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

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

lux.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 340 posts

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

#311

Post by cthalupa »

adrr wrote: post #118
jibbers wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the thinking behind the "no detachable lens cameras" rule? I can't wrap my head around that choice.

No professional photographers. I was told at a hotel that i couldn't use my mirrorless camera on their property by their security and that was the reason.

Now THIS makes no sense to me. In the Before days, I used to travel extensively for work, and would frequently bring my a7r along, and never once had any issues taking photos at a hotel across dozens of cities and a dozen countries.

(Not doubting it happened, just think that's a very weird line of rationale from them)

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

#312

Post by nop_slide »

Krisando wrote: post #306
nop_slide wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree and as a n00b/amateur I recently picked up my first "real" camera, a Fujifilm x-t20. I've managed to take some amazing photos that simply wouldn't have turned out as good on my iPhone 12. I was sick of the smudgy look that happened often on the iPhone when the lighting wasn't perfect, and also there is a unique "look" that the Fuji mirrorless cameras spit out due to their x-trans sensor[1]. In my short 2 w…

> I disagree and as a n00b/amateur I recently picked up my first "real" camera, a Fujifilm x-t20. Welcome to the hobby! The X-T20 is a great camera. > also there is a unique "look" that the Fuji mirrorless cameras spit out due to their x-trans sensor[1] The performance of the Fuji sensors aren't the main reason behind the processing, for sensor type comparison, there's a great article here: https://medium.com/@neverm…

Word! Thanks for the additional info, reading that article now. I'm sticking to JPEGs and leaning on that fuji sensor/processing for now. I mostly got this camera to document my family and 9 month old, time is limited at the moment and post processing is low on the list :)

Maybe one day I'll start messing around with the RAWs though!

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

#313

Post by chobytes »

A bit of knowledge of optics and photography is enough to know that little sensor with miniature glass cant compete with a dedicated camera. (Eg regardless of 'equivalent' field of view via crop factor, a 50mm and 10mm are going to produce a very different depth of field.)

You can definitely take nice photos with it given the right variables and/or some creativity (as you could with a point-and-shoot a decade ago)... but don't be taken in by their marketing if photography is a goal for you.

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

#314

Post by foldr »

cthalupa wrote: post #310
foldr wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you done any side by side comparison shots? Even with a high quality scan, you're unlikely to get the same resolution and dynamic range from a 35mm negative. And that's leaving aside the obviously vast differences in convenience and flexibility. (I'm old enough to have used 35mm SLRs, and I have absolutely no nostalgia for that era.)

I've long since lost or sold my F100, but you can go to Flickr or 500px and search for F100 photos - it's still relatively popular among people that want to shoot on film. Doing a quick side by side comparison of the 'selfie in the woods' shot with a shot of a person with a beard on 500px ( https://500px.com/photo/89633601/ge-by-nika-topuria ), the F100 shot has similar levels of detail in the facial hair, despite be…

Without side by side comparisons it's hard to draw any conclusions from some random photos on Flickr. The concert photos you link to are good photos (which is the important thing, of course) but they're hardly excellent from a pure technical perspective. Look at e.g. the blocked out shadows here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ginandsake/32014019777/in/phot...

I guess you're just using the F100 as an example, but it's worth pointing out that the camera body is almost completely irrelevant to image quality with a 35mm film camera. It's all in the lens and the film. (Autofocus might be better on the F100 than on earlier SLRs.)

>And I'll take basically any of the Fujia films over the color grading in the iPhone.

You want the same color balance regardless of time of day or lighting? If you want to get accurate color balance with film you have to use color balancing filters to adjust for lighting and conditions.

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

#315

Post by bzzzt »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #253
sp332 wrote: 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.

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?

The iPhone does a lot of stuff: - correcting for lens distortion - automatically setting white balance - optimizing color and contrast - blending multiple exposures when it's dark and has some advanced denoising tricks (which sometimes gives photo's a bit of an 'oil painting' look) - sharpening to get that 'crisp' look (even if your lens is not that sharp)

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

#316

Post by expensive_news »

foldr wrote: post #305
dylan604 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the size of the chips on mobile devices will always mean there is infinite depth of field without software effects. it's like 1990s news camera footage. everybody everywhere in the frame is in focus. boring boring boring.

You could disprove this with a few seconds of experimentation. Modern phone cameras have focusing mechanisms for a reason. Here is a shot taken with the main camera of the iPhone 12 Pro Max for illustration: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akuK5v_PB8DwzDnJC1oJXOETr_S... Without getting too much into subjective territory, I am personally tired of the bokeh obsession. There's nothing inherently interesting about photo…

> There’s nothing inherently interesting about photos with a blurry background

Congrats! You took a bad photo with a shallow depth of field! I guess the photographer does matter more than the equipment.

> Achieving it with software effects is perfectly legitimate

Sure you can. But if you think software bokeh can compete with any dedicated camera bokeh (even a vintage 35mm camera for that matter) than you need to try and use a dedicated camera with a good prime lens, ie 50mm f/2.

The biggest thing that a dedicated camera can get you is simply options. You can choose the depth of field of the shot. You can choose the shutter speed. You can choose the focal length. Sure you have some control over these things in some apps, but it’s not the same level of control.

I shot on my iPhone for years, but after I got my mirrorless camera I have taken so many pictures that never would have been possible on an iPhone.

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

#317

Post by foldr »

expensive_news wrote: post #316
foldr wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could disprove this with a few seconds of experimentation. Modern phone cameras have focusing mechanisms for a reason. Here is a shot taken with the main camera of the iPhone 12 Pro Max for illustration: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akuK5v_PB8DwzDnJC1oJXOETr_S... Without getting too much into subjective territory, I am personally tired of the bokeh obsession. There's nothing inherently interesting about photo…

> There’s nothing inherently interesting about photos with a blurry background Congrats! You took a bad photo with a shallow depth of field! I guess the photographer does matter more than the equipment. > Achieving it with software effects is perfectly legitimate Sure you can. But if you think software bokeh can compete with any dedicated camera bokeh (even a vintage 35mm camera for that matter) than you need to try…

I have used dedicated cameras with prime lenses. I quite enjoy using old film cameras as a hobby, including large format cameras which can create extremely shallow depth of field using movements. The only point of the linked photo was to show that current cell phone cameras clearly do not have 'infinite' depth of field (as the other poster claimed).

It is true that a dedicated camera gives you more options. (I did not deny this.)

>You can choose the shutter speed

Pedantic point: you can also choose the shutter speed on a cell phone camera if you use one of many apps that give manual control over shutter speed and ISO.

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

#318

Post by appletrotter »

foldr wrote: post #290
appletrotter wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 apertur…

> Have you ever used a 35mm film camera?

Yep.

> The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor.

That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this.

Saying the sensor size is the reason is also wrong, but the size of the sensor is a factor in the equation - and the sensor being so small forces manufacturers to go with wide open apertures. It’s not ideal for every shot.

> Even with a wide aperture lens and 400 ISO film

If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso?

> You can drive yourself insane trying to get a 4x5 negative that doesn't have any uneven development or scratches.

Sounds like a good time for a hobbyist.

> Thus, it annoys me when people compare these incredible devices unfavourably with "real cameras". It's pure gatekeeping.

I’m not the one gatekeeping. Cell phone cameras are real cameras. They’re just different.

You say it’s good for general shooting, I’m talking about professional and hobbyist use.

I will say though, it’s just an interesting fact AFAICT - digital cameras are still behind - or are only just hitting parity - in terms of dynamic range.

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/02/film-vs-digital-this-is-how...

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

#319

Post by foldr »

appletrotter wrote: post #318
foldr wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 apertur…

> Have you ever used a 35mm film camera? Yep. > The amount of light that’s let in depends entirely on the aperture diameter, not the size of the sensor. That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this. Saying the sensor size is the reason is also wrong, but the size of the sensor is a factor in the equation - and the sensor bei…

>That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this.

For a given angle of view, the amount of light incident on the sensor depends solely on the diameter of the aperture (the absolute diameter, not the f number). You can see this visually in the comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540

If you really want to think of it in terms of a combination of sensor size and f number, you can do so. But it's easier just to look at the size of the hole the light is going through – which not surprisingly, determines how much light ends up being collected, once you fix the angle of view.

>If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso?

Because films with higher ISOs are unacceptably grainy for most uses.

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

#320

Post by kaba0 »

neverartful wrote: post #240
sumedh wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not surprising. I'd put my money on a good photographer with a crummy camera rather than a crummy photographer with a good camera any day of the week. The biggest part of photography is being able to 'see' the photos before you even raise the camera.

I guess it depends on the subject. E.g. no cameramen will take a good photo of flying birds with a shitty camera, but sure enough in good lighting conditions static scenes can be remarkably good even with worse hardware.
Post reply on HN