3 ms·

I broke out my Sony a6000 and 35mm f1.8 prime at a new years party. I don't use it much anymore but it had always excelled above my phone in low light "party sh

I broke out my Sony a6000 and 35mm f1.8 prime at a new years party. I don't use it much anymore but it had always excelled above my phone in low light "party shots". The next morning I imported them and flipped through commingled a6000 and iPhone shots. The difference was stark. The iPhone (14 pro) had _significantly_ better quality across the board. The only exception was an amusing amount of bokeh on some fireworks (as mentioned by the author). I think portrait mode may have been able to do a passable version of this had I thought to try it. I was not using ProRes. Aside from the disparity in quality, picking up my old camera again THIS year was pretty underwhelming. Focus was slow and hunted a bit. It prevented rapid shots to catch fireworks in the background. The screen and viewfinder was grainy/low-res. The import was clunky. It's listed on FB marketplace if anyone is interested. So yeah, I very much concur.

bmitc 4y ago
The Sony Xperia 1 is one answer. At the time, my Nokia and LG smartphones had significantly better photo quality than the top iPhone of the time. Despite their marketing, I’ve never been aware of iPhones actually having the best image quality of smartphones. I haven’t followed the iPhone 14. Does it do something different?
CobaltFire 4y ago
That’s an 8 year old camera with a lens that was just ok when new. Your specific situation makes sense, but generalizing that is a bit of a stretch. My phone is better than my older cameras too, but not than my FF Canon. I’ve made this comment before as well: Phones have completely destroyed the P&S market for good reason. They can’t touch the FF and above market due to simple physics.
- foldr 4y ago
  APS-C sensors are still more than twice as big (in width/height) than the 48MP sensor on the iPhone 14 Pro Max, so if "simple physics" was all there was to it, you'd also expect APS-C cameras to deliver much better results. "Full frame" is just a marketing term.
  - CobaltFire 4y ago
    You (intentionally?) missed the fact that that is an 8 year old sensor. Of course there is more to it than simple physics; the utilization of those physics matter. Is an 8 year old CPU using 200mm^2 as good as a modern CPU using 200mm^2? No. Is it as good as a modern CPU using 50mm^2? Probably not either. Edit to respond to child: No, the comment I responded to HERE on HN is an 8 year old sensor (Sony A6000).
    - foldr 4y ago
      The reddit post isn't comparing to 8 year old sensors. Also, sensors on consumer cameras haven't actually changed much in the past 8 years (marketing hype to the contrary). Low light performance is a bit better, but that's unlikely to have been a major factor in the OP's comparison given the use of an f1.8 lens. This page is useful for comparing old and new: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison You can see some improvements from newer cameras with the same resolution, but it's not a huge difference.
- Hippocrates 4y ago
  This is the point of the original post isn't it? An old/cheap DSLR will not beat an iPhone in most scenarios. I found that to be true, although I did expect the old camera to beat the iPhone due to "physics". It seems the advantage the iPhone has is largely in the software doing the image processing as well as ease of the UI, focusing/depth finding, bracketing etc.

bmitc 4y ago

The Sony Xperia 1 is one answer. At the time, my Nokia and LG smartphones had significantly better photo quality than the top iPhone of the time. Despite their marketing, I’ve never been aware of iPhones actually having the best image quality of smartphones. I haven’t followed the iPhone 14. Does it do something different?

CobaltFire 4y ago

That’s an 8 year old camera with a lens that was just ok when new. Your specific situation makes sense, but generalizing that is a bit of a stretch. My phone is better than my older cameras too, but not than my FF Canon. I’ve made this comment before as well: Phones have completely destroyed the P&S market for good reason. They can’t touch the FF and above market due to simple physics.

foldr 4y ago
APS-C sensors are still more than twice as big (in width/height) than the 48MP sensor on the iPhone 14 Pro Max, so if "simple physics" was all there was to it, you'd also expect APS-C cameras to deliver much better results. "Full frame" is just a marketing term.
- CobaltFire 4y ago
  You (intentionally?) missed the fact that that is an 8 year old sensor. Of course there is more to it than simple physics; the utilization of those physics matter. Is an 8 year old CPU using 200mm^2 as good as a modern CPU using 200mm^2? No. Is it as good as a modern CPU using 50mm^2? Probably not either. Edit to respond to child: No, the comment I responded to HERE on HN is an 8 year old sensor (Sony A6000).
  - foldr 4y ago
    The reddit post isn't comparing to 8 year old sensors. Also, sensors on consumer cameras haven't actually changed much in the past 8 years (marketing hype to the contrary). Low light performance is a bit better, but that's unlikely to have been a major factor in the OP's comparison given the use of an f1.8 lens. This page is useful for comparing old and new: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison You can see some improvements from newer cameras with the same resolution, but it's not a huge difference.
Hippocrates 4y ago
This is the point of the original post isn't it? An old/cheap DSLR will not beat an iPhone in most scenarios. I found that to be true, although I did expect the old camera to beat the iPhone due to "physics". It seems the advantage the iPhone has is largely in the software doing the image processing as well as ease of the UI, focusing/depth finding, bracketing etc.