Studio Display webcam complaints are fair, but the importance is being overblown

Studio Display webcam complaints were one of the standout things from early product reviews. The WSJ’s Joanna Stern took the turn-of-phrase prize for her description of the image quality, describing it as reminiscent of the camera on a BlackBerry.

The complaints were allayed for a time, when it appeared that the issue could be fixed in software, but are back with a vengeance now that we know that’s not the case …

The story of the Studio Display webcam complaints

Apple was the one who created problems when it claimed “sensational webcam” quality. Reviewers were not impressed by the reality. Not only was the quality not sensational, but it wasn’t even as good a MacBook Pro. Here’s Stern’s take in full:

The webcam consistently made me look like I was the star of a ’90s home video […]

Apple’s camera consistently produced grainy and washed-out images. Some of these shots reminded me so much of my BlackBerry’s camera. The plus side is that no one could see my hair frizzy.

I brought back extra eyes to confirm. I recorded footage from webcams on the Studio Display (12 megapixel), an iPhone 11 Pro (12 megapixel), a 14-inch MacBook Pro (2 megapixel) and the 5K LG monitor (2 megapixel). Without naming which source, I shared the frames with colleagues. The group was unanimous, ranking the Apple Studio Display’s webcam dead last.

Apple replied the same day promising to update the software.

“[We] reviewed the photos you have shared and found an issue that the software isn’t responding to as it should. We’ll be making improvements in a software update.”

What nobody noticed at the time was that Apple chose its words carefully: It didn’t promise to fix the image quality, only to improve it. Apple’s promise of an update was quickly realized by owners.

The update does not seem to magically increase the webcam quality at Studio Display. […]

While most Apple devices feature a wide front camera with a standard lens, Studio Display features an ultra-wide one. This is because it has Center Stage, a feature that uses machine learning to always center the image on a person during a video call or video recording. Center Stage uses digital cropping to place people within the frame since this camera does not have an optical zoom.

Apple did make some improvements to the image but it’s still a digital crop. This means that the image doesn’t have the same quality as the one from the new iPhones and MacBooks.

The complaints are fair, but overblown

I want to make it very clear that I totally understand the complaints. If Apple charged me $1,600+ for a display, and had promised me a “sensational” webcam, I’d be upset too. There are 4K professional webcams out there that make Apple’s webcam look like a child’s toy.

At the same time, there is, you know, physics. If you take a 12MP image and digitally crop it to say 6MP, then view it on a 27-inch monitor, it’s not going to look as crisp as a 12MP image viewed on a smaller screen.

Now, you absolutely can turn around and say, ‘Well, in that case, Apple should have used a 24MP camera in there, and cropped it to 12MP.” Or, indeed, that it should have used the 48MP camera it is rumored to have lined up for the iPhone 14.

But there are two arguments against this. First, again, physics. Light is the most important thing in image quality. Even if you have an acceptable sensor and lens, it is not enough to make the difference. This is the reason why anyone who wants to look good on a Zoom presentation uses a decent-size ring light.

So even with a 48MP sensor, unless you have a decent light source, the image still isn’t going to look great in a typical office environment.

Which brings me to my second point. People are not going to use the built-in webcam – any built-in webcam – for pro work, like interviews. The type of people who do pro video work and spend $1,600+ on a monitor certainly have a decent mirrorless or DSLR camera at each end, with big ring lights. Even if you use an iPhone as your webcam, you still want a ring light for decent-quality images in a typical indoor environment.

So Apple is not putting an expensive webcam inside. The people who need better image quality wouldn’t use it, and for everyday video conversations, Center Stage is a more useful feature than a 48MP sensor.

By all means complain that Apple is nickel-and-diming us again. But real-life impact of this? Pretty much zero.

That’s what I see – how about yours? Please share your thoughts in the comments.