iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras • Hacker News Board

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#451

Post by markhalonen » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 4:46 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #445

markhalonen wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@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…

I don't really understand the current street photographers as I don't know how they would ever make money. Basically if you're already a street photographer, then you aren't motivated by money, which the pitch of Candid9 is that you'll make money. So pre-existing street photographers paradoxically are not the target market.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#452

Post by throwanem » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:00 PM UTC

markhalonen wrote: post #451

throwanem wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't really understand the current street photographers as I don't know how they would ever make money. Basically if you're already a street photographer, then you aren't motivated by money, which the pitch of Candid9 is that you'll make money. So pre-existing street photographers paradoxically are not the target market.

Right, at which point I cease to understand why the "For independent photographers" tab reads as if trying to pitch me a gig-economy style addon to an existing practice. I can't speak for the market you are trying to target, but I would wonder whether you miss people like them by hitting people like me.

I guess maybe it could be worth clarifying your copy, but who'd care? I do street work when I do it because I like meeting people and because it makes people smile. If I wanted money also out of it, I'd more likely just drop my hat on the sidewalk or something.

I still don't see why the comparison page (the one originally linked here, the iPhone 16/mirrorless shootout) treats variations in pose and composition as equivalent with those caused by camera physics, which was what originally caught my interest in any case.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#453

Post by bonoboTP » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:01 PM UTC

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…

Yes, and before photography existed, people expected painters to prioritize a flattering appearance instead of realism when commissioning portraits, too. And landscape painters used more vivid colors than in real life to convey a mood. But now that it's regular people preferring the same, it's suddenly bad.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#454

Post by bonoboTP » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:05 PM UTC

markhalonen wrote: post #443

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.

> But it wasn't on purpose to tip the scales, I was just taking an iPhone photo as I've done many times.

It tipped the scales and the post became overwhelmingly misleading, attributing the "distortion" to the camera, instead of the distance and zoom.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#455

Post by Aachen » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:08 PM UTC

rasalas wrote: post #384

mcny wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Xerox scanners/photocopiers had this problem. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223815

It was the compression format, not the scanner, right? Same would have happened if you store in that format (with the same quality settings etc.) on a computer or smartphone

Not that that helps anyone who's affected, but that situation is more like if you'd have an .aip file, AI Photo storage format, where it invents details when you zoom in, and not a sensor (pipeline) issue

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#456

Post by nehal3m » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:12 PM UTC

markhalonen wrote: post #443

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.

I agree with this. The comparison is one tool versus another and the way you would naturally apply them figures into that equation. There's a million apples-to-apples pixel peeping technical tallies, this compares experiences as a whole.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#457

Post by markhalonen » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #454

markhalonen wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But it wasn't on purpose to tip the scales, I was just taking an iPhone photo as I've done many times. It tipped the scales and the post became overwhelmingly misleading, attributing the "distortion" to the camera, instead of the distance and zoom.

Right but at the same time, Average Joe will take better photos with a digicam because they'll behave exactly like I did and make the same mistakes, so arguably it's very naive but also an accurate depiction of the average idiot who clicks a shutter

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#458

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:14 PM UTC

aikinai wrote: post #52

earth2mars wrote: post #11

Someone didn't try the power of Google pixels phones. Recently, many of my iPhone friends and family envy the pictures taken from Google Pixel 9 pro vs their latest iPhones. It's hands down the best camera and image processing.

It's still not going to come anywhere close to a real camera. Phone cameras with their tiny sensors have physical limitations that cannot be overcome, I guess until the day they are regenerating the entire image with AI based on what it expects the scene should look like with a real camera.

Imagining a Facebook Phone where you point the camera at your family to take a photo, and it recognises who is in the picture and replaces their faces with the best available photo of each them from their Facebook account. Or their "My chosen social media photo".

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#459

Post by markhalonen » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:21 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #452

markhalonen wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand the current street photographers as I don't know how they would ever make money. Basically if you're already a street photographer, then you aren't motivated by money, which the pitch of Candid9 is that you'll make money. So pre-existing street photographers paradoxically are not the target market.

Right, at which point I cease to understand why the "For independent photographers" tab reads as if trying to pitch me a gig-economy style addon to an existing practice. I can't speak for the market you are trying to target, but I would wonder whether you miss people like them by hitting people like me. I guess maybe it could be worth clarifying your copy, but who'd care? I do street work when I do it because I like…

Yes one use-case is a gig-economy street photography practice, which does already exist in places like the Brooklyn Bridge, Candid9 makes that easier.

Another use-case perhaps in your case is to do it for free and do higher volume and market your money-making services? I agree that it is fun and mood-lifting to take portraits, but also it would be cool to make it sustainable.

but yeah overall Candid9 is a hammer looking for a nail right now.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#460

Post by indoordin0saur » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 5:24 PM UTC

markhalonen wrote: post #443

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.

You were guided to stand where you were because of the lens on the camera. If your lens was a 23mm you would have stood in the same spot as you did with the phone.