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

iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

lux.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 340 posts

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#91

Post by sudosysgen »

sys32768 wrote: post #86
sudosysgen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What settings are you shooting? How do you edit your images?

On my Z5 I can use the built-in Landscape mode, and on the Z6 I can use auto or manual. 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.

What aperture are you shooting at? You probably already know it, but for landscapes you'd be looking at f/5.6 or so unless you're hurting for light.

Popular notion is that at f/11 only will diffraction start to affect you, but with modern high resolution cameras diffraction starts to creep in as early as f/9, so f/5.6 is generally best unless you really need the deeper field. You're probably going to be fine at 24MP, though.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#92

Post by foldr »

pb7 wrote: post #89
foldr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't downvote but I imagine at least someone did because the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality. This is why cameras have started trending to be larger rather than smaller. Only so much you can do software-wise before you hit physical limitations.

>the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality.

This is not really true to a very great extent once you take depth of field into account. At least, it would be helpful if you could indicate what it is exactly that you take the laws of physics to imply in this context. I made a comment here that's relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540

I took 'superior optics' to be a claim of greater sophistication or higher quality, but perhaps that is not what was meant, and the poster was merely referring to the difference in size.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#93

Post by emkoemko »

adrr wrote: post #74
sys32768 wrote: post #47

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?

Never got why camera manufactures never followed the phones. Like Live photo,and automatic hdr. Can we get rid of the shutter?

i am glad they don't but in any case what is live photo? automatic HDR? well shoot a bracket +- certain EV ? get rid of the shutter? would need a global shutter unless you like rolling shutter look, phone sensors are tiny they can have fast enough readout vs a 35mm or larger

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#94

Post by kybernetyk »

sys32768 wrote: post #47

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?

The Nikon does minimal post processing. The iPhone throws a metric shit ton of algorithms at the image data to make it passable. For normal people the iPhone output is good enough - though it often looks very over-processed.

Nikon just expects you to handle that post processing part that your iPhone is doing for you. In exchange you get way more control over the final image.

Both devices are aimed at different people. I myself have an iPhone 13 pro and a Nikon Z6ii. I tend to take snapshots with my iPhone because getting out the Nikon + playing around with sliders in Capture One is just too much hassle for a snapshot. Now would I take the iPhone and do a landscape photo where I hiked 6 hours to the photo location at 3 a.m. in the morning? Probably not. ;)

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#95

Post by andrewia »

sys32768 wrote: post #47

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 think it's processing power and engineering effort. I got a Sony RX100M2 for my mom and it has the same computational photography techniques that Google released the following year (https://ai.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high-dyn...). But Sony's image stacking is only in "Superior Auto" mode, and is only used when necessary. Google's implementation does a lot of advanced work, including selecting and blending parts of the photo depending on motion, that Sony doesn't do. I assume Sony's imaging engineers have less expertise in advanced processing, and didn't have the resources to implement the features that Google did. Sony also has to devote engineering resources to other features - a lot of their sales are to photographers that will edit in post (RAW), and later, videographers. So features that are only in "auto" mode may have limited budget.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#96

Post by emkoemko »

sys32768 wrote: post #86
sudosysgen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What settings are you shooting? How do you edit your images?

On my Z5 I can use the built-in Landscape mode, and on the Z6 I can use auto or manual. 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.

"What aperture are you shooting at? You probably already know it, but for landscapes you'd be looking at f/5.6 or so unless you're hurting for light."

this is bad advice.... shoot on a tripod and set your f stop to get the DOF you need or do a focus stack, f/5.6 would work if your shooting a distant landscape but having anything in the foreground f5.6 would not be enough, i usually stay at around F10 any higher i don't like because diffraction starts to reduce image quality and if i need more DOF i just focus stack

for ISO set it to 100 or what ever your cameras base ISO is

then adjust your shutter speed until you get correct exposure

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#97

Post by sudosysgen »

speedgoose wrote: post #73
appletrotter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've tried it with an iPhone 13 and an older camera with significantly worse low light performance than any camera from the past 7 years, and even if I disable the built-in image stacking, the mirrorless camera with an f/1.4 lens is incomparably better. I could properly expose my backyard with nothing but light pollution handheld.

Newer cameras can even film video with nothing but moonlight.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#98

Post by biftek »

criddell wrote: post #24
Mikeb85 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phones don't rival or surpass DSLRs or any proper digital camera. They just have lots of fancy processing that makes quick snaps look better than the same amount of effort on a camera.

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.

There is computational photography happening on cameras but I think it's mostly opt in features.

Olympus and Panasonic can take 80–100MP shots by shifting the sensor a small amount and stitching multiple shots together. This can even be done handheld on the newer models. I imagine phones will get this eventually (maybe some do already).

Then there's all the subject detection auto focus available on basically every camera nowadays.

Re: iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap

#100

Post by theturtletalks »

sp332 wrote: post #76
sys32768 wrote: post #47

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 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.

Apple has always been about making the choice for it’s users. Jobs always thought giving users too many options was problematic.
Post reply on HN