iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap • Hacker News Board

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#131

Post by qbasic_forever » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

sys32768 wrote: post #47

I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?

A landscape photo is the easiest thing for any camera to capture. Focus is at infinity and no depth of field means the lens can be literally a greasy pinhole and still get sharp shots. You're probably taking photos in direct sunlight so again the camera has to do very little work and is flooded with light.

Try taking a portrait photo in iffy lighting, like at a concert, wedding, sporting event, etc. Something that really needs a fast and sharp lens.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#132

Post by cthalupa » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

jibbers wrote: post #114

cthalupa wrote: post #113

Unfortunately, it still takes crappy concert photos. The combination of low light, crazy lighting, etc., still wreak havoc on the images. Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line arguing with them about it.…

What is the thinking behind the "no detachable lens cameras" rule? I can't wrap my head around that choice.

There's a few primary reasons

1) Historically, some bands have been concerned about their image and felt that professional-looking photos that painted them in a bad light, whatever that meant in reality, would be more damaging than amateur photos. I don't hear this as much today, but 15 years ago it was frequently given.

2) Concerts with a lot of standing room near the stage already get quite crowded. Someone showing up with a bulky dslr (or even prosumer grade mirrorless) body and a 200mm lens is going to take up quite a bit of room. Prior to the advent of half the damn crowd keeping their phones in the air recording the show for the entirety of it I would also say it obscures vision and annoys people, but now it's really not any worse than that

3) They don't want someone to try and hold them liable if something goes wrong and some expensive camera body or glass gets broken.

On the times I've been able to bring my full camera gear in without a press pass, I stick to as small of a lens as I can and avoid being near the front of the crowd. Thankfully, even quite a ways back from the front of the crowd, a 50mm prime lens will still take some fantastic photos on a real camera vs. what you get with a smartphone. I understand why the rules are in place, though, and I don't really have a problem with them in general.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#133

Post by qbasic_forever » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #104

majormajor wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine don't (iPhone 13 Pro Max, Fuji XT-2 and various lenses). They do in daylight, sure, but things like sunrise/sunset or unusual colors throw them off like crazy. Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the texture effect, almost. They also suffer a bit zoomed in. The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone cameras but it has its limits. On good camera hardware there's very little that…

I hate when you get one of those amazing sunsets where the whole sky changes color, but the phone auto-correct removes/corrects the color tone.

You can shoot in raw on iphones now to prevent this or fix it later.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#134

Post by MBCook » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #125

MBCook wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess to prevent professionals from taking pictures “for free” instead of getting contracts with the bands/venues and paying fees for the privilege. Or maybe they just annoy other patrons.

I have managed to get a press pass for some shows and bring my a7r3, nice lenses, etc. I've never been asked to pay any sort of fee for the pass.

That’s good to know. That was my “everyone is greedy these days” part of my guess.

Was it hard to get the press pass? Maybe it’s just to stop people avoiding that process.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#135

Post by isolli » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #117

theturtletalks wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has always been about making the choice for it’s users. Jobs always thought giving users too many options was problematic.

While in training at my first restaurant job I asked a party where they would like to sit in the dining room. The owner pulled me aside and said to never give people a choice. They'll get confused and think that there's a "best" table and that their dinner could suffer if they feel like they didn't get it. I don't know if it's "real" or not but between work and my personal life I've got decision fatigue. Help make de…

Yes, I remember that campgrounds in the American Rockies let you choose your spot, while in the Canadian Rockies they assign you one. And I realized we were simply happier in Canada!

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#136

Post by saiya-jin » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

solardev wrote: post #123

Coming from a Pixel 5 to the iPhone 14 Pro, I gotta say I'm pretty disappointed. The pictures are mediocre at best, and just plain bad in dim light especially. Google's computational photography is years ahead. The latest Pixel has better sensors too.

One problem that Apple actually considers a hard won feature is color inaccuracy. They like to do default images look very instagram-ish, which may be what many folks like to see but they are pretty far from reality, more than most. Skin smoothing is another topic on its own.

Maybe I am very biased by almost a decade of full frame shooting basically everything, but I like photo representing what I actually see with my own eyes at that moment.

When talking about Pixels, when I saw some non-ideal light samples from latest one, it was pretty clear neither Apple nor ie Samsung (which I own and love, S22 ultra) are in same league in many aspects of photography. But Pixel 6 had some pretty annoying issues from user reports. On the other side it costed (and v7 still does) significantly less from day 1.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#137

Post by TedShiller » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

sys32768 wrote: post #47

I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?

iPhone 13 photos will look just as good as a Nikon photo on your iPhone. As soon as you view the iPhone photos on a monitor or print them out, everything falls apart.

iPhone photos are excellent as long as viewers are only seeing them on iPhones.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#138

Post by pj_mukh » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:20 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #11

Well this detailed camera review conclusively proves that I am a mediocre photographer who doesn't go anywhere interesting. Thanks a lot, lux.camera. Thanks a lot.

"To review this camera we went to these most interesting, most beautiful places."

Okay...but how does it perform taking pictures of my toy dog in suburb-town USA?

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#139

Post by MurrayHill1980 » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

sys32768 wrote: post #47

I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?

Because deep down, it's not what they do. They are optics and camera hardware companies. In the race between physics and software, they are on the physics side. This is evident in the entire user experience. They keep missing the boat with the way people actually use photography today, and don't even seem to care much. There's not much evidence they have the kind of research expertise that Apple, Google or Adobe built in signal processing and image processing, either.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#140

Post by c5karl » Tue, Nov 01, 2022, 9:22 PM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #117

theturtletalks wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has always been about making the choice for it’s users. Jobs always thought giving users too many options was problematic.

While in training at my first restaurant job I asked a party where they would like to sit in the dining room. The owner pulled me aside and said to never give people a choice. They'll get confused and think that there's a "best" table and that their dinner could suffer if they feel like they didn't get it. I don't know if it's "real" or not but between work and my personal life I've got decision fatigue. Help make de…

Circuit City stores, back when they had entire walls of VCRs and tape decks and receivers, all of which were "on sale" (ahem), instructed their salespeople to always give customers definitive advice in their price range. "Oh, this Sony is the absolute best tape deck." Once people had reassurance that they were making the right choice, even from a total stranger, they'd open their wallets. But not before.