141–150 of 340 posts
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?
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computational photography for those is done on a computer.
Where it has more power, but lacks info like how the OIS was moving as the pictures were taken, so isn’t necessarily as good. And none of those products have nearly the sales of a smartphone to sustain R&D. Similar to how the headphone dongle of an iPhone is much cheaper and yet better quality than most audiophile equipment.
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?
Capturing non-raw in my experience (iPhone 6S, now have 13 mini) the jpegs are heavily de-noised, and really don't look that good 1:1 on a large monitor: on the iphone screen they look very good, as they're downsampled.
The article mentions the 'watercolor' effect since the iPhone 8, but I definitely had the issue with all the jpegs taken on my iPhone 6S since 2015...
DNGs however DO look very good, so clearly the sensor is capable of pretty nice images.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computational photography for those is done on a computer.
A phone can do on-camera stuff or capture RAW and let you mess with it on your computer. Are there any big sensor cameras that give you those same options? I’m not aware of any and it baffles me that the camera companies feel so little need to innovate. I kind of wish Apple would do a dedicated big-sensor camera. Also, are you saying you could reproduce any of the on-phone stuff easily on your computer? I’m thinking…
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.…
A good reason to own a Ricoh GR IIIx (or Ricoh GR III, which has a 28mm equiv. lense instead of 40mm on the "x" version). It looks very simple and non-professional, but the picture quality is comparable with the latest Fuji X100 series cameras.
Would be curious to see what they think of the Pixel 7 Pro camera. Video is still worse, but picture quality overall seems to be slightly (but noticeably) better than the iPhone 14 Pro.
I guess the physics of the problem are really against these tiny cameras, but even so the bokeh on the caterpillar macro shot is surprisingly painful. Is there anything they can do about that, optically or computationally?
A real macro lens on a DSLR is like that. You could stop the lens down for more to be in focus, but then because you’re getting close to a pinhole camera you need a TON of light. Maybe the iPhone would do better in studio conditions, I don’t know. But it’s a very tough problem.
The problem with the photo in the article is the structure of the background is quite apparent and all the details in the background have been multiplied into hexagons which is very distracting.
Directly comparable macro photograph of a moth. https://www.slrphotographyguide.com/images/butterflymacro.jp...
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.
