Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

austinmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 294 posts

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#171

Post by nicoburns »

safog wrote: post #158
jonlucc wrote: post #4

The photography in these kinds of reviews is amazing, and the camera looks pretty stellar compared to the XS, but I find myself reading them wondering if it will make my pictures any better. I'm a mediocre photographer at best, and I'm certainly not going to be able to capture many images like the ones in this review.

So I want to throw out something quickly - just because someone claims a photo has been shot on an iPhone doesn't mean that they shot it in the same way as you or I would. Lots of people have special lenses that they attach in front of the iPhone camera lens to get a macro / wide angle view. They almost always shoot RAW with an app that supports this. They also use a mini tripod to stabilize the photo and use techniq…

> people have special lenses that they attach in front of the iPhone camera lens to get a macro / wide angle view

To be fair, one of the things highlighted in this review is that the new iPhone has this functionality built in. Everyone (with this phone) has a wide angle view now.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#172

Post by la_barba »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #107
mfer wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the author have a bias? Certainly. Is this an advertisement? Ads are paid announcements. There was nothing noting it was paid for in any capacity. There's a difference between an ad and a bias. I find it useful to notice biases because we all have them. Ads are quite different.

First, there can be a big power discrepancy in cases where free product is provided for review purposes. It's different if you are part of a traditional media outfit and have a significant, steady readership. But for someone like this, there can be a lot of pressure to give very favorable write-ups. Second, this wouldn't be the first time someone did a paid promotion without noting it was paid. I don't know anything…

Whats the point of muddying the waters without having verifiable facts? The thing with speculation is .. anyone can speculate, on anything, for any reason. That doesn't make it true.

>I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules.

Who exactly said that?

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#173

Post by joering2 »

Still prefer how Pixel 3 photos look like on the phone that was released a year ago [1]. Interestingly I recall my first Android to be Samsung i977 some 9 years ago and photos were more vivid than iPhone X.

However Pixel comes with unlimited (!!) photo and 4k video storage [2]. Apple cannot beat that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_3

[2] https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#174

Post by _coveredInBees »

endorphone wrote: post #126
_coveredInBees wrote: post #62

I think the iPhone 11 makes some good advances as outlined in the linked article, but a lot of the pictures didn't particularly wow me at all from a camera capabilities perspective. A bunch of the images at the top of the article are nice, but that is entirely due to the photographer's skill at composing aesthetically pleasing shots and have little to do with the actual capabilities of the iPhone 11. As someone who o…

"As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical" They wouldn't look remotely alike. Many of those simple shots are incredibly complex dynamic range scenes were the results are quite spectacular. With a lesser device the results would have been a blah photo, which is the point of the amazing progress that is happening in com…

I suggest you pick up an LG G3 and test it's capabilities out. It's not like HDR is some new invention that just came about in the smart phone space. It's been around forever. Yes, some of the algorithms have gotten better, and the HDR tonemapping has been improved, but I've taken thousands of HDR images with my G3 many years ago that looked great.

Case in point - https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7

> As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.

Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason. All I stated was that it would suffer for prints, which is factual and nothing you stated really adds value to that. I didn't say that it was no good because of that...

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#175

Post by baddox »

saiya-jin wrote: post #120
pavelrub wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about. An advertisement of what? Ultra wide lenses? The author is a photographer who writes about being excited to now have the ability to carry an ultra wide lense - something that has exited in the photography world for decades - as part of his phone. He then write a review about the performance of this lense. Nothing about this is even close to being an advertisement.

To use a word review, I expect at least an attempt to be objective. The article doesn't feel that way at all, even more if you actually shoot at least as a hobby, ie with some APS-C or fullframe. Discussing whether he is just subjectively biased towards Apple or outright paid is already kind of moot point

Why would you want a camera review to be “objective?” What would that even mean? Other than some tech specs (which the article does provide), there’s not a whole lot of relevant “objective” information about a camera.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#176

Post by wongarsu »

jtmarmon wrote: post #125
overcast wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key elements to these photos basically come down to dramatic lighting(dawn/dusk), leading lines(look at the bridge and waterway shots, your eyes are guided to the mountains and the horizon), and the rule of thirds(dividing your image up into quadrants, and keeping important subjects at their intersections). Basic stuff, but as always requires LOTS of practice and experimentation.

And when following the rule of thirds, how many quadrants should one divide their photo into?

nine nonants

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#177

Post by throwaway2265 »

m0skit0 wrote: post #167

I never considered the camera when buying a phone, and in fact would love a price discount in higher phone models with a cheaper or even no cameras. Question for professional photographers from someone that has no idea about photography: why would you use a phone when you can use your professional camera?

I’ve been doing professional photography for over a decade, having used a wide range of DSLR’s and mirrorless cameras.

I really enjoy using my iPhone for photography when not working. It removes the friction of taking photos. I don’t have to carry a large camera while traveling, don’t have to charge extra things, it’s just overall easier. Whatever quality I’m losing is made up by simply capturing more moments than I otherwise would have if I was using my DSLR.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#178

Post by scarface74 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #65
graeme wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Gruber and Matthew Panzerino have good reviews in this respect. Very regular shots. Panzerino does year on year comparisons at Disneyland with his family. https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones... https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/17/iphone-11-pro-disney-after...

The techcrunch review in particular is pretty well done. Almost makes me want to go trade in my 7+ on a new 11 Pro.

I have an 8 plus and I almost want to pull the trigger on an iPhone 11 Pro. I might wait until next year though.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#180

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

dadarepublic wrote: post #144
s9w wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The replies to this observation are hilarious. The "article" is as marketingy as it gets. It's blatantly obvious. But noo, "I don't know what you mean", "you sound mad" haha.

The assertion by the original commenter was that this article was an "advertisement" - meaning paid. While the article may well serve as a function of marketing because some pro photographer got a loner from Apple and wrote up a gushing review. I don't believe the word "advertisement" holds water. I think this comment said it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21016402

Ads don't have to be paid. Promo-for-product is still an ad - sometimes called an advertorial.

It's unprofessional at best and dishonest at worst to pretend that this isn't just corporate PR.

And ironically, the image quality really isn't all that amazing. It's +/- other phone cams - better in some conditions, not as good in others. And in absolute terms, these photos are nowhere close to the sharpness, dynamic range, and saturation of professional equipment. Night mode is good, but the daylight shots are okay but not awesome.

You could argue it's unfair to expect anything better from a (relatively) cheap phone cam - but it's a (relatively) cheap phone cam with a "pro" tag being marketed as a "pro" product.

In photographic terms, it simply isn't - except maybe for the fairly forgiving social media photo niche.

Post reply on HN