I dont get why people spend so much time defending a "jack of all trades" device that is not even cheap. Its popular consumer trash that exists to help people be "good enough" and average. Thats why they keep releasing new ones every year. Its some form of self harm and chaos. Maybe they love chaos i am not sure. Iphones are chaos.
I broke out my Sony a6000 and 35mm f1.8 prime at a new years party. I don't use it much anymore but it had always excelled above my phone in low light "party shots".
The next morning I imported them and flipped through commingled a6000 and iPhone shots. The difference was stark. The iPhone (14 pro) had _significantly_ better quality across the board. The only exception was an amusing amount of bokeh on some fireworks (as mentioned by the author). I think portrait mode may have been able to do a passable version of this had I thought to try it. I was not using ProRes.
Aside from the disparity in quality, picking up my old camera again THIS year was pretty underwhelming. Focus was slow and hunted a bit. It prevented rapid shots to catch fireworks in the background. The screen and viewfinder was grainy/low-res. The import was clunky.
It's listed on FB marketplace if anyone is interested.
APS-C sensors are still more than twice as big (in width/height) than the 48MP sensor on the iPhone 14 Pro Max, so if "simple physics" was all there was to it, you'd also expect APS-C cameras to deliver much better results. "Full frame" is just a marketing term.
You (intentionally?) missed the fact that that is an 8 year old sensor. Of course there is more to it than simple physics; the utilization of those physics matter.
Is an 8 year old CPU using 200mm^2 as good as a modern CPU using 200mm^2? No. Is it as good as a modern CPU using 50mm^2? Probably not either.
Edit to respond to child: No, the comment I responded to HERE on HN is an 8 year old sensor (Sony A6000).
The reddit post isn't comparing to 8 year old sensors.
Also, sensors on consumer cameras haven't actually changed much in the past 8 years (marketing hype to the contrary). Low light performance is a bit better, but that's unlikely to have been a major factor in the OP's comparison given the use of an f1.8 lens.
This page is useful for comparing old and new: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison You can see some improvements from newer cameras with the same resolution, but it's not a huge difference.
This is the point of the original post isn't it? An old/cheap DSLR will not beat an iPhone in most scenarios. I found that to be true, although I did expect the old camera to beat the iPhone due to "physics". It seems the advantage the iPhone has is largely in the software doing the image processing as well as ease of the UI, focusing/depth finding, bracketing etc.
I used to buy nice quality Sony point and shoot models and used to like playing around with manual mode as you could do things phones at the time could not, particularly in low light. They were also somewhat portable and just about fit in a pocket, there was no way I was going to carry around a DSLR
But I don't think i've touched it in years now, not quite sure which iPhone suddenly made it redundant, I think maybe the iPhone 10? Low light performance on the iPhone has advanced in leaps and bounds and that's what I found I used it most for.
Photographers would be better served concentrating on subject matter, body language, light and composition. I was just given a stack of stunning photography magazines from 1960s/70s Germany, printed on multiple types of paper and featuring some of the best photographers of all time, and having been used to crappy magazine reproduction, was simply gobsmacked at not just the content but also the quality of resolution and colour. The same thing happened to me when I visited the Magnum Archive at the Harry Ransom Center in Texas and handled original prints. The standard of photography has no correlation to the improvements in technical representation.
Still using my Leica Q2, Canon 5DIV, Fuji X-M1 and Pentax 645Z alongside my iPhone 12 Pro. The iPhone isn't replacing any of them for photographers with the skills to nail pictures.
Phones have destroyed the P&S market, but without ignoring physics that’s as far as they can go. A FF and above camera will always be better, as well as having all the other advantages listed (lenses, batteries, etc.).
Smaller formats will struggle despite having the physics advantage simply due to cost; smaller sensor cameras are generally not as expensive and so don’t take full advantage of their sensor area. The lens ecosystems are also not as good as the larger, more professional mounts.
Photographers probably will keep using DSLR and Mirrorless cameras, but for the rest of us, something like this I will buy right away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZm4gg5CvWc
This reads like a non sequitur to me. You start by saying that you saw some really nice reproductions of photos in some old photography magazines – great. Then you say that skilled photographers will continue to prefer various cameras to the iPhone 12 Pro Max. Both statements may be true, but where's the connection between them? I mean, if subject matter, body language, light and composition are the really important things (and I agree!), then who cares which camera you're using anyway?
It's worse than non-sequitur imo, it's contradictory. I expected GP to end his reply saying that those shots were all done with worse cameras than an iPhone on worse display mediums (old magazines) so there's more to be gained from other aspects of photography than upgrading from an iPhone camera.
Well, I'm adding to the conversation here rather than wanting to directly rebut the Reddit post, which is best done on Reddit anyway.
The original poster has written - at length - about a very small attribute, detail, which is not entirely the responsibility of the sensor but they equate this to image quality. Detail isn't some universal hallmark of image quality and nor is dynamic range, and I don't think I want to be dragged into arguing anything at the level of the Reddit poster because it's all wrong, it's all apples and oranges and I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that leads them to write that post.
Cameras are an external translator of all the electromagnetic waves going on around us, a little like human senses, producing snapshots of what we think is reality. Different people's senses translate things slightly differently, because they are differently sensitive to emotion, or sound, or smell, and camera hardware varies along similar lines, but perhaps to colour and light.
These differences are cast aside in the post/rant, not explored, a very one-dimensional train of thought with accompanying potshots at supposed camera snobs and various insults at other commenters.
On the point about who cares what camera you're using anyway, it's true to some extent, but sometimes I may be interested in some technical detail that relates to an aspect of a photograph. I keep a lens around because it renders hair in a magical way that no other lens I use does. Gear sometimes has a visual attribute that is quite interesting.
The reddit post addresses detail, dynamic range and low light performance (and depth of field control, to a lesser extent). These are the things you’d expect to be the main advantages of a camera with bigger sensor, such as a DSLR, so it makes sense to focus on them.
Subjective preferences for the ‘look’ of a particular camera or lens obviously exist. However, as they are subjective, there is not much to be said about them when comparing equipment or advising someone on which equipment to use. Anyone can just look at some sample shots and decide for themselves.
In this post you play down the importance of detail (“a very small attribute, detail”), whereas in your original post you describe being “simply gobsmacked at not just the content but also the quality of resolution…” of the photos you saw.
You seem very sure that there must be something inferior about phone cameras, but you're frankly all over the place when it comes to saying what this thing actually is.
I've addressed the technical side of this argument before, but I want to address a side that bother's me quite a bit but I don't see addressed often.
Adding computational aspects into photography means that the images taken on these platforms will all have the same artistic interpretation at the level that that computation works. This is fine for snapshots, etc. Where it hurts is in artistic expression. It's almost as if all photos will go through an artistic AI after being taken.
This process can, and likely will, increase the acceptability of those pictures that we use those cameras for most often. I truly think that computational photography will hurt the artistic expression and the feel of images taken outside of those situations.
Right now, with a "real" camera shooting RAW, you keep as much detail of the image as possible and the photographer (artist) edits it to present what their mind's eye told them was there from that RAW data. With anything using computational photography the computer algorithm has already modified that data permanently, pushing and shaping it towards what that algorithm has determined is most pleasing for the largest number of people. I feel like this is a major win for most people who don't care about the art side of photography, but a major loss we aren't yet acknowledging for those who want to explore the artistic expression of the medium.
You can get pretty 'raw' RAW files from an iPhone with 3rd party apps. For example, Halide will save (non-'pro' non-HDR) RAW files. These don't seem to have gone through any kind of AI processing as far as I can see.
You can do manual multi-shot blending and HDR if you want to. This is a photo I took on the iPhone 12 Pro Max with Halide RAW. It's a (manual) blend of around 10 exposures. The quality is not amazing, but I think it's pretty good for a night shot on a phone that's two generations behind the iPhone 14 Pro.
Your comments seem to assume I have no familiarity with how photography is used or the tools. I’m not sure why.
I’ve done plenty of HDR, Panoramas, etc. in my life. I don’t find the iPhone to be a tool worth my time to invest in those, except in situations where it’s the only camera with me (so anything unplanned, which happens).
I like to shoot with the ProCamera app on my iPhone, using the 'Natural' Capture Quality setting. It applies less post-processing than the default camera app while still giving you usable results.
Just buy the damn computer telephone with the touchscreen and camera, they're all just black rectangle slabs at this point. Nothings changed since 2007, they're faster and have more space, big deal.
I didn’t read the full post, but the lack of certain keywords and the fixation on the technical details of the sensors / lenses indicates to me that my concern is not addressed.
My problem with cellphone cameras is the amount of post-processing they perform to make the picture look more attractive. They can be made to trick our neural networks into classifying the image as high quality, and they may do so with the artificial NNs present on the phone; but this doesn’t make the image more realistic. Some of the post-processing is done to make faces look different, in accordance to some societal ideals, but that doesn’t bring us closer to seeing things as they are.
We are veering into a world where it is way cheaper to trick each other about reality than to pursue gaining accuracy in measuring it. GPT is another instance of a system that seems to satisfy our perception of correctness; but when more cognitive cycles spent on its results, holes and contradictions emerge. If not enough effort is spent on interrogating these results, we end up with short feedback loops that converge on the artifacts created by these models. We then get a reality tunnel formed by models and machines, with blindspots that span most of society through its dependence on these machines to acquire information. These blindspots feed back into future iterations of machinery and societal structures / policies.
> workflow, the default JPEG/HEIF output of the iPhone is just sad, in fact I think it's worse than years before, there's so much sharpening, so much dynamic range, it just looks super fake and super flat. I could use an app to fix it, but they never work as smoothly as the native camera app.
> because of how the iPhone is magically enhancing these photos, there will be a degradation in image quality when shooting fast, which is not a problem on traditional cameras
If you are Ansel Adams, you can take a fantastic phot with anything. A garbage camera will just place more limitations on you, which may make you work harder, but that's it.
If you are Joe Shmoe, then the best camera in the world will not make you take pictures like Ansel Adams. No technological solution can fix that gap.
This problem will not be fixed in my lifetime or yours. Not until we can take the entire genius that made Ansel Adams who he was, can this problem be fixed.
At which point, you're no longer taking the pictures, but instead the virtual Ansel Adams is doing so.
Now, between those two extremes, having more intelligence built into the device will help for certain types of pictures that you might want to take. And as the years go by, more and more technological advances will be incorporated, so there will be a wider and wider variety of pictures at which you have a decent chance of being able to take decent pictures.
But phones will only eat the market from the bottom up, and slowly at that. It will take more and more effort for phones to be able to eat that next layer above where they are today. It will happen, but it will take more and more time, and more and more money. And in the meanwhile, higher end cameras are going to continue to be made that will extend the upper reach of what cameras can do. It's a constantly moving target.
Today, I think phones have mostly eliminated the lower portion of the point-and-shoot market. But not all of it. It's going to be a while before the point-and-shoot market is completely eliminated. And much longer than that for the higher end cameras.
most camera buyers will in fact never buy a second lens [...] you've just wasted your money on a body that doesn't perform as well as an iPhone because of the cheap kit lens
Probably the strongest argument here. Yes, there are clip-on telephoto lenses for phones; but nothing beats a big piece of quality glass for speciality photography. Even in the low end (e.g. Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM) this will be much more versatile for specialty photography.
Unless you're a pro photog you probably don't care, so want to take photos of your dog? use your phone is also good advice.
Those are not 100% images from the iPhone. An old 24 mpix full frame dslr will do the job. You buy a wide angle lens and a 70-200 zoom and you are set.
33 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 42.6 ms ] threadOk, that’s enough HN for today.
The next morning I imported them and flipped through commingled a6000 and iPhone shots. The difference was stark. The iPhone (14 pro) had _significantly_ better quality across the board. The only exception was an amusing amount of bokeh on some fireworks (as mentioned by the author). I think portrait mode may have been able to do a passable version of this had I thought to try it. I was not using ProRes.
Aside from the disparity in quality, picking up my old camera again THIS year was pretty underwhelming. Focus was slow and hunted a bit. It prevented rapid shots to catch fireworks in the background. The screen and viewfinder was grainy/low-res. The import was clunky.
It's listed on FB marketplace if anyone is interested.
So yeah, I very much concur.
Despite their marketing, I’ve never been aware of iPhones actually having the best image quality of smartphones.
I haven’t followed the iPhone 14. Does it do something different?
Your specific situation makes sense, but generalizing that is a bit of a stretch.
My phone is better than my older cameras too, but not than my FF Canon. I’ve made this comment before as well:
Phones have completely destroyed the P&S market for good reason. They can’t touch the FF and above market due to simple physics.
Is an 8 year old CPU using 200mm^2 as good as a modern CPU using 200mm^2? No. Is it as good as a modern CPU using 50mm^2? Probably not either.
Edit to respond to child: No, the comment I responded to HERE on HN is an 8 year old sensor (Sony A6000).
Also, sensors on consumer cameras haven't actually changed much in the past 8 years (marketing hype to the contrary). Low light performance is a bit better, but that's unlikely to have been a major factor in the OP's comparison given the use of an f1.8 lens.
This page is useful for comparing old and new: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison You can see some improvements from newer cameras with the same resolution, but it's not a huge difference.
But I don't think i've touched it in years now, not quite sure which iPhone suddenly made it redundant, I think maybe the iPhone 10? Low light performance on the iPhone has advanced in leaps and bounds and that's what I found I used it most for.
Still using my Leica Q2, Canon 5DIV, Fuji X-M1 and Pentax 645Z alongside my iPhone 12 Pro. The iPhone isn't replacing any of them for photographers with the skills to nail pictures.
Phones have destroyed the P&S market, but without ignoring physics that’s as far as they can go. A FF and above camera will always be better, as well as having all the other advantages listed (lenses, batteries, etc.).
Smaller formats will struggle despite having the physics advantage simply due to cost; smaller sensor cameras are generally not as expensive and so don’t take full advantage of their sensor area. The lens ecosystems are also not as good as the larger, more professional mounts.
The original poster has written - at length - about a very small attribute, detail, which is not entirely the responsibility of the sensor but they equate this to image quality. Detail isn't some universal hallmark of image quality and nor is dynamic range, and I don't think I want to be dragged into arguing anything at the level of the Reddit poster because it's all wrong, it's all apples and oranges and I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that leads them to write that post.
Cameras are an external translator of all the electromagnetic waves going on around us, a little like human senses, producing snapshots of what we think is reality. Different people's senses translate things slightly differently, because they are differently sensitive to emotion, or sound, or smell, and camera hardware varies along similar lines, but perhaps to colour and light.
These differences are cast aside in the post/rant, not explored, a very one-dimensional train of thought with accompanying potshots at supposed camera snobs and various insults at other commenters.
On the point about who cares what camera you're using anyway, it's true to some extent, but sometimes I may be interested in some technical detail that relates to an aspect of a photograph. I keep a lens around because it renders hair in a magical way that no other lens I use does. Gear sometimes has a visual attribute that is quite interesting.
Subjective preferences for the ‘look’ of a particular camera or lens obviously exist. However, as they are subjective, there is not much to be said about them when comparing equipment or advising someone on which equipment to use. Anyone can just look at some sample shots and decide for themselves.
In this post you play down the importance of detail (“a very small attribute, detail”), whereas in your original post you describe being “simply gobsmacked at not just the content but also the quality of resolution…” of the photos you saw.
You seem very sure that there must be something inferior about phone cameras, but you're frankly all over the place when it comes to saying what this thing actually is.
Adding computational aspects into photography means that the images taken on these platforms will all have the same artistic interpretation at the level that that computation works. This is fine for snapshots, etc. Where it hurts is in artistic expression. It's almost as if all photos will go through an artistic AI after being taken.
This process can, and likely will, increase the acceptability of those pictures that we use those cameras for most often. I truly think that computational photography will hurt the artistic expression and the feel of images taken outside of those situations.
Right now, with a "real" camera shooting RAW, you keep as much detail of the image as possible and the photographer (artist) edits it to present what their mind's eye told them was there from that RAW data. With anything using computational photography the computer algorithm has already modified that data permanently, pushing and shaping it towards what that algorithm has determined is most pleasing for the largest number of people. I feel like this is a major win for most people who don't care about the art side of photography, but a major loss we aren't yet acknowledging for those who want to explore the artistic expression of the medium.
It also reduces the perceived image quality from the phone drastically in anything but the best light, which (I think) supports my point.
Without computational photography they are acceptable at best; with it they strip a lot of artistic agency.
I use mine quite a lot for exactly that type of stuff but I don't even think about touching it for anything I want to edit.
https://imgur.com/a/S9fhQrK
I’ve done plenty of HDR, Panoramas, etc. in my life. I don’t find the iPhone to be a tool worth my time to invest in those, except in situations where it’s the only camera with me (so anything unplanned, which happens).
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/procamera/id694647259
My problem with cellphone cameras is the amount of post-processing they perform to make the picture look more attractive. They can be made to trick our neural networks into classifying the image as high quality, and they may do so with the artificial NNs present on the phone; but this doesn’t make the image more realistic. Some of the post-processing is done to make faces look different, in accordance to some societal ideals, but that doesn’t bring us closer to seeing things as they are.
We are veering into a world where it is way cheaper to trick each other about reality than to pursue gaining accuracy in measuring it. GPT is another instance of a system that seems to satisfy our perception of correctness; but when more cognitive cycles spent on its results, holes and contradictions emerge. If not enough effort is spent on interrogating these results, we end up with short feedback loops that converge on the artifacts created by these models. We then get a reality tunnel formed by models and machines, with blindspots that span most of society through its dependence on these machines to acquire information. These blindspots feed back into future iterations of machinery and societal structures / policies.
> Why haven't I sold my cameras:
> workflow, the default JPEG/HEIF output of the iPhone is just sad, in fact I think it's worse than years before, there's so much sharpening, so much dynamic range, it just looks super fake and super flat. I could use an app to fix it, but they never work as smoothly as the native camera app.
> because of how the iPhone is magically enhancing these photos, there will be a degradation in image quality when shooting fast, which is not a problem on traditional cameras
If you are Ansel Adams, you can take a fantastic phot with anything. A garbage camera will just place more limitations on you, which may make you work harder, but that's it.
If you are Joe Shmoe, then the best camera in the world will not make you take pictures like Ansel Adams. No technological solution can fix that gap.
This problem will not be fixed in my lifetime or yours. Not until we can take the entire genius that made Ansel Adams who he was, can this problem be fixed.
At which point, you're no longer taking the pictures, but instead the virtual Ansel Adams is doing so.
Now, between those two extremes, having more intelligence built into the device will help for certain types of pictures that you might want to take. And as the years go by, more and more technological advances will be incorporated, so there will be a wider and wider variety of pictures at which you have a decent chance of being able to take decent pictures.
But phones will only eat the market from the bottom up, and slowly at that. It will take more and more effort for phones to be able to eat that next layer above where they are today. It will happen, but it will take more and more time, and more and more money. And in the meanwhile, higher end cameras are going to continue to be made that will extend the upper reach of what cameras can do. It's a constantly moving target.
Today, I think phones have mostly eliminated the lower portion of the point-and-shoot market. But not all of it. It's going to be a while before the point-and-shoot market is completely eliminated. And much longer than that for the higher end cameras.
Probably the strongest argument here. Yes, there are clip-on telephoto lenses for phones; but nothing beats a big piece of quality glass for speciality photography. Even in the low end (e.g. Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM) this will be much more versatile for specialty photography.
Unless you're a pro photog you probably don't care, so want to take photos of your dog? use your phone is also good advice.