Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

snapsnapsnap.photos

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#51

Post by iridium127 »

arrrg wrote: post #46
smackfu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would give a sense of how far they still have to go.

There is nowhere to go, not with the available physical space. I expect noise to get lower and lower and low light performance to increase, leading to sharper (due to less noise reduction) and less noisier images in the coming years, though, due to the small available physical space and small sensor probably always a step behind larger sensors (like the ones one would find in larger cameras). Maybe it will be possibl…

There is somewhere to go, the way technology is going. Phones have done lot's of catching up even if they have long ways to go... Many people that haven't ditched traditional cameras yet could possibly do it now. But either way it's always nice to compare good cameras with convenient cameras.

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#53

Post by slig »

avn2109 wrote: post #42
exhilaration wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it's not just postprocessing? Many of my friends and I all have DSLRs but my photos are always the best because I know how to use Lightroom.

Out of curiosity, how does one learn to use lightroom?

I learned by watching Antony Morganti's tutorials [1]. They're freely available on youtube and they cover everything you need to know.

Watch the first 3 videos I linked, play with Lightroom, and then come back and watch again. You'll learn more now that you're familiar with the tool.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLllFqBuTM0WI0fC_PujkG...

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#54

Post by hcurtiss »

jakobegger wrote: post #29

One thing I miss from that comparison are indoor moving subjects (ie. kids). My iPhone 5 seems to go for pretty long exposure times (1/15s). Of course, that makes for great stills, but many of the photos I take of my kids end up blurred. I'd prefer grainy but sharp.

Totally agreed. I wish camera reviews would compare average exposure times between phones for the same shots. I'm a guy who would prefer my phone get me the best shot it can at 1/60th, rather than a low ISO shot that's blurry.

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#55

Post by dasil003 »

arrrg wrote: post #46
smackfu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would give a sense of how far they still have to go.

There is nowhere to go, not with the available physical space. I expect noise to get lower and lower and low light performance to increase, leading to sharper (due to less noise reduction) and less noisier images in the coming years, though, due to the small available physical space and small sensor probably always a step behind larger sensors (like the ones one would find in larger cameras). Maybe it will be possibl…

> Comparing them or even holding them up as some sort of great goal for smartphone cameras seems kinda … dumb? … I don’t know, pointless? … short-sighted?

It seems like the opposite of short-sighted to me; to look beyond the limitations of today's technology and find ways to make the impossible incrementally more achievable over time.

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#56

Post by sliverstorm »

balls187 wrote: post #15
stinos wrote: post #5

The comparisions in this article are really nicely done, but even better would be to have a shot from a decent DSLR next to it just to get an idea of how a phone image compares to that.

Why? The premise of the article is how the latest iPhone camera compares to previous iphone cameras.

It gives context to the improvement. Just think of those misleading graphs that have a Y scale of 700-720, focusing on the local delta and hiding the greater context to exaggerate the data

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#57

Post by christoph »

arrrg wrote: post #46
smackfu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would give a sense of how far they still have to go.

There is nowhere to go, not with the available physical space. I expect noise to get lower and lower and low light performance to increase, leading to sharper (due to less noise reduction) and less noisier images in the coming years, though, due to the small available physical space and small sensor probably always a step behind larger sensors (like the ones one would find in larger cameras). Maybe it will be possibl…

Probably downvote bait, but all I can think of here is the age old saying, the best camera you have, is the camera you have with you.

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#58

Post by christoph »

jrockway wrote: post #16
rcthompson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a comparison with a decent point-and-shoot camera would be good, but the purpose of including a high-quality DSLR shot in the comparison would be as a reference point for "this is the best that the shot can possibly look", in order to put things on an absolute scale rather than just a relative one. (Obviously, the article text should make this purpose clear.)

The best camera is the one you have with you. Once the moment has passed, having a better camera isn't going to recreate that moment. The iPhone pretty much wins this every time. It's always with you. If you're in the studio creating scenes, you aren't going to use your iPhone, so it doesn't really matter. If you're going to buy a camera to carry everywhere, you're still not going to use your iPhone. So it's really a…

Upvoted because I completely agree and iterated the same in the parent/grandparent. So many scenarios where I couldn't be bothered to drag my SLR and lenses and was more than happy with the results from my iPhone to the point I now only drag the SLR out for very specific circumstances. Even then I miss the connectivity/social/quick retouching aspect the phone gives me that I can only dream of having on the SLR. A lot of my SLR photos still never leave my memory card/hard drive and get to be seen by the people around me.

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#59

Post by urda »

hammock wrote: post #27
stinos wrote: post #5

The comparisions in this article are really nicely done, but even better would be to have a shot from a decent DSLR next to it just to get an idea of how a phone image compares to that.

And shots from the best Android phone cameras as well. An iPhone-only comparison is like saying "compare the writing scores of this 8-year-old child vs. when she was 7, 6 and 5 years old!"

> "compare the writing scores of this 8-year-old child vs. when she was 7, 6 and 5 years old!"

Which would be useful to see how the scores have improved or not improved, much like how this article is demonstrating the progress of the iPhone camera.

It's 100% valid and perfectly clear to not include "the best Android phone cameras" as that is not the goal.

Re: How does the iPhone 6s camera compare to other iPhone generations?

#60

Post by Renaud »

jrockway wrote: post #14
stinos wrote: post #5

The comparisions in this article are really nicely done, but even better would be to have a shot from a decent DSLR next to it just to get an idea of how a phone image compares to that.

I always seem to have my iPhone when I want my DSLR. The iPhone's metering is suspicious. It seems to average all areas of the frame equally, resulting in underexposure when the background's exposure is different from the exposure you'd use the capture the subject. Of course this will always happen with any camera, by my A7ii seems to be very good at picking a correct exposure. (Of course it has exposure compensation…

The 'Camera+' and '645 Pro' apps are able to save to uncompressed TIFF instead of JPG. They also give you a bit more control over exposure.

Not really RAW, but at least you get all the bits you can.

Post reply on HN