5 ms·

I can't help but shake off the weird tricks that Apple do to the video and images that make these videos obviously shot on an iPhone. You can see the lack of sh

by scko 5y ago

I can't help but shake off the weird tricks that Apple do to the video and images that make these videos obviously shot on an iPhone. You can see the lack of sharpness where de-noising occurs, and where the colours are blobbed together. I think marketing the iPhone as being anything close to a replacement for a DSLR, even be it an entry level 100 dollar DSLR is silly as there's clearly a difference in quality just from camera sensor size and higher quality lenses. Especially editing iPhone photos using Lightroom limits you as many of the pre-processing steps compensate for the small lens and the small sensor. The iPhone's camera is great for what it is, but it's definitely not anything close to a replacement of an entry level DSLR and shouldn't really be marketed as such.

whatever1 5y ago
I hear you, but the iPhone has given me so many photos that no way a DSLR would had given me, because it is so portable. You always carry your phone, but not your dslr. For an untrained eye, the iPhone 11,12 photos look gorgeous. For professionals of course there is no debate, regardless what Apple marketing is claiming.
- ninjin 5y ago
  I think your portability point is a fair one and also what motivated 35mm photography about a hundred years ago. But I think the DSLR vs phone comparison is flawed. There are plenty of wonderful point-and-shoot cameras that easily fit in your handbag, satchel, or whatnot and can give any phone a run for its money with its bigger sensor and larger glass – without being a bulky DSLR. It is a spectrum is what I am trying to say I guess.
  - lawkwok 5y ago
    Curious if you have such a camera on your person every day? It’s an extra thing to charge, you can’t edit and post directly to social media, getting pictures backed up is not automatic. It’s a totally different experience and for most people, they don’t want to hang large prints of their photos at home. They just need enough quality to show their friends and family.
    - ninjin 5y ago
      Firstly, I feel I got a bit swamped with replies to my initial comment. So I will try to address it all here. I used to carry a small camera at all times in my bag, yes. Mostly a Canon G11 and at times an Olympus XA. But this was a long time ago as I no longer pass by any points of real interest (to me) on my commute. But, let me get back to what I am trying to convey. From my perspective, phones on cameras (combined with social media) created a new class of photographers that would be most closely related to those that previously had cheap point-and-shoot cameras (if even a camera at all) with fixed lenses that are easy to operate but gets the job done to document something. The results will be subpar, but that does not matter as the point is not something abstract like “bokeh”, the desire is to document something visually to have it become a memory or communicate an event to someone else visually in a less artistic sense than a “real” photographer. This is why I find discussions about how digital depth of field is not authentic largely to miss the point. This class of photographers do not care, they want good aesthetics – yes – but it is not something they actively seek out like a “true” photographer. But here is the kicker, I doubt that without a readily available camera in their phone these people would ever have become photographers in the first place and this is why the camera phone vs DSLR discussion annoys me. This new class of photographers did not make a conscious choice between shooting with a phone, point-and-shoot, mirrorless, or DSLR. They used what was already there to communicate and when a new camera phone comes around they enjoy the fact that they get better aesthetics out of it than their old one. In a sense, I doubt they even view their phone as a camera in the first place. So, it is a spectrum ranging from camera phone up to medium format madness. But I think most of these discussions are had by the 5% such as myself (and yourself) that consider weight, dynamic range, glass, etc. Rather than the 95% who probably do not even perceive themselves as photographers in the first place – although they certainly are.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    But half of the magic of DSLRs is in the lenses, and unfortunately there is no single lenses that can work everywhere. Regarding portability, yes point-and-shoots are portABLE, but in reality you don’t have them in your pocket 100% of the time, like you have a smartphone. You need to think about packing one more thing, that you may or may not need, so you won’t bother. In summary, with a point-and shoot you are making two compromises: 1)photo quality 2)availability. In my opinion they are worse both than a DSLR and a good smartphone.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > handbag, satchel, or whatnot That's the thing, though. Many of us, especially men (but many women as well, including my wife) do not carry around a bag or wear a bulky jacket with pockets big enough for even the smallest mirrorless. So packing one along everywhere I go wouldn't be any more convenient than just grabbing the bag with my 7D.
    - ansgri 5y ago
      What do you carry around then though? you need a laptop, documents and stuff, might as well put a compact ILC in that bag. No way I’d do that with an (outdated) DSLR though.
      - kemayo 5y ago
        Those aren't things you always need, though. If you commute to an office, sure, you probably take a bag with those things with you during that. But do you take that bag with you when you go out with friends? If you go to walk your dog in the park? Maybe you do, but I think most people don't. Speaking for myself, if I'm going out without any special goal, I'll just have my phone, keys, and wallet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    Do you have an example of that kind of camera? My impression is the iPhone will beat any P&S below the $500 mark in dynamic range, speed, features and image quality, except for resolution.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> The iPhone's camera is great for what it is, but it's definitely not anything close to a replacement of an entry level DSLR and shouldn't really be marketed as such. The iPhone isn’t intended to compete with DSLRs because it’s literally a phone that fits in your pocket. Phones don’t compete with DSLRs because they serve different purposes. I can’t realistically carry a DSLR or mirrorless camera everywhere. I can, however, keep my phone in my pocket all the time. That’s why it’s so great to have these reviews from professional photographers to show what’s capable in the context of the phone. It’s not about DSLR versus iPhone. It’s about what’s possible from the device I always have in my pocket.
- munificent 5y ago
  > The iPhone isn’t intended to compete with DSLRs because it’s literally a phone that fits in your pocket. I'm not sure how you measure "intent", but I think there's fairly strong evidence that smartphone cameras have harmed the DSRL market. Sales are about half of what they were in 2008. This isn't just people moving to mirrorless either. Sales of all camera formats are down. Smartphones basically killed the market for compact cameras, whose sales today are down about 90% in the same timeframe.
  - bitcurious 5y ago
    The iPhone certainly didn’t help, but just as important is the fact that progress has slowed. Remember the digital camera of 2000 vs 2010, and then 2010 vs 2020. I can take excellent photos with a 10 year old digital camera, and dreadful ones with a 20 year old.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    Smartphones killed the market for low end compact cameras, because the average consumer uses their phone instead of a shitty $200 entry level camera. The high end stuff is doing well with content creators and professionals. You can see this in the move upmarket of things like Sony A6600 ($1400 APS-C camera) and RX100 series ($1300 compact camera) that are aimed at creators in the attention economy. I think from here on we'll see smartphone needs driving sensor development, but that doesn't mean the camera market is dead.
q-rews 5y ago
In my father’s hands, the iPhone shoots better photos than his Sony A6000, so it depends on how entry level we go.
- ansgri 5y ago
  In my hands the iPhone 12 consistently performs better in indoor conditions than my old a5100 (basically a more compact a6000), especially with the awful kit lens. I like shooting outdoor on telephoto (135mm+), and there the phones are nowhere as competitive, and won’t be for a long time, if ever. Actually that’s where the progress in standalone cameras is: more compact telephoto lenses, sharper zooms, faster autofocus, even less noise. And no, multiframe fusion won’t help when you’re shooting quick action.
brundolf 5y ago
I believe these were shot in raw and edited by hand later, which should mean none of the default iPhone processing came into play
kaba0 5y ago
I am by no means a professional in the field, but what DSLRs have over phones in terms of sensor size, phones have it in terms of computing power. And the same way we collectively could take a picture of a black hole, with “intelligence” we can sew back a good picture from multiple less good ones. The one thing that can’t really be replaced is zoom.

by scko 5y ago

whatever1 5y ago

I hear you, but the iPhone has given me so many photos that no way a DSLR would had given me, because it is so portable. You always carry your phone, but not your dslr. For an untrained eye, the iPhone 11,12 photos look gorgeous. For professionals of course there is no debate, regardless what Apple marketing is claiming.

ninjin 5y ago
I think your portability point is a fair one and also what motivated 35mm photography about a hundred years ago. But I think the DSLR vs phone comparison is flawed. There are plenty of wonderful point-and-shoot cameras that easily fit in your handbag, satchel, or whatnot and can give any phone a run for its money with its bigger sensor and larger glass – without being a bulky DSLR. It is a spectrum is what I am trying to say I guess.
- lawkwok 5y ago
  Curious if you have such a camera on your person every day? It’s an extra thing to charge, you can’t edit and post directly to social media, getting pictures backed up is not automatic. It’s a totally different experience and for most people, they don’t want to hang large prints of their photos at home. They just need enough quality to show their friends and family.
  - ninjin 5y ago
    Firstly, I feel I got a bit swamped with replies to my initial comment. So I will try to address it all here. I used to carry a small camera at all times in my bag, yes. Mostly a Canon G11 and at times an Olympus XA. But this was a long time ago as I no longer pass by any points of real interest (to me) on my commute. But, let me get back to what I am trying to convey. From my perspective, phones on cameras (combined with social media) created a new class of photographers that would be most closely related to those that previously had cheap point-and-shoot cameras (if even a camera at all) with fixed lenses that are easy to operate but gets the job done to document something. The results will be subpar, but that does not matter as the point is not something abstract like “bokeh”, the desire is to document something visually to have it become a memory or communicate an event to someone else visually in a less artistic sense than a “real” photographer. This is why I find discussions about how digital depth of field is not authentic largely to miss the point. This class of photographers do not care, they want good aesthetics – yes – but it is not something they actively seek out like a “true” photographer. But here is the kicker, I doubt that without a readily available camera in their phone these people would ever have become photographers in the first place and this is why the camera phone vs DSLR discussion annoys me. This new class of photographers did not make a conscious choice between shooting with a phone, point-and-shoot, mirrorless, or DSLR. They used what was already there to communicate and when a new camera phone comes around they enjoy the fact that they get better aesthetics out of it than their old one. In a sense, I doubt they even view their phone as a camera in the first place. So, it is a spectrum ranging from camera phone up to medium format madness. But I think most of these discussions are had by the 5% such as myself (and yourself) that consider weight, dynamic range, glass, etc. Rather than the 95% who probably do not even perceive themselves as photographers in the first place – although they certainly are.
- whatever1 5y ago
  But half of the magic of DSLRs is in the lenses, and unfortunately there is no single lenses that can work everywhere. Regarding portability, yes point-and-shoots are portABLE, but in reality you don’t have them in your pocket 100% of the time, like you have a smartphone. You need to think about packing one more thing, that you may or may not need, so you won’t bother. In summary, with a point-and shoot you are making two compromises: 1)photo quality 2)availability. In my opinion they are worse both than a DSLR and a good smartphone.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > handbag, satchel, or whatnot That's the thing, though. Many of us, especially men (but many women as well, including my wife) do not carry around a bag or wear a bulky jacket with pockets big enough for even the smallest mirrorless. So packing one along everywhere I go wouldn't be any more convenient than just grabbing the bag with my 7D.
  - ansgri 5y ago
    What do you carry around then though? you need a laptop, documents and stuff, might as well put a compact ILC in that bag. No way I’d do that with an (outdated) DSLR though.
    - kemayo 5y ago
      Those aren't things you always need, though. If you commute to an office, sure, you probably take a bag with those things with you during that. But do you take that bag with you when you go out with friends? If you go to walk your dog in the park? Maybe you do, but I think most people don't. Speaking for myself, if I'm going out without any special goal, I'll just have my phone, keys, and wallet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  Do you have an example of that kind of camera? My impression is the iPhone will beat any P&S below the $500 mark in dynamic range, speed, features and image quality, except for resolution.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> The iPhone's camera is great for what it is, but it's definitely not anything close to a replacement of an entry level DSLR and shouldn't really be marketed as such. The iPhone isn’t intended to compete with DSLRs because it’s literally a phone that fits in your pocket. Phones don’t compete with DSLRs because they serve different purposes. I can’t realistically carry a DSLR or mirrorless camera everywhere. I can, however, keep my phone in my pocket all the time. That’s why it’s so great to have these reviews from professional photographers to show what’s capable in the context of the phone. It’s not about DSLR versus iPhone. It’s about what’s possible from the device I always have in my pocket.

munificent 5y ago
> The iPhone isn’t intended to compete with DSLRs because it’s literally a phone that fits in your pocket. I'm not sure how you measure "intent", but I think there's fairly strong evidence that smartphone cameras have harmed the DSRL market. Sales are about half of what they were in 2008. This isn't just people moving to mirrorless either. Sales of all camera formats are down. Smartphones basically killed the market for compact cameras, whose sales today are down about 90% in the same timeframe.
- bitcurious 5y ago
  The iPhone certainly didn’t help, but just as important is the fact that progress has slowed. Remember the digital camera of 2000 vs 2010, and then 2010 vs 2020. I can take excellent photos with a 10 year old digital camera, and dreadful ones with a 20 year old.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  Smartphones killed the market for low end compact cameras, because the average consumer uses their phone instead of a shitty $200 entry level camera. The high end stuff is doing well with content creators and professionals. You can see this in the move upmarket of things like Sony A6600 ($1400 APS-C camera) and RX100 series ($1300 compact camera) that are aimed at creators in the attention economy. I think from here on we'll see smartphone needs driving sensor development, but that doesn't mean the camera market is dead.

q-rews 5y ago

In my father’s hands, the iPhone shoots better photos than his Sony A6000, so it depends on how entry level we go.

ansgri 5y ago
In my hands the iPhone 12 consistently performs better in indoor conditions than my old a5100 (basically a more compact a6000), especially with the awful kit lens. I like shooting outdoor on telephoto (135mm+), and there the phones are nowhere as competitive, and won’t be for a long time, if ever. Actually that’s where the progress in standalone cameras is: more compact telephoto lenses, sharper zooms, faster autofocus, even less noise. And no, multiframe fusion won’t help when you’re shooting quick action.

brundolf 5y ago

I believe these were shot in raw and edited by hand later, which should mean none of the default iPhone processing came into play

kaba0 5y ago

I am by no means a professional in the field, but what DSLRs have over phones in terms of sensor size, phones have it in terms of computing power. And the same way we collectively could take a picture of a black hole, with “intelligence” we can sew back a good picture from multiple less good ones. The one thing that can’t really be replaced is zoom.