5 ms·

Oh, I dunno. When is a phone going to do this: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2016-hawk/2.html or this: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/fog.jpg or this: http

Oh, I dunno. When is a phone going to do this: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2016-hawk/2.html or this: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/fog.jpg or this: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/hockey-portraits/104.html I love that phone tech is getting better but I'll take my 1DX & the 200mm f2.0 over a phone a 100x. Phone is handy as heck because it's always with you but there are some things you just can't do without a great sensor and great big honking chunk of glass.

eridius 9y ago
For the first and third picture, the important part seems to be the use of bokeh, right? iPhone 7 Plus can do bokeh. And for the second picture, that just looks like an HDR photo to me, which phones have been able to do for a while.
- cthalupa 9y ago
  Saying the iPhone 7 Plus can do bokeh is like saying the iPhone 7 Plus can do zoom: Technically accurate, but it's completely and utterly outclassed by a real camera. Scroll down to the bokeh section on https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/mini-shootout-can-iphone-7s-bag-of-tricks-compete-with-a-real-dslr/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/mini-shootout-can-ip... for example. Speaking of zoom, if you think the only thing interesting about the 1st and 3rd pictures is bokeh, then you're not noticing just how much zoom is used on them. The new zoom lens on the iPhone is a 56mm equivalent - just slightly more than a quarter of the lens used for those pictures. The iPhone does not have anything on it that makes it capable for the same sort of shots a real camera with a telephoto lens offers.
  - luckydude 9y ago
    What he said. And some more details: all of those pictures (and all of my pictures to date) are jpeg right off the camera. No post processing, no HDR (which is why I'm proud of that fog picture. That's a freaking jpeg shot straight into the sun and I've got details in the shadows). And the hawk stuff is usually a 600mm f4 lens. A touch different than a 56mm equiv. And one of those was on a 7D II, so 1.6x crop factor, so 960mm equiv. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably buy that phone because the best camera is the one you have and you always have your phone. But it's never gonna replace that 200mm f2.0 lens with that yummy yummy bokeh. I'll happily be the dinosaur that is carrying around that heavy stuff as long as I can lift it. Makes me happy.
    - dvtv75 9y ago
      I have a handful of rather nice images, photos taken of the Moon, rainbows, or crepuscular rays. As I said, they're rather nice, but as you suggest, I really wish I had my Nikon on me at the time. They wouldn't just be "rather nice," they could be incredible.
      - luckydude 9y ago
        Yeah, the phone is awesome because you have it and you can capture images. I'm not going to haul my pro body and a huge ass lens everywhere I go. But when I have that stuff your point that they go from nice to incredible is spot on. Look at this (warning 9MB download): http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2017-carrizo-plain/2017-04-15-10.08.41.jpg http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2017-carrizo-plain/2017-04-15-10.08.... and don't look at the shrunk size your browser shows you, click on it and see the full size and scroll around. That's a jpeg right off the 1dx. It's insanely sharp and detailed.
splintercell 9y ago
If you're impressed by these photos, then try my suggestion and get a film camera, since you already have Canon gear, get a Canon AE-1 for like $120 used on Amazon (or cheaper on ebay), it will work with all your existing lenses, and try Porta 400 film taking similar photos like these. The reason why I say this because it seems like you've reached a local maxima for DSLRs and by trying your hand in analog you'd see what's really missing in your pics.
- luckydude 9y ago
  Dude, I started on a Canon AE-1. Well that was my first personal SLR, I really started on a Pentax K1000 (didn't we all?). I've done a _lot_ of film. I think before I went back to that I'd try post processing. I'm of two minds on post processing, I know it can make things "pop" but I like pictures to be realistic. Sometimes that makes them look worse than you might like but they are real. That said, I am sure a ton of my keepers would benefit from post. See my profile if you want to try and convince me in email, I'm a total nerd about photography stuff. Not great at it, I've got a shitty eye for composition, but still love it.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    Well I came from a poor country, so due to leap frog effect, I directly got into digital photography, and eventually I went into analog. The things I have learned about digital and post processing (and I did that a LOT) is: * Always shoot in RAW mode, why ruin you images by making the stock software by Canon to convert them into dumpy JPEG format. * Always underexpose digital photos. Digital sensors these days have pretty good exposure latitude (almost as good as analog some even say). When you shoot in RAW and underexpose, you can recover almost everything. Digital sensors are HORRIBLE in capturing highlights. You're commenting on how proud you are at your camera in capturing the shadows of the fog scene, but the highlights of the photo are completely butchered. * While post-processing, invest in a good monitor calibrator. Granted they can be expensive, the cheaper version of that is to at least do your work in middle brightness of the monitor (irrespective of the actual brightness level you work in) and then crank it up all the way and see how it looks, and crank it all the way down and make adjustments. * For actual software, I prefer lightroom, because you can create all sorts of presets for it and see immediately how any photo will look in it. You can also buy presets (like VSCO has some good ones) from third parties to expand your collection. * Discard more shots. That (i.e. being more selective) makes a HUGE difference between a good photographer and an average one. Finally, I'd say you should try your hand in Medium format analog. Nearly nothing I did in digital came close to a single Medium format shot I've taken.

eridius 9y ago

For the first and third picture, the important part seems to be the use of bokeh, right? iPhone 7 Plus can do bokeh. And for the second picture, that just looks like an HDR photo to me, which phones have been able to do for a while.

cthalupa 9y ago
Saying the iPhone 7 Plus can do bokeh is like saying the iPhone 7 Plus can do zoom: Technically accurate, but it's completely and utterly outclassed by a real camera. Scroll down to the bokeh section on https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/mini-shootout-can-iphone-7s-bag-of-tricks-compete-with-a-real-dslr/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/mini-shootout-can-ip... for example. Speaking of zoom, if you think the only thing interesting about the 1st and 3rd pictures is bokeh, then you're not noticing just how much zoom is used on them. The new zoom lens on the iPhone is a 56mm equivalent - just slightly more than a quarter of the lens used for those pictures. The iPhone does not have anything on it that makes it capable for the same sort of shots a real camera with a telephoto lens offers.
- luckydude 9y ago
  What he said. And some more details: all of those pictures (and all of my pictures to date) are jpeg right off the camera. No post processing, no HDR (which is why I'm proud of that fog picture. That's a freaking jpeg shot straight into the sun and I've got details in the shadows). And the hawk stuff is usually a 600mm f4 lens. A touch different than a 56mm equiv. And one of those was on a 7D II, so 1.6x crop factor, so 960mm equiv. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably buy that phone because the best camera is the one you have and you always have your phone. But it's never gonna replace that 200mm f2.0 lens with that yummy yummy bokeh. I'll happily be the dinosaur that is carrying around that heavy stuff as long as I can lift it. Makes me happy.
  - dvtv75 9y ago
    I have a handful of rather nice images, photos taken of the Moon, rainbows, or crepuscular rays. As I said, they're rather nice, but as you suggest, I really wish I had my Nikon on me at the time. They wouldn't just be "rather nice," they could be incredible.
    - luckydude 9y ago
      Yeah, the phone is awesome because you have it and you can capture images. I'm not going to haul my pro body and a huge ass lens everywhere I go. But when I have that stuff your point that they go from nice to incredible is spot on. Look at this (warning 9MB download): http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2017-carrizo-plain/2017-04-15-10.08.41.jpg http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2017-carrizo-plain/2017-04-15-10.08.... and don't look at the shrunk size your browser shows you, click on it and see the full size and scroll around. That's a jpeg right off the 1dx. It's insanely sharp and detailed.

splintercell 9y ago

If you're impressed by these photos, then try my suggestion and get a film camera, since you already have Canon gear, get a Canon AE-1 for like $120 used on Amazon (or cheaper on ebay), it will work with all your existing lenses, and try Porta 400 film taking similar photos like these. The reason why I say this because it seems like you've reached a local maxima for DSLRs and by trying your hand in analog you'd see what's really missing in your pics.

luckydude 9y ago
Dude, I started on a Canon AE-1. Well that was my first personal SLR, I really started on a Pentax K1000 (didn't we all?). I've done a _lot_ of film. I think before I went back to that I'd try post processing. I'm of two minds on post processing, I know it can make things "pop" but I like pictures to be realistic. Sometimes that makes them look worse than you might like but they are real. That said, I am sure a ton of my keepers would benefit from post. See my profile if you want to try and convince me in email, I'm a total nerd about photography stuff. Not great at it, I've got a shitty eye for composition, but still love it.
- splintercell 9y ago
  Well I came from a poor country, so due to leap frog effect, I directly got into digital photography, and eventually I went into analog. The things I have learned about digital and post processing (and I did that a LOT) is: * Always shoot in RAW mode, why ruin you images by making the stock software by Canon to convert them into dumpy JPEG format. * Always underexpose digital photos. Digital sensors these days have pretty good exposure latitude (almost as good as analog some even say). When you shoot in RAW and underexpose, you can recover almost everything. Digital sensors are HORRIBLE in capturing highlights. You're commenting on how proud you are at your camera in capturing the shadows of the fog scene, but the highlights of the photo are completely butchered. * While post-processing, invest in a good monitor calibrator. Granted they can be expensive, the cheaper version of that is to at least do your work in middle brightness of the monitor (irrespective of the actual brightness level you work in) and then crank it up all the way and see how it looks, and crank it all the way down and make adjustments. * For actual software, I prefer lightroom, because you can create all sorts of presets for it and see immediately how any photo will look in it. You can also buy presets (like VSCO has some good ones) from third parties to expand your collection. * Discard more shots. That (i.e. being more selective) makes a HUGE difference between a good photographer and an average one. Finally, I'd say you should try your hand in Medium format analog. Nearly nothing I did in digital came close to a single Medium format shot I've taken.