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

281–290 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#281

Post by sgt »

StrLght wrote: post #65

Photos taken on an iPhone are good, unless you: * zoom in * print them * watch them on a bigger screen Sometimes I compare photos I've taken over 10 years ago with Sony NEX-5 with photos I take today with an iPhone. There's no competition, APS-C from 15 years ago is still solid. Anyway, the best camera is the one you have with you, so in that sense iPhone is great.

I was waiting for someone to say that ("The best camera is the one in your pocket"). Well.. I've always agreed with that. But maybe it's time to dig out that old DSLR again. It can always be in a camera bag in the car, ready for action.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#282

Post by skhr0680 »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #214
SchemaLoad wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were popular. Are they still? Just observationally there are two groups left, phone users, and people with very expensive complex setups. Everyone who would have bought those simple cameras moved on to using phones.

By the numbers, the casual cameras are having a quiet turnaround. Fuji and Ricoh can hardly keep their X100 and GR cameras stocked. Fuji added extra production capacity in China because it exceeded their expectations. I brought them up specifically because the serious camera people rag on them for being hype cameras, but I see plenty of everyday people with them. Go to places like the High Line in NY and there’s folk…

I'm a semi-retired pro and acting like Fujifilm are "hype" is really ignorant. They are a smart company who have a long history of making great pro-grade cameras and lenses.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#283

Post by josephg »

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.

> 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.

I was about to disagree with you - but I think you're right. The photographer clearly took a couple steps back when they took the DSLR photo. You can tell by looking at the trees in the background - they appear much bigger in the DSLR photo because they're using a longer focal length.

I think a DSLR would struggle with the same perspective distortion if you put an ultrawide lens on it. It would have been a much more fair comparison if they took both photos from the same spot and zoomed in with the iphone.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#284

Post by Ancapistani »

shakow wrote: post #269
Ancapistani wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go so far as to say: if you're using in-camera JPEGs, you would probably be better off with a cellphone.

That's a very contemptuous thing to say. Even if one is using in-camera JPEG and does not want to spend 1hr/picture in Darktable, they can still play with many more objectives, exposure, shutter time, physical zoom, aperture, etc. I'd even go the other way around: if you just bought a camera, just use in-camera JPEGs for the first months and familiarize yourself with all the rest (positioning, framing, understanding…

> That's a very contemptuous thing to say.

I really don't think it is.

When I pick up a camera, my intent is one of two things: the experience of photography itself, or the best quality I can reasonably obtain. Neither of those goals are attained with a smartphone.

Every other time I take a photo, it's with a smartphone. It's easily good enough for the vast majority of use cases.

> Even if one is using in-camera JPEG and does not want to spend 1hr/picture in Darktable,

That's... absurd. Granted I lean toward a more "street photography" style, but it's exceptionally rare that I spend more then ~30s on a photo in Lightroom. Most of that time is spent cropping. White balance, exposure correction, etc. are all done in bulk.

> they can still play with many more objectives, exposure, shutter time, physical zoom, aperture, etc.

Sure - and why wouldn't you want to play with RAW as well? It's not like the profile the camera would have used isn't embedded in the RAW anyhow.

> I'd even go the other way around: if you just bought a camera, just use in-camera JPEGs for the first months and familiarize yourself with all the rest (positioning, framing, understanding your camera settings, etc.) before jumping into digital development.

I don't disagree with this at all. Of course there are edge cases; that's why I said "probably".

To put it another way: if you're shooting JPEGs regularly, you're almost certainly not doing it for the craft. There are very few reasons I can think of to choose a traditional camera if you're not going to take advantage of the improvements in ISO and dynamic range that it offers - and those are two things you give up[0] shooting JPEG.

0: You give up ISO in that you are discarding much of the information that you could use to push/pull process, which is very often preferable to very high ISO.

ETA: I just looked it up. In 2024, I kept 767 photos from my iPhone and 1,900 from my cameras. That includes multiple performances of my wife's dance studio, so the latter is heavily skewed by that. Excluding those, I kept 376. In other words, I appear to be taking my own advice here.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#286

Post by josephg »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #275
Twisell wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If it were possible to switch out the lens on the iPhone...

It is possible to "switch out the lens" on an iphone, because iPhones ship with multiple camera lenses. (Well, multiple entire cameras). The iphone 16 they're using here has 3 cameras. And yet, I'm pretty sure the photo of the boys was taken with the ultrawide for some reason. A lot of the distortion problems would go away if they took a few steps back and used one of the longer lenses - just like they did with the DSLR.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#287

Post by dkga »

neya wrote: post #216
dagmx wrote: post #38

The points really boil down to: 1. Difference in focal length/ position. 2. Difference in color processing But…the article is fairly weak on both points? 1. It’s unclear why the author is comparing different focal lengths without clarifying what they used. If I use the 24mm equivalent on either my full frame or my iPhone, the perspective will be largely the same modulo some lens correction. Same if I use the 70mm or…

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…

I get the point… but I would counterargue, perhaps facetiously, that if one needs a professionally color calibrated screen to notice the difference, then it is really not something that would matter for mere mortals.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#288

Post by ubercow13 »

Ancapistani wrote: post #284
shakow wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very contemptuous thing to say. Even if one is using in-camera JPEG and does not want to spend 1hr/picture in Darktable, they can still play with many more objectives, exposure, shutter time, physical zoom, aperture, etc. I'd even go the other way around: if you just bought a camera, just use in-camera JPEGs for the first months and familiarize yourself with all the rest (positioning, framing, understanding…

> That's a very contemptuous thing to say. I really don't think it is. When I pick up a camera, my intent is one of two things: the experience of photography itself, or the best quality I can reasonably obtain. Neither of those goals are attained with a smartphone. Every other time I take a photo , it's with a smartphone. It's easily good enough for the vast majority of use cases. > Even if one is using in-camera JPE…

>and those are two things you give up[0] shooting JPEG

No you don't? Good in camera JPEGs will utilise push-pull processing, exposing for maximal dynamic range all for you. You don't lose the advantages of the better optics and sensor just because the JPEG is produced in camera.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#289

Post by dkga »

chongli wrote: post #189
dangus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which I’m personally failing to witness consistently by the “evidence” in this article. Most of the photo examples here were somewhere between “I can’t tell a significant difference” and “flip a coin and you might find people who prefer the iPhone result more.” Even less of a difference when they’re printed out and put in a 5x7” frame. Keep in mind the cost of a smartphone camera is $0. You already own one. You were…

The problem with computational photography is that it uses software to make photos "look good" for everyday users. That may be an advantage for those users but it is basically a non-starter for a photographer because it makes it a crapshoot to take photos which predictably and faithfully render the scene.

This made me ask, is there a (perhaps Swift) API to get the raw pixels coming in from the camera, if there is such a thing? I mean, before any processing, etc.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#290

Post by hopelite »

neya wrote: post #216
dagmx wrote: post #38

The points really boil down to: 1. Difference in focal length/ position. 2. Difference in color processing But…the article is fairly weak on both points? 1. It’s unclear why the author is comparing different focal lengths without clarifying what they used. If I use the 24mm equivalent on either my full frame or my iPhone, the perspective will be largely the same modulo some lens correction. Same if I use the 70mm or…

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…

You and most Apple obsessed curmudgeons are not really any better by ignoring what all this comes down to, choices and trade-offs. Apple’s primary objective is clearly related to taking photos that provide a positive impact on the user while being as easy to do so, not accuracy. They want the most number of users to be satisfied, not accurate reproduction of an image. I would not be surprised if they don’t actually want accuracy in imaging, they want a positive impact on the user, and if that means causing “hotdog skin” under some conditions or with some skin tones, while having an overall positive photo outcome for most other users, they will always choose to make you have “hotdog skin”. They are in serving a far greater audience than most understand.

It is the narrow minded perspective of DSLR purist types that this stuff bothers, largely because they cannot look beyond the rim of their plate.

You may want to stop saying “this Apple is a horrible, awful, no good orange.”

Post reply on HN