3 ms·

"As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical" They wouldn't l

"As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical" They wouldn't look remotely alike. Many of those simple shots are incredibly complex dynamic range scenes were the results are quite spectacular. With a lesser device the results would have been a blah photo, which is the point of the amazing progress that is happening in computational photography and the hardware that feeds it (focus pixels, secondary depth analysis, and sensors that have much better dynamic range than they did -- even current SLRs have much better dynamic range than a few years ago). As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc. "As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens." This is a strawman. No one is hating on DSLRs, and I can't find a single comment claiming that they're superior to DSLRs, beyond in the computational photography realm. But yes, smartphones are good enough that we often leave our DSLR at home, and when we do bring it there are many situations where the smarts of the smartphone yield usable to excellent photos where the DSLR will stumble. All things being equal a larger sensor is ideal, though things get more debatable on the lens side (larger lenses equal a longer focal length equal a much shallower depth of field, which while beneficial for bokeh, in many situations because a serious hindrance rather than benefit).

_coveredInBees 7y ago
I suggest you pick up an LG G3 and test it's capabilities out. It's not like HDR is some new invention that just came about in the smart phone space. It's been around forever. Yes, some of the algorithms have gotten better, and the HDR tonemapping has been improved, but I've taken thousands of HDR images with my G3 many years ago that looked great. Case in point - https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7 https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7 > As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc. Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason. All I stated was that it would suffer for prints, which is factual and nothing you stated really adds value to that. I didn't say that it was no good because of that...
- endorphone 7y ago
  I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless. Taking even current, top of the line smartphones and taking photos in perfectly equal conditions often yields significant differences in outcomes, yet you're seriously arguing that a five year old smartphone would be equal, with zero proof. "Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason." You stated that they wouldn't look good printed out which is a claim I didn't even want to argue (despite it being very wrong), instead pointing out that people generally don't print out often anyways, so... That isn't defensive, it's factual, as you say. No need to get defensive about it. Feel free to get a G3 and an iPhone 11 and take comparable photos and show everyone, including the entire industry that recognizes the advances, how wrong they are -- it will surely see a lot of hits and attention.
  - _coveredInBees 7y ago
    > I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless. Talk about moving goalposts. What a bunch of baloney. Apparently now you can't argue any point without replicating exactly those specific images in the article. It isn't worth continuing a discussion since you don't have much constructive to add. I actually showed you a great example of a challenging HDR image snapped by a G3, which is more "proof" than anything you've provided so far. Like I said in my original post, the iPhone 11 makes a great improvement in general. I pointed out that a lot of the excitement that the OP has about the wide-angle lens at the top of the article is justified in that wide-angle on smart phones is a lot of fun from a photography perspective (I've been able to enjoy it for several years already). But it has less to do with the wide-angle shots being miles superior than what has already been out there. No reason to take those observations so personally.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

_coveredInBees 7y ago

I suggest you pick up an LG G3 and test it's capabilities out. It's not like HDR is some new invention that just came about in the smart phone space. It's been around forever. Yes, some of the algorithms have gotten better, and the HDR tonemapping has been improved, but I've taken thousands of HDR images with my G3 many years ago that looked great. Case in point - https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7 https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7 > As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc. Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason. All I stated was that it would suffer for prints, which is factual and nothing you stated really adds value to that. I didn't say that it was no good because of that...

endorphone 7y ago
I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless. Taking even current, top of the line smartphones and taking photos in perfectly equal conditions often yields significant differences in outcomes, yet you're seriously arguing that a five year old smartphone would be equal, with zero proof. "Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason." You stated that they wouldn't look good printed out which is a claim I didn't even want to argue (despite it being very wrong), instead pointing out that people generally don't print out often anyways, so... That isn't defensive, it's factual, as you say. No need to get defensive about it. Feel free to get a G3 and an iPhone 11 and take comparable photos and show everyone, including the entire industry that recognizes the advances, how wrong they are -- it will surely see a lot of hits and attention.
- _coveredInBees 7y ago
  > I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless. Talk about moving goalposts. What a bunch of baloney. Apparently now you can't argue any point without replicating exactly those specific images in the article. It isn't worth continuing a discussion since you don't have much constructive to add. I actually showed you a great example of a challenging HDR image snapped by a G3, which is more "proof" than anything you've provided so far. Like I said in my original post, the iPhone 11 makes a great improvement in general. I pointed out that a lot of the excitement that the OP has about the wide-angle lens at the top of the article is justified in that wide-angle on smart phones is a lot of fun from a photography perspective (I've been able to enjoy it for several years already). But it has less to do with the wide-angle shots being miles superior than what has already been out there. No reason to take those observations so personally.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]