3 ms·
This certainly was true a decade ago. It isn't anymore. I spend a lot of time staring at photos from tons of different cameras. I pull in unprocessed raw and J
by mceachen 6y ago
This certainly was true a decade ago. It isn't anymore.
I spend a lot of time staring at photos from tons of different cameras. I pull in unprocessed raw and JPEG photos from DSLR and flagship phone reviews to verify that metadata extraction and raw image data gets decoded properly by PhotoStructure.
There is surprisingly little difference in image quality from, say, the OG Google Pixel to the pixel 2 and 3.
The difference between well-lit scenes at the same zoom on an iphone 8, X, and 11 is minimal.
If you show someone photos from a current flagship versus a 3-4 year old flagship, composition will matter (much) more than the hardware as to which is seen as the better image.
- Gustomaximus 6y agoClearly you know more about this than me, so a question, I thought the improvements were significant for edge cases of what would be a good photos. So if you use old/new in a well lit enviroment either is good, but come dusk the more recent generation are much better in getting a decent photo in a less than ideal enviroment... or have I fallen prey to the marketing!
- mceachen 6y ago> Clearly you know more (Guh, didn't mean to come off as pompous! I was surprised when I realized this a while back and thought it would be interesting to share). Anyway, you're correct: low-light photography is where there's been more recent progress, but it's mostly via computational imagery. Having a depth sensor for portrait shots has helped improve the simulated bokeh, as well. My Google Pixel 1 takes fractionally worse nighttime shots as a current-gen pixel 4. They're both usable, but the pixel 4 is much faster at getting the shot.
- Gustomaximus 6y agoDidnt come off as pompous, just acknowledging I'm uniformed opinion/question in this topic for anyone reading :) Thanks for the insight.