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

221–230 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#221

Post by rafram »

dingaling wrote: post #215
master_crab wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really, because the scene you want to capture is there at that moment and probably wouldn’t be there anymore if you went back to the apartment/hotel/camera store and swapped out for a technically better kit. That’s what the “best camera” saying is about.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#222

Post by ksec »

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…

>Color processing is both highly subjective but also completely something you can disable on the phone

How do I disable Colour processing?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#223

Post by dagmx »

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.

I specifically said “equivalent focal length”. Equivalent focal lengths are relative to a 35mm sensor unless otherwise specified, and the actual focal length reduces with sensor size providing the same fov.

By having a tiny sensor, the current iPhone pro has a range of 15-120mm.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#224

Post by ksec »

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…

>more so than most other Androids

It the old days Apple used to somewhat pride themselves with taking more "realistic" photos. While Android had it the other way around and basically post processes a lot of things as well as colouring. Mostly used for Social Media like Instagram.

And then came iPhone X. They started changing the colour of Sky and sharpening a lot of things. To the point of a lot of Photos taken by my camera looks great but also looked fake.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#225

Post by brokenmachine »

roesel wrote: post #197
sudosysgen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Sony a6700 can. https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1dzr9oy/psa_mini...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#226

Post by brokenmachine »

roesel wrote: post #198
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…

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…

Does this help? https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1dzr9oy/psa_mini...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#227

Post by landgenoot »

whatever1 wrote: post #217

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.

Isn't that because the processing is not supposed to happen in-camera?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#228

Post by amarshall »

dingaling wrote: post #215
master_crab wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is: who cares what the “best” camera is if one doesn’t have it with them to take a photo of the fleeting moment anyway?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#229

Post by brokenmachine »

whatever1 wrote: post #217

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.

a6700 can do quality 4k120 for as long as you want and has IBIS, HDR and real lenses.

I know what I'd rather take pictures with.

Post reply on HN