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

iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

candid9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#61

Post by markhalonen »

aosaigh wrote: post #29

These are some good examples. I'd love more on this. I returned to amateur photography a few years ago (Fuji XT-4). I previously used a DSLR when I was younger (10+ years ago) but my camera was stolen at some point so I was left with just the phone. I had started to think phone photography was catching up with amateur photography, as I saw friends getting great results with their phones on Instagram etc. But I've com…

digicams are making a huge comeback among young adults. Even a pocket digicam is a big step up from iPhone imo.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#62

Post by piva00 »

dale_glass wrote: post #51
FredPret wrote: post #33

My entry-level mirrorless camera with its kit lens can take photos that blow my recent-model iPhone out of the water. Add a nice lens and there's no comparison. However: - The iPhone is always in my pocket (until I crack and buy a flip-phone) - The iPhone picture always turns out, but the Canon takes a modicum of skill, which my wife is not interested in, and I'll never be able to teach passers-by when they take a gr…

There's always micro four thirds. I think it's a bit of an underappreciated format, really. It can have really compact cameras, and also they tend to have quite a lot of fancy tech in them.

Mirrorless APS-C platforms pushed micro 4/3 out, similar footprint with APS-C sensors is hard to beat.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#63

Post by aikinai »

vFunct wrote: post #54

They're still over saturated. Skin tones always have a cosmetic/tanned look compared to real life. Mirrorless camera photos have a lot better output. You can see that even in the first sample comparison. If you look at the photo on the iPhone right when you took it, it doesn't look like the subject you just took a photo of. It's always over saturated compared to real life. But really, the biggest advantage that mirro…

I never use flash and real cameras are still in a completely different league. There are tons of advantages, but I think the biggest different is dynamic range. Faces, hair, etc. look so dark on phone photos. And even if I try to manually push up the exposure and let it blow out the background, it will still never give me bright faces indoors.

Of course then there's the lack of detail and watercolor effect to try to fake detail, distortion, etc.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#64

Post by Almondsetat »

aosaigh wrote: post #58
Almondsetat wrote: post #50

Framing is different because of bad lens choice on the photo part (why always shoot wide angle??) and this skews the results immensely and unfairly (composition is the most important thing in a photo). Colors are fine on anything that isn't skin tones. But even then, smartphone manufacturers actually focus a lot on skin tones, so if these are the results it's because they have determined this is the look most people…

Not really. Look at the sky, it's very different between the two. This is something I've noticed constantly with iPhones in particular. To the point where I don't bother trying to take photos that focus on the sky or sunset as it heavily processes the results (extreme oranges and deep blues).

Those are the colors people like. Go and look at how photographers usually try to make skies more dramatic for clients in all kind of photoshoots (weddings, events, postcard pictures, etc.). That's what the market wants. You can disagree, but it's not like smartphone companies are incompetent and don't know how photography works (not that you have made this claim)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#65

Post by StrLght »

Photos taken on an iPhone are good, unless you:

* zoom in

* print them

* watch them on a bigger screen

Sometimes I compare photos I've taken over 10 years ago with Sony NEX-5 with photos I take today with an iPhone. There's no competition, APS-C from 15 years ago is still solid.

Anyway, the best camera is the one you have with you, so in that sense iPhone is great.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#66

Post by markhalonen »

dataflow wrote: post #15
markhalonen wrote: post #4

woah I am the author. I don't even have analytics set up on this site, but hope everyone enjoys it!

Feedback: I absolutely love the idea of doing analysis like this, but it's incredibly frustrating to be shown photos that were clearly taken at different times when the subjects naturally don't look exactly the same. Like for example who's to say that player isn't actually leaning? The second photo sure doesn't prove anything. And comparing them side by side feels like an exercise in frustration. I would probably (if…

you'll have to believe me when I say they are not leaning. They were just standing there posing for the photo.

Would love for someone else to get more scientific about it, but I think the results would be the same.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#67

Post by Almondsetat »

markhalonen wrote: post #57
Almondsetat wrote: post #50

Framing is different because of bad lens choice on the photo part (why always shoot wide angle??) and this skews the results immensely and unfairly (composition is the most important thing in a photo). Colors are fine on anything that isn't skin tones. But even then, smartphone manufacturers actually focus a lot on skin tones, so if these are the results it's because they have determined this is the look most people…

"you will have the average complexion and you will like it" rofl

who are you quoting?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#68

Post by aosaigh »

markhalonen wrote: post #61
aosaigh wrote: post #29

These are some good examples. I'd love more on this. I returned to amateur photography a few years ago (Fuji XT-4). I previously used a DSLR when I was younger (10+ years ago) but my camera was stolen at some point so I was left with just the phone. I had started to think phone photography was catching up with amateur photography, as I saw friends getting great results with their phones on Instagram etc. But I've com…

digicams are making a huge comeback among young adults. Even a pocket digicam is a big step up from iPhone imo.

I have a Ricoh GIII which is astonishing for its size. That said, it’s expensive so probably not an entry level pocket camera.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#69

Post by markhalonen »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #9
markhalonen wrote: post #4

woah I am the author. I don't even have analytics set up on this site, but hope everyone enjoys it!

What kind of camera was used for the non-iphone shots?

sony a6400 with sigma 30mm f/1.4, but then the child one is a 2004 Digicam I think a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#70

Post by aosaigh »

I also think there’s something special about looking through a viewfinder.

Even in new cameras (where the viewfinder itself is a tiny screen) something happens when you frame a photo this way, that doesn’t happen when you use the back display (or a phone).

I don’t know if it’s down to physically using one eye, or the psychology of bringing your eye to the camera’s eye, but it feels different (and I like it)

Post reply on HN