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

421–430 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#421

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

mcny wrote: post #378
stego-tech wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with your observations, and would add the irony of such a pursuit by phone makers is that serious hobbyist/amateur/professional photographers and videographers understand that cameras are inherently inaccurate , and that what we’re really capturing is an interpretation of what we’re seeing through imperfect glass, coatings, and sensor media to form an artistic creation. Sure, cameras can be used for acc…

I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?

iPhones can definitely garble text, although it's not clear whether they can substitute some text for another. Seems possible but unlikely (in a purely statistical sense).

https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/1m5zsj7/ai_photo_ga...

https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/1jbcl1l/iphone_16_p...

https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/17bxcm8/iphone_15_n...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#423

Post by CGMthrowaway »

Lord-Jobo wrote: post #371

A decade of "the best smartphone camera competitions" by mkbhd have clearly highlighted what is happening here. 1: In a/b testing, nearly everyone including pixel peepers prefer a more vibrant photo. 2: the traditional perspective of "a photo should look as close as possible to what my eyes see if I drop the viewfinder" is increasingly uncommon and not pursued in the digital age by nearly anyone. 3: phone companies k…

The "Beginner Photographer" samples in the article look the best to me, out of all the samples. Is that not supposed to happen?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#424

Post by illiac786 »

watwut wrote: post #276
amarshall wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is: who cares what the “best” camera is if one doesn’t have it with them to take a photo of the fleeting moment anyway?

But if you snap that pic, but never use it for anything because it looks slightly weird ... then you as well might not have the camera.

I feel it’s still better than nothing, hence the saying holds true for me. “Best” does not imply “good”.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#425

Post by rob74 »

dagmx wrote: post #38

The 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…

Yup, that was the thing that jumped out at me too: in the photos with the golf players, the trees in the background appear much smaller in the iPhone photo than in the "real camera" photo, which means the "real camera" photo was taken from further away and zoomed in, so it obviously will have less distortion. Same for the building and car pictures, but the article doesn't mention that at all (except for writing that "the fish eye iPhone lens creates distortion" - of course it does, that's why the iPhone has other lenses as well)!

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#426

Post by throwanem »

markhalonen wrote: post #412
throwanem wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that that's the claim, yes. The author does an unsatisfactory job of defending it, which is extremely strange considering on how many axes an image out of a dedicated camera is palpably preferable to that from a phone, with its physical constraints and computational compensations. I do shoot with both because I'm not foolish enough to think good work can't be forced from poor tools, but I know the differ…

most hn comment of all time. The whole point of the product is that giving someone a QR code ticket is easier than collecting email or phone number, which makes a big difference at high volume.

What kind of volume are you doing? I see three examples. Hell, I get more people than that stopping me to ask for pictures or try to hire me for event work when they see how I use a camera, most days when I'm just out for a walk.

Really, what it looks like to me is just that you have a product that costs ~nothing to operate and seems like it sort of makes sense for smallish wedding-and-anniversary party venues - but you've discovered too late what a nightmare that market is and that the fit's not actually that great, so you're pitching to people like me to try to salvage with a pivot, not realizing that the ask to add a Wal Mart style belt mounted printer to my kit in order to produce these QR code tickets is really just never going to happen.

It's bizarre to me in what world you live where this constitutes "easier," but I also don't care. You want to intermediate and transactionalize a relationship so ephemeral it can already be nearly overlooked even to exist, and where your presence is unneeded and unwelcome - and mine is the most HN comment ever? But it does explain why no one in your sample shots is smiling.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#427

Post by jlokier »

mcny wrote: post #378
stego-tech wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with your observations, and would add the irony of such a pursuit by phone makers is that serious hobbyist/amateur/professional photographers and videographers understand that cameras are inherently inaccurate , and that what we’re really capturing is an interpretation of what we’re seeing through imperfect glass, coatings, and sensor media to form an artistic creation. Sure, cameras can be used for acc…

I don't spend too much time thinking about cameras or lenses but this kind of conversation makes me wonder... when I take photos of receipts or street signs or just text in general, is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text? or am I being paranoid?

> is it possible that at some point the computational photography makes a mistake and changes text?

Yes it is. I've seen that happen in real-time with the built-in camera viewfinder (not even taking a photo) on my mid-range Samsung phone, when I zoomed in on a sign.

It only changed one letter, and it was more like a strange optical warping from one letter to a different one when I pointed the camera at a particular sign in a shop, but it was very surprising to see.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#428

Post by p0w3n3d »

I'd love to see indoor photos comparison. These photos all are taken outside where there's no need to do additional lighting from the camera, and using "some Sony 2004" camera is not a feasible solution in this case, because the flash would ruin everything, making people on the photo looking like a south park style stickers. I'd say that the software behind phone cameras copes well inside buildings, but standard cameras need additional help.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#429

Post by Espressosaurus »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #354
meatmanek wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Full-frame lenses tend to be markedly bigger for equivalent quality compared to, say, APS-C lenses. Only if you define quality as field of view. For light-gathering ability and background separation/bokeh, you need a lower f/number on APS-C than on full-frame to be equivalent: A 35mm f/1.2 lens on a 24MP APS-C sensor will take pictures that look nearly identical to a 52.5mm f/1.8 lens on a 24MP full-frame sensor. (…

You're absolutely right, but what's depressing is how few people understand this. I'd say the problem with your point is that it's too practical and involves people going out and trying to produce some artistic expression. Most people enjoy chasing measurable specs and don't stop to understand what they're actually doing. So they'll go compare a 4/3 sensor's output at iso x to a full frame sensor at the same iso. The…

It's a market problem. If I could get the lenses I wanted in APS-C format, I'd have an APS-C camera as my main camera. Instead the market has chosen for full frame to be the main place investment is done in, so I get a full frame camera since the APS-C cameras and lenses are second-class citizens (not true for Fuji, true for Canon, Nikon, and Sony).

Medium format explodes the cost and again, the lenses I want aren't even available.

So you go for what you can get, given the marketplace and also given the lens system you have bought into.

I doubt anyone is going wildlife shooting with a large format camera, for example.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#430

Post by tristor »

bayindirh wrote: post #253
dagmx wrote: post #38

The 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…

And this is why I have an Olympus Pen-F in one pocket and my iPhone in the other pocket. I love my iPhone, and I use it for taking snapshots day-to-day like receipts for my expense report, but any time I care about capturing something I see I have an actual camera in my pocket. Micro 4/3rds for size/weight, unfortunately, but while I have a FF camera I am not lugging it around with me everywhere, a Pen-F literally fits in my pocket with lens attached.
Post reply on HN