12 ms·

>but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latt

>but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way. I find this very fascinating because while I enjoy my ever-increasing smartphone camera and use it as a daily driver, I have a about 13 year old Canon DSLR (one of the first one they made now) with a few lenses and that 2007 model Canon D-SLR with the 1" large digital sensor can RUN INSANE LAPS AROUND TOP OF THE LINE SMARTPHONES with respect to the ability to take low light photos, get a lot of good light, and of course zoom on the telephoto, macro on the macro, etc. The autofocus is probably five times faster and the ~10 zones are lightyears ahead of the phone. There's no comparison. Sure, the 7MP megapixels are bad. Sure, the ISO noise is pretty bad compared to modern smartphone postprocessing. But the telephoto isn't some pitiful "optical zoom", it's instead incredible powerful optics. The low aperture prime lenses produce beautiful shots whose distortion is matched to human preference. The idea that phones can "catch up" to even 10 years ago on DSLR's would be very cool. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath. Phone sensors are what 10X smaller? Doing great things with 10X less light is impressive, but at some point, you need a big sensor and good quality glass. Would love to see us get DSLR quality pics from a phone tho.

beagle3 6y ago
I was not referring to phone lens, although those things are being applied there too. It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. When these become common, it will likely cause another seismic shift in the pure-camera market. Perhaps some of them will actually be bonded with the sensors, unlike what we have today. Regardless, new lens technology -- while likely to make a greater impact on mobile phones -- is largely orthogonal to them.
- pjc50 6y ago
  ... can you actually buy this yet?
  - Kye 6y ago
    Metamaterial lenses seem to be the fusion power of photography. Just one breakthrough that might not happen before they're commercially viable.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. Do you have any references you can share? I'm super interested. edit: For anyone else interested, the key phrase that worked for me was "metasurface lenses".
formerly_proven 6y ago
I use a little bit newer Nikon DSLR (~2013), which adds another thing (the first generation of DSLRs wasn't really good at this): Color. The color of iPhones is just bleirgh in comparison, which is a little bit weird considering the cargoculting on HN of Apple's "computational photography".
- dagw 6y ago
  The color of iPhones is just bleirgh in comparison They're trying to solve two different problems. Nikon want to reproduce colors that are balanced and accurate. Apple want to produced colors that 'pop' and catch peoples eye when scrolling through Instagram.
- inasio 6y ago
  This is the first comment here on computational photography, which I think is really the reason for traditional camera manufacturers going away. Most high end cellphones this generation can do stellar photography. My dream is a camera with a nice sensor/lens and an iphone brain. It likely already exists, up there orbiting the earth...
lorenzhs 6y ago
I can't relate to this at all. I have a Canon EOS 450D (Rebel XSi, 2008 model year) with a few lenses that I used to love, but haven't really used for years now. Its low light performance sucks, it's almost impossible to photograph people at night. My phone does a much better job of that. Yes, the DSLR's optics run circles around any phone, but the sensor really does show its age. And since you specifically mention the autofocus, I just want to add that I find it infuriating. It's awful compared to my phone! It reliably focuses on the wrong thing and is really rather slow. At night, it barely works. To me, the old DSLR is simply not worth the weight of lugging it around any more. It's funny how we have such different perceptions of our old DSLRs.
- te_chris 6y ago
  You're comparing a modern phone to a very old camera in DSLR terms. Much like the nokia you probably had in 2008, things have very much moved on.
  - iad 6y ago
    Are there DSLRs with image processing features like Google's "Night Shot"? Where you can take a very long hand-held exposure and it will never be blurry?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Not quite but close. My Sony A7ii will take a 2/3s of a second exposure by stacking four shorter exposures and using stabilization. 2/3 of a second with an f/2 or f/2.8 lens means you can take pictures lit by not much more than starlight. Actually, even without this, with an F/1.4 lens I can take a handheld picture using only light pollution.
  - frostburg 6y ago
    To a very old and entry level camera.
  - lorenzhs 6y ago
    Well, the parent was talking about their even older DSLR and their equally modern phone, so I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is claiming that a 2020 phone is anywhere close to a 2020 (or 2015, for that matter) DSLR or mirrorless camera.
jdmichal 6y ago
I have a Sony RX-100 (Mark-IV specifically). Also with a 1" sensor but in a compact body. Even without flexible lenses, I agree with all your points. I make sure to bring it on trips where I expect to be taking lots of pictures. The cellphone is great in the sense that I always have it on me, and the best camera is always the one you have. But the comparative quality is not even close. But, I mean, it better not be considering both were about the same price!
foldr 6y ago
>Doing great things with 10X less light is impressive, but at some point, you need a big sensor and good quality glass. This problem is basically solved already by taking multiple exposures and blending them in software. Once we're at the point where stacking 10 exposures works reliably even in challenging conditions (and we're pretty nearly there with the latest phones) then many of the advantages of a larger sensor are moot. As far as glass "quality" is concerned, smart phone manufacturers benefit hugely from economy of scale. I wouldn't necessarily assume that smart phone lenses are manufactured to lower quality standards just because you're paying less for them.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  There are still a great many. First, much greater resolution. Then, being able to take pictures of things going fast, then also being able to take non-blurry pictures in very low light, then there is the dynamic range, and then there is also constant aperture zoom as well as telephoto focal ranges. Lenses on phones are limited by diffraction. They can never provide the quality of a larger lens because their aperture is so small that their airy disk is often over the size of a pixel.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Phones are already better at taking non-blurry pictures in very low light. They generally have pretty fast shutter speeds available for moving subjects. Dynamic range is not particularly important now that exposure blending works so well. Diffraction all comes out in the wash. Smaller sensors allow wider apertures (and phones have some room to grow in terms of sensor size). The resolution advantage is actually quite moderate (people are often mislead by comparing the number of pixels rather than its square root).
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      If you use multiple exposures for exposure blending you lose sensitivity, and in the case of fast shutter speeds image quality plummets. Phones are simply not better at taking non-blury pictures in very lowlight. Cameras evolved since the 90s, we have 5 stops of IS, sharp f/1.4 lenses and exposure stacking. The resolution advantage is not moderate at all. A 12MP phone is around as sharp as a theoretically perfect 8MP sensor with a perfect lens, while current cameras are as sharp as 40+MP perfect sensor with a theoretically perfect lens. Diffraction absolutely doesn't come out as a wash. What matters is the actual diameter of the aperture, not the ratio. Phones are a tenth of ILCs in this metric, or even less for non-optimal focal lengths.
pbuzbee 6y ago
I would love smartphone postprocessing over DSLR raw images. I feel that phones usually make better decisions for contrast, white balance, exposure than DSLRs do. With a DSLR, reaching the same finished product usually requires a ton of manual work editing photos. Of course, the DSLR has far better detail on the pixel level, and if you need to zoom in at all, it wins in a landslide. I wish I could combine the strengths of both platforms.
- ghaff 6y ago
  DSLRs (and other high-end cameras) typically have a ton of JPEG options too. Though I usually just shoot raw and let Lightroom apply presets. That said, the traditional camera manufacturers are pretty much laggards with respect to software so their better hardware isn't really used to full advantage a lot of the time.

beagle3 6y ago

I was not referring to phone lens, although those things are being applied there too. It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. When these become common, it will likely cause another seismic shift in the pure-camera market. Perhaps some of them will actually be bonded with the sensors, unlike what we have today. Regardless, new lens technology -- while likely to make a greater impact on mobile phones -- is largely orthogonal to them.

pjc50 6y ago
... can you actually buy this yet?
- Kye 6y ago
  Metamaterial lenses seem to be the fusion power of photography. Just one breakthrough that might not happen before they're commercially viable.
nordsieck 6y ago
> It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. Do you have any references you can share? I'm super interested. edit: For anyone else interested, the key phrase that worked for me was "metasurface lenses".

formerly_proven 6y ago

I use a little bit newer Nikon DSLR (~2013), which adds another thing (the first generation of DSLRs wasn't really good at this): Color. The color of iPhones is just bleirgh in comparison, which is a little bit weird considering the cargoculting on HN of Apple's "computational photography".

dagw 6y ago
The color of iPhones is just bleirgh in comparison They're trying to solve two different problems. Nikon want to reproduce colors that are balanced and accurate. Apple want to produced colors that 'pop' and catch peoples eye when scrolling through Instagram.
inasio 6y ago
This is the first comment here on computational photography, which I think is really the reason for traditional camera manufacturers going away. Most high end cellphones this generation can do stellar photography. My dream is a camera with a nice sensor/lens and an iphone brain. It likely already exists, up there orbiting the earth...

lorenzhs 6y ago

I can't relate to this at all. I have a Canon EOS 450D (Rebel XSi, 2008 model year) with a few lenses that I used to love, but haven't really used for years now. Its low light performance sucks, it's almost impossible to photograph people at night. My phone does a much better job of that. Yes, the DSLR's optics run circles around any phone, but the sensor really does show its age. And since you specifically mention the autofocus, I just want to add that I find it infuriating. It's awful compared to my phone! It reliably focuses on the wrong thing and is really rather slow. At night, it barely works. To me, the old DSLR is simply not worth the weight of lugging it around any more. It's funny how we have such different perceptions of our old DSLRs.

te_chris 6y ago
You're comparing a modern phone to a very old camera in DSLR terms. Much like the nokia you probably had in 2008, things have very much moved on.
- iad 6y ago
  Are there DSLRs with image processing features like Google's "Night Shot"? Where you can take a very long hand-held exposure and it will never be blurry?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Not quite but close. My Sony A7ii will take a 2/3s of a second exposure by stacking four shorter exposures and using stabilization. 2/3 of a second with an f/2 or f/2.8 lens means you can take pictures lit by not much more than starlight. Actually, even without this, with an F/1.4 lens I can take a handheld picture using only light pollution.
- frostburg 6y ago
  To a very old and entry level camera.
- lorenzhs 6y ago
  Well, the parent was talking about their even older DSLR and their equally modern phone, so I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is claiming that a 2020 phone is anywhere close to a 2020 (or 2015, for that matter) DSLR or mirrorless camera.

jdmichal 6y ago

I have a Sony RX-100 (Mark-IV specifically). Also with a 1" sensor but in a compact body. Even without flexible lenses, I agree with all your points. I make sure to bring it on trips where I expect to be taking lots of pictures. The cellphone is great in the sense that I always have it on me, and the best camera is always the one you have. But the comparative quality is not even close. But, I mean, it better not be considering both were about the same price!

foldr 6y ago

>Doing great things with 10X less light is impressive, but at some point, you need a big sensor and good quality glass. This problem is basically solved already by taking multiple exposures and blending them in software. Once we're at the point where stacking 10 exposures works reliably even in challenging conditions (and we're pretty nearly there with the latest phones) then many of the advantages of a larger sensor are moot. As far as glass "quality" is concerned, smart phone manufacturers benefit hugely from economy of scale. I wouldn't necessarily assume that smart phone lenses are manufactured to lower quality standards just because you're paying less for them.

sudosysgen 6y ago
There are still a great many. First, much greater resolution. Then, being able to take pictures of things going fast, then also being able to take non-blurry pictures in very low light, then there is the dynamic range, and then there is also constant aperture zoom as well as telephoto focal ranges. Lenses on phones are limited by diffraction. They can never provide the quality of a larger lens because their aperture is so small that their airy disk is often over the size of a pixel.
- foldr 6y ago
  Phones are already better at taking non-blurry pictures in very low light. They generally have pretty fast shutter speeds available for moving subjects. Dynamic range is not particularly important now that exposure blending works so well. Diffraction all comes out in the wash. Smaller sensors allow wider apertures (and phones have some room to grow in terms of sensor size). The resolution advantage is actually quite moderate (people are often mislead by comparing the number of pixels rather than its square root).
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    If you use multiple exposures for exposure blending you lose sensitivity, and in the case of fast shutter speeds image quality plummets. Phones are simply not better at taking non-blury pictures in very lowlight. Cameras evolved since the 90s, we have 5 stops of IS, sharp f/1.4 lenses and exposure stacking. The resolution advantage is not moderate at all. A 12MP phone is around as sharp as a theoretically perfect 8MP sensor with a perfect lens, while current cameras are as sharp as 40+MP perfect sensor with a theoretically perfect lens. Diffraction absolutely doesn't come out as a wash. What matters is the actual diameter of the aperture, not the ratio. Phones are a tenth of ILCs in this metric, or even less for non-optimal focal lengths.

pbuzbee 6y ago

I would love smartphone postprocessing over DSLR raw images. I feel that phones usually make better decisions for contrast, white balance, exposure than DSLRs do. With a DSLR, reaching the same finished product usually requires a ton of manual work editing photos. Of course, the DSLR has far better detail on the pixel level, and if you need to zoom in at all, it wins in a landslide. I wish I could combine the strengths of both platforms.

ghaff 6y ago
DSLRs (and other high-end cameras) typically have a ton of JPEG options too. Though I usually just shoot raw and let Lightroom apply presets. That said, the traditional camera manufacturers are pretty much laggards with respect to software so their better hardware isn't really used to full advantage a lot of the time.