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

121–130 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#121

Post by nop_slide »

eddd-ddde wrote: post #83
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.

Get a Fuji

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#123

Post by snicky »

rainsford wrote: post #100
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 agree with your iPhone camera advantages, but to that list I'd add that I'm already going to buy an iPhone, which means any comparison of value for the price is effectively between the price of a camera (which for even an entry-level mirrorless isn't exactly cheap) and literally zero dollars. You could argue that the phone would be cheaper without the nice camera to make for a fairer comparison, but such a product…

This applies only if you assume that you are not willing to spend more on a phone with a better camera and a lot of people do. I have friends who decided to buy an iPhone over way cheaper Android phones in the past, because "the iPhone camera was so much better". Funny enough, the differences were obviously negligible when compared with any actual camera.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#125

Post by tehnub »

tylermw wrote: post #44
_fw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly it. A lot of the author's comments about skin tone and 'flat' colour are spot on though. To your point, take six steps back and use the 5x zoom on an iPhone Pro and you'll get a much better effect. As they say, the best camera is the one you have in your pocket. Physics means it can never replace a large sensor with a large lens... ... But Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, The Beach, Trainspotting, 127 Hour…

For 28 Years Later, note that while the iPhone sensor did in fact ultimately collect the photons for the movie, they attached substantial professional-grade glass to the front to augment the phone camera.

My understanding is that all that extra gear is mainly to enable more ergonomic manual control for things like focus. The matte box and ND filter are probably the biggest boosts to image and motion quality, and there are affordable ways to get those on your phone.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#126

Post by saithier »

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)

There are three different lenses on the iPhone 16 Pro. Which one gets used is determined by the "zoom" level you pick. The "0.5x" picks the widest angle lens, the "1x" and "2x" use the same lens, and the "5x" uses the third lens.

If you wish to reduce optical distortion and can get farther away from the subject, you'll want to pick the "5x" zoom. Think somebody else here said it was a 105mm equivalent, which sounds about right.

Intermediate values are obviously crops... although given that the 0.5x and the 1x lens are both 48mp sensors (IIRC), and the resulting image is typically 12mp, it doesn't make as big of a quality difference as one might ordinarily think.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#127

Post by scosman »

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…

Also:

- your entry level mirrorless is ~$300 of camera HW vs ~$80 of camera HW on the phone (very very rough estimate of sensor+lens BOM)

- the mirrorless doesn't have any of the physical constraints of being tiny and fitting in a pocket, which directly impact image quality

iPhones cameras are really amazing given the constraints.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#128

Post by jpalawaga »

scosman wrote: post #127
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…

Also: - your entry level mirrorless is ~$300 of camera HW vs ~$80 of camera HW on the phone (very very rough estimate of sensor+lens BOM) - the mirrorless doesn't have any of the physical constraints of being tiny and fitting in a pocket, which directly impact image quality iPhones cameras are really amazing given the constraints.

i mean, he didn't say that the iphone camera was bad, just that it doesn't stand up to dedicated gear (which it doesn't, but a lot of people will tell you, especially apple's "shot on iphone" marketing campaign, that it will).

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#129

Post by grapesodaaaaa »

scosman wrote: post #127
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…

Also: - your entry level mirrorless is ~$300 of camera HW vs ~$80 of camera HW on the phone (very very rough estimate of sensor+lens BOM) - the mirrorless doesn't have any of the physical constraints of being tiny and fitting in a pocket, which directly impact image quality iPhones cameras are really amazing given the constraints.

I would add that part of the reason it’s ~$80 of hardware is absolutely economies of scale.

It’s a lot easier to pump out quality parts for less money when you order 10 million of them and potentially helped finance a factory to build them.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#130

Post by rjh29 »

sturza wrote: post #3

Computerized phone photography is not for desktop viewing, printing, etc. It appears to look "amazing" on phone displays - probably optimized for that.

And nowadays unless you professionally shooting photos for a billboard, bedroom poster or newspaper advert - that is clearly enough. 99%+ of photo viewing is done on a phone or tablet screen.
Post reply on HN