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

391–400 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#391

Post by [deleted] »

mcny wrote: post #378
stego-tech wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with your observations, and would add the irony of such a pursuit by phone makers is that serious hobbyist/amateur/professional photographers and videographers understand that cameras are inherently inaccurate , and that what we’re really capturing is an interpretation of what we’re seeing through imperfect glass, coatings, and sensor media to form an artistic creation. Sure, cameras can be used for acc…

I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?

[deleted]

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#392

Post by brianmcc »

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…

>> 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 group picture for us

This is why my Canon 80D sits and gathers dust. Too many family moments fluffed, vs my Android's basically 100% hit rate. Yes this is largely a skill issue on my part, which is sad, but modern phone photos are more than adequate these days.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#393

Post by thefluffytoucan »

Colors are always subjective, so it’s totally fair to not like them.

But why does the article compare what I assume is the iPhone’s ultra wide angle lens (incorrectly referred to as a “fish eye” lens) with a different focal length on a different camera without specifying what exactly it is being compared to? That’s apples to oranges.

Distortion from focal length can only be meaningfully judged in combination with sensor size and subject distance.

Example: iPhone 16 Pro ultra wide focal length is 13mm (equivalent to full frame). So the comparison shots need to be taken from the same spot and with another 13mm equivalent focal length, for example a full frame camera with a 13mm lens or a micro four-thirds camera with a 6.5mm lens.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#394

Post by thesuitonym »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #382
mcny wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?

It's definitely a possibility if there's a point where LLM-based OCR is applied. See https://www.runpulse.com/blog/why-llms-suck-at-ocr and its related HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42966958

Like almost everything LLMs do, you don't need an LLM to make these mistakes.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#395

Post by Terretta »

arghwhat wrote: post #365
vladvasiliu wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I get your point. Most appropriate length for what? Some iPhones have multiple focal lengths, just like some "real camers" have fixed lenses with a fixed focal length (Fuxji x100 and the medium-format one whose model I can't remember, Leica something-or-other, Sony R1). Plus, for what is a traditional camera "just better"? It's highly usage dependent. I have both a bludgeon, which can be used as an inter…

> Most appropriate length for what? Some iPhones have multiple focal lengths, ... Most appropriate length for portrait photography is well established to be somewhere between 50mm and 100mm (35mm equivalent). The lower end is often considered more "natural" for such photo type, while the longer focal lengths are considered more flattering. An iPhone 16 Pro Max has three focal lengths, 12, 24 and 120 (35mm equivalent)…

Really appreciated this comment, written as if by a photographer who also happens to use a mobile phone camera for EDL or street. Adding some similar color...

> An iPhone 16 Pro Max has three focal lengths, 12, 24 and 120 (35mm equivalent). The first two are much too short unless significantly cropped, and the last one is excessive and requires stepping way back and has the worst image sensor and likely worst compromise of a lens

This point contains one part of the solution: Zoom with your feet.

Back up your shooting position to where you'd shoot an 85mm or 105mm, take the shot with the 2x lens, then crop. (Unless there's tons of light, then the 5x and hold very still. Even then, shoot both 2x and 5x and compare. Next year's phone should update the 5x sensor as well.)

For the color problems the article highlights, shoot RAW and adjust in a raw development app. Otherwise, shoot using the new grid-based styles to make in-phone development adjustable later. Or use a different app – see below.

For the bokeh, consider shooting in portrait, with aperture dialed to a full-frame DSLR level of (granted fake) bokeh. This remains adjustable after the shot so it's safer to leave active than one might think.

Consider avoiding the iPhone's built-in camera app, consider shooting with an app that can skip the processing pipeline, like Lux's Halide, with “Process Zero” mode:

https://halide.cam/

https://www.lux.camera/introducing-process-zero-for-iphone/

The bottom line, of course:

> The best camera is the one you have on you.

Assign the iPhone 16's shutter button to Halide or ProCamera or one of the newer contenders to shoot everything.

Then to best enjoy your results, never shoot with a full frame using big glass and compare.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#396

Post by Terretta »

ksec wrote: post #222
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?

https://www.lux.camera/introducing-process-zero-for-iphone/

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#397

Post by gruez »

matrss wrote: post #386
mcny wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?

Worse, Xerox scanners specifically meant for digitizing documents have changed text for a long time. The compression algorithm they used (I think even in the default settings) sometimes replaced e.g. 6 with 8, and similar things. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0 (german, but there should be news articles from back then in english as well, somewhere)

That's not really "computation photography" in any meaningful sense, closer to "digital processing". It's not impossible for such glitches to occur with modern smartphone cameras, but it's implausible. I don't think there's ever a confirmed instance of such a gaff happening. Meanwhile a few years ago there was a photo with a misplaced leaf that made the rounds, and people were complaining about how it was caused by computational photography, but it turned out the photo was accurate. The leaf actually there.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#399

Post by Terretta »

Lanrei wrote: post #326
patrakov wrote: post #311

Regarding the focal length difference, which is very well illustrated by the first two photographs, I would frame this point differently from what the article does. Disclaimer: I don't have an iPhone 16, but my Poco X4 Pro 5G suffers from the same "fisheye" issue with its 25mm-equivalent lens. And I am not a professional photographer. It is not a "bad camera" issue, but a composition issue forced by the short focal l…

Focal length wouldn't even be an issue if the photographer was taking the photos from the same position. The fish-eye effect is literally because the photographer is closer. Cropping a photo with a different focal length will give the same composition and difference will be the distortion introduced by the camera and the image processing.

100% -- "zoom with your feet"

To your point, back up to where you'd shoot the long lens, then crop back. Thanks to the 48mp, there's room to crop, it'll be fine.

FWIW, this crop is what every* camera with a sensor smaller than full frame is already doing to get "reach" from smaller glass, whether we realize it or not.

* By and large.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#400

Post by shmeeed »

aosaigh wrote: post #74
Almondsetat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the colors people like. Go and look at how photographers usually try to make skies more dramatic for clients in all kind of photoshoots (weddings, events, postcard pictures, etc.). That's what the market wants. You can disagree, but it's not like smartphone companies are incompetent and don't know how photography works (not that you have made this claim)

I don’t think we disagree. It’s the broader point of phones now doing the editing for you. If you enjoy photography then this is “worse” as you would prefer to do that yourself in Lightroom. If you don’t enjoy photography this is “better” as your result look great without additional effort (for me it’s the former).

Well, you could just as well shoot RAW with the iPhone and fiddle with it in Lightroom. It just so seems that few people, even few amateur photographers, are doing that...?
Post reply on HN