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

111–120 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#111

Post by Zak »

breadwinner wrote: post #84
markhalonen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It appears the long lens on that phone is 120mm-equivalent ("5x") and any intermediate zoom is just cropping. A 2x "zoom" (crop) would get pretty close to the field of view of the author's dedicated camera lens, but with further reduced image quality.

Actually using the iPhone telephoto for a group photo like the one shown in the article would require the photographer to stand a considerable distance from the subjects, and then we might start noticing a little perspective distortion from the 45mm-equivalent lens on the Sony.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#112

Post by jonny_eh »

bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

How else to justify spending thousands on a device that can only shoot pictures?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#113

Post by rodgerd »

FredPret wrote: post #92
PaulHoule wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I find that photos from a prime look better in some undefinable way. Maybe it's because there's more light coming through, or maybe it's just easier for them to make a prime with great optics than a zoom with great optics. I shoot on manual with auto-ISO straight to JPG (I don't have time for RAW editing), so my prime photos tend to have lower ISO's and I end up with a faster shutter.

There's measurements to support your feeling that primes are better than zooms: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/11/stopping-down-some-... and https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-wa...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#114

Post by hnuser123456 »

bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

All these photos also seem to be taken at a further distance at a higher zoom with the digicam. Use 2x mode on iphone and step back a bit and the perspective/distortion should be similar. 12mp is still plenty. Also, they didn't mention if they turned off face smoothing on the iphone.

Google a couple years ago, however, made a big stink that they were forcing an always-on filter to "enhance" the appearance of dark skin on Pixels, so yeah you might need a real camera to get accurate photos of subjects with darker skin if you have a pixel.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#115

Post by Zak »

BadJo0Jo0 wrote: post #87

Wasn't there a phone with a lens mount system using that maker's existing lens eco system? I cant remember the maker. Sony? Nikon?

No. Sony and Olympus both made interchangeable-lens cameras with no screen or viewfinder meant to pair with phones. Realme made a prototype phone that can take an attachment to mount Leica M-mount lenses: https://petapixel.com/2025/03/04/realmes-ultra-phone-concept...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#116

Post by its-summertime »

bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

> Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer forcing them to stand there and hold a pose while they fiddled with their weird little machine.

Considering there are 2 photos of the same subjects, this reasoning becomes very order-dependent, we don't know the order of the photos taken, so we shouldn't be judging the photos on things affected by that.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#117

Post by throwanem »

its-summertime wrote: post #116
bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

> Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer forcing them to stand there and hold a pose while they fiddled with their weird little machine. Considering there are 2 photos of the same subjects, this reasoning becomes very order-dependent, we don't know the order of the photos taken, so we shouldn't be judging the photos on things affected by that.

We should, however, so judge the claim that the photos are directly comparable, as is attempted here.

I honestly can't tell what the site author is trying to do. Criticizing oversaturation is reasonable. Claiming the camera is responsible for differences in pose and composition is madness.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#118

Post by throwanem »

jonny_eh wrote: post #112
bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

How else to justify spending thousands on a device that can only shoot pictures?

Competence. But you're right something is off here.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#119

Post by _2d30 »

bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

> The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer forcing them to stand there and hold a pose while they fiddled with their weird little machine.

What an odd thing to infer. Just a really large leap.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#120

Post by dataflow »

markhalonen wrote: post #66
dataflow wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I mean, if believing your words were enough to convey the message, then there'd be no point in taking the second photo and comparing them.

The point here isn't whether you're telling the truth (of course you are), it's about being able to see what's going on and get an intuitive feel for what changes and what stays the same. When I said "who's to say they're not leaning" my point wasn't to call you a liar; it was to say that that question is what immediately arises in your audience's brain, and it's completely distracting. Trust can't correct for the visual discrepancy, even if I had taken for the photo myself.

Post reply on HN