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

441–450 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#441

Post by throwanem »

markhalonen wrote: post #439
throwanem wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What kind of volume are you doing? Most I've done is 60 group photos in an hour at a trade show. > Really, what it looks like to me is just that you have a product that costs ~nothing to operate Correct > and seems like it sort of makes sense for smallish wedding-and-anniversary party venues I would say the intended use case is destination venues like a upscale golf course or hotel. > the ask to add a Wal Mart styl…

I did look at the website, of course. How else could I have critiqued your comparison of phone and discrete cameras?

At a rate of one a minute in a destination venue, sure, this makes sense, assuming you could land that kind of deal reliably. So why are you trying to sell it to street photographers like me, who do things differently, with different desiderata and different needs? And if you are going to try to do that, then don't you think you might be wise to listen when a putative customer explains how you have failed to earn their money?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#442

Post by purerandomness »

OkCupid (the original one, before they sold out) had a great article showing how your perceived attractiveness changes significantly, based on the camera you're using to take your profile pictures [1]

[1] "Don’t Be Ugly By Accident!": https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/dontbeuglybyacciden... (mirror)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#443

Post by markhalonen »

snowwrestler wrote: post #432

This is post fails to disclose an important detail, which is that the photographer was not standing in the same spot for all photos. For iPhone golf player shot, they were standing closer to the players and using a wide-angle lens. For the “beginner photographer” shot they were standing farther away and using a longer focal length lens. You can tell by the size of the trees in the background. This difference in posit…

It is true that I was standing closer and using a wide-angle lens with the iPhone. But it wasn't on purpose to tip the scales, I was just taking an iPhone photo as I've done many times.

So it would be a fairer comparison to use a longer focal length, but it's also true that I am the Average Joe, and Average Joe took a better photo with the camera, because it guided me in that direction more than the iPhone did.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#444

Post by markhalonen »

markhalonen wrote: post #439
throwanem wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What kind of volume are you doing? Most I've done is 60 group photos in an hour at a trade show. > Really, what it looks like to me is just that you have a product that costs ~nothing to operate Correct > and seems like it sort of makes sense for smallish wedding-and-anniversary party venues I would say the intended use case is destination venues like a upscale golf course or hotel. > the ask to add a Wal Mart styl…

@throwanem I think I hit the depth limit so replying here. I would be happy to chat about how a street photographer could use Candid9, but do know that I've made plenty of money in other businesses and this is a fun passion project for me, so I'm not begging on my knees for someone to use my side project.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#445

Post by throwanem »

markhalonen wrote: post #444
markhalonen wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of volume are you doing? Most I've done is 60 group photos in an hour at a trade show. > Really, what it looks like to me is just that you have a product that costs ~nothing to operate Correct > and seems like it sort of makes sense for smallish wedding-and-anniversary party venues I would say the intended use case is destination venues like a upscale golf course or hotel. > the ask to add a Wal Mart styl…

@throwanem I think I hit the depth limit so replying here. I would be happy to chat about how a street photographer could use Candid9, but do know that I've made plenty of money in other businesses and this is a fun passion project for me, so I'm not begging on my knees for someone to use my side project.

There's no depth limit, it's just that the reply link takes a few minutes to show up at depth. You can always reply from the comment view (click the timestamp) until the reply window (iirc 14 days) has closed. I don't care about Candid9; as I said, there's no place for it in anything I do. If it matters to you to pitch effectively to street photographers, I assume you would want to find out what we care about. If not, why pitch us at all? Unfortunately for me, it's too goddamned hot right now to go outside and live, and I'm bored of doing house chores. Good luck.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#447

Post by dagmx »

arghwhat wrote: post #369
josephg wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comparing quality with non equivalent focal lengths is as pertinent as to mount a fisheye on the DSLR (because you can!) and then claim that the smartphone have less distortion. I was about to disagree with you - but I think you're right. The photographer clearly took a couple steps back when they took the DSLR photo. You can tell by looking at the trees in the background - they appear much bigger in the DSLR photo…

I'd agree if the phone had an appropriate focal length, but it doesn't. You can either go way too wide, or way too narrow (with a worse image sensor at that). Comparing the best the phone can sensibly do while handicapping the camera by intentionally doing the wrong thing for the situation makes no sense. The only workaround for the phone would be to still step back and take the image with the 24mm equivalent, then c…

How do you know if the phone doesn’t have an appropriate focal length if the image isn’t marked?

Secondly, none of the points in the article are about optical distortion across the lens they’re all about perspective distortion. Corrective elements aren’t going to change that. None of the examples highlight barrel/pincushion distortion or the like as an offender.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#448

Post by [deleted] »

9rx wrote: post #165
kittikitti wrote: post #146

This is a great article, thank you for this. I will save it as a reference. I usually get unsolicited advice from people when I use my Fujifilm camera's about how a smartphone would shoot better. Even though I own one of the latest iPhone's, there's no comparison between the two. I don't mind the comments but there's always someone. There's also people with the latest phones who come and brag about their photo qualit…

> I'm not sure what to do in these scenario's > "My phone takes better photos" Problem solved.

[deleted]

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#449

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

rob74 wrote: post #425
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…

Yeah it's disappointing to see photographers getting this wrong. Most of them know better.

It's the _distance_ that causes distortion, not the _lens_. You can prove this by doodling light rays on a sheet of paper. There is no lens that will get you a good photo at 1 meter from a person. They stand back 2 or 3 or more and then say "ho ho fish eye lens". I'm so sick of it

Someone agrees: https://petapixel.com/2021/08/02/lenses-dont-cause-perspecti...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#450

Post by CGMthrowaway »

ssutch3 wrote: post #434
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, TFA's point is that the basic/inexpensive camera in the hands of an unskilled user can be higher quality than an equivalent iPhone camera shot. In my opinion from the example shots used this is definitely the case. Camera phone distortion is pretty bad (you have to stand back further from your subject offset this, use a higher res setting, and crop in) and the processing has gotten out of hand in recent years t…

Ah I see now that I read more closely. Man the difference is really stark!
Post reply on HN