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

81–90 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#81

Post by PaulHoule »

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.

If I transition from semi-pro to pro I am thinking of picking one of those up because the 300mm lens is the equivalent of a 600mm and good for taking pictures of birds but fits in a reasonable backpack. Built in focus-stacking is another advantage over my Sony.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#82

Post by fallinghawks »

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…

I was pretty irked by that as well. The change from smiling to not smiling affects face shape. But at least the building and car photos were stationary enough to illustrate the fisheye quality.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#83

Post by eddd-ddde »

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…

Curious what camera model you have. I've been meaning to get into photography and I'm looking for a decent starter camera.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#84

Post by breadwinner »

markhalonen wrote: post #73
breadwinner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And which lens was used?

which lens on my iPhone? Just the camera app like everyone else. For the good photo, it's a 30mm lens on Sony a6400 (45mm equivalent)

Yes, but on the camera app, you should set 3x to use the longest lens. This will avoid distortion.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#85

Post by dale_glass »

piva00 wrote: post #62
dale_glass wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but I think micro 4/3 still can be a good deal smaller. It's just that a fair amount of the cameras didn't make good use of that.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#86

Post by drcongo »

markhalonen wrote: post #79
drcongo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start, but the fact that they didn't bother to take the photos at the same time with an equivalent focal length makes the entire thing pointless.

How do you take a 45mm focal length photo with iPhone?

I said "equivalent" - the 2x lens is a 48mm equivalent so that difference would be almost invisible to most people.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#88

Post by FredPret »

markhalonen wrote: post #76
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…

I've had passer-bys take group photos with a real camera, no problem. What issues do you run into?

"Which button do I press" comes up every time; other times it's focus or zoom level that's out.

On the iPhone, ~everyone on the planet instinctively knows how to do it.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#89

Post by FredPret »

PaulHoule wrote: post #80
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…

I put a 90mm prime [1] on my Sony, set it to aperture priority, put the strap over someone's head and deputize them to get headshots ("frame it up with the viewfinder and push the button") and they do OK so long as the light is predictable. I wish I could tell the auto mode to let the ISO go higher than it will because I do noise reduction in developing such that there is no real quality loss at 6400. [1] takes lovel…

I love the idea of that 90mm prime.

But usually when I have passers-by take photos, the context is that we are posing in front of a church in Europe or something, and space can be limited.

I can't very well ask people to take a photo and but first to take 20 paces back and then do a crouch!

My wife wants to see our shoes as well as the church spires in the same photo. Maybe a 35mm or even 28mm would work well in our case.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#90

Post by PaulHoule »

FredPret wrote: post #89
PaulHoule wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put a 90mm prime [1] on my Sony, set it to aperture priority, put the strap over someone's head and deputize them to get headshots ("frame it up with the viewfinder and push the button") and they do OK so long as the light is predictable. I wish I could tell the auto mode to let the ISO go higher than it will because I do noise reduction in developing such that there is no real quality loss at 6400. [1] takes lovel…

I love the idea of that 90mm prime. But usually when I have passers-by take photos, the context is that we are posing in front of a church in Europe or something, and space can be limited. I can't very well ask people to take a photo and but first to take 20 paces back and then do a crouch! My wife wants to see our shoes as well as the church spires in the same photo. Maybe a 35mm or even 28mm would work well in our…

Definitely thinking of getting another prime but a ‘normal’ one with autofocus doesn’t really do anything I can’t with my zooms, I like 7artisans primes and might get one that is crazy wide but those are manual focus and take more skill —- I was so happy to get home and see I nailed this one

https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114042752203552070

Post reply on HN