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

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#411

Post by coredog64 » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:02 PM UTC

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?

Having uploaded my share of receipts to Concur, there's 2 checks & balances: If you still have the original, then you can correct the OCR'd value. And then Concur will recognized both line items and totals and whine if they don't match.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#412

Post by markhalonen » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:04 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #312

its-summertime wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I understand that that's the claim, yes. The author does an unsatisfactory job of defending it, which is extremely strange considering on how many axes an image out of a dedicated camera is palpably preferable to that from a phone, with its physical constraints and computational compensations. I do shoot with both because I'm not foolish enough to think good work can't be forced from poor tools, but I know the differ…

most hn comment of all time. The whole point of the product is that giving someone a QR code ticket is easier than collecting email or phone number, which makes a big difference at high volume.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#413

Post by dagmx » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

ubercow13 wrote: post #234

dagmx wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfec…

The non-iPhone pictures are probably also in-camera jpegs so they are also 'opinionated', not RAWs.

You don’t need to shoot RAW to have neutral images. In Camera JPEGS are still defaulted on most cameras to be as neutral as possible unless you opt for a different picture style.

This is the opposite default to phones where the defaults are to be punchier, but where you can still select a neutral profile.

The argument is basically comparing defaults and claiming it’s endemic to the format.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#414

Post by geldedus » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

that's not what "bokeh" means ; that's only out of focus blur of the background

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#415

Post by geldedus » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:20 PM 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…

they don't even know what "bokeh" means

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#416

Post by dagmx » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #244

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…

You're completely off base on the focal length argument. A traditional camera has the choice and can choose the most appropriate length; an Iphone is locked in to a fish-eye clearly put in there to overcome its inherent limitations. So it doesn't really matter "if it's fair" or not, because it's not about a fair comparison, it's a demonstration that a traditional camera is just better. Why should the traditional came…

I’m sorry, if you’re going to argue it’s completely off base at least make a statement that isn’t easily dismissed by looking at the back of a phone.

My iPhone pro has 3 lenses of 15,24 and 77mm equivalents. This is far fewer than many Android phones.

Even the cheapest iPhone 16E has a super sampling sensor which allows a cropped 50mm equivalent. (And yes that’s a digital crop but that’s why I mention a super sampling sensor)

So yes, unless they were shooting on a budget phone or a much older iPhone, they have a choice of focal lengths that would better match whatever camera they’re comparing to.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#417

Post by mikewarot » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

I thought the article was parody/sarcasm at first.

I've got an old Nikon D5100 DSLR which I sometimes pull out and take photos with, and a cheap $200 Motorola phone, which does amazingly well, if there's plenty of light and the subject happens to take up most of the frame (and can thus focus)

Getting a good photo with the Nikon is easier for me, but I've had a lot of practice. The main issue is getting things to focus in macro land.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#418

Post by dagmx » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #328

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…

Um, I'm pretty sure a 24mm shot on a full frame camera will look the same as an iPhone shot, but only if you crop the full frame shot (ignoring pixels counts). Yes, you could get the same photo of the guy in the centre on the iPhone, but only by zooming in and cropping out everything else. I guess if you REALLY wanted you could run back, and zoom in. Better get a tripod to hold it steady since you're zooming in then.…

Please note that I specifically said “equivalent focal length”.

A 24mm equivalent will have almost the exact same perspective on any sized sensor, because that’s what equivalent means. It’s a relationship of sensor size to actual focal length.

A 16mm on a 1.5x APs-c is a 24mm equivalent on a 35mm. The iPhones base lens is something like 1.5mm but when related to its sensor, it’s roughly a 24mm equivalent.

There’s no cropping that needs to happen.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#419

Post by svantana » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:35 PM UTC

mcdeltat wrote: post #405

Lord-Jobo wrote: post #371

A decade of "the best smartphone camera competitions" by mkbhd have clearly highlighted what is happening here. 1: In a/b testing, nearly everyone including pixel peepers prefer a more vibrant photo. 2: the traditional perspective of "a photo should look as close as possible to what my eyes see if I drop the viewfinder" is increasingly uncommon and not pursued in the digital age by nearly anyone. 3: phone companies k…

As someone into photography as a hobby, I don't get why we invest in smartphone cameras nor why people care. It all looks like the same trash. If you want a photo to reminisce on, sure use a smartphone. In which case anything short of 1800s camera quality will do the job great. If you want to make a photo that might look good then do yourself a favour and get a cheap dedicated camera.

The big difference is in low light conditions, where a 10-year old phone or cheap camera will give you 90% noise, and a new-ish phone or quality camera will actually be pretty good.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#420

Post by thefluffytoucan » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:41 PM 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.

Easily solved. Next time have the photographer use the telephoto camera and make them step back a bit so everyone fits in the frame and the faces at the edges will be perfectly fine.