I guess the physics of the problem are really against these tiny cameras, but even so the bokeh on the caterpillar macro shot is surprisingly painful. Is there anything they can do about that, optically or computationally?
iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
71–80 of 340 posts
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#72I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Targeted audience doesn't demand the feature.
If a users needs are being met by an iPhone then they shouldn't worry about dslrs.
If a users needs aren't being met by the dslr gotta wonder is it the technology or the skill of the user?
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until that same fancy processing is available on a DSLR, I think the comparison OP is making is valid. At the end of the day, what I as a consumer care about is "is photo look 1. pleasing, 2. accurate to my perception, and 3. easy to create?" and in those regards, the iPhone absolutely outperforms every DSLR I've ever used.
Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals. It's more work, for a reward. Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small on phones to gather enough light to look decent.
The sensors are small but the software is good. Night photography is easy on a recent smartphone and you don’t even need a tripod.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#74I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Never got why camera manufactures never followed the phones. Like Live photo,and automatic hdr. Can we get rid of the shutter?
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#75I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Mine don't (iPhone 13 Pro Max, Fuji XT-2 and various lenses). They do in daylight, sure, but things like sunrise/sunset or unusual colors throw them off like crazy.
Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the texture effect, almost.
They also suffer a bit zoomed in.
The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone cameras but it has its limits.
On good camera hardware there's very little that all that post-processing would add outside of extreme-high-ISO-noise, IMO. Which - would it be nice? Sure. But you can find software and stack exposures manually and such for those situations too.
And a lot of the other smart stuff gets fooled too easily.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#76I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
I think Nikkor assumes that you would use software to do the post processing. It gives you something a lot closer to what's coming from the sensor, so you can choose which $XXX image editing suite you want to run it through. The iPhone knows the vast majority of people won't do that with their photos, so they can go all-out, but you're stuck with their specific result baked in to your photo.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#77I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Mine don't (iPhone 13 Pro Max, Fuji XT-2 and various lenses). They do in daylight, sure, but things like sunrise/sunset or unusual colors throw them off like crazy. Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the texture effect, almost. They also suffer a bit zoomed in. The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone cameras but it has its limits. On good camera hardware there's very little that…
This is true. I should have added "in good light".
The DSLR images also retain much more detail in cropping.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#78I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Just shoot your mirrorless in RAW and process them later. Lightroom gives great results, but you can also use Apple Photos to get similar color processing as your iPhone photos. The mirrorless photos will look much better on a laptop or bigger screen but about the same on a phone.
Thanks for the tip on Apple Photos. Had not tried that.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#79I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Try photographing at night with short exposures.
Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap
#80I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing to it?
Good looking != captures reality. iPhones apply filters to make the photos look more vivid and to make them "ready to share". If a professional camera would do that, it would not be professional.
It doesn’t do that unless you turn on vivid photographic styles. It’s tuned pretty much like a dedicated camera.
This does annoy many people who then switch to Snow/BeautyCam to actually take their pictures since they want to look prettier.