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

161–170 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#161

Post by makeitdouble »

nixass wrote: post #10

I'm always sad when I pull up holidays photos on my monitor. Even though Pixels make great photos, they're great only on small OLED screens. Gonna clean the dust out of Nikon D3200 with proper lens and use that instead. Casual photos will be made byy wife anyway

It might not be for everyone, but digging in the camera controls helped tremendously for me.

In particular, manual focus with the actual focus scale (no tap around on some surrogate object) and in-focus indicator, control to set a lower ISO in scenes where the phone wants to pull a faster image, or set a higher shutter speed even on darker situations.

Or on the pro line you get the option to stop automatic lens switching, which gives a lot more control (stay on the best lens/sensor and adjust for it yourself, instead of the phone trying to be clever)

All in all it stops being a point and shoot, and there will be a more missed pictures because of wrong settings, but the highs are also a lot higher in my experience. And it can go back to the "all auto" mode anytime.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#162

Post by dankwizard »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #6

I honestly can't see much of a difference that couldn't be explained by the photos not being taken simultaneously. I definitely can't tell enough of a difference that I wouldn't put the photo in a frame on the wall (which people almost certainly do, despite the author's assertion that "you never see a smartphone photo printed and framed") Edit: Is this just a good bit of sarcasm/shitpost? If so, it's just a tad too s…

It's subtle shitpost. He's playing the angle of camera bros that just can't accept any Tom, Dick, or Harry with an iphone could take a 95% comparable photo but don't call themselves photographers.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#163

Post by loeg »

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…

$200 for iphone pro vs regular (I only got Pro for the camera). But otherwise, yeah.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#164

Post by CarVac »

hatthew wrote: post #135

My only significant gripe with phone cameras is that they oversharpen everything. Sharpening can subjectively make things look better as long as you don't zoom in too much, but has one significant problem: desaturation . In high-detail high-contras areas, e.g. the foreground grass, the sharpening pushes many of the pixels towards black or white, which are, notably, not green. This has the overall effect of desaturati…

Unfortunately, if the phone camera images are processed without oversharpening, the results are extremely soft.

Also, the wide lenses on most phones are actually very heavily distorted nearly to the point of being fisheye, and made rectilinear with processing.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#165

Post by 9rx »

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…

> I'm not sure what to do in these scenario's

    > "My phone takes better photos"
Problem solved.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#166

Post by cultofmetatron »

throwawaybob420 wrote: post #159

The amount of people who get really defensive when people actually point out that, no, your iPhone is not in anyway comparable to an actual dedicated camera is kinda crazy.

I take a iphone and a nikon z5 with me. in their defense, if you dont' know what you're doing, the iphone will consistently take better photos. my z5 photo beat it any day but I had to learn how to be intentional with it in order to get that difference.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#167

Post by lambdasquirrel »

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…

> but the Canon takes a modicum of skill, which my wife is not interested in

And so, the reasons why Fuji and point-and-shoots are popular. Lots of “serious” photography enthusiasts don’t really get this and call Fujis “hype” cameras but it’s like bashing Wordpress because most people don’t want to learn AWS to post cat pics.

> The iPhone is always in my pocket

Rationale for both point-and-shoots as well as Leica (also hated by lots of serious camera people ;)).

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#168

Post by actuallyalys »

I basically agree with the author that the iPhone's camera is inferior to dedicated cameras, at least in the hands of a photographer who's learned to use them. To me it's striking that there's even a question. My first camera as a child was a cheap film camera[0], and the first digital cameras I saw firsthand, as cool as they were at the time, had even worse quality. Now smartphones have much better quality for people pointing and shooting and do it while crammed into a device that does many other things.

Now, I'd hate for dedicated cameras to go away. I love shooting on SLRs, digital and film. I see smartphone cameras not as pretenders to the throne but as democratizing tools lowering the barrier for entry and a great way to get shots when you don't have your dedicated camera.

[0]: for the record, the issue with the camera was that it was cheap and I didn't know what I was doing, not that it was film.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#169

Post by lambdasquirrel »

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…

This does not address the detrimental parts of computational photography.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#170

Post by deadbabe »

Smartphone cameras have always been shit, the best thing about them is that you have them all the time.

But then I bought a Ricoh GrIIIx, which is very pocketable and takes amazing photos. Even has a handy remote view function through WiFi. I don’t bother with my phone anymore.

Post reply on HN