8 ms·

This is from iPhone 7, released 6 years ago. I would like to see an actually modern lens design. Smartphone cameras got so much better in the last 6 years.

etu 5y ago
Correction: It was released 2016, that's 6 years ago. The point still stands though. But 6 instead of 8 years.
- tadfisher 5y ago
  And mine just got updated to iOS 15. Meanwhile my Pixel 3 XL is three years old and is no longer receiving updates.
  - Hendrikto 5y ago
    That’s what I tell people when they ask why I use iPhones. And then they claim that it is not so.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
londons_explore 5y ago
I don't think there are any really big changes to the lens design recently... All the effort has gone into multi-camera setups, and different types of lens for macro, wide angle, telephoto, etc. To my understanding, there is still only a single set of moving lenses in an iPhone 13 lens.
ghaff 5y ago
The iPhone 12 Pro is insanely better than the iPhone X--especially in low light. I have a bunch of fairly high-end camera equipment that I rarely use outside of some fairly specific circumstances at this point
- hughrr 5y ago
  Yeah 13 Pro here. I sold my DSLR last year. I don't need it any more and I hated carrying it around everywhere.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I have a fairly large FF DSLR Canon system that I rarely use at this point--though not sure if it's worth selling. (I do use it now and then.) I use my Fujifilm mirrorless setup more but even that almost has to be a longer trip where I plan to take a lot of pictures. iPhone is fine for most purposes.
    - hughrr 5y ago
      Yeah I do a lot of walking and long trips. I had a mid range DSLR and it was horrible carrying it everywhere and juggling lenses and batteries. The iPhone works 90% of the cases perfectly and the last 10% of the cases, I am happy with the compromise. Edit: The thing that really killed the DSLR for me was lugging the whole kit up Scafell Pike in the pissing rain and cold in the UK. I got some good photos in the morning but carried a brick for the entire day after the battery dumped because of the cold. I had an iPhone XR back then and that kept me going all day fine. When I got back the whole damn camera despite being weather sealed had condensation in it.
      - mnw21cam 5y ago
        The weather seal may not have been breached. If you put your camera together in a nice warm house, then it would have trapped warm moist air inside it. When you carried it in the cold, the moisture in the air would have condensed. Best advice with batteries is to keep them in your coat pocket, where they stay reasonably warm.
      - mkr-hn 5y ago
        No manufacturer will actually guarantee their weather sealing. It surprised me when I went and researched it. YouTuber James Popsys[0] takes his cameras out in the cold and wet all the time, so whatever he uses is probably a good starting point if you decide to try interchangeable lens cameras again and want one that actually handles moist weather well. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9VAidHrnY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9VAidHrnY8
simonh 5y ago
I suspect that's mostly down to sensor design (big pixels, reflective layers behind the sensor so the light goes through twice, etc) and software.
- jbay808 5y ago
  > reflective layers behind the sensor Reminds me of this surprising little tidbit from E. T. Jaynes' 1991 paper "Theory of Radar Target Discrimination" (https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/craddis.pdf https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/craddis.pdf) One might then think naively that we should take equal care to match the receiver to its transmission line so that all the energy captured by the receiving antenna is actually delivered to the receiver. However, this is not the case for a good receiver. [...] Quite generally, in order to deliver the maximum signal/noise ratio at its output, an ideal receiver must reflect all the energy incident up on it. It is only in the limit of an infinitely bad receiver, in which all the output noise is generated internally, that matched input impedance becomes the condition for maximum signal/noise ratio at the output. Actual receivers are somewhere between ideal and infinitely bad, and so they perform best when partially matched, so that a part of the incident energy is reflected and radiated back out the receiver antenna. In fact, an ideal receiver does not run on energy at all, but reflects back all the energy incident on it! [...] This fact surprises many people on first hearing; but we note that it is so general that it remains true in quantum theory, at optical frequencies where hf >> kT and the Nyquist noise formula no longer holds. For initiation of a photo chemical reaction it is not necessary that the light energy be absorbed. For example, it might be thought that the eyes of animals adapted to seeing in the dark would have pupils that act as perfect black bodies, absorbing all the incident light energy. On the contrary, it is a familiar fact that the animals with best night vision have eyes that reflect the incident light strongly, looking like search-lights in the dark.

etu 5y ago

Correction: It was released 2016, that's 6 years ago. The point still stands though. But 6 instead of 8 years.

tadfisher 5y ago
And mine just got updated to iOS 15. Meanwhile my Pixel 3 XL is three years old and is no longer receiving updates.
- Hendrikto 5y ago
  That’s what I tell people when they ask why I use iPhones. And then they claim that it is not so.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

londons_explore 5y ago

I don't think there are any really big changes to the lens design recently... All the effort has gone into multi-camera setups, and different types of lens for macro, wide angle, telephoto, etc. To my understanding, there is still only a single set of moving lenses in an iPhone 13 lens.

ghaff 5y ago

The iPhone 12 Pro is insanely better than the iPhone X--especially in low light. I have a bunch of fairly high-end camera equipment that I rarely use outside of some fairly specific circumstances at this point

hughrr 5y ago
Yeah 13 Pro here. I sold my DSLR last year. I don't need it any more and I hated carrying it around everywhere.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I have a fairly large FF DSLR Canon system that I rarely use at this point--though not sure if it's worth selling. (I do use it now and then.) I use my Fujifilm mirrorless setup more but even that almost has to be a longer trip where I plan to take a lot of pictures. iPhone is fine for most purposes.
  - hughrr 5y ago
    Yeah I do a lot of walking and long trips. I had a mid range DSLR and it was horrible carrying it everywhere and juggling lenses and batteries. The iPhone works 90% of the cases perfectly and the last 10% of the cases, I am happy with the compromise. Edit: The thing that really killed the DSLR for me was lugging the whole kit up Scafell Pike in the pissing rain and cold in the UK. I got some good photos in the morning but carried a brick for the entire day after the battery dumped because of the cold. I had an iPhone XR back then and that kept me going all day fine. When I got back the whole damn camera despite being weather sealed had condensation in it.
    - mnw21cam 5y ago
      The weather seal may not have been breached. If you put your camera together in a nice warm house, then it would have trapped warm moist air inside it. When you carried it in the cold, the moisture in the air would have condensed. Best advice with batteries is to keep them in your coat pocket, where they stay reasonably warm.
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      No manufacturer will actually guarantee their weather sealing. It surprised me when I went and researched it. YouTuber James Popsys[0] takes his cameras out in the cold and wet all the time, so whatever he uses is probably a good starting point if you decide to try interchangeable lens cameras again and want one that actually handles moist weather well. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9VAidHrnY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9VAidHrnY8

simonh 5y ago

I suspect that's mostly down to sensor design (big pixels, reflective layers behind the sensor so the light goes through twice, etc) and software.

jbay808 5y ago
> reflective layers behind the sensor Reminds me of this surprising little tidbit from E. T. Jaynes' 1991 paper "Theory of Radar Target Discrimination" (https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/craddis.pdf https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/craddis.pdf) One might then think naively that we should take equal care to match the receiver to its transmission line so that all the energy captured by the receiving antenna is actually delivered to the receiver. However, this is not the case for a good receiver. [...] Quite generally, in order to deliver the maximum signal/noise ratio at its output, an ideal receiver must reflect all the energy incident up on it. It is only in the limit of an infinitely bad receiver, in which all the output noise is generated internally, that matched input impedance becomes the condition for maximum signal/noise ratio at the output. Actual receivers are somewhere between ideal and infinitely bad, and so they perform best when partially matched, so that a part of the incident energy is reflected and radiated back out the receiver antenna. In fact, an ideal receiver does not run on energy at all, but reflects back all the energy incident on it! [...] This fact surprises many people on first hearing; but we note that it is so general that it remains true in quantum theory, at optical frequencies where hf >> kT and the Nyquist noise formula no longer holds. For initiation of a photo chemical reaction it is not necessary that the light energy be absorbed. For example, it might be thought that the eyes of animals adapted to seeing in the dark would have pupils that act as perfect black bodies, absorbing all the incident light energy. On the contrary, it is a familiar fact that the animals with best night vision have eyes that reflect the incident light strongly, looking like search-lights in the dark.