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

291–300 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#291

Post by hopelite »

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 and most Apple neggers are not really any better by ignoring what all this comes down to, choices and trade-offs. Apple’s primary objective is clearly related to taking photos that provide a positive impact on the user while being as easy to do so as feasible, not accuracy of the image. They likely care more about the most number of users being satisfied, not accurate reproduction of an image.

I would not be surprised if they don’t actually want accuracy in imaging at all, they want a positive impact on the user, and most people don’t want reality. If that means causing “hotdog skin” under some conditions or with some skin tones, or maybe even if most users prefer “hotdog skin”, while having an overall positive photo outcome for most other users; they will likely always choose to produce “hotdog skin”. They are also serving a far greater and, frankly an increasingly less light skinned audience than most understand. Maybe it’s just an effect of “whites” having given away their control over things as ever more “non-whites” become revert increasingly important and an ever increasing number and percentage of Apple’s users. Do Asians and Africans get “hotdog skin”? I don’t know the answer to that.

It is the narrow minded perspective of DSLR purist types that this stuff bothers, largely because they cannot look beyond the rim of their plate. Some platforms are for accuracy, others for impact and user experience.

People should maybe consider stop saying things like “this Apple is an absolutely horrible, awful, no good orange!”

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#292

Post by pmontra »

The average person does not know anything about all of this.

I start with TV sets. The usual way to chose one was walking into a shop, looking at dozen of TVs tuned on the same channel, picking the ones that subjectively looked best then check the price and size. Did we (average people) cared about the inner workings of the TV? Nearly zero.

Enter cheap compact digital cameras (200-300 Euro or Dollars.) We didn't have a chance to take pictures to compare cameras and even if we did it would take too much time. We read reviews, trust them, shop from home. Most people would buy the model with the highest number of Megapixel.

Enter smartphones. On average there are people that will buy an iPhone no matter what and people that will not buy an iPhone no matter what. Then they would use the camera inside the phone and would possibly notice that its pictures looked better or worse than their previous phone, especially in dark places.

And about camera vs phone: the phone is always in the pocket, the camera is always at home unless somebody goes on vacation in some scenic place and plans to take a lot of pictures. Half of them will be taken with the phone anyway.

I do have a compact camera. It's some Sony model with 30x optical zoom. It's great to take shots of animals without having to get close and scare them away (so no picture.) It's definitely better than my phone but my phone is not so bad too and it's more convenient to use. Furthermore those compact cameras lost many manual settings that would make them more useful. Sometimes it's easier to pin the autofocus of my phone on a subject than to make my camera understand that it must focus to something instead of doing its best to focus on the surroundings. And I won't digress on how long it takes to take a picture with cameras and send it to somebody on WhatsApp.

So, those 5 golf players look better on the camera but their picture will be taken and shared with a phone 99.9999% of the times.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#293

Post by sundvor »

majormajor wrote: post #207
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…

The biggest real differences between iPhone and whatever ye-olde-good-standalone-digital-camera are sharpening/edge enhancements and flattening of lighting. If you take a lot of landscapes with detailed textures in high-contrast lighting you'll see the differences pretty quickly. The iPhone photos will look better at first glance because they have a lot of tricks to deal with lighting that would otherwise give a phot…

Yeah I like to take photos of my cast iron cooking with my S25U, on a black induction glass surface - and I find myself swapping to Pro mode all the time as the colour temperature is often way too warm and or oversaturated.

It's a great camera in automatic mode most of the time, but not for that scenario.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#294

Post by kalaksi »

rconti wrote: post #132
aosaigh wrote: post #29

These are some good examples. I'd love more on this. I returned to amateur photography a few years ago (Fuji XT-4). I previously used a DSLR when I was younger (10+ years ago) but my camera was stolen at some point so I was left with just the phone. I had started to think phone photography was catching up with amateur photography, as I saw friends getting great results with their phones on Instagram etc. But I've com…

I took my Fuji XT-2 and 27mm pancake lens on a recent trip, after leaving it at home the previous few. Every time, I find the Fuji takes more work and skill than I have to develop good photos after the fact. I too often blow out the sky, for example. Unfortunately, the less I use it, the worse I get. So snagging my "nice" camera for a vacation, then spending a lot of time making sure I lug it around and use it, and t…

If you have sufficient shutter speed (also depends if you have image stabilization), then I think the issue is probably focus.

I also have a fuji camera. In manual mode, you can have focus indicator showing e.g. red dots in the in-focus areas. Another way is to use "focus check" button which is basically a quick digital zoom to check the focus yourself.

Regarding blown-out sky, I often use the HDR auto mode which effectively automatically lowers the exposure 1 stop and then raises it in post, so trading some shadows for highlights. You lose some control but it makes shooting easier. I also use the display indicator / blinkies for blown out parts so I can easily see when something is overexposed.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#295

Post by Ancapistani »

ubercow13 wrote: post #288
Ancapistani wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a very contemptuous thing to say. I really don't think it is. When I pick up a camera, my intent is one of two things: the experience of photography itself, or the best quality I can reasonably obtain. Neither of those goals are attained with a smartphone. Every other time I take a photo , it's with a smartphone. It's easily good enough for the vast majority of use cases. > Even if one is using in-camera JPE…

>and those are two things you give up[0] shooting JPEG No you don't? Good in camera JPEGs will utilise push-pull processing, exposing for maximal dynamic range all for you. You don't lose the advantages of the better optics and sensor just because the JPEG is produced in camera.

How would the camera know if you're exposing two stops below your intended EV because you plan to push it in post or if that _is_ your intended EV?

Furthermore, JPEG supports ~8 stops of dynamic range while my X-Pro3's raw files support ~14 stops. You lose almost half your total DR when you shoot JPEG (with that camera).

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#296

Post by prox »

dkga wrote: post #287
neya wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I get the point… but I would counterargue, perhaps facetiously, that if one needs a professionally color calibrated screen to notice the difference, then it is really not something that would matter for mere mortals.

Without hyperbole I could give people a badly calibrated CRT from the 90s and it doesn’t matter to some. Some people just don’t see anything wrong with pictures, and don’t even know what to look for or what it’s called.

The inverse are the professional photographers who work with pictures day in and out, they see everything.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#297

Post by wrboyce »

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…

My 35mm SLR, which is older than me (and I’m pretty old!), takes better photos than my iPhone 16 Pro!

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#299

Post by sharpshadow »

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…

If anyone working on skin color representation try to emulate Agfa Precisa it has with the best skin colors in natural light.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#300

Post by muppetman »

I've seen plenty of smart phone photos on walls. Heaps.

I get the author knows what he's talking about/looking at, but most of us don't. I couldn't tell you which of those was iPhone vs Expensive Camera if you didn't tell me. Maybe I could guess but I'd have to examine.

This is the same as me being incredulous that the author has (made up example) a $20 cheap router his ISP gave him vs my lovingly handcrafted config on my home VyOS router.

At the end of the day both work...

Post reply on HN