7 ms·

The comparisions in this article are really nicely done, but even better would be to have a shot from a decent DSLR next to it just to get an idea of how a phon

by stinos 11y ago

The comparisions in this article are really nicely done, but even better would be to have a shot from a decent DSLR next to it just to get an idea of how a phone image compares to that.

hammock 11y ago
And shots from the best Android phone cameras as well. An iPhone-only comparison is like saying "compare the writing scores of this 8-year-old child vs. when she was 7, 6 and 5 years old!"
- urda 11y ago
  > "compare the writing scores of this 8-year-old child vs. when she was 7, 6 and 5 years old!" Which would be useful to see how the scores have improved or not improved, much like how this article is demonstrating the progress of the iPhone camera. It's 100% valid and perfectly clear to not include "the best Android phone cameras" as that is not the goal.
jlarocco 11y ago
I think it'd be more useful comparing with a "decent" point and shoot, because that's the market being eroded by camera phones. The only people moving from DSLRs to camera phones probably didn't really need the power of a DSLR in the first place.
- rcthompson 11y ago
  Yes, a comparison with a decent point-and-shoot camera would be good, but the purpose of including a high-quality DSLR shot in the comparison would be as a reference point for "this is the best that the shot can possibly look", in order to put things on an absolute scale rather than just a relative one. (Obviously, the article text should make this purpose clear.)
  - jrockway 11y ago
    The best camera is the one you have with you. Once the moment has passed, having a better camera isn't going to recreate that moment. The iPhone pretty much wins this every time. It's always with you. If you're in the studio creating scenes, you aren't going to use your iPhone, so it doesn't really matter. If you're going to buy a camera to carry everywhere, you're still not going to use your iPhone. So it's really an academic theoretical issue, in my opinion.
    - asavadatti 11y ago
      I feel like you are not getting the point.
      - jrockway 11y ago
        The point is that the iPhone is technically utter garbage compared to even the cheapest low-end DSLR. Zoom into 100% on any iPhone picture and you're going to see nothing but compression artifacts with whatever remains blurred by pocket lint on the microscopically small lens. Meanwhile, your DSLR is sitting at home in the closet. Guess which picture wins. Here are two pictures I took recently, one with the iPhone, when the light was amazing, and one with my DSLR much later in the day, when the light sucked: https://goo.gl/photos/cnMFQaeUNHcBQdVG7 https://goo.gl/photos/cnMFQaeUNHcBQdVG7 The clouds in the iPhone photo look amazing, and there are no cars in the street cluttering the view. But zoom in and see nothing but sensor noise and blurring from compression and generally poor technical performance of the camera. Then look at the one taken with my DSLR. You can zoom in far down the street and read signs perfectly. But there is nothing interesting in the picture at all. The iPhone phone camera sucked. The iPhone photo wins. (Honestly, the iPhone camera almost ruins the picture, it would have looked amazing with the DSLR. But it was at home on my shelf. Not very useful there.)
        greendestiny 11y ago
        Yes but the point is - it's a given that people want better cameras in their iPhones. They want to see DSLR images to see what they are missing out on and what they aspire to. The DSLR is just a sensor benchmark.
jrockway 11y ago
I always seem to have my iPhone when I want my DSLR. The iPhone's metering is suspicious. It seems to average all areas of the frame equally, resulting in underexposure when the background's exposure is different from the exposure you'd use the capture the subject. Of course this will always happen with any camera, by my A7ii seems to be very good at picking a correct exposure. (Of course it has exposure compensation and manual mode, so I can always override its choice, which is all I really ask.) You can see this demonstrated in the "backlit" photo with the article, I think the exposure could go up a little bit more to get some more detail from the shadowy clouds and the boat, with the only side effect of blowing that cloud out more. (It's already gone.) I also think the iPhone's sensor is capable of collecting more light data than Apple allows it to. It is amazing how much dynamic range modern sensors pick up. When I first got my A7ii I put it into auto bracket mode. By default it does something like -1/3, 0, +1/3. This adds no data. After some more testing, even at +3, 0, -3, you can still recover the other two exposures from any one of the others with no significant loss of detail. So I don't bracket anymore and I've never had to throw away a picture because of the exposure. That said, that is all with RAW files that capture data that can't be visible in the JPEG. The iPhone tone maps all that data to make a JPEG, and its tone mapping works differently than how I'd manually do it in lightroom. The RAW files off my camera capture so much data that you can ridiculously under- or over-expose and still get something that looks nice on the computer screen. (Not as perfect for the pixel-peepers as the correct exposure of course, but something that would look fine on your wall at 8x10 or shared to G+.) The iPhone's JPEGs are unfixable in Lightroom, the data isn't there and all you can do is make bright stuff brighter or dark stuff darker, which you almost never want to do. Finally, based on EXIF data, I've found that the iPhone chooses some oddball exposure settings, using overly-fast shutter speeds at high ISOs when it could use a fine shutter speed at a fine ISO to get the same exposure. But I'm sure that's optimized for how people normally use their phone's cameras, not for whatever I happen to be shooting at the moment. I know the interplay between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Most people just want a picture of their friend eating dinner. And to be fair, the A7ii on auto-ISO + P mode will choose oddball exposures too. 1/8000s at ISO 32000? Back in my day, we were happy when we had ISO 400 film :P So anyway, the iPhone camera is disappointing on a technical level, but the best camera is the one you have with you, so I can't complain. I'd rather have an imperfect picture than no picture at all.
balls187 11y ago
Why? The premise of the article is how the latest iPhone camera compares to previous iphone cameras.
- smackfu 11y ago
  It would give a sense of how far they still have to go.
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    TBH, the image quality isn't the limiting factor. The lack of interchangeable lenses, manual control, and RAW files will always limit the appeal of camera phones for pros and more advanced amateurs.
    - andor 11y ago
      Will always limit? Android supports manual control and DNG raw files. Also, plenty of enthusiast cameras don't have interchangeable lenses.
      - thrownaway2424 11y ago
        _Those_ cameras are doomed because the iPhone does what they do, in many cases the iPhone does it better, and the iPhone is cheaper and smaller. At least an interchangeable lens camera will always have the feature that you can put a different lens on it. On the other hand people do make optics for the iPhone, too, so it's certainly not impossible for an "interchangeable lens iPhone" to exist in some way at some point.
        semi-extrinsic 11y ago
        I dunno, my non-interchangeable-lens camera (Canon SX40) has a whole range of features which are important to me and that the iPhone doesn't (and will never) have: * 30x optical zoom * optical image stabilization * tripod mount * flash hot shoe * 58mm filter mount * good ergonomics & no touchscreen * RAW files * scriptability of shooting e.g. for thunderstorms (camera triggered by lightning) * replaceable battery * removable storage

by stinos 11y ago

The comparisions in this article are really nicely done, but even better would be to have a shot from a decent DSLR next to it just to get an idea of how a phone image compares to that.

hammock 11y ago

And shots from the best Android phone cameras as well. An iPhone-only comparison is like saying "compare the writing scores of this 8-year-old child vs. when she was 7, 6 and 5 years old!"

urda 11y ago
> "compare the writing scores of this 8-year-old child vs. when she was 7, 6 and 5 years old!" Which would be useful to see how the scores have improved or not improved, much like how this article is demonstrating the progress of the iPhone camera. It's 100% valid and perfectly clear to not include "the best Android phone cameras" as that is not the goal.

jlarocco 11y ago

I think it'd be more useful comparing with a "decent" point and shoot, because that's the market being eroded by camera phones. The only people moving from DSLRs to camera phones probably didn't really need the power of a DSLR in the first place.

rcthompson 11y ago
Yes, a comparison with a decent point-and-shoot camera would be good, but the purpose of including a high-quality DSLR shot in the comparison would be as a reference point for "this is the best that the shot can possibly look", in order to put things on an absolute scale rather than just a relative one. (Obviously, the article text should make this purpose clear.)
- jrockway 11y ago
  The best camera is the one you have with you. Once the moment has passed, having a better camera isn't going to recreate that moment. The iPhone pretty much wins this every time. It's always with you. If you're in the studio creating scenes, you aren't going to use your iPhone, so it doesn't really matter. If you're going to buy a camera to carry everywhere, you're still not going to use your iPhone. So it's really an academic theoretical issue, in my opinion.
  - asavadatti 11y ago
    I feel like you are not getting the point.
    - jrockway 11y ago
      The point is that the iPhone is technically utter garbage compared to even the cheapest low-end DSLR. Zoom into 100% on any iPhone picture and you're going to see nothing but compression artifacts with whatever remains blurred by pocket lint on the microscopically small lens. Meanwhile, your DSLR is sitting at home in the closet. Guess which picture wins. Here are two pictures I took recently, one with the iPhone, when the light was amazing, and one with my DSLR much later in the day, when the light sucked: https://goo.gl/photos/cnMFQaeUNHcBQdVG7 https://goo.gl/photos/cnMFQaeUNHcBQdVG7 The clouds in the iPhone photo look amazing, and there are no cars in the street cluttering the view. But zoom in and see nothing but sensor noise and blurring from compression and generally poor technical performance of the camera. Then look at the one taken with my DSLR. You can zoom in far down the street and read signs perfectly. But there is nothing interesting in the picture at all. The iPhone phone camera sucked. The iPhone photo wins. (Honestly, the iPhone camera almost ruins the picture, it would have looked amazing with the DSLR. But it was at home on my shelf. Not very useful there.)
      - greendestiny 11y ago
        Yes but the point is - it's a given that people want better cameras in their iPhones. They want to see DSLR images to see what they are missing out on and what they aspire to. The DSLR is just a sensor benchmark.

jrockway 11y ago

I always seem to have my iPhone when I want my DSLR. The iPhone's metering is suspicious. It seems to average all areas of the frame equally, resulting in underexposure when the background's exposure is different from the exposure you'd use the capture the subject. Of course this will always happen with any camera, by my A7ii seems to be very good at picking a correct exposure. (Of course it has exposure compensation and manual mode, so I can always override its choice, which is all I really ask.) You can see this demonstrated in the "backlit" photo with the article, I think the exposure could go up a little bit more to get some more detail from the shadowy clouds and the boat, with the only side effect of blowing that cloud out more. (It's already gone.) I also think the iPhone's sensor is capable of collecting more light data than Apple allows it to. It is amazing how much dynamic range modern sensors pick up. When I first got my A7ii I put it into auto bracket mode. By default it does something like -1/3, 0, +1/3. This adds no data. After some more testing, even at +3, 0, -3, you can still recover the other two exposures from any one of the others with no significant loss of detail. So I don't bracket anymore and I've never had to throw away a picture because of the exposure. That said, that is all with RAW files that capture data that can't be visible in the JPEG. The iPhone tone maps all that data to make a JPEG, and its tone mapping works differently than how I'd manually do it in lightroom. The RAW files off my camera capture so much data that you can ridiculously under- or over-expose and still get something that looks nice on the computer screen. (Not as perfect for the pixel-peepers as the correct exposure of course, but something that would look fine on your wall at 8x10 or shared to G+.) The iPhone's JPEGs are unfixable in Lightroom, the data isn't there and all you can do is make bright stuff brighter or dark stuff darker, which you almost never want to do. Finally, based on EXIF data, I've found that the iPhone chooses some oddball exposure settings, using overly-fast shutter speeds at high ISOs when it could use a fine shutter speed at a fine ISO to get the same exposure. But I'm sure that's optimized for how people normally use their phone's cameras, not for whatever I happen to be shooting at the moment. I know the interplay between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Most people just want a picture of their friend eating dinner. And to be fair, the A7ii on auto-ISO + P mode will choose oddball exposures too. 1/8000s at ISO 32000? Back in my day, we were happy when we had ISO 400 film :P So anyway, the iPhone camera is disappointing on a technical level, but the best camera is the one you have with you, so I can't complain. I'd rather have an imperfect picture than no picture at all.

balls187 11y ago

Why? The premise of the article is how the latest iPhone camera compares to previous iphone cameras.

smackfu 11y ago
It would give a sense of how far they still have to go.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  TBH, the image quality isn't the limiting factor. The lack of interchangeable lenses, manual control, and RAW files will always limit the appeal of camera phones for pros and more advanced amateurs.
  - andor 11y ago
    Will always limit? Android supports manual control and DNG raw files. Also, plenty of enthusiast cameras don't have interchangeable lenses.
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      _Those_ cameras are doomed because the iPhone does what they do, in many cases the iPhone does it better, and the iPhone is cheaper and smaller. At least an interchangeable lens camera will always have the feature that you can put a different lens on it. On the other hand people do make optics for the iPhone, too, so it's certainly not impossible for an "interchangeable lens iPhone" to exist in some way at some point.
      - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
        I dunno, my non-interchangeable-lens camera (Canon SX40) has a whole range of features which are important to me and that the iPhone doesn't (and will never) have: * 30x optical zoom * optical image stabilization * tripod mount * flash hot shoe * 58mm filter mount * good ergonomics & no touchscreen * RAW files * scriptability of shooting e.g. for thunderstorms (camera triggered by lightning) * replaceable battery * removable storage