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

281–290 of 294 posts

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#281

Post by la_barba »

safog wrote: post #277
la_barba wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author has claimed that these are unedited pictures. Do you have any information that contradicts this?

It seems very unlikely that they are unedited. Any link to that claim? I just re skimmed the article and didn’t find anything along those lines. For example I would guess this pic has some photoshop to emphasize the light and atleast some simple Lightroom. https://bit.ly/2kSXgc8

Um, because the images have the text "Unedited Iphone XS" on them..? But ok, I don't want to go over and dissect every single image here. That is of no benefit to either of us. The larger point is your "let me throw something out" simply muddies the waters without basing it in fact. "I don't believe it" is not really a basis for making a claim about someones work, and actually is quite unfair to both the author and the audience. Sorry, I'm a bit touchy about photography like that ;)

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#282

Post by lern_too_spel »

dpark wrote: post #261
lern_too_spel wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taints the whole point of doing reviews. It certainly does, which is why you can never trust an early review of an Apple product. https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-manipu...

Okay but there’s no concrete examples there. There’s a bunch of broad claims that Apple will blacklist journalists for X, Y, and Z but no names or evidence that it’s actually happening. I can believe that Apple might do this (especially since he also cites openly breaking rules by doing things like live-streaming when it’s been explicitly forbidden) but this article doesn’t convince me it’s happening or educate me on…

The article links to a few concrete examples. You'll have to use the Wayback Machine to access them.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#283

Post by TeMPOraL »

kalleboo wrote: post #97
ioulian wrote: post #75

The pictures do look good, the colors are nice and the small image on the page is nice. But I haven't seen any 100% crops or full images. it's there that you'll see that the image is worse than a DSLR or another camera with a big lens and sensor. I can get nice pictures (= vibrant and nice colors) with any camera, what I can't get is a sharp image, with sharp edges. I went to a trip with my Android Phone and DSLR, an…

Most people don't zoom in on their photos. They look at them on their phones, full screen on their computers, or at best on a TV (1080p or maybe 4K, but sitting far away). This is what manufacturers optimize for. Getting great pictures for the 95%. Who cares if the hairs on the dog are blurry when you zoom in so much you can't see the rest of the picture? Well, Pros who might want to crop the photo later. And for the…

Except those few times when they e.g. want a new profile picture for their Facebook/Instagram, find that photo on which they look really good but are only part of the whole shot, try to crop it (e.g. with the cropping tool that's available on most social media platforms when uploading a profile picture) and then they discover the result is a blurry mess.

Or, they want to print the photos they made on their phones into a family album, and the result again comes back as blurry mess that looks nowhere near as nice as it did on the phone.

So I'd add: manufacturers optimize for great pictures for the 95% that look great when shot, not when later used.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#284

Post by TeMPOraL »

lm28469 wrote: post #114
ioulian wrote: post #75

The pictures do look good, the colors are nice and the small image on the page is nice. But I haven't seen any 100% crops or full images. it's there that you'll see that the image is worse than a DSLR or another camera with a big lens and sensor. I can get nice pictures (= vibrant and nice colors) with any camera, what I can't get is a sharp image, with sharp edges. I went to a trip with my Android Phone and DSLR, an…

I mostly thought the same but came to the realisation that the target of these devices are people using instagram, reddit, snapchat, &c. or taking quick snapshots to send to their friends/family. These pictures are made to be consumed and discarded in No one will ever print those in 20x30in and frame them, hence no one cares about edge to edge sharpness or raw files. The "auto" post processing and night mode are the…

> No one will ever print those in 20x30in and frame them, hence no one cares about edge to edge sharpness or raw files.

People still want to hang pictures on the walls and have family albums. Maybe it's a diminishing use case, but the sad thing is, it's not this that makes camera optimized for quick, ephemeral snapshots. It's the optimization for quick snapshots that's pushing out the more permanent use of photos.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#285

Post by scarface74 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #211
jankyxenon wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple has plenty of incentive not to yank reviewable units from people who've gotten them early in the past, when/if they get a bad review. Taints the whole point of doing reviews.

> Taints the whole point of doing reviews. It certainly does, which is why you can never trust an early review of an Apple product. https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-manipu...

The article is extremely weak and then tried to explain way why some publications who say negative things don’t get blacklisted.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#286

Post by Gravityloss »

ricardobeat wrote: post #229
Gravityloss wrote: post #69

I have two requirements for camera: fast startup time from a standby to taking photos, and working touch exposure control. The majority of phones I've tested do not provide these. For some reason, on Oneplus 5 it works. I tested a newer model and it was worse. Sure, on a newer phone the photos are better for example resolution wise, but that's usually not the limiting factor. I have some street photo / rangefinder ho…

> working touch exposure control what do you mean? A long press gives you immediate access to exposure on the iPhone. There are also dedicated photo apps (like Halide, mentioned in the article) that offer more advanced controls.

Let's say I'm photographing someone who is backlit, against the sky. By default, the person looks like black silhouette since the camera chooses an exposure that doesn't make the sky completely white.

I also don't want to have the person in the center of the frame, because that would be really boring framing. Photography 101.

On my current phone I can do the framing how I want, then touch the person on the touch screen. The phone instantly readjusts the exposure upwards so that now the person is more properly exposed and the sky is overexposed. This is what I wanted. Then I continue on to take the photo. This doesn't seem to work on many other phones. I never enter any menus or do any wheel adjustments. It takes extremely little time and is a very natural workflow.

On a rangefinder camera one would aim the center of the screen at the person, then hold the shutter halfway so it would pick the exposure from there, then frame (=aim somewhere else) and take the photo. If you have autofocus, it also focuses on the half-press.

In neither case are there any manual adjustments or looking at any buttons. Your eyes are on the viewfinder / photo area all the time.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#287

Post by dpark »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #282
dpark wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but there’s no concrete examples there. There’s a bunch of broad claims that Apple will blacklist journalists for X, Y, and Z but no names or evidence that it’s actually happening. I can believe that Apple might do this (especially since he also cites openly breaking rules by doing things like live-streaming when it’s been explicitly forbidden) but this article doesn’t convince me it’s happening or educate me on…

The article links to a few concrete examples. You'll have to use the Wayback Machine to access them.

No it doesn’t. It contains a link to an article about supposed “whitelisting” and one about supposedly giving WaPo and exclusive interview in retaliation to the NYT’s critical reporting. These are both the exact opposite of the blacklisting the article asserts exists. Then it links to an article about blacklisting but dismissed it as inaccurate. So there’s nothing linked about actual blacklisting examples by Apple unless I’ve missed something. Elgan doesn’t even say why he is blacklisted.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#288

Post by Damogran6 »

iCarrot wrote: post #278
Damogran6 wrote: post #264

My DSLR is aging out...they've changed lens mounts (manufacturers seem to do that just long enough to blow the cost benefit of keeping lenses long term...I use my phone for 98% of my photos. The last one I actually printed out (a panorama) came from my iPhone XS Max. I just can't justify a $1200 camera purchase to replace my Sony A57...and I'm a little sad about it.

It must have been the move to mirrorless that forced a mount change. Even Nikon abandoned their F mount line (which started in 1959) and introduced Z mount for their mirrorless. Also given how often Sony is churning out new cameras these days, going secondhand will save you serious dough.

I think you're right on all accounts. The adapter to let the old lenses work on the new bodies is the thickness of the pentaprism on the old camera. It's designed to keep the geometry of the stuff that got removed when they went mirrorless.

A lightly used A-mount (like an A77) is an intriguing thought...if it had a kit lens, then my kids could keep using the a57 til it failed completely.

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#289

Post by dadarepublic »

joeyprr wrote: post #162
dadarepublic wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound mad. Are you mad at Apple? Mad at some random pro photographer who obviously likes Apple? It reads like a photographer who is a fan of Apple's camera tech. Shows some very nice photos (bc he's a pro or something I gather). Not an "advertisement". I can't see where any money changed hands from Apple to this photographer to write what he did. And I'm sure everyone who is a fan of shooting on Android phones wi…

To be completely honest, your comment makes me think you're the one who's mad... or at least not very sane; you're assuming a person is mad about something based on 1 whole sentence (a sentence people seem to agree with) and proceed to go on a rant in which you ask the same question 3 times!

LOL. I don't think you're being completely honest.

From your reply, it would appear you are also upset and want to defend someone who's upset about an article that has a gushing review of an Apple product.

Apple is just one of those companies that is very divisive within the tech community - for some reason or the other.

I could make an assumption that you're another person who is 'annoyed' by the existence of Apple. But I won't.

So you question my sanity bc I question why the OP was upset.

Maybe you're just annoyed by existence.

So why are you mad?

grabs popcorn

Re: iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review

#290

Post by dadarepublic »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #180
dadarepublic wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the replies from toasterlovin (below) summed it up on the diff between PR and ads so I'll leave it at that.

The root of what you are asserting is that is ANY review is corp PR. Which is partially true - a review (good or bad), and esp high profile reviews, can shift conversations around its subject.

For smaller entities, any publicity is good publicity, not as true for larger entities.

So if Apple gave a review copy of a phone to a photographer, that based on his past writings, Apple was fairly sure would write something "positive" - they made a good bet and the review copy of the phone paid dividends.

That being said, the article isn't corp PR - it reads like a "fanboy" review and that's exactly how I took it. Not an advert.

Personally for camera tech I like sites like dpreview.com (no review site is perfect).

I did like some of the example photos in this article tho - don't know if I could ever reach that quality but I'm not a pro photographer.

Post reply on HN