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

191–200 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#191

Post by acherion »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #187

I got interested in photography during my travels, and my wife is very interested in it. I bought a decent camera. I really enjoyed playing with it, and spent some happy hours learning about it. I even took some decent photos (well, I liked them anyway). But in the end, carrying it became a chore and trying to take off-the-cuff photos during adventures took too long. I found that we needed to go for specific "photogr…

Why can't you be both? I am an amateur photographer, but it doesn't mean that I carry my camera with me everywhere that I go. I see photography as a hobby, so when I feel like I want to do "hobby things" I bring a camera with me. I prepare myself to do so. It doesn't mean that I don't use my phone camera at all (in fact I upgraded my phone purely for the "better camera").

If you are just taking snapshots to share with friends, then it makes sense to not bring the camera. But if it's your hobby, where you sit down and take time and care to take a photo, then it's a different game altogether.

I don't often print my photos out and put them on a wall, but I do have my own photography blog where I post the photos I take (with a camera). I think the article is still relevant to that kind of scenario too.

I think the purpose of this kind of page is to outline differences between taking a snapshot and taking a photo. This is to argue back at people who think that taking a photo with an iPhone is just as good _in any situation_ and think that _anyone_ with a camera is wasting their time. It also attempts to combat the prevalent myth that more megapixels = better photos. Yes that myth still exists in 2025.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#192

Post by Waterluvian »

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’m not sure I’ve seen a single actual case of this. But I also haven’t seen a single actual case of anyone having any loud opinions about their phones for many many years now. I might just be finally old.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#193

Post by strogonoff »

Espressosaurus wrote: post #185
SoftTalker wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Usually it's "FOV equivalent", e.g. scaled to a full frame sensor size. Tiny sensor size means you maybe have a 10mm focal length, but the size of the sensor relative to 10mm makes it the FOV of a 70mm lens on a full frame camera. You see similar when people are comparing APS-C, micro 4/3, or medium format lenses.

Physics really works out such that the smaller you make camera sensor, the smaller you can make the lens. Full-frame lenses tend to be markedly bigger for equivalent quality compared to, say, APS-C lenses.

However, due to physics there is also no working around the quality issues of a small sensor. Photosites get less light and produce more noise, and automated noise suppression costs detail and sharpness.

I wonder whether tiny lenses of equivalent sharpness and clarity as their larger equivalents would be much more expensive or impossible to produce (sure, less material, but much finer precision required), but it probably doesn’t matter because the tiny sensor already loses enough sharpness that better lenses won’t contribute much.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#194

Post by snackernews »

snicky wrote: post #123
rainsford wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And upgrade frequency. You might give your old iPhone another year or two if the phone isn’t your limiting factor for photo quality.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#195

Post by its-summertime »

throwanem wrote: post #117
its-summertime wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The claim is that the pose hasn't changed, but how the camera represents the pose has, due to distortion, perspective, et al.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#196

Post by askbjoernhansen »

chongli wrote: post #189
dangus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with computational photography is that it uses software to make photos "look good" for everyday users. That may be an advantage for those users but it is basically a non-starter for a photographer because it makes it a crapshoot to take photos which predictably and faithfully render the scene.

Lots of apps gives you other options for how to process the image data.

I've had a bunch of "high-end" digital SLRs and they (and the software processing the raw files) do plenty computational processing as well.

I completely agree that all else being equal it's possible to get photos with better technical quality from a big sensor, big lens, big raw file; but this article is more an example of "if you take sloppy photos with your phone camera you get sloppy photos".

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#197

Post by roesel »

sudosysgen wrote: post #109
PaulHoule wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put a 90mm prime [1] on my Sony, set it to aperture priority, put the strap over someone's head and deputize them to get headshots ("frame it up with the viewfinder and push the button") and they do OK so long as the light is predictable. I wish I could tell the auto mode to let the ISO go higher than it will because I do noise reduction in developing such that there is no real quality loss at 6400. [1] takes lovel…

On many Sony models, you can set the camera to aperture priority instead of auto, set ISO to Auto ISO, and then change the max ISO to whatever you want; this is what I do in your situation.

If I set aperture priority to "maximum possible light in", I often have an issue that when there is insufficient light, the camera decreases shutter speed instead of cranking up the ISO (to the set upper limit), which would be much more desireable. This results in blurry images due to the longer exposure. I would much more prefer a grainy image over a blurred one in this case.

Do you know if there is any option of setting a limit on shutter speed while in aperture mode?

(I understand I can go full manual, but that just doesn't allow for the same point-and-shoot experience in changing light conditions.)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#198

Post by roesel »

PaulHoule wrote: post #80
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 put a 90mm prime [1] on my Sony, set it to aperture priority, put the strap over someone's head and deputize them to get headshots ("frame it up with the viewfinder and push the button") and they do OK so long as the light is predictable. I wish I could tell the auto mode to let the ISO go higher than it will because I do noise reduction in developing such that there is no real quality loss at 6400. [1] takes lovel…

I would love to do: - set aperture priority (fully open for most cases) - set shutter speed to AUTO with a limit (never open for longer than 1/100 s) - set ISO to AUTO with a limit (never go above 6400)

If there is insufficient light, then by all means, the camera should adjust the shutter speed past the limit, but not until it has used all the available "reasonable" ISO range.

It's a shame I have to wrestle my Sony a6400 to get something even remotely close to this.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#199

Post by deathanatos »

FredPret wrote: post #88
markhalonen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had passer-bys take group photos with a real camera, no problem. What issues do you run into?

"Which button do I press" comes up every time; other times it's focus or zoom level that's out. On the iPhone, ~everyone on the planet instinctively knows how to do it.

I usually just tell people.

> "Which button do I press"

The Big One.

> focus

It's automatic. (If I'm handing a stranger my camera.)

> zoom level

This is maybe the hardest one, I guess, … but I do think most people have seen enough TV cop dramas to instinctively know. Or, they can just take the photo at the zoom I've handed them, and it won't be a big deal. Walking forward a few steps is also like zooming.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#200

Post by _tik_ »

dangus wrote: post #174
lambdasquirrel wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can see a noticeable loss of detail in the iPhone sample photos. Personally, I prefer cameras that prioritize capturing more detail over simply producing visually pleasing images. Detailed photos offer much more flexibility for post-processing.
Post reply on HN