Live data from Hacker News

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

lux.camera

281–290 of 340 posts

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

#281

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 landscapes are easy. The subject isn't moving, you aren't in a hurry and the phone has all the time in the world to gather enough data for a photo. Same goes for posed portraits, the phone has time to use it's processing power to make the image look amazing.

Now try to do sports photography with a mobile phone.

The first problem is lack of zoom compared to a 200mm lens. The second issue is trying to get the 1/8000 exposure you need on a rainy football field you need to stop the action for a good photo.

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

#282
post #152

The 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.

When he writes, "I took the iPhone 14 Pro on a trip around San Francisco and Northern California, to the remote Himalayas and mountains of the Kingdom of Bhutan, and Tokyo." , my first thought was: who IS this person? And is this article even at all real?

that last bit gave me a huge chuckle

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

#283

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 buil…

The purpose is completely different. Camera makers put the processing power between the sensor and whatever RAW fioes their cameras create. For people that do their own post-processing.

Phone makers put the processng power at the post processing of photos, for people who never do their own post processing.

Both approaches are equally valid, they simply aim at different markets. And as far as softeare vs. physics goes, no amount of software and processing power can overcome the laws of optics.

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

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Capturing raw on iPhone in a low-light situation shows you just how far the sensors have to come if you aren't throwing the whole bag of software magic at it, in my experience. It's useful for cases of "you're noise reduction is fucking with my texture" in decent lighting or similar, but in lower light I haven't found it to be a worthwhile tradeoff.

On recent iPhones Apple has added "ProRAW" which retains a lot of the magic processing without losing the ability to make a lot of adjustments you'd do on RAW photos like white balance correction.

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

#285
post #230
post #152

The 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.

A photographer friend of mine always used to get comments like you can take such awesome shots because you are using a DSLR (this was 10 years back). So he started taking two pictures one with DSLR and one with a mobile cameras at that time. He would still get the awesome shots comments even with the pics he took with the basic mobile camera and shared them on social media.

The joke goes something like.

A photographer visits a friend for dinner and shows her some of his photos, "Oh wow! these are spectacular" she gushes, "you must have an amazing camera". The photographer then replies "that dinner was great, you must have excellent pots".

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

#286
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never got why camera manufactures never followed the phones. Like Live photo,and automatic hdr. Can we get rid of the shutter?

> Can we get rid of the shutter? That's a challenge, I think. Take an R5 (only because I'm most familiar with it). 47 megapixels, 12 bpp 211.5MB, maximum shutter speed of 1/8000. In other words, you need to be able to pull data off the sensor (and to be clear, there's parallelization available, I just don't know what) at a global rate of 1.6TB/s.

The Z9 has an electronic shutter, and fast one at that. So prepare to see that tech to hit lower tier mirrorless cameras in the next years.

Not sure what I'd need frame rates above 100 for stills so, but that's just me, because it sure is cool.

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

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we get rid of the shutter? That's a challenge, I think. Take an R5 (only because I'm most familiar with it). 47 megapixels, 12 bpp 211.5MB, maximum shutter speed of 1/8000. In other words, you need to be able to pull data off the sensor (and to be clear, there's parallelization available, I just don't know what) at a global rate of 1.6TB/s.

The Z9 has an electronic shutter, and fast one at that. So prepare to see that tech to hit lower tier mirrorless cameras in the next years. Not sure what I'd need frame rates above 100 for stills so, but that's just me, because it sure is cool.

My 2016 olympus pen-f, which wasn't exactly ground-breaking technology when it came out, already had an electronic shutter that worked with the full resolution of the sensor.

It's a 20 MP micro 4/3 sensor - so 1/4 the surface area of "full-frame".

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

#288
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of post processing that modern phones are doing isn't really practical though in post. For super low light shots for example, the iPhone will take hundreds of exposures and merge them. If you were going to save this all as RAW, it's multiple gigabytes of data per frame.

It does not take hundreds of exposures. That is impractical and above all not a good idea. In low light the shutter speed is likely slow (1/10th of a second for a example). Even 16 frames is more than a seconds worth of frames. At that point the differences start to become too high for stacking to be worthwhile, especially because it is hand held. Secondly, the reduction of noise by merging is at best the sqrt (number of frames). Past even 12 frames the benefits start to be questionable.

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

#289

> And yes: 48 megapixel capture is slow. We’re talking up to 4 seconds of capture time slow Pretty disappointing that a US$1000+ flagship device still can't batch capture at high resolution. Even entry-level DSLRs/mirrorless cameras can do 15+ fps in RAW mode.

Hell, my Nokia 1020 was faster with the 48MP resolution

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

#290
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>real camera A minor and pedantic point, but could we stop with the idea that smartphone cameras are somehow not 'real'? They are enormously sophisticated imaging devices that comprehensively outperform, for example, the 35mm film SLRs that many photographers were using in the 90s. An iPhone 14 enables you to take technically superior photos to the photos that professional photographers were taking only a couple of d…

> An iPhone 14 enables you to take technically superior photos to the photos that professional photographers were taking only a couple of decades ago. I really don’t agree, and honestly it depends on what categories you’re judging it on. Film cameras from 20 years ago probably have better dynamic range than your phone. They probably have comparable resolution. You have a lot of options with lenses, so you can get lot…

Have you ever used a 35mm film camera? I’ve taken loads of photos on 35mm film because I enjoy the process, but the technical quality in terms of resolution and dynamic range is clearly inferior to that of a modern cell phone camera - even if you are using very high qualify scans or wet printing. And the difference in color accuracy is even more stark.

The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor. Sometimes you can use a larger diameter on a 35mm camera if you don’t need a lot of depth of field; but equally, modern digital sensors are usable at ISOs where film is not. The acid test here is night photography. If you want to take night portraits, you're going to have a far better time of it using a modern cell phone than a 35mm SLR with, say, an f1.8 lens. Even with a wide aperture lens and 400 ISO film, you'd be lucky to get a shutter speed faster than 1/15th of a second.

You can of course get more resolution with a larger format (I enjoy 4x5 myself). However, using medium or large format film cameras is a massive step down in terms of practicality and rules out entire genres of photography that phones excel at. I enjoy lugging my 4x5 film camera around and I very occasionally I get a nice photo out of it. Even when I do, the version I take on my phone is inferior in terms of resolution (not actually that important) but better in every other respect. You can drive yourself insane trying to get a 4x5 negative that doesn't have any uneven development or scratches.

The bottom line is that a modern cell phone is a vastly superior general purpose photographic tool to anything that was available in the 1990s. We all (in rich parts of the world) have access to cameras that professional photographers would have killed for a few decades ago. Thus, it annoys me when people compare these incredible devices unfavourably with "real cameras". It's pure gatekeeping.

Post reply on HN