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

151–160 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#151

Post by throwawaybob420 »

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…

what? You can literally objectively see how much more “normal” they look on an actual camera. Especially the guy on the left, he looks atrocious on the iPhone

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#152

Post by relaxing »

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…

> connect a huge, powerful flash that you can directly fire at the subject

fucking hell

“fashion photographer thinks all portraits should look like the red carpet” wasn’t on my batshit opinions bingo card.

Wedding photographers use bounce flash because indirect light is flattering and not everyone is supermodel-beautiful.

I don’t know where you’re partying that the ceilings aren’t painted white (they usually are because the problem of color cast on reflected light applies to normal room lights as well) but I’ll take color balance I can fix in post over harsh shadows from direct fill flash.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#153

Post by throwawaybob420 »

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?

Do you know how childish you sound? That specialized equipment that does one thing really really fucking well is expensive? Is this supposed to be a gotcha

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#154

Post by [deleted] »

makeitdouble wrote: post #143

It was a nice analysis of wide angle lenses, what processing is needed to adjust for the physical limitations, and on processing picture. From there: > Real cameras capture shadow more accurately. > professional cameras That's saying that real cameras don't use wide angle lenses nor have an image processing pipeline, and professionals of the field have adequately labeled cameras. This kinda makes the whole piece so s…

[deleted]

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#155

Post by sazylusan »

dagmx wrote: post #38

The points really boil down to: 1. Difference in focal length/ position. 2. Difference in color processing But…the article is fairly weak on both points? 1. It’s unclear why the author is comparing different focal lengths without clarifying what they used. If I use the 24mm equivalent on either my full frame or my iPhone, the perspective will be largely the same modulo some lens correction. Same if I use the 70mm or…

Agreed, in particular the distortion of the players on the ends, the smaller shoulders and chest, as well as the lean can all be attributed to the wider lens used on the iPhone (and as such that the photo was taken closer to players). I'd guess the author was using the "1x" lens on the iPhone, a lot of these issues go away if they use the "3x" or "5x" lens. I'd even consider that most of the jawline change of the player is simply the angle of their chin/face as well as expression.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#156

Post by throwawaybob420 »

kittikitti wrote: post #146

This is a great article, thank you for this. I will save it as a reference. I usually get unsolicited advice from people when I use my Fujifilm camera's about how a smartphone would shoot better. Even though I own one of the latest iPhone's, there's no comparison between the two. I don't mind the comments but there's always someone. There's also people with the latest phones who come and brag about their photo qualit…

Honestly those people are fucking worst. Somehow having an actual camera makes people feel…inadequate? Like cmon dude, let me take my photos why do you have to start saying “oh my phone takes better photos, and i can use it to watch YouTube”

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#157

Post by throwawaybob420 »

relaxing wrote: post #145
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)

[flagged]

What’s with this overtly hostile attitude.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#158

Post by jrockway »

kazinator wrote: post #141

Beginner Photographer's pictures would compare better if they used a wider depth of field so the background objects are sharp, like the iPhone pics. But, conversely, how do you do the narrow(er) depth-of-field in the iPhone when you want it?

The iPhone blurred background is completely synthetic. It uses multiple cameras to build a depth map of the scene, and then blurs whatever isn't at the depth of the subject of the photo.

If you're asking "how do you do", you can select "portrait" when taking the photo, or go to the photo in your gallery after the fact, pick "edit", pick "portrait", and choose a fake aperture ("f/1.4") and focus point to use. The results are ... mid.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#160

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #81
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.

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.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/tech/android-phones/xiaom...

Lagniappe: https://youtube.com/shorts/shLpGFTQeNQ

Post reply on HN