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

331–340 of 340 posts

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

#331

Post by adrr »

cthalupa wrote: post #311
adrr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Miami at a trendy hotel known for celebs.

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

#332

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 »

solardev wrote: post #239
fumar wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples to share? I am interested as I shoot with film, mirrorless, and on iPhones.

Not my gallery, but a good side by side: https://imgur.io/a/vG6Yskx Other comparisons: https://www.phonearena.com/news/Pixel-7-Pro-vs-iPhone-14-Pro... https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-14-pro-vs-google...

I really appreciate you sharing these. To my eye, there were quite a few where the 14 pro is noticeably better. Take the first one — the pro image is sharper imo, while the pixel photo suffers from very noticeable noise reduction or some other smoothing process.

That said, Im an iPhone user and I very likely have a bias. It would be cool to take a blind quiz to see which I actually prefer and if I do have a bias. I wonder if there’s a web service that easily lets you do this with imgur albums.

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

#333

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 »

cthalupa wrote: post #113

Unfortunately, it still takes crappy concert photos. The combination of low light, crazy lighting, etc., still wreak havoc on the images. Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line arguing with them about it.…

Even DSLRs have issues with image quality at concerts. Red lights are frequently used at concerts and cause notorious issues, regardless of camera.

It’s great you found that work around with Fuji x100. I just think this is a valid though minor complaint since most cameras suffer in the same context, and I wish people would stop taking photos at concerts hahaha.

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

#334

Post by user_7832 »

cthalupa wrote: post #275
user_7832 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious what you feel is “good enough” for concert images. I recently went to a concert and took a ton of pictures on my Pixel 5, which IMO performed much better than my previous android (non flagship) phones to a level I was pretty happy with, albeit I do not have an iPhone to compare with. I uploaded some (slightly decent) images to imgur, could you let me know if this is better than or similar to your experien…

Fairly similar, though you look to be closer to the DJ than I was to my subjects in the only concert I've been to with the new iPhone. I think the 14 Pro might edge it out a bit if I was at a similar distance to my subject.

Thanks for your reply. Yep, that sounds quite likely given how old the pixel 5 camera hardware is. I was pretty close to the DJ (I guess 2 to 3 meters), none of the photos are cropped.

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

#335

Post by cthalupa »

9935c101ab17a66 wrote: post #333
cthalupa wrote: post #113

Unfortunately, it still takes crappy concert photos. The combination of low light, crazy lighting, etc., still wreak havoc on the images. Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line arguing with them about it.…

Even DSLRs have issues with image quality at concerts. Red lights are frequently used at concerts and cause notorious issues, regardless of camera. It’s great you found that work around with Fuji x100. I just think this is a valid though minor complaint since most cameras suffer in the same context, and I wish people would stop taking photos at concerts hahaha.

I've had pretty excellent luck with my a7r3 when I've been able to bring it in, either because of scoring a press pass or a venue not having camera restrictions.

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

#336

Post by throwaway290 »

warning26 wrote: post #229
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way I know this is not your point, but there are excellent editing options for zero dollars! Which, I suppose X=0 is valid for your comment. https://www.rawtherapee.com/

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.

I switched to RT and I love it. Some techniques are outright impossible to achieve in LR or other raw interpretation software.

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

#337

Post by foldr »

cthalupa wrote: post #329
foldr wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Look at e.g. the blocked out shadows here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ginandsake/32014019777/in/phot ... There are tradeoffs, for sure. Even in that photo, the details you can see look better than the weird mess that iPhone 14 Pro produced at a concert the other night. I think that's largely due to whatever computational garbage is happening, but that's what the camera app gives me. >I guess you're just using the…

I don’t think there are any Nikkor lenses that work only on the F100. Nikon has always been pretty good about lens forward and backward compatibility.

There’s lots of nice looking iPhone concert photos on Flickr. I just don’t see any slam dunk there, sorry. But hey there's obviously a subjective component here. If you prefer the results from the F100, that's just as legitimate as whatever preference I have.

I'm confused about the color stuff because digital basically lets you do whatever color grading you want, within reason. Getting the exact colors that you want from film is an arduous process if you aren’t scanning and using a digital color grading workflow. You either need a big set of color correcting filters or you need to do complex work in the darkroom. (Color wet printing is a HUGE pain in the butt.) Back when I shot film for real in the 90s and got the films developed and printed by regular cheap consumer labs, it was pot luck how the colors came out. I think a lot of people have a kind of false nostalgia for film's color rendition based on the results of a film+digital workflow that wasn't available to regular people in the 90s. There's a similar effect with grain, which looks quite different in scans compared to wet prints.

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

#338

Post by sp332 »

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?

I think correcting for lens distortion is the main thing that wasn't already mentioned in the article. Regular cameras can't do that, but the iPhone knows exactly what lens is being used and can take advantage of that.

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

#339

Post by sudosysgen »

nihilius wrote: post #295
sudosysgen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are using an APS-C camera or a FF above 30MP, at f/10 you are already suffering from diffraction. You really want to be between f/5.6 and f/8. Of course, composition is still the most important thing, so if you need the depth of field you need the depth field. As for the exposure you can just use aperture priority with your ISO set to the base ISO. On a Nikon camera you'd actually want to be at 64. If the scen…

Actually if you shoot raw its not good to go below base iso. Recently i learned that when you go under base iso the camera just overexposes the image and pulls it down in software to give you longer exposure times. With raw you can just raise shadows in post, its easier than pulling lights down. Negative side effect is highlight blowing out easy when going below base iso. So if you shoot raw then just stay at base is…

It depends on whether or not you have a lot of highlights. As you said it just overexposes the image, which you should do if you can get away with the highlights.

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

#340

Post by xdfgh1112 »

nihilius wrote: post #293
xdfgh1112 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because landscape photos are easy. No bokeh, no depth of field (everything at infinity), good lighting, no need for fast shutter speed or a big sensor. Your images will be sharper I guess, but that's not worth $2k in most cases.

Looks like you never took a lanscape photo where you had to use a (Gradiant) ND, Polarisation Filter, Multiple Exposures, Long Exposures for smooth Water or anything where you had to hink about how to take the perfect shot. So yes for a quick snapshot a phone is good enough. For a photograph a bigger camera is much more benefical than "just" for sharper images.

I have done all of those when I owned a DSLR. Phones have been able to do smooth water and multiple exposures for years though...
Post reply on HN