[HN Gopher] iPhone 13 Pro camera review: Tanzania
___________________________________________________________________
iPhone 13 Pro camera review: Tanzania
Author : tosh
Score : 166 points
Date : 2021-09-24 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (austinmann.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (austinmann.com)
| throwaway-jim wrote:
| Even though I watched it in 4k the image was not 4k sharp, and
| random areas of the screen would get blurry/pixelated. Zoomed in
| shots look very bland. I own and iphone and I love the camera
| very much but this just convinced me that even the best phone
| cameras are nowhere close to a dedicated camera.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| I really wouldn't make such conclusions without seeing the
| actual original file. To me this looks like it was crushed by
| the encoding bitrate.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| My phone camera is amazing. I can take photos of my town's basic
| foliage on my basic phone which looks like a professional stock
| photo. The resolution, saturation, sharpness, color correction
| would've seemed unbelievable 10 years ago.
|
| I have an iPhone 8. I don't see much improvement in these iPhone
| 13 photos.
| skylanh wrote:
| I would personally use something like DxoMark's tests as a
| starting point to evaluate cameras and lenses. EDIT: and such
| things as the camera on a smartphone.
|
| That sets the starting point, and then I can compare as I go
| along.
|
| https://www.dxomark.com/rankings/#smartphones-mobile
| Arubis wrote:
| The best camera is the one you have with you.
| nbzso wrote:
| Dependig totaly on use case. In my street photograpy days my
| best pictures came from two cameras: Rollei 35 (with zone
| focusing) and Leica M3.
|
| But when you stop down and focus on composition and best
| possible result in camera, you need a diferent tools.
|
| For the general public smartphones are ideal to "capture" the
| moment.
|
| But quality cannot be accomplished without a biger than
| smartphone lens. Even entry level Sony RX has a Zeiss in it.
|
| Comparing smartphone computational photography to professional
| photography is simply a marketing trick. Full frame sensor and
| adequate lens will give you always more data to push in post.
|
| Smartphones have stagnated as innovation, so manufacturers are
| seeking differentiation and buyers motivation trough "better
| pictures".
| criddell wrote:
| > Smartphones have stagnated
|
| The big camera companies have as well. How much better is
| Canon's or Sony's best camera this year than a year or two
| ago? They don't have the same constraints that a phone
| company has and it seems like there's not a lot of year-over-
| year advancement.
| latexr wrote:
| > Dependig totaly on use case.
|
| Photographing an interesting composition with a camera of
| mediocre image quality is superior to not snapping a picture
| at all because you left the expensive DSLR at home.
|
| "The best camera is the one you have with you"[1] because the
| one you don't have with you can't take the picture.
|
| [1]: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/873224
| nbzso wrote:
| I can counter quote: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.
| com/the_online_photogr...
| yoz-y wrote:
| That article is indeed a counter quote but provides a
| really bad counter argument. Most people won't leave
| their preferred camera at home because they are testing
| gear or have their only camera clogged with color film.
| nbzso wrote:
| Let me give you another example.
|
| The professional will create meaningful photography with
| lowest quality tools available. The amateur on other
| hand, will produce meaningless pictures even with most
| expensive and advanced camera or some smartphone labeled
| "Pro".
|
| For usual memorabilia use cases normal people will be
| fine with a smartphone from 2014.
|
| But if you are professional, who has knowledge and desire
| to capture a moment with enough quality, you will never
| leave your house without a camera. And this camera never
| will be an iPhone or any other smartphone. This use case
| will be the extreme exception from the rule.
|
| If we are in the digital realm of photography, here are
| some cameras that will be considered adequate:
|
| * Fujifilm X100V
|
| * Ricoh GR III
|
| * Sony RX100 VII
|
| With this you can produce award-wining work, with iPhone
| you will produce mainly self-esteem or some form of
| social validation.
| drclau wrote:
| > Smartphones have stagnated as innovation, so manufacturers
| are seeking differentiation and buyers motivation trough
| "better pictures".
|
| And I dare say, some are succeeding in delivering "better
| pictures" (quotes yours). I have compared pics from iPhone 6s
| and iPhone 12 Pro taken in the same conditions, and I can
| tell you the improvements are very real.
| nbzso wrote:
| I am with you. But the idea of "pro" is to market towards
| semi pros or amateur photographers, and this crowd has gear
| and tools to produce better quality.
|
| The smartphones cameras in general are good enough for
| general public and not so many of this audience will see
| the differences, especially when the most of the UX is to
| apply filters and post on Instagram, Facebook or other
| social channels which compress the heck out of the photos
| anyway.
| drclau wrote:
| ... Why not own the best then? iPhone 13 Pro!
|
| Just kidding, but your comment did sound a bit like an ad.
| Could hear this in my head in Tim Cook's voice :D
| dingaling wrote:
| > The best camera is the one you have with you.
|
| But sometimes that one isn't good enough
| Multiplayer wrote:
| Under-appreciated comment. The reduction of friction always
| wins in consumer services.
|
| Interesting stat - the estimate is that this year 1.4 trillion
| photos will be taken.
|
| In 2012 it was estimated that 3.4 trillion pictures had been
| taken in the previous 174 years.
|
| https://fstoppers.com/other/stats-how-many-photos-have-ever-...
|
| https://fstoppers.com/other/stats-how-many-photos-have-ever-...
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Under-appreciated comment.
|
| I don't know, seems like almost all top-level comments are
| this comment. It's also the single most common comment on
| this topic, ever.
| gambiting wrote:
| It's just that.....every time a new iphone comes out, there is a
| blog post exactly like this, showing some absolutely truly
| stunning photos taken with the phone. Like, world class. And then
| a new phone comes out next year and everything before it is
| supposedly garbage. I'm just not excited by the hype train
| anymore, no matter what you buy most pics taken in "normal"
| conditions just look like crap anyway.
| coolspot wrote:
| Yep. The first one was iPhone 4 vs Canon 7D video[1] that
| convinced me to replace my DSLR with an iPhone.
|
| Only later I realized that it was pure manipulation.
|
| [1] - https://youtu.be/H7bStLePvKo
|
| There are others like that:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceblrDsG-aw
| https://www.cnet.com/news/1080p-shootout-iphone-4s-vs-canon-...
| have_faith wrote:
| There's a lot of obvious flaws when looking at the images on a
| good monitor but that's part of the point I guess the images
| generally look amazing on a phone or when shared to instagram and
| displayed at a smaller size. Also suprised how much obvious
| compression artifacts there are on the hi res vimeo embed, very
| muddy and I imagine doesn't do the original footage justice.
| peanut_worm wrote:
| I take pictures of birds and the iPhone camera is pretty much
| useless for it, but so is every camera without a super telephoto
| lens. I wish there was some kind of retractable zoom lens as an
| addon or something for the iPhone camera.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Moment offers a range of add-on lenses for iPhones. They have a
| 2x lens that can be mounted on the iPhone's 2x for a total 4x.
| Not sure if that gets into the range you are looking for.
| Moment has a pretty good reputation for quality. There might be
| some other longer lenses out there by other manufacturers.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| With new Samsungs (S21 ultra) and other Chinese phones like
| Xiaomi and Huawei you get quite a lot of optical zoom, like 10x
|
| The new iPhone pro has a fairly decent 3x (71mm equivalent)
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > The new iPhone pro has a fairly decent 3x (71mm equivalent)
|
| For birds (depends on the kind of bird) you're looking at the
| 300-800 mm supertele range.
| haddr wrote:
| Is there any "penalty" when using Live Photo mode as compared to
| normal mode?
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Not really because it still "develops" the main photo properly
| while taking a short video. It will use a shorter exposure time
| so you might wanna drop it for low light shots.
| yunohn wrote:
| > It will use a shorter exposure time so you might wanna drop
| it for low light shots.
|
| Generally, the native camera app will drop into Night mode
| and automatically disable the Live mode.
| tw04 wrote:
| Is it just me or does it feel a little off-putting that he
| doesn't bother to post the pre-edited photos? What the picture
| looks like after potentially hours of tweaking in lightroom is
| less interesting for the average consumer than what the pics look
| like without any editing IMO.
|
| Don't get me wrong, it's still valuable to see what CAN be
| accomplished, but most people aren't going to spend that amount
| of time, so show us how much work you had to put into post-
| processing for those results. Otherwise it just kind of feels
| like an advertisement for Apple.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| The pre-edited photos are in proRaw format, is that format
| viewable in a browser? Outside of posting the raw files for
| download, any means of making them viewable on the web would
| involve some form of editing, even if it's the process iOS does
| automatically.
|
| I do agree though that it would be useful to state how much
| time and effort was spent in lightroom and PS.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| I have an iPhone and I am always disappointed with the results
| when compared to a mirror less and DSLR. If you see the lions
| picture closely there is no sharpness. There is a lot of
| computational color magic that goes behind the scenes to make
| the images pop but when you look closer they are obviously no
| where close to pro-am cameras.
| mosselman wrote:
| But an iPhone fits in your pocket.
|
| I have a DSLR and I now don't bring it along anymore. I have
| three kids, so I already have to carry around a lot of stuff
| and children, so there is no more room or energy for my DSLR.
| My phone is always in my pocket though.
|
| I recently invested in some phone lenses by Moment and I am
| very excited about them. They also fit in my pocket and I can
| pop one on my phone in about 10 seconds.
| handrous wrote:
| > I have a DSLR and I now don't bring it along anymore. I
| have three kids, so I already have to carry around a lot of
| stuff and children, so there is no more room or energy for
| my DSLR. My phone is always in my pocket though.
|
| I also have kids, and _no_ phone without seamless,
| automatic cloud backups and the ability to transparently
| take "Live Photos"[0] is at all interesting to me now. I
| don't care how good the stills are, if it doesn't have
| those two things.
|
| [0] Live Photos are a feature of Apple phones where it
| captures a few seconds of video _before and after_ you
| snapped a photo, including sound. Tap and hold on the photo
| to play the video. They 're basically magic, especially if
| you have kids. Like the moving photos in Harry Potter. They
| also make photos with waterfalls in them really cool
| instead of reliably terrible.
| aequitas wrote:
| Consider switching to a APS-C type mirrorless or Micro Four
| Thirds. They might not be as good as a full frame DSLR, but
| the lenses are a lot lighter and compact. So instead of
| carrying around a backpack you can easily fit everything
| into a small messenger bag which you can easily take
| everywhere.
| lostgame wrote:
| A ukulele is easy to carry around, but is pretty pathetic
| sounding compared to a proper acoustic guitar when it comes
| time to actually play songs.
|
| For the average consumer who doesn't know how to play music
| at all, maybe the ukulele would be a nice option. If you
| hand a professional guitarist a ukulele, and tell them it's
| a proper guitar, they will probably laugh at you.
|
| That a ukulele is smaller is actually the opposite of what
| I'm looking for. I don't need a smaller guitar. I need a
| nice one, that plays and responds like I'd expect a guitar
| to.
|
| I would never use a ukulele as a way to somehow replace a
| recording of a traditional guitar, even though it's more
| convenient.
|
| There are thousands of photographers who feel this way
| about DSLR's.
|
| If it doesn't fit your current/busy lifestyle, cool - the
| ukulele works for you. But don't pretend the ukulele is /
| can be a guitar. Popping lenses onto an iPhone camera is
| like putting an amplifier onto the ukulele. You're still
| trying to make something better that is, due to its size
| alone, never going to have the depth or quality a guitar or
| DSLR would have.
|
| Also, I'm not dissing the ukulele, here. I'm trying to
| provide an example that just because a tool can work for a
| purpose, doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| I realize this isn't the main point but the uke is kind
| of famous for being beloved by famous guitarists. George
| Harrison had a lot to do with that. He supposedly would
| keep a bunch in his trunk. I believe he gave Tom Petty
| two to get him going; as Tom told it, George came back to
| give him the second one because "you never know."
| dagw wrote:
| _If you hand a professional guitarist a ukulele, they
| will probably laugh at you._
|
| From personal experience, if you hand a professional
| guitarist a ukulele, he will play the shit out of it and
| make it sound better than you've ever heard a ukulele
| sound.
| selykg wrote:
| Beyond that... a Ukulele, while a stringed instrument
| like a guitar, it's purpose isn't to replace or compete
| with a typical 6 string guitar. It's designed to do
| something different, it has a totally different tonal
| characteristic.
|
| OP, is making a weird comparison is all I'm sayin I
| guess.
| bjtitus wrote:
| Damn, just throwing Israel Kamakawiwo'ole right under the
| bus there.
| alistairSH wrote:
| And Jake Shimabukuro.
| smt923 wrote:
| > But an iPhone fits in your pocket.
|
| this is the reason I loved the Ricoh GR series of cameras,
| an APS-C sensor that genuinely fits in almost any pocket is
| incredible, it's not for everyone but I wish there were
| more companies trying this, even the X100 cameras are too
| big for that
| noneeeed wrote:
| I had the GR1V film camera. It was so, so good for taking
| hiking.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Same with the powershot line. It's good enough and fits
| in your pocket.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The lack of sharpness is obvious. Saturated colours don't
| make up for it.
|
| It is a pocket camera, and it does very well.
|
| But I agree - it's clearly not a substitute for even a mid-
| range prosumer SLR.
| selsta wrote:
| These images appear to be significantly downsized for the
| blog, you can't use them to judge sharpness.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Pre-edited photo is a myth. Cameras capture light values far
| exceeding dynamic range of any output media. Fitting scene-
| referred data into capabilities of screens or paper is always a
| subjective art and is ultimately photographer's job.
|
| In digital, all "unedited" means is using camera firmware's
| interpretation of raw values; especially with complex
| processing in modern phones this isn't a very good measure as
| scene recognition can be hit or miss and the algorithm is a
| black box.
|
| (What could be indicative is posting scene raws alongside
| exhaustive development presets, of course.)
| stared wrote:
| Sure, no photo is unedited. But there is a difference what is
| the effort of post-processing. Is it none, a few seconds, a
| few minutes with Lightroom, or hours with Photoshop?
|
| With enough effort you can basically do whatever you wish,
| especially when it comes to increasing quality (see for
| example this one https://gizmodo.com/deep-learning-can-now-
| flawlessly-correct...).
| strogonoff wrote:
| It is true that there is a difference in the amount of
| manual tweaking, but at the same time any remaining
| objectivity in "unedited" phone-produced output-referred
| (non-raw) images is fading fast. In other words, imagine if
| the technology by your link is silently incorporated in the
| next version of iOS Camera app without you knowing--and I'm
| not even sure this is an outrageous exaggeration.
| ValentineC wrote:
| I'm guessing what the parent might have wanted is something
| straight out of the Camera app (or Halide), without any
| further post-processing.
| strogonoff wrote:
| It could be helpful if one could assume if you took the
| same photo in the same location by the same phone, the
| result would look the same, which I don't think would be a
| valid assumption anymore.
| scko wrote:
| I don't think they did tweak it that much. The chromatic
| aberration and distortion from the lens is still visible. Maybe
| a bit of colour work and changing the shadows was done.
| Probably still very representative of what the iPhone's camera
| can do.
| binbag wrote:
| Also, the end results look quite good, but not amazing.
| drcongo wrote:
| He's shooting in raw, if you do that you _have_ to post process
| because otherwise it'll look flat and listless because raw is
| capturing as much information as possible so that you can
| choose later how you want it to look.
| derefr wrote:
| -
| galago wrote:
| RAW formats can/usually have a thumbnail/preview embedded.
| I convert all of my Nikon RAW files to Adobe DNG (Adobe's
| RAW format) and I have a Leica camera that uses DNG
| natively. When I convert, I can chose to have a full-sized
| preview embeded. This makes certain software give a faster
| preview.
| katbyte wrote:
| My dslr did that - every photo had a .raw and a .jpg but it
| rarely ended up close to what I'd get processing the raw
| skhr0680 wrote:
| Sorry If I'm misunderstanding something, but aren't both of
| the things you mentioned already a reality? I thought RAWs
| included jpeg already, and Bridge already has an option to
| prefer that.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Maybe in the future photo reviews would also include the
| photo in the raw format?
| MrBoomixer wrote:
| I'm curious as to what value would that provide most end
| users of the content? If you're a photographer perhaps you
| have software for processing the raw file and you want to
| see what you can do with a raw file; however I still feel
| that for most end users this would be useless. I would be
| one of the few I think that may play around with this.
| fermentation wrote:
| Wouldn't help much for a "camera review". The raw would
| just be a black-and-white mosaic that would look awful.
| What you want is the processed jpeg out of the iPhone along
| with the edited ProRAW. I'm not sure if the iPhone can do
| this but a lot of cameras can shoot in RAW+JPEG mode.
| mrunseen wrote:
| Traditional RAW* wouldn't be a black-and-white mosaic. It
| just would be data. RAW's need to be demosaiced to be
| seen visually, which makes it dependent on software (or
| algorithm).
|
| * I don't know about Apple's ProRAW.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| to be clear, he's shooting in ProRAW, Apple's proprietary RAW
| format.
| defaultname wrote:
| A ProRAW photo is a DNG file, using the new features added
| to DNG 1.6. It isn't proprietary.
| amelius wrote:
| They probably mean the best image you can get without _human_
| intervention, or perhaps the image you get in your
| "viewfinder".
| hbosch wrote:
| This is a professional photographer. Editing is part of the
| photography process, just as important as taking the picture in
| the first place and sometimes even more important to the end
| result (that is to say, a poorly edited photo is often worse
| than just having never taken the photo at all).
|
| There are many, many, _many_ more reviews out there on the
| internet that show casual, unedited photos from this camera. I
| think this person 's use case and exhibition are interesting
| due to his entire workflow.
| Reubachi wrote:
| But professional photographers who spend as much time editing
| as photographing won't be purchasing this phone with that
| intention. That would be lunacy, as their profession/hobby
| likely already has had them invest thousands into
| professional equipment.
|
| This is directed towards those taking pictures for social
| media. Advertising (that's what this is) in this way implies
| that you, yes you, could be as good as a professional
| photographer. Except, you also have to dedicate the time and
| vast expertise, like a professional photographer would, to
| get pictures like theirs. They cleverly leave that part out.
| mbreese wrote:
| The article has an entire section about how he often uses
| an iPhone to shoot for clients and specifically about how
| he sets up the phone to do so. I thought the "shoot mode"
| was pretty clever and I didn't know that you could setup
| those kinds of automations. It was a nice "pro-tip" that I
| could see myself using.
| Frost1x wrote:
| The more surprising aspect to this review (maybe I missed
| this part, I skimmed) is how there wasn't much discussed
| about having a bigger and more ergonomic hand mount for the
| phone when shooting. I don't even mean with all sorts of
| nifty expensive stabilizers, just something to hold onto the
| phone and shoot better. I did see use of a small tripod at
| one point and a mount to a vehicle but for the hands,
| nothing.
|
| Maybe I'm getting old but I find it difficult to shoot good
| photos even with the bulkiest of phone cases, while also
| being able to hit the shutter without shifting my camera
| drastically.
|
| I personally use a Note so the S pen works great as a built
| in remote shutter (especially nice for tripod shots) but I
| can't for the life of me get good shots with the UI shutter
| or even volume/side button rockers. Sure you have voice
| controls or shutter timmers but timmers are not ideal in most
| shooting conditions from my experience, unless you have
| humans. You can also burst or drop frames from video but ick,
| shooting professional photos with a phone as is seems
| unnecessarily uncomfortable to me.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I haven't tried this but apparently the Apple watch has
| integration for showing you a preview & letting you take a
| photo. More expensive for sure but probably similar utility
| as the pen approach?
| eric_h wrote:
| it does - I've used it for properly aiming a tripod video
| recording setup when it was in a location where I could
| not see the screen (well above me).
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I don't think I have ever seen a review of a camera done by a
| professional, or pretty much anyone else, that didn't include
| raw photos.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Is it just me or does it feel a little off-putting that he
| doesn't bother to post the pre-edited photos?
|
| This is a professional photographer writing a review targeted
| at other professional photographers, so it feels appropriate to
| post photos shot and developed as a professional photographer
| would.
|
| Regardless, the article is more about features like the new
| macro mode with short focus distance and the performance of the
| telephoto lens. Those don't depend on manual post-processing.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I agree 100%. One of the biggest things I'm curious about is
| how bad the artifacting is on features like focus racking and
| the macro lens. Sure it's cool to see a photography showcase,
| but it doesn't really feel substantial as a review. His
| rhetoric is also extremely awkward, like here for example:
|
| > As I watched this piece, particularly the interview in
| Cinematic mode, it dawned on me that we're moving beyond the
| world of just computational photography and into the realm of
| computational videography. The release of Cinematic mode marks
| another one of those fundamental shifts where software,
| unbounded by the limitations of hardware, has opened up
| entirely new possibilities in the creative process.
|
| This is not a new experience, it's just one that Apple put
| inside your iPhone. Reading stuff like this really makes me
| wonder how critical they're being here, because it seems like
| "it shoots photos better than the last one" is enough to
| warrant a perfect review. And if that's the case, every camera
| system on every phone ever is perfect and there's no point to
| reviewing them at all, because you can rest assured knowing
| your next phone will have 25% better digital zoom, or whatever.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| You seem triggered. Are you invested in something competing
| with the phone. It is a new experience! For most people
| without an expensive stand alone camera. perfect review? You
| obviously didn't read the criticisms he wrote or notice the
| lack of a rating or any sort of measure of perfection. You
| sound jealous.
| malshe wrote:
| I used to have a DSLR camera and the pictures I've taken with it
| are fantastic. But I realized that lugging it around was a chore
| and whenever I wanted to take a shot in a jiffy, it was never
| possible for me. With a small kid, it became even more difficult
| to manage it because now I had a stroller and a diaper bag to
| carry. Once I forgot my DSLR on a flight in Asia and that was the
| time I realized I can't be bothered with it anymore. The airline
| found it and returned it to me. I sold it soon after that along
| with the lenses, tripod, and the camera bag to a photography
| student at a steep discount.
|
| Edit: The point is that a smartphone camera may never compete
| with a DSLR on quality but its portability and convenience are
| unparalleled.
| ip26 wrote:
| Also have small kids, also shoot a (high end) DSLR. On the one
| hand I am all-in on the "always have it with you" side of
| phones. On the other hand, I've noticed in a collage of 4x6's,
| the best shots are all from the DSLR. The difference is
| dramatic.
| malshe wrote:
| I agree on the quality
| illegalsmile wrote:
| I'm headed to Iceland in a few weeks and have been going back
| and forth on dealing with bringing the DSLR but I think this
| seals the deal. I think we'd all consider 4x6 on the small
| side of a print and if an iPhone doesn't provide decent
| prints at that size it has no hope at 8x12 or larger.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| You might want to consider photographer insurance or a
| third-party warranty with weather damage coverage that
| covers you if it happens outside the country you're insured
| in. Camera companies boast about their weather sealing, but
| they don't guarantee it. You can get camera parkas to
| reduce the risk, but it's still a risk.
| ip26 wrote:
| To be clear the iPhone shots are still great, but the DSLR
| is a cut above for certain scenes, e.g. low light
| portraiture. (full frame, 24-70mm f/2.8)
|
| Sticking with one high quality lens & bringing no
| accessories helps a lot with the overhead. Pick up a tiny
| USB battery cradle & reuse your phone charger...
| ansgri wrote:
| For low light portraiture get yourself an aps-c
| mirrorless with a modern 56 or 30/1.4 lens and get both
| image quality and portability, no need for full-frame now
| outside of pro sports or wildlife.
| ip26 wrote:
| In my case, I also shoot wildlife, and a fast zoom is
| clinch for preschoolers :)
|
| Not recommending my gear choices, just acknowledging I
| wasn't getting those results with a 18-55 on a Rebel.
| haswell wrote:
| I'm currently using an iPhone 12 Pro Max, and the quality is
| quite good.
|
| However, I also recently purchased an Olympus OM-D EM5 Mark III
| because I wanted more control and the ability to take better
| photos. This is a Micro Four Third's camera, and I think this
| is really the ideal "middle ground" for getting great shots
| without the weight of a full-frame mirrorless or DSLR.
|
| It's not quite "pocket" sized, but small enough to throw in my
| over-the-shoulder bag, and I'll regularly take it on bike rides
| around the city I live in.
|
| As others have pointed out, the best camera it he one you have
| with you, and the iPhone does quite well in more and more
| situations, but if you want the best of both worlds:
| interchangeable lenses, world class IBIS, full manual control
| _in a small package_ that won 't wear you out after a few
| hours, the MFT cameras are great.
| Heliosmaster wrote:
| I thought the same of my Fujifilm X100F.. and it's mostly
| staying at home while I go around. I just don't think about
| it enough. Whereas my phone is always in my pocket. Mind that
| I have an Android phone with a subpar camera, and yet I reach
| out for the iPhone of my partner when we go around and i want
| to take some pictures.
| [deleted]
| bzzzt wrote:
| I feel exactly the opposite way: when making photo's with my
| mirrorless camera I've got the photo 'under control', while
| having to balance an expensive phone with bad ergonomics for
| photography feels like it's a chore to take a picture.
|
| Just look at all these 'pros' who are promoting iPhone
| photography: they're lugging all kinds of gear (tripods, cages,
| lenses) with them to help them make use of the phone. Seems
| like a small stretch to me to also bring a proper camera
| instead of a phone.
| zz865 wrote:
| I've pretty much stopped using my dSLR. My (android) phone isn't
| quite as good but so much smaller and more convenient its
| completely taken over. I'm torn whether I should upgrade dSLR
| because I love them, but will probably give up.
| pornel wrote:
| Same here. I've even tried a compact DSLR and with a pancake
| lens to get some of the portability, but it's still relatively
| bulky and lacks connectivity. Technically the DSLR even has Wi-
| Fi and Bluetooth, but camera makers can't write software, so
| it's unusable.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| I'm a bit sad, but I've made the same decision recently.
|
| I had an older mirrorless Sony that I really enjoyed using and
| taking pictures -- and honestly, I did enjoy the process but it
| was partially because I could take _much better_ pictures than
| anyone who was just using a phone.
|
| While shopping for a new camera, I just couldn't get past how
| much better phones have become and how much more convenient
| they are. I'm sure I'll still use my existing camera, and maybe
| look at buying an upgraded one used in a few years, but in
| terms of "Good Images per Dollar", it's just a no-brainer to
| spend that $1,000 on a 13 Pro instead of a new body.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| I've been on some photography excursions where your main camera
| just starts to piss you off. Notably, stumbling through the woods
| trying to get macro shots of tree bark patterns. It's always nice
| to decide the chunky camera isn't working and revert to the
| phone, especially if it's a reliable shooter.
|
| Having a tiny, powerful backup camera is a joy for shooting.
| It'll never be my main, but it has salvaged a shooting day here
| and there.
| skhr0680 wrote:
| Phones are good for portability but for any once in a lifetime
| experience, I would rather take some real camera gear. The amount
| of computer magic the iPhone camera does to photos look good is
| plainly visible in the sample pictures in the review.
|
| For what an iPhone goes for these days it's possible to buy a
| used high grade camera body and a good prime lens if you can
| handle shooting with something a generation or two old. If you
| spend your time taking photos instead of reading blogs and taking
| photos of charts, you will be very happy.
| GordonS wrote:
| I used to feel the same way 10 years ago, but the quality of
| phone cameras nowadays is incredible.
|
| They have to make some compromises because of their size, so a
| pro with a DSLR is always going to win. But for the rest of us,
| phone cameras make it so much quicker and easier to get a good
| photo. And you don't have to lug gear around with you
| everywhere and spend ages fiddling with settings, tripods and
| lenses.
|
| So, as a non-pro, I prefer my phone camera, even for once in a
| lifetime experiences - it actually means I get to _experience_
| more myself, rather than my experience being taken up by the
| camera.
| skhr0680 wrote:
| It's easy to tell from the photos in the article that the
| iPhone is making up a lot of the images. It's like a dream,
| it looks perfect until you start paying attention, and your
| brain starts filling in the gaps with nonsense. To me, that's
| not good enough for a cherished memory.
|
| > And you don't have to lug gear around with you everywhere
| and spend ages fiddling with settings, tripods and lenses.
|
| I feel like if you're lugging a lot of gear around it should
| be to take a photo that is difficult or literally impossible
| to take with a phone anyway.
| 015a wrote:
| No one remembers events perfectly. You remember the
| highlights; your brain fills in the gaps with what it
| believes it remembers happens, sometimes going so far as to
| lie to you.
|
| When faced with that fact, you can choose to feel that it
| elevates the importance of accurate recreation of the past
| in our photographs.
|
| I'm more on the opposite side; I don't look at old photos
| to remember what happened. I look at them to remember how I
| felt when it happened. I'll never look at an old photo and
| think "what the; the goldenrod shade of that lion's mane
| had a 0.54% deeper saturation in real life, this camera
| sucks!" I'll be thinking "that lion _was_ fucking awesome,
| and this photo _makes him look_ fucking awesome. "
|
| So, maybe camera phones over-process and produce a dream-
| like representation of what happened. That's how everyone
| remembers how it happened anyway. There's certainly value
| in accuracy, but I'm not the New York Times.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Your brain does much much stronger "computational
| photography" on everything you see. Like, there is no hole
| around your nose, the physical hardware ain't as good as
| the resulting picture, we do plenty of noise reduction,
| etc.
|
| Compared to that, these AIs are mostly overhyped noice
| reducers.
| nitesher wrote:
| I went on safari with duma explorer over the summer
| (https://www.dumaexplorer.com/) Hard not to take amazing photos
| with any camera. Unbelievable trip.
| overlaid wrote:
| I tried to sign up for the email in the banner at the top of the
| page, but it was blocked by a modal asking me to sign up for the
| email
| stared wrote:
| Since I bought iPhone 12 Pro a few weeks ago [1], I am curios
| what is the camera upgrade (and if should regret my impatience).
|
| A real-world side-by-side comparisons:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nty5sWZFbA and
| https://www.inputmag.com/reviews/iphone-13-pro-max-review-a-....
| tl;dr:
|
| - slightly better tele
|
| - slightly better in the dark
|
| - macro mode (but there is video macro autoswitch, which everyone
| finds annoying)
|
| - in other conditions practically no difference even if comparing
| side-by-side
|
| [1] Yes, just before iPhone 12 Pro release; I am impatient + was
| in an urgent need.
| marrone12 wrote:
| There is a 14 day return window if you happen to be within it
| still.
| glanzwulf wrote:
| Take a professional photographer who knows what he's doing and
| put him in a fantastic looking setting, and BAM! Magic.
|
| Let me review the camera and nobody will buy the phone.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| You just sold the phone for me though, instead of having to
| carry around a DSLR on a safari he carried a phone that would
| fit in the side pocket of the average camera case and _still_
| got magic...
| CarVac wrote:
| For those itching for better-than-phone image quality in a
| portable form factor, look no further than the Ricoh GR, which
| packs a huge APS-C sensor and an incredible lens into a tiny
| inconspicuous package.
| kemayo wrote:
| Not disputing that it's small for a real camera and probably
| takes _fantastic_ pictures, but it 's still the size of 4
| iPhones stacked on top of each other, which takes it out of the
| realm of easy pocket-carrying for me.
| CarVac wrote:
| Personally I carry my GR on a (tiny) shoulder strap in the
| summer or in a jacket pocket in the winter. It would fit
| nicely into a purse too.
|
| I carry my Pixel everywhere, but I simply detest using it for
| artistic photos because the touchscreen controls are simply
| too clumsy and the image quality, while good on-phone, just
| falls to pieces at home on my 4k screen.
| pen2l wrote:
| Here's my gripe about conventional photography equipment coming
| from the big tech players, including new iPhones. They're
| processing with AI. Which means they train on a certain
| dataset... choose some parameters which they deem suitable, and
| apply this to everything.
|
| And that's my issue: as soon as we jump in to explore some
| uncharted and new territory and capture and preserve it in an
| authentic way, we're capturing a false state. Even if raw can be
| captured, I fear most won't. Consider that if you use Google
| photos to store your iPhone images, Google dings you for
| capturing raw (I remember from advertising literature some time
| ago that storage capacity was unlimited if you agree to have your
| images rescales, but limited if you choose to store them unscaled
| and unprocessed). What a confusing and strange pass to our
| posterity.
| [deleted]
| twothumbsup wrote:
| Can't you take photos in RAW though, on iPhones at least? My
| assumption is that would produce a file w/o the AI processing
| applied that you could then process yourself, but I don't know
| for sure if that's the case.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Can't you take photos in RAW though, on iPhones at least?_
|
| Yes.
|
| > _My assumption is that would produce a file w /o the AI
| processing applied that you could then process yourself..._
|
| You are correct.
| scko wrote:
| I can't help but shake off the weird tricks that Apple do to the
| video and images that make these videos obviously shot on an
| iPhone. You can see the lack of sharpness where de-noising
| occurs, and where the colours are blobbed together. I think
| marketing the iPhone as being anything close to a replacement for
| a DSLR, even be it an entry level 100 dollar DSLR is silly as
| there's clearly a difference in quality just from camera sensor
| size and higher quality lenses. Especially editing iPhone photos
| using Lightroom limits you as many of the pre-processing steps
| compensate for the small lens and the small sensor.
|
| The iPhone's camera is great for what it is, but it's definitely
| not anything close to a replacement of an entry level DSLR and
| shouldn't really be marketed as such.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The iPhone's camera is great for what it is, but it's
| definitely not anything close to a replacement of an entry
| level DSLR and shouldn't really be marketed as such.
|
| The iPhone isn't intended to compete with DSLRs because it's
| literally a phone that fits in your pocket.
|
| Phones don't compete with DSLRs because they serve different
| purposes.
|
| I can't realistically carry a DSLR or mirrorless camera
| everywhere. I can, however, keep my phone in my pocket all the
| time. That's why it's so great to have these reviews from
| professional photographers to show what's capable in the
| context of the phone.
|
| It's not about DSLR versus iPhone. It's about what's possible
| from the device I always have in my pocket.
| munificent wrote:
| _> The iPhone isn't intended to compete with DSLRs because
| it's literally a phone that fits in your pocket._
|
| I'm not sure how you measure "intent", but I think there's
| fairly strong evidence that smartphone cameras have harmed
| the DSRL market. Sales are about half of what they were in
| 2008. This isn't just people moving to mirrorless either.
| Sales of all camera formats are down. Smartphones basically
| killed the market for compact cameras, whose sales today are
| down about 90% in the same timeframe.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| Smartphones killed the market for _low end_ compact
| cameras, because the average consumer uses their phone
| instead of a shitty $200 entry level camera.
|
| The high end stuff is doing well with content creators and
| professionals. You can see this in the move upmarket of
| things like Sony A6600 ($1400 APS-C camera) and RX100
| series ($1300 compact camera) that are aimed at creators in
| the attention economy. I think from here on we'll see
| smartphone needs driving sensor development, but that
| doesn't mean the camera market is dead.
| munificent wrote:
| _> The high end stuff is doing well with content creators
| and professionals._
|
| The high end stuff keeps getting better, just like every
| technology keeps getting better, but I don't know if it's
| "doing well" in the sense that overall sales of high end
| camera gear are increasing.
|
| As far as I can tell, that entire market segment is
| shrinking. I'm not saying it's dead or even dying, but I
| do think it's getting smaller.
| bitcurious wrote:
| The iPhone certainly didn't help, but just as important is
| the fact that progress has slowed. Remember the digital
| camera of 2000 vs 2010, and then 2010 vs 2020. I can take
| excellent photos with a 10 year old digital camera, and
| dreadful ones with a 20 year old.
| whatever1 wrote:
| I hear you, but the iPhone has given me so many photos that no
| way a DSLR would had given me, because it is so portable.
|
| You always carry your phone, but not your dslr. For an
| untrained eye, the iPhone 11,12 photos look gorgeous.
|
| For professionals of course there is no debate, regardless what
| Apple marketing is claiming.
| ninjin wrote:
| I think your portability point is a fair one and also what
| motivated 35mm photography about a hundred years ago. But I
| think the DSLR vs phone comparison is flawed. There are
| plenty of wonderful point-and-shoot cameras that easily fit
| in your handbag, satchel, or whatnot and can give any phone a
| run for its money with its bigger sensor and larger glass -
| without being a bulky DSLR. It is a spectrum is what I am
| trying to say I guess.
| lawkwok wrote:
| Curious if you have such a camera on your person every day?
| It's an extra thing to charge, you can't edit and post
| directly to social media, getting pictures backed up is not
| automatic. It's a totally different experience and for most
| people, they don't want to hang large prints of their
| photos at home. They just need enough quality to show their
| friends and family.
| whatever1 wrote:
| But half of the magic of DSLRs is in the lenses, and
| unfortunately there is no single lenses that can work
| everywhere.
|
| Regarding portability, yes point-and-shoots are portABLE,
| but in reality you don't have them in your pocket 100% of
| the time, like you have a smartphone. You need to think
| about packing one more thing, that you may or may not need,
| so you won't bother.
|
| In summary, with a point-and shoot you are making two
| compromises: 1)photo quality 2)availability. In my opinion
| they are worse both than a DSLR and a good smartphone.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > handbag, satchel, or whatnot
|
| That's the thing, though. Many of us, especially men (but
| many women as well, including my wife) do not carry around
| a bag or wear a bulky jacket with pockets big enough for
| even the smallest mirrorless. So packing one along
| everywhere I go wouldn't be any more convenient than just
| grabbing the bag with my 7D.
| ansgri wrote:
| What do you carry around then though? you need a laptop,
| documents and stuff, might as well put a compact ILC in
| that bag.
|
| No way I'd do that with an (outdated) DSLR though.
| kemayo wrote:
| Those aren't things you _always_ need, though. If you
| commute to an office, sure, you probably take a bag with
| those things with you during that. But do you take that
| bag with you when you go out with friends? If you go to
| walk your dog in the park? Maybe you do, but I think most
| people don 't.
|
| Speaking for myself, if I'm going out without any special
| goal, I'll just have my phone, keys, and wallet.
| [deleted]
| kaba0 wrote:
| I am by no means a professional in the field, but what DSLRs
| have over phones in terms of sensor size, phones have it in
| terms of computing power. And the same way we collectively
| could take a picture of a black hole, with "intelligence" we
| can sew back a good picture from multiple less good ones.
|
| The one thing that can't really be replaced is zoom.
| brundolf wrote:
| I believe these were shot in raw and edited by hand later,
| which should mean none of the default iPhone processing came
| into play
| q-rews wrote:
| In my father's hands, the iPhone shoots better photos than his
| Sony A6000, so it depends on how entry level we go.
| ansgri wrote:
| In my hands the iPhone 12 consistently performs better in
| indoor conditions than my old a5100 (basically a more compact
| a6000), especially with the awful kit lens.
|
| I like shooting outdoor on telephoto (135mm+), and there the
| phones are nowhere as competitive, and won't be for a long
| time, if ever. Actually that's where the progress in
| standalone cameras is: more compact telephoto lenses, sharper
| zooms, faster autofocus, even less noise. And no, multiframe
| fusion won't help when you're shooting quick action.
| lbj wrote:
| First time I've been impressed with a phone-camera since the
| Nokias windows Phone, which still stands as the best phone Ive
| ever had.
|
| This one:
| https://www.freshnessmag.com/.image/t_share/MTM2NjQ3MjI5MTMz...
| mgdlbp wrote:
| A while back, I sought comparisons between the famous Lumia
| 1020 (with a 41 megapixel, 1/1.2" sensor in 2013^) and modern
| phones^^ and found quite surprisingly many. It seems like
| that's still happening; this website has many in detail,
| including one with the iPhone 12.[1]
|
| IIRC the results had become fairly close between the 1020 and
| modern phones by late 2019, with the 1020 being markedly
| superior with post-processing turned down.
|
| ^ considered significant as it was far superior at the time to
| every other phone camera and most point-and-shoots; also found
| in a more rudimentary form in the Nokia 808 from the year
| before
|
| ^^ For reference, the iPhone 13 seems to have a 1/1.65" main
| sensor in a 'Pro 12MP camera system'. IIRC, 48 MP sensors from
| Xiaomi in early 2020 were the first to surpass the 1020 in
| megapixel count, and a few uncommon phones over the years have
| had sensors of larger area.
|
| [1]
| http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/24099_Bypopula...
| lbj wrote:
| Thanks for sharing that!
|
| The Iphone clearly does a better job now. When I highlighted
| the Lumia it was not in absolute terms, but the jump in
| quality from my previous phone, and Im hoping the I13 is a
| similar jump. Currently I have the X and it takes really bad
| photos.
|
| But overall, I just loved everything about Lumia/Windows.
| Very non-intrusive. The e-ink layout took almost no power to
| run, had no apps in the store so very fast.. :)
| mgdlbp wrote:
| Even now, I'm still fond of the Pivot control. Alas, side-
| scrolling for navigation seems to be a foregone paradigm;
| all that's left are horizontal lists. Maybe navbars and
| hamburgers positioned on the _farthest edge of the screen_
| are more usable, but the Pivot was just so Swiss! It 's
| ironic, though, that the situation with home screens is
| inverted: orthodox launchers have horizontal pages, but the
| WP Start screen is vertical and unpaginated!
|
| One app in particular, a WP original and exclusive, now
| comes to mind: _Logic Games_ , a diverse collection of
| grid-based logic puzzles, had an extreme but effective take
| on this kind of navigation: nested horiz/vert scrolling
| formed a grid of phone screen-sized pages for puzzle types,
| and each page contained a grid of tiles for individual
| puzzles (sadly, 4D chess was not among them). I've yet to
| come across a more extensive unified set of grid-based
| puzzle implementations, though Simon Tatham's collection
| has similar spirit:
|
| https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/
|
| Looks like it's still listed in the store at:
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/logic-games/9wzdncrfhmwc
|
| Though from the screenshots, I've just realized that it
| actually uses not Pivot, but Panorama controls:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20131124064955/http://msdn.micr
| o...
|
| Reviewing the docs in the Wayback Machine, Pivot was toned
| down in UWP to a tab-like appearance and recently
| deprecated in WinUI by NavigationView.
| [deleted]
| schmorptron wrote:
| The one thing I'm "jealous" of with iphones as an android user in
| terms of camera features are live photos, and how seamlessly
| integrated they are. Whenever friends take live photos, it just
| seems to capture the moment way better, even if it's just a
| second or two of video in addition to a fully post-processed
| photo. Really wish there was a standard file format for these and
| Google / all Android manufacturers would adopt it. It really adds
| a lot.
| [deleted]
| dekoruotas wrote:
| The telephoto pictures really highlight the shortcomings of small
| optics... I think he will have to buy the Iphone 14 Pro now.
| asimpletune wrote:
| I can't wait for when the technology for periscopic phone cameras
| is perfected. e.g. https://www.macrumors.com/guide/periscope-
| lens/
| vvladymyrov wrote:
| I hope periscope can lens will be available in Pro (not Max
| Pro) iPhone version. Maybe this will convince me to make a jump
| from IPhone Mini.
| fleddr wrote:
| Whilst I will in fact get this phone, this review unintentionally
| manipulates you into a favorable opinion. It's not just in the
| competency of the photographer, but also in the choice of
| subjects.
|
| It's near impossible to make ugly photos in Tanzania, even with
| low-end skills or gear. The subjects, scenery and light
| conditions are naturally very beautiful on their own. The output
| will be visually attractive and you'd not easily notice any lack
| of technical attractiveness.
|
| Compare this to photographing technical test charts or you
| walking the dog at night. As the subjects themselves are
| unexciting, it would be better suitable to analyze technical
| image quality.
|
| Another interesting aspect of analyzing the quality of mobile
| photography is that counter intuitively, mobile phone screens are
| drastically superior to most desktop monitors. Mobile screens
| increasingly are OLED for deep contrast, wide gamut for richer
| colors, and have a pixel density that is a multiple of desktop
| screens.
|
| Most photos taken on a mobile phone completely fall apart when
| viewed on a big screen, as it then becomes obvious how much of a
| smudge they are.
|
| That said, we've come a long way, and I am impressed.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Back in the old internet days, there was a camera review site
| that always took the same picture of some toys on a shelf. It
| was pretty boring photography, but did a great job a
| highlighting the difference between cameras.
| zrail wrote:
| dpreview.com is still very much alive.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Ah, thank you, haven't read one of their reviews in years.
| Happy to hear they're still fighting the good image quality
| fight.
| tafda wrote:
| Like IMDB, they have solid backing: " DPReview.com is a
| wholly-owned, editorially independent subsidiary of
| Amazon.com."
| kwanbix wrote:
| Loved the knowledge of the community at dpreview, however,
| the software used for the forum was hideous. It seems they
| have changed it since last I used it.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| This remains my favorite camera review site.
| screye wrote:
| GSMarena still does this for every phone they review.
|
| They are the benchmark for phone reviews and technically
| reproducible experiments. Anandtech is amazing too, but they
| they have very low coverage over phones and are usually
| pretty late to the party.
|
| See links here:
|
| https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?idType=4&idPhone1=10906.
| ..
|
| https://www.gsmarena.com/vidcmp.php3?idType=3&idPhone1=10906.
| ..
| stared wrote:
| https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras and a few
| others (e.g. https://www.imaging-
| resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM)
| goatsi wrote:
| Arstechnica took a picture of a stuffed Koopa and Goomba in
| low light conditions with every phone they reviewed for years
| and years. It was great because they could put together a
| gallery of images to compare directly between phones. They
| seem to have moved onto some Ratchet and Clank figurines for
| the most recent reviews however.
| cptskippy wrote:
| That always irks me about review sites.Anand and Toms
| hardware do similar things with hardware benchmarks. I
| understand that use cases and workloads change overtime so
| you need to change up your test methodology but there
| always seems to be a lack of continuity and instead an
| abrupt change over.
|
| I progressively upgrade my gaming rig and my video card is
| from the stone age (2017), when I eventually get around to
| upgrading I won't be able to compare it to newer cards.
|
| I'd like to see review sites progressively update their
| tests so you can at least track progress by comparing A to
| B to C to D even if you can't directly compare A to D.
| ISL wrote:
| I'll second this notion, in part.
|
| It was a revelation that the warm colors and soft morning light
| I'd seen in National Geographic images of Africa as a child
| were real. In Ghana during the Harmattan, every morning and
| evening just look like that; it is incredibly beautiful. With
| that knowledge, I'm prepared to believe that other places in
| Africa might be similar.
|
| The iPhone 13 review primarily made me want to go travel.
|
| Technically, I still prefer the output from more-traditional
| imaging systems. The ergonomics of phone-cameras don't yet work
| for me, either.
|
| What I was struck by from the article, though, was that the
| iPhone images were good-enough to be publishable from a
| photojournalism context. As these imaging systems are generally
| incremental improvements, that means the camera in your pocket
| right now can do it, too.
|
| Find interesting subjects in compelling light, frame them in a
| way that says something you wish to convey or remember, and
| push the button. f/8 and be there.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| For ergonomics, I use the volume button as the shutter, not
| the on screen dot:)
| brundolf wrote:
| I didn't know you could do that!
| jader201 wrote:
| For some reason, I've never adjusted to using it. Anytime I
| try, I either lock my phone (by also hitting the lock
| button), or it's off center and/or blurry due to the
| additional pressure required to hit the volume button (they
| require considerably more force than a typical shutter
| button on a camera, especially with some cases).
|
| So I just stick to using the onscreen dot (which, as you
| all have said, has other ergonomic issues).
| tshaddox wrote:
| I think what you say is true, but it seems to imply that this
| article is saying little more than "this phone camera is
| uniquely great, because look how pretty these few pictures
| are." In fact, the content of the article is more about this
| photographer's experience with this phone camera, and specifics
| about how he uses it versus how he might use alternative
| cameras.
| dt3ft wrote:
| Plus, all photos shown were shot in proraw and edited with
| expensive software.
| ddoolin wrote:
| I wouldn't call Lightroom CC "expensive"...it's less than a
| Netflix subscription. I guess everything is relative
| nonetheless.
| rualca wrote:
| > I wouldn't call Lightroom CC "expensive"...it's less than
| a Netflix subscription.
|
| The site states $126/year.
|
| > I guess everything is relative nonetheless.
|
| Right, $126/year might not sound much for someone holding a
| STEM job in the US, but unfortunately a lot of people live
| well below that comfort level.
| 1_player wrote:
| > unfortunately a lot of people live well below that
| comfort level
|
| This is an article about the iPhone 13 Pro camera. If you
| can afford it, you can afford $126/year.
|
| As GP said, everything is relative.
| stackbutterflow wrote:
| You'd be surprised at the number of people whose monthly
| income is below the price of an iphone, who own an iPhone
| in some parts of Asia.
| rualca wrote:
| > This is an article about the iPhone 13 Pro camera. If
| you can afford it (...)
|
| Some people who purchase iPhones can't really afford them
| in the sense of having hundreds of dollars of disposable
| income, and either save their asses off to treat
| themselves or take loans.
|
| Apple controls a 20% market share of the smartphone
| market. Do you really think 20% of the whole world can
| simply spend $1k without batting an eye?
|
| Even in the US close to 40% of it's population cannot
| afford an emergency expense of up to $1k, and the US is
| one of the nations leading in purchasing power.
|
| There is more to life than well-paying STEM jobs in the
| US.
| gilrain wrote:
| Indeed, as is appropriate; the ability to do both of those
| things are attractions of the iPhone.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| So? Isn't that what most enthusiast photographers would do?
| Also, there's plenty of free or affordable software available
| for editing RAW photos.
| gpt5 wrote:
| Adobe Lightroom is free on iPhone (which he claims he used)
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Yeah it's really really not the same thing as actual
| Lightroom Classic or Lightroom on an iPad.
| geokon wrote:
| Does OLED really give better images compared to a good LCD?
|
| I bought a Sony Xperia 5 II - thinking the OLED would give me a
| better picture - and it objectively looks much much worse than
| my much older LCD based Xiaomi 5 Note Pro (the camera is also
| amazingly worse)
|
| I then went to the electronics mall nearby, and I noticed that
| the OLED laptops (from Asus) will have a much less vibrant
| image than a something like a Macbook or Huawei
|
| I dunno if this is just a personal-preference/psychosomatic, or
| if there is really something to what I've observed. Would be
| curious if anyone has more info
| zokier wrote:
| > I bought a Sony Xperia 5 II - thinking the OLED would give
| me a better picture - and it objectively looks much much
| worse than my much older LCD based Xiaomi 5 Note Pro (the
| camera is also amazingly worse)
|
| _Objectively_? How did you measure that? Or did you mean
| _subjectively_?
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Perhaps he meant that it's objective that he disliked it.
| :)
| geokon wrote:
| a colloquial subjective objective :)
|
| if it's "well i like this one better but maybe someone else
| could like the other one more" then its subjectively
| subjective
|
| as opposed to here, where its so bad i cant see that happen
| smoldesu wrote:
| Your mind is probably conflating brightness with vibrance,
| which makes sense because most electronics malls are quite
| well-lit which helps you weed out the weaker, 250-nit panels
| that Asus is trying to scam you into buying again.
| geokon wrote:
| I looked up some specs and that seems likely what's going
| on. Interesting observation :). I've also gotten the
| impression the bright lights tend to make matte screens
| much worse
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I have not seen a 250 nits OLED screen. are they used in
| phones/laptops?
| m463 wrote:
| "It's near impossible to make ugly photos in Tanzania"
|
| I'll bet I could botch some photos in tanzania.
|
| That said, I think in this era of "free" photos due to vast
| memory, and "choose your effect" postprocessing... hmmm.
| eurekin wrote:
| Somehow the photos actually came across to me as comparatively
| bad, esp. because of the noisy and contrasty out of focus areas
| and oversharpening
| dhx wrote:
| Compare to a similar compilation of Tanzania safari shots[1]
| captured at 2160p on a Panasonic GH5 with Leica 12-60mm
| F2.8-4.0 lens (an example amateur enthusiast choice). Ignoring
| the obvious difference in lenses, the GH5 has a 225mm^2 sensor
| size compared to 44mm^2 for the iPhone 13 Pro or Pro Max
| (approx. 5 times larger) and a much larger individual pixel
| size.
|
| When looking at individual frames mid-motion (anywhere in the
| videos), the iPhone 13 has a noticeable lack of background
| detail (blocky and smudged backgrounds).
|
| The video shared here proves that photography skills such as
| using shallow depth of fields, golden hour lighting, fast
| motion, wide angles, etc can produce a result that hides camera
| limitations and is potentially more enjoyable than poorly
| thought out shots on an expensive camera.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7e2fi1EC8k
| zokier wrote:
| To me its not a question of some technical image quality but more
| so about expressiveness and the ergonomics of that expression. If
| you just want pretty pictures, then I think iPhone will probably
| work just great. But if you want to photograph for photographys
| sake then I feel like phone is still pretty constrictive and
| unergonomic. It's hard to beat physical dials, buttons, and rings
| positioned at your fingertips with touchscreens in the general
| case (admitting that there are cases where touchscreen indeed can
| be more convenient). Doing something like studio photography with
| iPhone still sounds like an exercise in pain. While the triple-
| camera setup certainly is improvement over single-cameras of
| past, its still only three options instead of the nearly
| limitless options you have with dSLRs, and you are getting
| compromises (like losing max iso) when you move off the "main"
| camera.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of Apple and love iPhones, however...
|
| Take a look at photos taken with iPhone 8. They are gorgeous.
|
| https://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-8-camera-review-india
|
| If you are a professional photographer AND you are in Tanzania
| (or any other picturesque place), every photo is going to look
| like a piece of art.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Oh yeah. Recently there was a iPhone photography competition
| with lots of amazing photos from older devices, iPhone X,
| iPhone 8,7 and even older.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-24 23:02 UTC)