (And as a personal anecdote, I wish I have followed it and bought a lighter camera instead of a dslr back when mobile phones still sucked at taking pictures)
I have a problem with this "pro" label from Apple. But the biggest problem is that technically educated people are failing into marketing traps and false statements as "cinematic mode".
I assume you don't expect people like me, who are shooting since film era, and perceive photography as a form of art, to follow along.
The big camera companies have as well. How much better is Canon's or Sony's best camera this year than a year or two ago? They don't have the same constraints that a phone company has and it seems like there's not a lot of year-over-year advancement.
Just kidding, but your comment did sound a bit like an ad. Could hear this in my head in Tim Cook's voice :D
Interesting stat - the estimate is that this year 1.4 trillion photos will be taken.
In 2012 it was estimated that 3.4 trillion pictures had been taken in the previous 174 years.
https://fstoppers.com/other/stats-how-many-photos-have-ever-...
https://fstoppers.com/other/stats-how-many-photos-have-ever-...
I don't know, seems like almost all top-level comments are this comment. It's also the single most common comment on this topic, ever.
But sometimes that one isn't good enough
That sets the starting point, and then I can compare as I go along.
I really hate the pitch and all these photog pros showing you how you can shoot movies or professional photos with a phone. They either use daylight which is 1000 times brighter than indoor or they use $10,000 of pro lighting. In that situation, any camera will work great. But wait till sunset or try and do some indoor shots and the tiny phone sensor and/or try and shoot some fast moving subjects that require decent shutter speeds and the phone will fail miserably.
The whole point in using a higher end $1000+ camera is that you can use it in 50% to 80% of lighting and motion conditions that a phone sucks in.
I carry my Pixel everywhere, but I simply detest using it for artistic photos because the touchscreen controls are simply too clumsy and the image quality, while good on-phone, just falls to pieces at home on my 4k screen.
I have an iPhone 8. I don’t see much improvement in these iPhone 13 photos.
Generally, the native camera app will drop into Night mode and automatically disable the Live mode.