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

331–340 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#331

Post by dotancohen »

sharpshadow wrote: post #299
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…

If anyone working on skin color representation try to emulate Agfa Precisa it has with the best skin colors in natural light.

What about other colours? Isn't that film famously under saturated for sky, water, vegetation, etc?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#332

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#333

Post by dotancohen »

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…

  > the best quality I can reasonably obtain.
Cellphones absolutely can produce high quality results. Especially if you add the constraint "best quality I can reasonably obtain" as many consider carrying a dedicated camera all the time to not be reasonable. And this was the case even before the advent of the smartphone. How many people did you see carrying a camera in 1980, or 1990, or 2000? Almost zero.

The best camera, is the camera you have on you.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#334

Post by relaxing »

dragonwriter wrote: post #203
relaxing wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> connect a huge, powerful flash that you can directly fire at the subject fucking hell “fashion photographer thinks all portraits should look like the red carpet” wasn’t on my batshit opinions bingo card. Wedding photographers use bounce flash because indirect light is flattering and not everyone is supermodel-beautiful. I don’t know where you’re partying that the ceilings aren’t painted white (they usually are beca…

> “fashion photographer thinks all portraits should look like the red carpet” wasn’t on my batshit opinions bingo card. “Specialist thinks the broader domain should universally adhere to the way things are optimized in their area of focus” is not an uncommon thing to see on HN, though its more commonly seen with specialists in different kinds of programming than photography.

I know, and it sucks.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#335

Post by piva00 »

tormeh wrote: post #280
piva00 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are a bit smaller but, to me, not that much of a difference when I compare my old Olympus M43 setup to my current Fuji X ones. Haven't really experienced any portability issues (also tend to carry the camera + 3 lenses when traveling), at the same time I do not use long lenses so I can agree with you there might be size advantages for those cases.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#336

Post by ksynwa »

As a permanently amateur photographer my favourite aspect of this comparison is portrait photographs. Beginner cropped frame DSLRs with a high aperture prime lens take so much better portrait pictures than any phone camera. Now I understand that it is not really fair to compare a specialised equipment with a phone camera. But it is a testament to how timeless and beautiful a prime len's bokeh is. Phones try to simulate it with depth estimation but it never looks good to me.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#337

Post by neomantra »

Has anyone used this Candid9 service or QR code photo sharing workflow? Does it work well?

I happen to be making a RPi Camera for Burning Man and was incorporating a QR code workflow into it. With a thermal printer for either a low-res pic or a QR code to print or snap. I devised something along the lines of this service, but dead simple URL generation to filename+hash in an S3 bucket.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#338

Post by WhyNotHugo »

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…

iPhone's picture quality has degraded substantially in recent models. Photos with a newer model look cooler, but fake and unrealistic. There's so much post-processing that photos looks completely artificial.

For example, take a photo of someone standing in front of a landscape. It looks like you took a photo on a green-screen and photoshopped the landscape behind the subject.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#339

Post by relaxing »

vFunct wrote: post #201
relaxing wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> connect a huge, powerful flash that you can directly fire at the subject fucking hell “fashion photographer thinks all portraits should look like the red carpet” wasn’t on my batshit opinions bingo card. Wedding photographers use bounce flash because indirect light is flattering and not everyone is supermodel-beautiful. I don’t know where you’re partying that the ceilings aren’t painted white (they usually are beca…

Yah you can't fix color balance from bad color cast. ALL photos look good with direct flash. Never use bounce flash. And indirect lighting is never flattering. EVER. Fire any photographer that ever uses bounce flash. Nobody wants their muddied color. I was also a photo editor with thousands of photographer submissions. I can always tell which ones used bounce flash. A sure sign of unprofessional amateurness. I get th…

Yah, you can. Get out of the 80s or whatever decade you learned paparazzi style light was a good look.

For anyone reading, soft shadows from indirect light is why professional studio setups use beauty dishes, bounce cards, and big flash boxes or umbrellas with diffusers. Bounce flash is a way to create a little of that magic when you can’t get the entire rig to a shoot, as in wedding photography.

Pointing your on camera flash directly at the subject is the easiest route you can take. How does that make every other method lazy? (Note that I’m not calling direct flash lazy - it still takes skill to balance flash power vs aperture and speed. But every other method takes that and more.)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#340

Post by Saline9515 »

This is why I enjoy analog camera - aside from the fact that any 100$ camera can take crisp photos, they don't try to be perfect and add creative and artistic aspects to photography. Each film has its own color balance and sensitivity, each lens will render light differently, you can choose between them to create the aesthetics you want. I enjoy it more, and take really good family pictures with it!
Post reply on HN