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

iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

candid9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#271

Post by comradesmith »

rconti wrote: post #132
aosaigh wrote: post #29

These are some good examples. I'd love more on this. I returned to amateur photography a few years ago (Fuji XT-4). I previously used a DSLR when I was younger (10+ years ago) but my camera was stolen at some point so I was left with just the phone. I had started to think phone photography was catching up with amateur photography, as I saw friends getting great results with their phones on Instagram etc. But I've com…

I took my Fuji XT-2 and 27mm pancake lens on a recent trip, after leaving it at home the previous few. Every time, I find the Fuji takes more work and skill than I have to develop good photos after the fact. I too often blow out the sky, for example. Unfortunately, the less I use it, the worse I get. So snagging my "nice" camera for a vacation, then spending a lot of time making sure I lug it around and use it, and t…

Carry the camera with you through your daily life.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#272

Post by Mashimo »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #6

I honestly can't see much of a difference that couldn't be explained by the photos not being taken simultaneously. I definitely can't tell enough of a difference that I wouldn't put the photo in a frame on the wall (which people almost certainly do, despite the author's assertion that "you never see a smartphone photo printed and framed") Edit: Is this just a good bit of sarcasm/shitpost? If so, it's just a tad too s…

The color of their faces and shadow is what is noticeable for me.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#273

Post by close04 »

ksec wrote: post #224
neya wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway. It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them lo…

>more so than most other Androids It the old days Apple used to somewhat pride themselves with taking more "realistic" photos. While Android had it the other way around and basically post processes a lot of things as well as colouring. Mostly used for Social Media like Instagram. And then came iPhone X. They started changing the colour of Sky and sharpening a lot of things. To the point of a lot of Photos taken by my…

> And then came iPhone X

Did the iOS/Android situation actually swap, or was the X an outlier? I have photos from a recent event taken entirely with phones, and the result mirrors my experience for the past many years.

iPhone (11-15 including Pro Max) photos look "normal". Very, very similar to what my eyes saw in terms of colors. Photos taken with Android phones (Pixel 9 Pro XL, recent Oppo or Samsung A series, etc.) look terribly unnatural. The blue of the sky, the green of the plants, the red of the dress, they look "enhanced" and unnatural, nothing like what my eyes saw. I can tell apart almost any iPhone vs. Android picture just by looking at the colors on the same display.

The resolution or sharpness are harder to judge with one look and I wasn't trying to compare quality. But the colors are too obvious to miss.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#274

Post by sudosysgen »

roesel wrote: post #197
sudosysgen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On many Sony models, you can set the camera to aperture priority instead of auto, set ISO to Auto ISO, and then change the max ISO to whatever you want; this is what I do in your situation.

If I set aperture priority to "maximum possible light in", I often have an issue that when there is insufficient light, the camera decreases shutter speed instead of cranking up the ISO (to the set upper limit), which would be much more desireable. This results in blurry images due to the longer exposure. I would much more prefer a grainy image over a blurred one in this case. Do you know if there is any option of se…

Yes, many cameras have a setting called "ISO Auto Min SS" which lets you set a focal length - minimum shutter speed multiplier.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#275

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

Twisell wrote: post #252
mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Every hardware have it's limitations, my DSLR don't fit in my pocket for instance. But that wouldn't be a fair point when comparing photo quality against a smartphone. Comparing quality with non equivalent focal lengths is as pertinent as to mount a fisheye on the DSLR (because you can!) and then claim that the smartphone have less distortion.

The article is comparing photo quality between two different cameras. The lens affects image quality, so it's completely fair to discuss.

If it were possible to switch out the lens on the iPhone, and the photographer had just chosen the wrong lens for the job, that would be a fair criticism of the article. But that's not what happened. The iPhone is just very limited when it comes to the lens, compared to a DSLR.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#276

Post by watwut »

amarshall wrote: post #228
dingaling wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which only holds true if you don't care much about the result. I've seen people trying to take photos at an airshow using their phone camera. A small black dot in the centre of frame, rendered as an Impressionist oil smudge by post-processing. Was that worth even trying? The best camera+lens combo is the one suited to the scene. Anything else isn't.

The point is: who cares what the “best” camera is if one doesn’t have it with them to take a photo of the fleeting moment anyway?

But if you snap that pic, but never use it for anything because it looks slightly weird ... then you as well might not have the camera.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#277

Post by j00pY »

olivermuty wrote: post #16

The best camera is the one you have with you!

Absolutely. My DLSR almost never comes out which is a shame, but even on special trips I don't want to lug an extra camera around and have to worry about damaging that, so my phone has been my primary camera for 10+ years.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#278

Post by kalaksi »

al_borland wrote: post #213
FredPret wrote: post #33

My entry-level mirrorless camera with its kit lens can take photos that blow my recent-model iPhone out of the water. Add a nice lens and there's no comparison. However: - The iPhone is always in my pocket (until I crack and buy a flip-phone) - The iPhone picture always turns out, but the Canon takes a modicum of skill, which my wife is not interested in, and I'll never be able to teach passers-by when they take a gr…

Not only is the iPhone always in your pocket, but it’s easier to carry and deal with. I remember hearing a story from a well known photographer about a trip he took with a few others, including his wife. They woke up early to head out on a small boat in a lake or something. He was lugging all this gear and having to put a lot of focus into tuning the settings on his camera, he was pretty miserable. Meanwhile, his wif…

Those sound like the 2 extremes, though. You don't have to take a lot of gear or tune a lot of settings manually with dedicated camera if you don't want to, but it's an option if you want to have more control or go for the ultimate quality.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#279

Post by LambdaComplex »

teiferer wrote: post #232

My expectation is that in a few years from now, the raw photo taken by the mobile camera will merely serve as an input to some AI image generator which will then produce a top-quality pro photographer grade image at whatever resolution you like with whatever changes you command ("without all those 1000s of tourisms in front of the Louvre except my wife"). The photo will be fake but will capture the scene that you hav…

Someone actually did this already as an art project: https://bjoernkarmann.dk/project/paragraphica

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#280

Post by tormeh »

piva00 wrote: post #62
dale_glass wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always micro four thirds. I think it's a bit of an underappreciated format, really. It can have really compact cameras, and also they tend to have quite a lot of fancy tech in them.

Mirrorless APS-C platforms pushed micro 4/3 out, similar footprint with APS-C sensors is hard to beat.

An APS-C lens is just going to be bigger than an M43 lens. That means you can carry more lenses for an M43 camera. I have an Olympus/OM camera plus three lenses and charger, and it all fits in my flight carry-on luggage together with a laptop, underwear, and an extra set of clothes. APS-C and full-frame are cool, but they're annoying to carry around. For travel, nothing beats M43.
Post reply on HN