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

491–500 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#491

Post by necovek »

deathanatos wrote: post #199
FredPret wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which button do I press" comes up every time; other times it's focus or zoom level that's out. On the iPhone, ~everyone on the planet instinctively knows how to do it.

I usually just tell people. > "Which button do I press" The Big One. > focus It's automatic. (If I'm handing a stranger my camera.) > zoom level This is maybe the hardest one, I guess, … but I do think most people have seen enough TV cop dramas to instinctively know. Or, they can just take the photo at the zoom I've handed them, and it won't be a big deal. Walking forward a few steps is also like zooming.

Agreed: I usually compose a shot with everybody but me in it, stand until a passer-by walks nearby so they'd end up in roughly the same spot. It's not the same and composition is usually off, but they are passable for what I want them to be (full family photos, usually).

Sometimes you get a stranger looking through a viewfinder and crouching and you know you've got yourself another hobbyist (or pro) as well :) Those compositions usually are better too!

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#492

Post by _2d30 »

throwanem wrote: post #484
_2d30 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

I didn't know what you were talking about at first because I didn't remember seeing any video on the blogpost. If there had been video showing this happen, it would definitely be a good argument against it being inference! Instead, as best as I can infer, you mean the video on the home page and I watched the first ~1min where a photographer takes a photo and they didn't do any more fiddling than I have ever seen someone do with an iPhone and the couple having their photo taken didn't look uncomfortable at all! So not only is this not a video, afaict since I didn't watch the whole 5mins, of this particular set of photos being taken which means the inference made by the OP is very much so an inference but also I don't even think it shows an example of what they purported.

> That's why I said it doesn't surprise me no one in any of these samples wears a genuine smile.

Also, looks like you logged into your throwaway for this reply so now you've linked throwanem bdamm together.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#493

Post by namibj »

Aachen wrote: post #455
rasalas wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No they exhibited it in pure instant single copy copying mode.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#494

Post by Aachen »

namibj wrote: post #493
Aachen wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No they exhibited it in pure instant single copy copying mode.

Oh wtf! I had ctrl+f'd the article for cop (to catch "copy" and "copies" and such) to quickly check this but didn't see that. Then I guess I don't remember the root cause of this issue

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#495

Post by vladvasiliu »

strogonoff wrote: post #482
vladvasiliu wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Do…

Sure. But now go compare a FF 80mm with the same aperture as your 50 or similar lens used on the APS-C. The depth of field will be shallower on the FF.

> I was under the impression that shallow DoF is easier on smaller sensors (I don’t mean phone small, just crop small).

It's the reverse. These things are continuous. There's no reason for it to be easier one way, then all of a sudden stop and become increasingly difficult. Otherwise, there would be no need for shenanigans with "portrait mode".

My iPhone 14 pro's main camera is an equivalent 24 mm f/1.78. It has way much more in focus than my m4/3 12/2 (also a 24 mm equivalent).

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#496

Post by arghwhat »

dagmx wrote: post #447
arghwhat wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I listed focal lengths for an iPhone 16 Pro Max, and good focal lengths for flattering portrait photography is common photography knowledge that I provided as well for reference, set with a little wiggle-room by the optics of the human eye.

There aren't more variables than subject framing and focal length, and a portrait of a person is a well-known size. Comparing the remaining two numbers is simple math.

(It is well-known what distortion effect using the "wrong" focal length will give, which can sometimes be used intentionally but is not what you want in the average portrait. Shorter focal lengths give a silly, elongated facial appearance which exaggerates frontal features like nose and mouth, longer focal lengths give a flatter appearance which exaggerates rear features like neck width.)

> Secondly, none of the points in the article

The article clearly shows distorted images, and that the article fails to mention it does not make it less of an issue.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#497

Post by throwanem »

_2d30 wrote: post #492
throwanem wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> "Infer?" Watch the demo video and see it happen. I didn't know what you were talking about at first because I didn't remember seeing any video on the blogpost. If there had been video showing this happen, it would definitely be a good argument against it being inference! Instead, as best as I can infer, you mean the video on the home page and I watched the first ~1min where a photographer takes a photo and they did…

When I see expressions through my lens like the ones on the faces of those folks being photographed in the video, I respond by apologizing.

This is not a throwaway and I am not Benjamin Damm, nor last I checked was he me. Are you quite well? Have you eaten anything today?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#499

Post by _2d30 »

throwanem wrote: post #497
_2d30 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Infer?" Watch the demo video and see it happen. I didn't know what you were talking about at first because I didn't remember seeing any video on the blogpost. If there had been video showing this happen, it would definitely be a good argument against it being inference! Instead, as best as I can infer, you mean the video on the home page and I watched the first ~1min where a photographer takes a photo and they did…

When I see expressions through my lens like the ones on the faces of those folks being photographed in the video, I respond by apologizing. This is not a throwaway and I am not Benjamin Damm, nor last I checked was he me. Are you quite well? Have you eaten anything today?

Then why are you explaining why you’ve said something if I’ve never spoken with or interacted with you before as though I would know what you have said lol

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#500

Post by dagmx »

tristor wrote: post #433
Espressosaurus wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I doubt anyone is going wildlife shooting with a large format camera, for example. Not with true large format, but with the new Fuji medium format cameras it's starting to become reasonably possible to do faster work like wildlife at larger format sizes. The main issue remains, which is sensor readout speed, but the technology has gotten so much better that you can get results with things like birds-in-flight that…

I’d also just add that Fuji has some of the worst autofocus on the market right now. Going between my Fuji and Sony bodies, I realized how much I took my Sony AF for granted.

If Sony would make a MF body, I’d be all in.

Post reply on HN