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

171–180 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#171

Post by Aurornis »

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.

> no, your iPhone is not in anyway comparable to an actual dedicated camera

9 times out of 10 when I see someone making this claim it’s engagement bait. They know it triggers people and generates interactions.

I think most people are well aware that they’re not the same. The point usually made is that it’s amazing that we can get such good photos out of something that fits in our pockets. In well-lit scenes you really can get some impressive image quality out of those tiny devices.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#172

Post by userbinator »

At least the "real" camera won't be hallucinating detail that isn't there.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29739235

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35107601

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35365510

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38482085

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39926633 (sanity prevails)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#173

Post by SchemaLoad »

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 get sent a lot of photos of me cosplaying at conventions, and something I've noticed is that the phone photos are almost always nicer in general. The people who do photography as a hobby seem to always edit the photo too extreme and you get whack HDR type effects or they just aren't as skilled at manually setting settings as the iphone auto mode.

But, the dedicated camera photos are always massively higher resolution. You can zoom in on details and they look great, while phone photos seem to use AI upscailers and they look bad

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#174

Post by dangus »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #169
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.

Which I’m personally failing to witness consistently by the “evidence” in this article.

Most of the photo examples here were somewhere between “I can’t tell a significant difference” and “flip a coin and you might find people who prefer the iPhone result more.”

Even less of a difference when they’re printed out and put in a 5x7” frame.

Keep in mind the cost of a smartphone camera is $0. You already own one. You were going to buy a smartphone anyway for other things. So if we are going to sit and argue about quality we still have to figure out what dollar value these differences are worth to people.

And the “evidence” is supposedly that people aren’t getting their phone photos printed out. But let’s not forget the fact that you literally couldn’t see your film photos without printing them when we were using film cameras.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#175

Post by SoftTalker »

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…

Can you really have a 70mm focal length on a phone that is less than 10mm thick? I thought it was simulated by cropping the image from the actual very short focal length.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#176

Post by dangus »

quest88 wrote: post #14

The differences are subtle to me. I see them but it doesn’t prevent me or my family from printing and hanging iPhone photos. I want to hang fun photos from family vacation for the memories.

The opening statement of the article is almost insulting in how badly it abuses correlation, causation, and the concept of cause and effect.

It effectively states that people don’t print photos anymore because phones produce bad photos.

But back in the film camera days you literally had to develop and print the photos to see them. There was no universal device for viewing photos that you always had on you.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#178

Post by dangus »

9rx wrote: post #165
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.

The actual answer is not to engage in the discussion.

“I prefer the photos I take from this camera.”

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#179

Post by jeswin »

SoftTalker wrote: post #175
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…

Can you really have a 70mm focal length on a phone that is less than 10mm thick? I thought it was simulated by cropping the image from the actual very short focal length.

Yes, periscope lenses are fairly common on phones. 10x "optical zoom".
Post reply on HN