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

iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

austinmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 153 posts

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#91

Post by davidf18 »

pgib wrote: post #15

I got the iPhone 12 Pro after using my iPhone X for the last three years. I was mostly excited about a big camera upgrade, and there are definitely some big improvements from what I have been using. But I'm not 100% sure if I'm going to keep it. I'm not sure I'm blown away enough for just shy of CDN $2,000. Even though it's almost the same size, it feels considerably bigger than my X, and I'm not a fan of the matte b…

There are some of us which rely on better signal quality and the X55 modem is significantly better than earlier modems for LTE.

Next time you're in a situation where you're complaining about not getting signal, think about this.

In NYC, being in the skyscrapers but not near a window can cause these problems.

The cost of these phones are a fraction of the cost of a reliable cell service provider such as Verizon. In fact, they cost less than $2 per day.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#92

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

yladiz wrote: post #29
ssijak wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? I would say that more people will prefer the phone photo, unless you edit the dslr photo (which phone is doing automatically unless you shoot RAW on iPhone).

I don't know how you would define "better", but if you mean higher quality, I'm certain that most people would be able to pick out the DSLR version in a "blind" test, even if you used the same approx. lens focal length on the DSLR and the phone (e.g. 52mm when comparing to iPhone). I would guess people would prefer the DSLR one, but it's simply a guess (and I'm biased because I know more or less what to look for).

I'm not sure if I'd say that most people would be able to tell. But I'm sure photography people would be able to tell. Unless you're a wannabe influencer or a working professional, what matters is not whether other people would be able to tell. Nobody cares about your pictures. What matters is if you can tell, and how it makes you feel.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#93

Post by mleo »

r00fus wrote: post #80
wffurr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the DSLR automatically upload photos to iCloud or your photo stream? Looks like EyeFi (WiFi-equipped SD cards) isn't a thing anymore: http://www.eyefi.com/ "Welcome to nginx!"

EyeFi never worked for me. Poor purchase on my part.

I had good success with EyeFi back in the day and used it across a couple generations and cameras. Unfortunately, WiFi on a camera is a feature, not a product. Between phones eating cameras and WiFi getting built-in, it really wasn’t a company built for longevity.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#94

Post by Nition »

zobzu wrote: post #12
jseliger wrote: post #2

In some ways, this feels like the reviews of the last couple of generations of iPhone: it can work really well in very good light and at typical web resolutions. The photo of the woman in the parka is very impressive as a technical demonstration but is also pretty blurry/smeared, to my eye. As an only camera, it's probably the best or near the best of the phones.

I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario. With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and t…

> I think the photo of the woman is terrible.

On any normal camera that photo would be a complete blur. Impossible. It's a hand-held three second exposure.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#95

Post by beervirus »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #73
ciarannolan wrote: post #7

I wish these reviews would post the full res images. I clicked "View Image" on a few of these to see just the photo but they're all cropped and compressed. Almost any flagship phone can produce similar pics to the ones in this article. The devil is really in the details now.

Even without the full resolution images, some of the samples seem to exhibit serious sharpness problems. One example: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a... If that's the output I can expect, I don't know why I'd even bother taking the picture. The image is a mess. On the basis of this article, my conclusion is if you want to share or view the images on anything other than a mobile device, yo…

I mean.. that file is only 2048x935. It's a little hard to tell without the full res version.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#96

Post by Nition »

renewiltord wrote: post #70

Most of these photos are remarkable but the woman-in-parka shot looks heavily ... airbrushed. Maybe one of the blur filters got turned on or something? Composition-wise it's good and all that, not insulting the subject or the photographer, but the software appears to have applied quite a bit of blur.

It's a three-second exposure, hand-held. The software has greatly reduced the blur if anything. Try doing that with a normal camera and the whole thing will be blur.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#97

Post by ponker »

crazygringo wrote: post #22
ponker wrote: post #3

Imagine if Apple or Google shipped a digital SLR with all of their software magic onboard (or executed on a paired phone).

I don't really see the point. Things like low-light photography has always been available on DSLR's, like SLR's long before it, since you've always been able to control shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. And all the extra software magic can already be done on your laptop on RAW files, where you've got enough space on your screen for all the sliders -- and a large enough screen to see the difference it makes in the det…

The point is, the sensor size, lens variety, and ergonomics of a full size camera with the astonishingly good computational photography software of Apple or Google. You can’t do it with a standard camera because the software needs sensor data (gyro, accelerometer) and fast control (video frames, changing exposure) of the camera unit.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#98

Post by sbuk »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #89
billforsternz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like a perfectly nice photo to me.

I'm glad for you, but it looks very poor to me. I would be unhappy if I got home and this were the only image I had of this scene. For any given image, you'll be able to find someone who likes it or thinks it looks good enough. If that's your standard, then this camera might be great for you. But if you have a higher standard, then you might not be satisfied. I'd also ask what kind of screen you're looking at the ima…

It's not the original. It's a 2048×935 @ 72ppi, at a guess about 1/4 the actual size shot and it's been compressed so it can be uploaded onto a website. It's hardly a real representation of the capabilities of the camera.

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#99

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

sbuk wrote: post #98
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad for you, but it looks very poor to me. I would be unhappy if I got home and this were the only image I had of this scene. For any given image, you'll be able to find someone who likes it or thinks it looks good enough. If that's your standard, then this camera might be great for you. But if you have a higher standard, then you might not be satisfied. I'd also ask what kind of screen you're looking at the ima…

It's not the original. It's a 2048×935 @ 72ppi, at a guess about 1/4 the actual size shot and it's been compressed so it can be uploaded onto a website. It's hardly a real representation of the capabilities of the camera.

My bad, then. I don't know why I expected that a review of a camera would contain representative images from that camera. :P

Re: iPhone 12 Pro Camera Review

#100

Post by y2bd »

kyriakos wrote: post #76
buryat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DSLR/mirrorless is way too big and very slow to operate if you want to send photos to someone or post them somewhere. D70 also doesnt record video

Most new cameras have WiFi capability syncing to your phone. It's an extra step but it's not as bad as it used to be. Finally snapseed and lightroom for Android are good enough for basic editing in the field. At least that's what I do and I'm quite satisfied. With the resolution Facebook and Instagram presents photos the phone apps are more than sufficient at raw processing.

> it's not as bad as it used to be

I can only talk to Panasonic (GX8) and Fujifilm (X100F, XE3), but for both of those it's still pretty awful. Transfers are very slow, especially if you want full resolution, and it's always frustrating to just connect my phone to the camera--the apps are slow and clunky, setting up the adhoc network is flaky, and often times even after connecting it'll suddenly just disconnect for no reason. The XE3 supposedly supports a persistent, bluetooth connection that'll auto connect and auto transfer photos, but every time I've tried to set that up, it sends like the first two photos along and then doesn't work anymore.

I've moved to just using an SD card reader.

Post reply on HN