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

41–50 of 340 posts

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

#41

Post by thfuran »

k2enemy wrote: post #32

The author clearly knows a lot about photography, so I don't think this is a mistake in the article... When did "depth of field" begin meaning the opposite of what it traditionally meant in photography? For example: A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really can’t expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows some nice blurry figures in t…

I'd guess that Photoshop et al. are the cause, with virtual depth of field effects.

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

#43

Post by numlocked »

k2enemy wrote: post #32

The author clearly knows a lot about photography, so I don't think this is a mistake in the article... When did "depth of field" begin meaning the opposite of what it traditionally meant in photography? For example: A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really can’t expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows some nice blurry figures in t…

Perhaps it’s technically inaccurate but seems easy to read it as:

“ A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of field effect”.

Eg referring to the visual effect of shallow DoF, not the DoF itself. Because the following sentence is unambiguous about his intent, I’m inclined to not be overly pedantic here and let us slide.

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

#44

Post by turbo_fart »

appletrotter wrote: post #26
mkaic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until that same fancy processing is available on a DSLR, I think the comparison OP is making is valid. At the end of the day, what I as a consumer care about is "is photo look 1. pleasing, 2. accurate to my perception, and 3. easy to create?" and in those regards, the iPhone absolutely outperforms every DSLR I've ever used.

Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals. It's more work, for a reward. Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small on phones to gather enough light to look decent.

With google night sight you can basically take pictures in the dark.

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

#45

Post by coder543 »

willis936 wrote: post #6

The 48 MP bayer mode is indeed impressive, but it does not increase the spatial frequency response. I recently used it to document some color transition errors on LG OLED displays and even with the 48 MP "RAW" mode there are artifacts from the limited spatial resolution. One of the images properly captures the display sub-pixel layout, but that is taken closer to the display. Enabling/disabling "RAW" did not change t…

If you take a photo of a subject that is closer than 7.8 inches, you're no longer using the main camera on the 14 Pro. It automatically switches to the ultrawide camera and crops in to show the same field of view. I suspect that is happening to you in some cases, but you're unaware, based on the fact that you didn't mention anything about this limit.

The 48MP camera has the same color spatial resolution as a 12MP camera, but it has 48MP of monochromatic spatial resolution. Humans aren't as sensitive to color resolution as they are to spatial resolution in general. This is why the "2x" mode on the 14 Pro look great compared to what you might expect based on your comment. The 2x crop only has "3MP" of color resolution, but the 12MP of spatial resolution from the 2x crop makes it perfectly usable.

For your specific use case, the ultrawide camera may work fine as a "macro" lens, depending on the size of the pixels you're trying to capture. A real macro lens on an interchangeable lens camera would obviously do better.

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

#46

Post by kwanbix »

gigatexal wrote: post #27

Since my wife bought a Canon 90D for shots that matter I have since "meh"d about camera phones. I wish I could just have a simple dumb phone with a calendar, GPS, and texting, and it doesn't cost 1400 bucks.

Any cheap Android phone offers all that for 200 or even less.

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

#47

Post by sys32768 »

I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body.

If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?

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

#48

Post by formerly_proven »

criddell wrote: post #24
Mikeb85 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phones don't rival or surpass DSLRs or any proper digital camera. They just have lots of fancy processing that makes quick snaps look better than the same amount of effort on a camera.

Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on computational photography? Seeing what Apple and Google get out of tiny sensors in a phone makes me wonder what would be possible on a big camera with a better sensor.

The computational photography for those is done on a computer.

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

#49

Post by chasd00 »

pigtailgirl wrote: post #29

-- anyone else find it annoying how protruded the lens is? --

yeah not a fan, my iphone12 mini is bad enough. I get that taking a photo and posting it to instagram is 95% of the use case for the iphone but i still don't like the way the camera lenses protrude.

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

#50

Post by namdnay »

k2enemy wrote: post #32

The author clearly knows a lot about photography, so I don't think this is a mistake in the article... When did "depth of field" begin meaning the opposite of what it traditionally meant in photography? For example: A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really can’t expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows some nice blurry figures in t…

I think it stems from the "depth of field effect" tool in post-processing, which then caused people to call the visual effect "depth of field" (instead of "shallowness of field" i guess)
Post reply on HN