-- anyone else find it annoying how protruded the lens is? --
When you say annoying, what do you mean specifically?
iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
251–260 of 340 posts
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Pancake lens comes to mind
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#253I 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?
I think Nikkor assumes that you would use software to do the post processing. It gives you something a lot closer to what's coming from the sensor, so you can choose which $XXX image editing suite you want to run it through. The iPhone knows the vast majority of people won't do that with their photos, so they can go all-out, but you're stuck with their specific result baked in to your photo.
Sorry, I'm a photo-noob. What type of post-processing is the iPhone doing that professional would do themselves with RAW? Looking at RawTherapee, it looks like colour profiling. What other operations do people do?
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been playing block the sensor with that little IR lidar thing or whatever it is beside the lenses same size as the flash but is a dark spot. I was trying to photograph some VVT solenoid channels with illumination creeping out the ports and it got the camera into a cycle of switching lenses. I covered the sensor and the toggling ceased so I could focus the photo and get a good image.
Much better to just go in and turn on Settings -> Camera -> Macro Control
interesting, so the flower icon now shows up on the bottom left. Is the brightness/exposure slider not available in macro mode? Seems like when I spot touch a region in the photo to drive brightness exposure I exit macro mode. Looks however like I can still do the exposure slider in the control menu things just not on the screen with the spot touch technique. What is that spot touch thing known as anyways?
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you need more than 12MP if the photo is only going to be displayed on a 6 inch screen?
> if the photo is only going to be displayed on a 6 inch screen If you use photos as a way to preserve memories, then who knows what these photos are going to be displayed on in the future? Maybe in the (near) future, we start adopting VR headsets, and then the 12MP vs 48MP difference is going to matter a lot. On the low-tech end of the spectrum, maybe you want a larger poster printed out. If you need to crop some pa…
Speculative and tenuous hand-wringing about distant, unlikely use cases is not a compelling rebuttal. We know 12mp photos look good on 6 inch, high resolution screens. They even look good on desktop computers and TVs.
Why would you view 2D images in a stereoscopic 3D headset designed for video? Do existing photos look bad in current VR headsets because they lack resolution? I haven’t used any of the modern VR headsets but I’m willing to bet that there isn’t a significant difference between a 12mp and “48mp” iPhone 14 pro photo on a VR headset.
You’re also ignoring the context — of course higher resolution is better in isolation, no one would argue otherwise. But it comes with significant trade offs, like the FOUR SECOND capture time and the enormous file sizes.
If you want to print a cropped photo from an iPhone on a large poster (be honest — do you know anyone who currently prints iPhone photos on posters on a regular basis? I’d argue that hardly anyone prints iPhone photos at all nowadays, and especially not at large poster sizes), 12mp vs “48mp” isn’t going to make a difference, it’s going to look bad either way.
Anyone seriously concerned about their ability to print large format posters from cropped images is going to be using a full frame or medium format camera.
We know current iPhone photos look fine on 6inch high PPI displays (displays that already exceed the resolution of the human retina) and when printed at common sizes (4x6, 8.5x11). That’s never going to change. Making the iPhone camera workflow significantly worse for users now is not an acceptable trade off for vague, hypothetical future use- cases.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#256The funny thing is that for all the amazing technological improvements discussed, all the pictures in the article actually show that A. having a photographer who knows how to frame things, and sees the right moment to capture an image, and B. having a subject worthwhile photographing, are way more important than having a top tier quality camera.
Is this serious? Some of the side by sides are totally blacked out vs beautifully lit. The improvements in cameras open up the possibility of taking shots that would have simply not been possible. Sure photography is a skill. The realtime feedback on a smartphone might actually be the most significant improvement that smartphone has made to the camera. But discounting the obvious improvements in sensing an processing…
That's not new? Computational photography has existed for years in iPhone, and decent Night Mode shots have been possible since the Pixel 3. Nobody is changing the game here, it's just some Apple nerds talking about the new Apple product. That's fine, but it's passe to talk about how revolutionary a notched camera is, or how great computational photography has become. We know these things are good.
That's why these Halide iPhone camera reviews are perennially worthless. They've never released a review that feels critically substantially. It's simply "here's the new iPhone hardware we're being forced to support" being copywritten as ad-material for their app.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ehh...RawTherapee (and also Darktable) are certainly capable of editing, but I've found that in practice they require far more effort to get results comparable to Adobe or Capture One's RAW processing.
The workflow of Darktable gets me confused compared to Lightroom/Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw tool; there are so many options and features that it can be overwhelming. Capture ONE from my experience delivers superior RAW decoding vs. Adobe Camera Raw, but I still use ACR.
Oh absolutely -- I wanted to give Darktable a chance, and I really worked to figure out enough to actually do meaningful edits.
I think it's a great example of the phrase "took many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth". For any given editing task you want, there are like 5 different modules that all do basically different variations on the same thing, and each one has quirks that presumably only make sense to the original author of that module.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#258The funny thing is that for all the amazing technological improvements discussed, all the pictures in the article actually show that A. having a photographer who knows how to frame things, and sees the right moment to capture an image, and B. having a subject worthwhile photographing, are way more important than having a top tier quality camera.
Kind of. If you have an image worth capturing but can’t capture it that’s a problem.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#259Coming 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.
Coming from a Pixel 4a to the 14 Pro I'm really impressed instead. Like it's the much needed upgrade that I felt I needed (I'm really passionate about photography). I'm seriously considering selling my DSLR now. I think google computational might be better in some edge cases, but it comes at the cost that sometimes it over-processes things: some textures look painted on my pixel photos, some night shoot feel "cool" b…
you're comparing a phone from 3 years ago to one from today. The pixels continue to be far better at HDR and low light images. iphone is still better at video.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sensors are small but the software is good. Night photography is easy on a recent smartphone and you don’t even need a tripod.
I've tried it with an iPhone 13 and an older camera with significantly worse low light performance than any camera from the past 7 years, and even if I disable the built-in image stacking, the mirrorless camera with an f/1.4 lens is incomparably better. I could properly expose my backyard with nothing but light pollution handheld. Newer cameras can even film video with nothing but moonlight.
Which camera is it? My old X100T is a complete mess in extreme low light conditions and I don’t remember things to have improved much in the following years.