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

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#481

Post by bayindirh » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 8:41 PM UTC

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #475

bayindirh wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally coming from the film era, I don't think it's as clear cut as this. Many of the post-processing an informed person does on a digital photo is an emulation of a process rooted in a darkroom, yes. On the other hand, some of the things cameras automatically does, e.g.: Skin color homogenization, selective object sharpening, body "aesthetic" enhancements, hallucinating the text which the lens can't resolve, etc…

If a professional had access to darkroom facilities pretty much everything could be done in there right down to removing people and background objects (see for instance https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/stalin-photo-manipulation-1... ). It's just far easier for anyone to do now.

I know. You can remove people, use selective exposure with dodge and burn, etc.

But you can't change a person's proportions and skin tones so precisely unless you're printing small and have time, equipment and talent to paint the positive (negative would be nigh impossible) in a believable manner to do so.

On the otter hand, you can enable slimming filter on your phone or camera, click and you go.

Oh, also, some of the Soviet photo manipulation is done with stolen and translated French software, in 1987 [0].

[0]: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/04/1821236/soviet-imag...

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#482

Post by strogonoff » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

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…

> The other extreme is people chasing paper-thin focus, which, I guess, isn't as easy to obtain on smaller sensors.

Really? I used a nice longer (maybe 80mm equivalent) lens on an APS-C system a while ago, and it gave very shallow DoF while being much lighter and more practical (cheaper, etc.) compared to what I can find for a full frame. Not going to look up the physics but I was under the impression that shallow DoF is easier on smaller sensors (I don’t mean phone small, just crop small).

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#483

Post by k310 » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 1:40 AM UTC

econ wrote: post #472

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…

After taking a photo I adjust brightness contrast etc to make the picture on the screen match that what I see in front of me. Sometimes this really brings the mood into the shot. This is also why I get much better results on a phone than on any fancy camera with a smaller or different display. The phone matches what those to view the image get to see closely or exactly.

Exactly the reverse for me, with the potential for professional grade photos, which I get roughly 25% of the time with a camera. Some sessions are close to 100% pro quality.

Zoom or cropping is horrible in phones, and I carry a Lumix with 8x zoom, smaller than a phone, everywhere. And every car trip, a very old Coolpix with 42x zoom (24-1000mm effective) small enough to fit in a small shoulder bag. I used the Coolpix Monday to get close up photos of two county police being helicoptered on a long line to a drug bust before anyone knew what was going down.

Phone photographers (I am one) look for scenes within the phone's limits. I used the Coolpix for over 10 years, capturing everything without limit.

For real fun, take photos in Yosemite with an iPad. It looks like a view camera, with the very large display. Add a western hat and a beard, and impersonate Ansel Adams. :-)

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#484

Post by throwanem » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 1:57 AM UTC

_2d30 wrote: post #119

bdamm wrote: post #110

I see iPhone pictures posted on walls all the time, because most people aren't pretentious. The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer…

> The iPhone photo of the golf players is better than the "photographer" shot in every way that actually matters; the guys are more comfortable and they have natural smiles, whereas the other photo is full of grimaces and frowns. Why that might be is hard to guess, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the photographer forcing them to stand there and hold a pose while they fiddled with their weird little ma…

"Infer?" Watch the demo video and see it happen.

The thing about street and impromptu work like this is that to be good, it must be done gently. Otherwise it's only about you, the photographer, who has made a mirror of your subjects without knowing it. That's why I said it doesn't surprise me no one in any of these samples wears a genuine smile. I've made shots like those too, but I never thought them good enough to publish anywhere.

"Why don't you show examples of your own work so we can compare, then?" For one, because I have no such rights to the likeness of anyone who's put up with my lens. For another, no one here is really whose judgment I care about in this respect. When it comes to photography, HN's commentariat has always managed to be that rare broken clock which is right not even once a day, and not even for entertainment is it worth soliciting such a farrago.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#485

Post by karunamurti » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 2:15 AM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #453

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.

It's not bad in a sense of taste, but it's bad in a sense that there's a lack of option in phone camera.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#486

Post by SchemaLoad » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

ileonichwiesz wrote: post #347

SchemaLoad wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see people using weird things like 2000s digital cameras and Nintendo DS cameras for that old look, but I've never seen someone with one of those entry to mid level point and shoot cameras you used to see before smartphones. I only see phones, ancient retro cameras, and hobbyists with high end gear.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#487

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 2:28 AM 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.

[deleted]

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#488

Post by Footprint0521 » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 2:49 AM UTC

Yeah maybe if you stay in the default camera app and point and shoot? But I’ve been on cloud 10 editing exported RAW ProMax photos and that’s 90% of his complaints. And the last 10% of the jaw complaint was just the kid moving his mouth

Like yeah, there’s differences, but not to a novice photographer. And they’re not the end of the world to professionals? Idk

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#489

Post by throwawaybob420 » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 3:47 AM UTC

Auracle wrote: post #265

throwawaybob420 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really a night a day difference once you spend just a little amount of time learning your camera. I always show people the difference in quality with two photos of my wife and kids during Fourth of July. One shot is with my iphone15, the other with my Fujifilm xt5. It’s such a stark difference

Do you show them on a monitor or large prints or on your phone? I’ve long thought the main “issue” with people not realizing the difference is that they’re just looking at photos on their phones, where the images are so small it’s harder to appreciate the difference. I rarely try to take photos apart from snapshots with my phone because I’ll invariably be really disappointed when I view them on my monitor.

Nah I do it on my phone, angle is slightly different but everything just looks much better when taken with a proper camera

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#490

Post by necovek » Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 4:10 AM UTC

dale_glass wrote: post #85

piva00 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mirrorless APS-C platforms pushed micro 4/3 out, similar footprint with APS-C sensors is hard to beat.

True, but I think micro 4/3 still can be a good deal smaller. It's just that a fair amount of the cameras didn't make good use of that.

If one compares body size of early Sony APS-C cameras (NEX-5, a5100, even a6000), to the newer models (a6400, to ignore OIS models), the difference is staggering.

Size is approaching full frame models like 7M2. But yes, lens is where it baloons further, yet good all-purpose zooms are chunky for APS-C too. I sometimes carry multiple cheaper primes on several bodies because that's easier to pack.

So really, body sizes have grown due to processing and cooling needs (and in-camera OIS), but lenses still bring more heft (even with FF: look at the size of A7C series).