81–90 of 340 posts
The iPhone 14 has a fantastic camera. It's a noticeable improvement from previous models and takes fantastic photos that rival or surpass many SLR cameras on the market. If Apple had taken another leap and included usb-c port it would have been enough for me to upgrade. For now, I wait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah not a fan, my iphone12 mini is bad enough. I get that taking a photo and posting it to instagram is 95% of the use case for the iphone but i still don't like the way the camera lenses protrude.
Since the iPhone 11, the primary stated purpose of the Pro variants has been photography. For users less interested in photography, the regular iPhones have a more subtle camera array.
The 48 MP bayer mode is indeed impressive, but it does not increase the spatial frequency response. I recently used it to document some color transition errors on LG OLED displays and even with the 48 MP "RAW" mode there are artifacts from the limited spatial resolution. One of the images properly captures the display sub-pixel layout, but that is taken closer to the display. Enabling/disabling "RAW" did not change t…
If you take a photo of a subject that is closer than 7.8 inches, you're no longer using the main camera on the 14 Pro. It automatically switches to the ultrawide camera and crops in to show the same field of view. I suspect that is happening to you in some cases, but you're unaware, based on the fact that you didn't mention anything about this limit. The 48MP camera has the same color spatial resolution as a 12MP cam…
Even if the lens was operating at the limit of physics, you'd get a 2 micron first ring of the airy disk at 500nm, which is bigger than the size of the pixels. It can help a bit to have pixels smaller than the smallest detail the lens can resolve, but at the same time the lens isn't operating at the physical limit, so there is probably only a small increase in spatial resolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on computational photography? Seeing what Apple and Google get out of tiny sensors in a phone makes me wonder what would be possible on a big camera with a better sensor.
The computational photography for those is done on a computer.
And none of those products have nearly the sales of a smartphone to sustain R&D. Similar to how the headphone dongle of an iPhone is much cheaper and yet better quality than most audiophile equipment.
I 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?
What settings are you shooting? How do you edit your images?
Autocorrect RAW in Adobe Photoshop looks good. And certainly on a 4k monitor the DSLR images reveal more detail.
My post here has me realizing I need to take iPhone and DSLR shots side-by-side in the same place with the same lighting and begin to compare them in-camera and in post-processing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on computational photography? Seeing what Apple and Google get out of tiny sensors in a phone makes me wonder what would be possible on a big camera with a better sensor.
The computational photography for those is done on a computer.
Also, are you saying you could reproduce any of the on-phone stuff easily on your computer? I’m thinking about the astrophotography modes, portrait modes, live photos, and low light features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does that happen? Is it because there's a physical antialiasing filter in the lens?
I'm not an optics expert, but I expect that the physical system's spatial bandwidth is much higher than the sensor's bandwidth. That is to say, if there were more light sensing elements I think the spatial bandwidth would be higher. I don't think the artifacts are directly from aliasing but rather an artifact of software interpolation. It anyone knows better please correct me.
I 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 wouldn't necessarily assume that the optics are superior. Smartphone lenses are pretty sophisticated. Also, their smaller size and far greater production numbers open up manufacturing techniques that wouldn't be practical for DSLR lenses. Edit : Apologies for commenting on downvotes, but I'd be genuinely curious to see some objective evidence that the optics of a typical DSLR lens have a superior design. Of course…
These pictures are fantastic. For anyone but professionals the reasons to buy a DSLR or mirrorless are virtually gone.
I was sick of the smudgy look that happened often on the iPhone when the lighting wasn't perfect, and also there is a unique "look" that the Fuji mirrorless cameras spit out due to their x-trans sensor[1]. In my short 2 weeks with the camera I've had a ton of fun and gotten some great shots.
While no doubt the 14 pro is amazing, your statement isn't true.