iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras • Hacker News Board

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#211

Post by ChrisGreenHeur » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 4:34 AM UTC

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.

Your brain also uses software to make what you see look good

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#212

Post by Derbasti » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 4:38 AM UTC

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…

> Keep in mind the cost of a smartphone camera is $0.

Many people buy a more expensive smartphone specifically for the better camera module. These are expensive devices! It's good marketing that you perceive that as "free", but in reality, I spend way less money on my fancy camera (new models every five years), than my iPhone-loving friends on their annual upgrades.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#213

Post by al_borland » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 4:47 AM UTC

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…

Not only is the iPhone always in your pocket, but it’s easier to carry and deal with.

I remember hearing a story from a well known photographer about a trip he took with a few others, including his wife. They woke up early to head out on a small boat in a lake or something. He was lugging all this gear and having to put a lot of focus into tuning the settings on his camera, he was pretty miserable. Meanwhile, his wife was enjoying morning with no baggage and snapping pics with her phone. She ended up having the best picture of the day, while actually enjoying herself, by not being bogged down by the gear.

Dedicated cameras have their value, but it’s been decreasing for years, and requiring higher and higher levels of skill to make it worth it. Most people could improve their photos dramatically by learning about framing and light, while just using a phone. These things have a much bigger impact on the resulting photo. A professional with an iPhone will always take a better and more interesting picture than an amateur with a DSLR for this reason.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#214

Post by lambdasquirrel » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:08 AM UTC

SchemaLoad wrote: post #208

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (al…

They were popular. Are they still? Just observationally there are two groups left, phone users, and people with very expensive complex setups. Everyone who would have bought those simple cameras moved on to using phones.

By the numbers, the casual cameras are having a quiet turnaround.

Fuji and Ricoh can hardly keep their X100 and GR cameras stocked. Fuji added extra production capacity in China because it exceeded their expectations. I brought them up specifically because the serious camera people rag on them for being hype cameras, but I see plenty of everyday people with them. Go to places like the High Line in NY and there’s folks with A6700s and various X-mount cameras in addition to the serious full-frame mounts. Leica is doing financially well because of their Q series.

I think five years ago you could say it was just two groups, but by the numbers and by what I see in the streets, the point and shoots have been prematurely declared dead. Fuji and Sony are meanwhile figuring out how to sell APS-C to a more casual crowd, after the other old players effectively left that market.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#215

Post by dingaling » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:09 AM UTC

master_crab wrote: post #107

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…

There’s a saying in the photography world: ”The best camera is the one you have on you”

Which only holds true if you don't care much about the result.

I've seen people trying to take photos at an airshow using their phone camera. A small black dot in the centre of frame, rendered as an Impressionist oil smudge by post-processing. Was that worth even trying?

The best camera+lens combo is the one suited to the scene. Anything else isn't.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#216

Post by neya » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:15 AM UTC

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…

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway.

It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them look good - more so than most other Androids - because, it's all software. But, from the article, it is understood that the author is trying to point out that Apple could've done a better job to represent skin tones more accurately atleast. The fish-eye defense for Apple is totally understandeable, but, why are we defending the weak skin tones? Every year, they keep launching and claiming grandoise statements "This is the best smartphone camera out there is".

And no, this is not a limitation of smartphone sensors. In fact, if you look at the latest Xperia series from Sony, they have the same software from their DSLRs translated into the smartphones that addresses the skintones perfectly well.

I hope we can skip past the biases and personal preferences we have towards Apple and treat them neutrally like any other manufacturer. This "Apple can do no wrong" narrative and attacking anyone who points out their flaws is just tired and boring at this point.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#217

Post by whatever1 » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:18 AM UTC

To my knowledge none of the photo oriented cameras of the market have the processing capabilities of a modern iPhone.

These things can casually record 4k 60 for as long as your storage can survive with the best OIS. Night mode photo check. HDR mode check.

I wish Apple was selling their processing hardware to camera vendors.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#218

Post by lambdasquirrel » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:20 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #190

The distortion of faces near the edges of iPhone photos is, in my opinion, the biggest issue with iPhone photos. So much so that I avoid being at the edges of group photos specifically for this reason. And it gets worse as you approach the edge of the frame. If you are barely in-frame, you will look like you've gained 30lbs and you've just had a stroke.

Yeah, and it’s an interesting problem because for a lot of casual photos, most people won’t care. But once you do care, there’s suddenly no recourse.

Folks will say it’s just the focal length. But can you crop when your sensor is already that small?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#219

Post by dehrmann » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:23 AM UTC

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…

Does anyone have experience with aftermarket add-on lenses? Theoretically, they can help with the focal length.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#220

Post by dagmx » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:24 AM UTC

neya wrote: post #216

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…

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway. It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them lo…

You’re somehow both reading far too in to my comment (none of my comment is specific to Apple) and not reading my comment enough (because you m missed the point about color profiles)

I’m not defending the default color choices, I’m saying that they’re comparing apples to oranges because they’re comparing an output designed to be opinionated with one that’s designed to be processed after the fact. The iPhone is perfectly capable of outputting neutral images and raw files.