4 ms·

Really interesting blog post! It seems like iPhones really can do serious filmmaking (with the help of the equipment mentioned in the blog post). I'm curious h

Really interesting blog post! It seems like iPhones really can do serious filmmaking (with the help of the equipment mentioned in the blog post). I'm curious how this translates to photography. How much would you need to spend on a dedicated camera to shoot better photos than an iPhone can?

xuhu 3y ago
Wedding photography costs $600 to $1000 over here, the equipment is typically 4 to 8 years old and costs about $1500 (body + 24-70mm lens + flashes, MPB.com prices).
- stephen_g 3y ago
  Where is over here? I’ve done a few weddings back in the day, the lenses I’d use (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8) each cost over $2000 new in today’s US dollars… Then you have backup lenses, backup SLRs, etc. (but I’d usually borrow gear (still pro gear) as backup from people I knew which made things a bit cheaper, and I’d lend stuff to them when they needed)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
yieldcrv 3y ago
I only use certain other cameras to get into some rooms and be taken seriously to photograph people I don't need them for anything at the moment, I haven’t taken a dedicated camera on a sightseeing tour or hike in 12 years despite my enthusiast interest in camera gear and my ability to appreciate focal lengths interestingly, if you do to the trendiest hipster hangouts, people have point and shoots now, having graduated from polaroids in the most contrived “Y2K” rerun possible
mannyv 3y ago
It depends on what kind of photographs you're taking and the conditions. If you're going to be taking pictures of people indoors with bad lighting you need a lens with an aperture of 2.8 or less, probably a 1.4. If you're going to be taking group pictures indoors you'll probably need a wider angle 2.8 lens. If you're going to be doing indoor sports a 70-200mm 2.8 is probably the minimum. If you're going to be doing outdoor sports with good lighting a 4.0+ is probably fine. If you're doing outdoor landscapes you just need a wide lens, like 10-30mm and a tripod. I'm not a pro by any means, so take this with as much salt as you want. Any camera that can handle this will do fine. There are tons of cheap full-frame cameras out there now. But lenses generally don't drop in price, even if they're really old - which is quite aggravating.
- mannyv 3y ago
  Oh, the great thing about 1.4 lenses is you don't need a flash - but smaller apertures get weird because the depth of focus gets really short, so you have to learn out how to deal with that. Example: with a 1.4 lens if you focus on the G key on your keyboard the T and B keys will be out of focus. Some 1.4 lenses have back/front focus issues, where you focus on G but the picture is actually focused on T (back focus) or B (front focus). This gets more complicated the further away you are from your subject, since the DoF will be small; you might accidentally focus on someone's nose instead of their chin, etc. OTOH you can take great pictures with a 1.4 in 1 lumen (essentially 1 candle).
vouaobrasil 3y ago
As a pro photographer, I can say that an iPhone would be useless for 95% of my work. Even a used $500 camera would be more suitable....
- tapanjk 3y ago
  Can you please elaborate? What is it that a used $500 camera can do which an iPhone cannot? This is a genuine question, not a challenge.
  - mnw21cam 3y ago
    For me, I have a telescope, and I like taking photos of distant galaxies and the such. The difference in quality between a camera phone and a proper (even APS-C format) DSLR or mirrorless camera is absolutely massive. Probably mostly for two reasons - firstly the ability to take the lens off, and secondly because the larger sensor allows collecting more light.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    - Truly controllable depth of field without software artifacts - Better IQ - Use with flash - A variety of focal lengths that the iPhone doesn't have for more flattering perspective (200mm and up)
_tik_ 3y ago
I was deliberating between purchasing a new iPhone or a camera. I opted for a camera because of its more affordable price and longer lifespan. Bought an almost new, second-hand Sony full-frame camera complete with a lens, It was less than $1.5k.

xuhu 3y ago

Wedding photography costs $600 to $1000 over here, the equipment is typically 4 to 8 years old and costs about $1500 (body + 24-70mm lens + flashes, MPB.com prices).

stephen_g 3y ago
Where is over here? I’ve done a few weddings back in the day, the lenses I’d use (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8) each cost over $2000 new in today’s US dollars… Then you have backup lenses, backup SLRs, etc. (but I’d usually borrow gear (still pro gear) as backup from people I knew which made things a bit cheaper, and I’d lend stuff to them when they needed)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

yieldcrv 3y ago

I only use certain other cameras to get into some rooms and be taken seriously to photograph people I don't need them for anything at the moment, I haven’t taken a dedicated camera on a sightseeing tour or hike in 12 years despite my enthusiast interest in camera gear and my ability to appreciate focal lengths interestingly, if you do to the trendiest hipster hangouts, people have point and shoots now, having graduated from polaroids in the most contrived “Y2K” rerun possible

mannyv 3y ago

It depends on what kind of photographs you're taking and the conditions. If you're going to be taking pictures of people indoors with bad lighting you need a lens with an aperture of 2.8 or less, probably a 1.4. If you're going to be taking group pictures indoors you'll probably need a wider angle 2.8 lens. If you're going to be doing indoor sports a 70-200mm 2.8 is probably the minimum. If you're going to be doing outdoor sports with good lighting a 4.0+ is probably fine. If you're doing outdoor landscapes you just need a wide lens, like 10-30mm and a tripod. I'm not a pro by any means, so take this with as much salt as you want. Any camera that can handle this will do fine. There are tons of cheap full-frame cameras out there now. But lenses generally don't drop in price, even if they're really old - which is quite aggravating.

mannyv 3y ago
Oh, the great thing about 1.4 lenses is you don't need a flash - but smaller apertures get weird because the depth of focus gets really short, so you have to learn out how to deal with that. Example: with a 1.4 lens if you focus on the G key on your keyboard the T and B keys will be out of focus. Some 1.4 lenses have back/front focus issues, where you focus on G but the picture is actually focused on T (back focus) or B (front focus). This gets more complicated the further away you are from your subject, since the DoF will be small; you might accidentally focus on someone's nose instead of their chin, etc. OTOH you can take great pictures with a 1.4 in 1 lumen (essentially 1 candle).

vouaobrasil 3y ago

As a pro photographer, I can say that an iPhone would be useless for 95% of my work. Even a used $500 camera would be more suitable....

tapanjk 3y ago
Can you please elaborate? What is it that a used $500 camera can do which an iPhone cannot? This is a genuine question, not a challenge.
- mnw21cam 3y ago
  For me, I have a telescope, and I like taking photos of distant galaxies and the such. The difference in quality between a camera phone and a proper (even APS-C format) DSLR or mirrorless camera is absolutely massive. Probably mostly for two reasons - firstly the ability to take the lens off, and secondly because the larger sensor allows collecting more light.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  - Truly controllable depth of field without software artifacts - Better IQ - Use with flash - A variety of focal lengths that the iPhone doesn't have for more flattering perspective (200mm and up)

_tik_ 3y ago

I was deliberating between purchasing a new iPhone or a camera. I opted for a camera because of its more affordable price and longer lifespan. Bought an almost new, second-hand Sony full-frame camera complete with a lens, It was less than $1.5k.