The best camera is the one which you have with you
iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
341–350 of 519 posts
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#342[dead]
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#343> Ever wonder why you never see a smartphone photo printed and framed on the wall?
No.
I have numerous smartphone photos printed and framed. On both walls and horizontal surfaces.
There does not exist a greater pixel-peeping gearslut than I, but that's just a hobby. Hobbies only dominate my wallet, not my life.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#344I’m sure that Apple did tons of A/B testing, focus groups etc. with different image processing parameters to arrive at the settings that their phones use for photos, and from these comments it’s clear that a lot of people prefer the iPhone photos. When I was in grad school (in the pre-iPhone era) I photographed lots of weddings on the weekends, and one thing I noticed during the process was that people often have a set idea of what good photos look like. This idea of a “good” photo is often not tied to what the scene in front of them looks like. For example a “good” photo that includes a sunset will show a highly saturated orange/red sky, even if that’s not what the sky looks like at the moment the photo is taken.
Personally, I carry around a Ricoh GR3, and shoot random shots with the iPhone, but when it really matters I’ll use the Ricoh. The way the iPhone flattens the lighting is what bugs me the most. Recently I was at a kid’s birthday party and each kid had a cupcake with a candle in it. The room was a bit dark, and the Ricoh photo showed that each kids face was illuminated just a bit by the candle in their cupcake… The color temperature of the candle light is warmer than that of the room light. The photo makes you feel like you’re really there. My friend shot a photo on her iPhone at the same time and we compared afterwards. In her photo, every kid’s face is well lit and the candle effect is gone. She likes her shot better and I like mine. Some people want a shot that reflects what they saw, and some people want a shot that looks like what they think good photos look like.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#345I’m sure that Apple did tons of A/B testing, focus groups etc. with different image processing parameters to arrive at the settings that their phones use for photos, and from these comments it’s clear that a lot of people prefer the iPhone photos. When I was in grad school (in the pre-iPhone era) I photographed lots of weddings on the weekends, and one thing I noticed during the process was that people often have a s…
MKBHD does a phone camera tournament (yearly?) and I believe at least once he found that people prefer a brighter image, even if that didn't match reality. No source or proof, just something I vaguely remember
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#346Beginner Photographer's pictures would compare better if they used a wider depth of field so the background objects are sharp, like the iPhone pics. But, conversely, how do you do the narrow(er) depth-of-field in the iPhone when you want it?
The iPhone blurred background is completely synthetic. It uses multiple cameras to build a depth map of the scene, and then blurs whatever isn't at the depth of the subject of the photo. If you're asking "how do you do", you can select "portrait" when taking the photo, or go to the photo in your gallery after the fact, pick "edit", pick "portrait", and choose a fake aperture ("f/1.4") and focus point to use. The resu…
It also fails miserable with long hairs unless it's all tightly tied up.
Though still good to see how it turns out otherwise for a small phone in your pocket.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the Canon takes a modicum of skill, which my wife is not interested in And so, the reasons why Fuji and point-and-shoots are popular. Lots of “serious” photography enthusiasts don’t really get this and call Fujis “hype” cameras but it’s like bashing Wordpress because most people don’t want to learn AWS to post cat pics. > The iPhone is always in my pocket Rationale for both point-and-shoots as well as Leica (al…
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.
You’d be surprised. Point-and-shoot cameras have become extremely popular with young people in the past ~2 years or so because of the nostalgia factor.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#348The 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'll kindly disagree with you. Like the other commenter, I'm on a 27" HP business monitor comes with color calibration certificate, and the differences are very visible. Moreover, I'm taking photos as a hobby for some time. The angle, different focal lengths doesn't matter in rendering of the images. The issue is, cameras on phones are not for taking a photo of what you see, but a way to share your life, and sharing…
> The issue is, cameras on phones are not for taking a photo of what you see, but a way to share your life, and sharing your life in a more glamorous way is to get liked around people.
Is nothing new.
When film was mass market almost no one developed their own photos (particularly colo(u)r). Instead almost all printing went through bulk labs who optimised for what people wanting to show to their family and friends.
What is different now is if someone cares about post processing to try and present their particular version of reality they can do it easily without the cost and inconvenience of having to setup and run a darkroom.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#349Portraits that you'd get from a nice 85mm f1.2 or f1.4 on a full frame camera cannot be replaced with iphone images (yet!) imho. Any color grading can probably be reproduced in post.
Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras
#350My 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…
> and I'll never be able to teach passers-by when they take a group picture for us
Well, you don't need to teach photography to passerby, just to tell them to look there and push this button. It's not more complicated than on a phone, maybe even less. But it may look more intimidating to old a camera, it's true