Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

austinmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#111

Post by ValentineC »

ssijak wrote: post #13
zobzu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? I would say that more people will prefer the phone photo, unless you edit the dslr photo (which phone is doing automatically unless you shoot RAW on iPhone).

> What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test?

As an iPhone 11 Pro + Halide user myself, I daresay a DSLR photo with a decent portrait lens would definitely look better — or at the very least — more natural, than any iPhone photo that relies on "computational photography" fake-bokeh.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#112

Post by herpderperator »

> Stop and consider that for a moment... because of Night mode and computational algorithms we went from "completely unusable dark frame" to "I want that on my wall."

No mention of whether or not the photo was handheld or how long the exposure time was. If the photo they were referring to was handheld, I guess I agree. However, the subsequent photo which is the same landscape is captioned "on tripod" so it's not clear if the previous one (which isn't captioned) is handheld or not.

If both were shot on a tripod, then I disagree with the original statement. Any sensor will do better in low light with a longer exposure, and if phones simply let you expose for however long you wanted to then many "night" photos would look amazing - on a tripod, of course.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#113

Post by moogleii »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #99
sbuk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the original. It's a 2048×935 @ 72ppi, at a guess about 1/4 the actual size shot and it's been compressed so it can be uploaded onto a website. It's hardly a real representation of the capabilities of the camera.

My bad, then. I don't know why I expected that a review of a camera would contain representative images from that camera. :P

Yeah, I expected a bit more of a hardcore review. Maybe we'll have to wait until a dedicated photography blog reviews it. For what it's worth, there's this review here that compares its video capabilities to a Sony a7S III, although the reviewer seems unfamiliar with HDR workflows: https://petapixel.com/2020/10/26/sony-a7s-iii-vs-the-iphone-...

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#114

Post by ValentineC »

dham wrote: post #57
pgib wrote: post #15

I got the iPhone 12 Pro after using my iPhone X for the last three years. I was mostly excited about a big camera upgrade, and there are definitely some big improvements from what I have been using. But I'm not 100% sure if I'm going to keep it. I'm not sure I'm blown away enough for just shy of CDN $2,000. Even though it's almost the same size, it feels considerably bigger than my X, and I'm not a fan of the matte b…

For the same price you can get a nice DSLR and the iPhone SE 2. That's what I did. Heck even my Nikon D70 from 2008(bought it used in 2011) can still run circles around even the most expensive phones for pictures. Best camera is the one you have on you, well when you have kids you haul the DSLR around anyway. Sorry.

> Best camera is the one you have on you, well when you have kids you haul the DSLR around anyway.

I don't have kids, but wouldn't Live Photos be a better feature for reliving moments with your kids? A DSLR will never be able to do that, because the mechanical shutter prevents it from doing so.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#115

Post by herpderperator »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #72

I feel like a lot of people that keep bringing up DSLRs kinda miss the point. The best camera is the one you have on you. So even a minor incremental upgrade is worth its weight in gold when you consider you'll be capturing images where you'd never dream of having a DSLR but in considerably better quality.

You don't need a DSLR. A regular point-and-shoot[0] which costs $100, fits in your pocket and has an electronic retractable lens (and many times optical zoom) is going to blow away anything recent phone cameras can do (photography wise), bar handheld night photos where the additional processing does help even out blurriness. If you can remember to bring your phone, you can remember to bring a point-and-shoot, and they both fit in your pocket.

The insane quality upgrade you get from a point-and-shoot is because they have a much bigger sensor and a real lens and focus light brilliantly well, and if you want bokeh you don't need any of that crap fake blur processing to achieve what physics will do for you.

I often feel like people have forgotten or never even knew how good images can be with an actual camera, and it doesn't have to be a DSLR at all.

If you want a camera, buy a camera, not a phone.

[0] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1210607-REG/canon_109...

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#116

Post by bitL »

KineticLensman wrote: post #25
zobzu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

> I think the photo of the woman is terrible This is partly because the flash has blasted her face with light losing all the shape except for an ugly shadow under her nose. With my Nikon I could try at (very) high ISO for a natural-light shot or use an off-camera flash to shape her face in a more flattering way. But perhaps people used to the very flat / boring light common in mirror selfies won't care about this. Th…

It's unrealistic to get off-camera flash on iPhone unless two could be paired together with a friend holding iPhone acting as a flash. But what could be done easily is a ring flash around the rear camera that would make most portraits bearable instead of horrible basic flash.

There are also Deep Learning models that change angle of light on a final photo, so you would be able to get your Rembrandt lighting that way soon.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#117

Post by ValentineC »

crazygringo wrote: post #28
aloknnikhil wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there was a thread here on the disadvantages of all the software processing in phone cameras today. I had a similar experience trying to capture the orange skies when the wildfires were raging here in California. My iPhone corrected every single image to remove the orange and replace it with a dark gray sky. It looked more overcast than apocalyptic. But I'm not fully against the idea of shipping some of those…

What you're describing is the problem with auto white balance, which affects phone cameras and webcams equally. Often it works well, but sometimes (like in your case) it fails disastrously. Unfortunately the iPhone (and Mac's built-in FaceTime) cameras have no option to manually set the white balance. You need to use third-party apps/webcams to handle it.

> Unfortunately the iPhone (and Mac's built-in FaceTime) cameras have no option to manually set the white balance.

I think the new iPhones ship with native ProRAW support, which might mean that the built-in Photos app would be able to access the same amount of imaging data that a specialised RAW editor could in prior versions.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#118

Post by kev009 »

Just since it's sponsored, Airstream is one of the shittiest luxury products I can think of and owning one of the bigger mistakes I've ever made. The quality is the same as any other RV, so you are paying a huge premium for the aluminum shell which looks cool but not nearly as trouble free as the marketing leads one to expect. You can basically own 3-4 trailers from any other manufacturer for the same cost, and would be ahead in every way. You can also rent RVs including other people's airstreams these days so unless you plan on spending a significant amount of time using an RV (like full time or as a guest house) it's smarter to let someone else deal with maintenance and depreciation.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#119

Post by ValentineC »

crazygringo wrote: post #22
ponker wrote: post #3

Imagine if Apple or Google shipped a digital SLR with all of their software magic onboard (or executed on a paired phone).

I don't really see the point. Things like low-light photography has always been available on DSLR's, like SLR's long before it, since you've always been able to control shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. And all the extra software magic can already be done on your laptop on RAW files, where you've got enough space on your screen for all the sliders -- and a large enough screen to see the difference it makes in the det…

> And all the extra software magic can already be done on your laptop on RAW files, where you've got enough space on your screen for all the sliders -- and a large enough screen to see the difference it makes in the details.

Not entirely true: DSLRs wouldn't be able to capture depth data like the dual/triple-camera phones can, for "computational photography" magic (or simple masking).

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#120

Post by Hippocrates »

This iPhone 12 Pro upgrade has made me put my MILC gear all up for sale. "The best camera is the one you have on you" yada yada.. As others here have pointed out, you can still take a better photo with a DSLR/MILC and nice glass and unlimited time to fidget with your gear, but for the size and convenience, this iPhone comes way too close. For me it easily outweighs the burden of a bulky, expensive, fragile DSLR (I am also embarrassed to haul a DSLR to a wedding or party).

There are also a bunch of software features on the iPhone that are actually more ergonomic than on a dedicated camera, and help me catch the shot I want. Live Photos, burst, pinch zoom, tap to focus (on a legit screen, not on those poor excuses for touch UIs on cameras). Instant switching between video/still and lens modes. Basically everything is auto and It's point and shoot in any situation.

If I am to boil the whole thing down I would say the iPhone's camera makes my MILC feel antiquated and 90% of the time I'll be catching better photos on the iPhone 12.

Post reply on HN