iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review(austinmann.com)
austinmann.com
iPhone 11 Pro Camera Review
http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-11-pro-review-china
292 comments
The photography in these kinds of reviews is amazing, and the camera looks pretty stellar compared to the XS, but I find myself reading them wondering if it will make my pictures any better. I'm a mediocre photographer at best, and I'm certainly not going to be able to capture many images like the ones in this review.
John Gruber and Matthew Panzerino have good reviews in this respect. Very regular shots.
Panzerino does year on year comparisons at Disneyland with his family.
https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones...
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/17/iphone-11-pro-disney-after...
Panzerino does year on year comparisons at Disneyland with his family.
https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones...
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/17/iphone-11-pro-disney-after...
The techcrunch review in particular is pretty well done. Almost makes me want to go trade in my 7+ on a new 11 Pro.
I have an 8 plus and I almost want to pull the trigger on an iPhone 11 Pro. I might wait until next year though.
dpeck(2)
The key elements to these photos basically come down to dramatic lighting(dawn/dusk), leading lines(look at the bridge and waterway shots, your eyes are guided to the mountains and the horizon), and the rule of thirds(dividing your image up into quadrants, and keeping important subjects at their intersections). Basic stuff, but as always requires LOTS of practice and experimentation.
One thing modern cameras do a great job at is making it easy to photograph dramatic lighting. Historically it required a lot of practice and hand tuning with pricier equipment to take such photos.
I recently got back home from a trip to Alaska. While I hauled a couple of SLR cameras, bag of lenses, and tripod, around with me, I also took a bunch of pictures with my iPhone XS. The iPhone pictures were pretty impressive, but for exactly the reason you suggest... being at some impressive-looking places at a good time.
The iPhone is certainly a decent point-and-shoot camera.
The iPhone is certainly a decent point-and-shoot camera.
My trip pictures tend to be a mix of iPhone and “good camera”. Some shots are obviously the bigger sensor and camera/lens offering more control. But a lot of them I’d be hard put to say even on a big TV. Top-Notch print would often be a different matter but I make very few of those.
Over 20 years ago, my wife and I were driving up highway 395, just east of the California High Sierras. At the time, we were only using disposable cameras. She suddenly asked me to pull over, which I did, and backed up a bit, to right around here: https://goo.gl/maps/dh4gyRPi71ZQmy4b7
She got out of our 1996 Saturn SL, walked around a few minutes, snapped a single picture, and got back in the car.
A couple of months later, she gave me slightly blown up print of that picture, developed in black and white, in a simple frame, and asked if I'd like to put it on my desk at work.
The photo was stunning, and so I took it to work.
Over the year, a number of people came by and commented on the striking beauty of that picture. In fact, two different people (at different times) came, looked at the picture very carefully, and said that they were quite surprised that there was an Ansel Adams photo they had not seen before.
At my suggestion, she entered it into various local and state photography competitions, and won all of them.
Alas, it was lost in a fire many years ago.
My wife has no training, formal or otherwise, in photography. But she has a naturally keen eye for graphic design and layout.
Equipment is good and important; location, timing, and an eye for composition is, in my opinion, far more important.
She got out of our 1996 Saturn SL, walked around a few minutes, snapped a single picture, and got back in the car.
A couple of months later, she gave me slightly blown up print of that picture, developed in black and white, in a simple frame, and asked if I'd like to put it on my desk at work.
The photo was stunning, and so I took it to work.
Over the year, a number of people came by and commented on the striking beauty of that picture. In fact, two different people (at different times) came, looked at the picture very carefully, and said that they were quite surprised that there was an Ansel Adams photo they had not seen before.
At my suggestion, she entered it into various local and state photography competitions, and won all of them.
Alas, it was lost in a fire many years ago.
My wife has no training, formal or otherwise, in photography. But she has a naturally keen eye for graphic design and layout.
Equipment is good and important; location, timing, and an eye for composition is, in my opinion, far more important.
Equipment can't make you a good photographer. Luck and taking lots of photos sometimes can get you a good photo, but it's not reproducible.
The thing that better equipment gives you is options, and if you know how to use it, the possibility of getting photos you otherwise couldn't get (at least not a decent version of). That's it, really.
Even the most modest equipment can take a great photo - but the conditions have to be just right for that gear.
The thing that better equipment gives you is options, and if you know how to use it, the possibility of getting photos you otherwise couldn't get (at least not a decent version of). That's it, really.
Even the most modest equipment can take a great photo - but the conditions have to be just right for that gear.
A great video I came across recently has a guy taking great photos with a $13 disposable camera:
https://youtu.be/TFVX0x0dCsU
Like you say, equipment is only a small fraction of the equation.
Like you say, equipment is only a small fraction of the equation.
> She got out of our 1996 Saturn SL, walked around a few minutes, snapped a single picture, and got back in the car.
This is fantastic! The Eastern Sierras are an amazing place to explore through camping and day hikes. In my own experience, my parents had planned backpacking trips in this area several times when I was a teen, where each trip was filled with moments like the one your wife and yourself experienced. New places, or points of perspective — where you see the world around you in a new light — are precious and awe-inspiring.
> Alas, it was lost in a fire many years ago.
This is sad to read. Losing personal photos is hard to come to terms with
> Equipment is good and important; location, timing, and an eye for composition is, in my opinion, far more important.
This makes sense, and seems to be a broad truth across disciplines: artists and creators are not bounded by tools.
My wife and I plan to take our children out to these places. Seeing a sky full of stars and seemingly boundless nature, against the background of quiet sounds and the natural world around you, is something that I wish everyone would experience in their lifetime.
This is fantastic! The Eastern Sierras are an amazing place to explore through camping and day hikes. In my own experience, my parents had planned backpacking trips in this area several times when I was a teen, where each trip was filled with moments like the one your wife and yourself experienced. New places, or points of perspective — where you see the world around you in a new light — are precious and awe-inspiring.
> Alas, it was lost in a fire many years ago.
This is sad to read. Losing personal photos is hard to come to terms with
> Equipment is good and important; location, timing, and an eye for composition is, in my opinion, far more important.
This makes sense, and seems to be a broad truth across disciplines: artists and creators are not bounded by tools.
My wife and I plan to take our children out to these places. Seeing a sky full of stars and seemingly boundless nature, against the background of quiet sounds and the natural world around you, is something that I wish everyone would experience in their lifetime.
> Seeing a sky full of stars
Yes.
As a teenager, with my grandparents, we were camped here for a while: https://goo.gl/maps/zYf5SvSZ2WMaFQpx5 The moon was new, and not yet risen. Even though it was mid summer, near midnight, the outside temperature was below freezing.
I walked out away from the camp, past a small ridge, and suddenly, for the first time in my life, I could see not a single artificial light.
At more than 10,000 feet of elevation, the air was sharp as a knife. It was dark, yet it wasn't. The arc of our galaxy looked like cotton, it was so bright and clear. The stars were steady, with barely any atmospheric distortion.
I sat on a large rock and opened the book I was carrying.
"By the starlit mere of Cuiviénen, Water of Awakening, they rose from the sleep of Ilúvatar; and while they dwelt yet silent by Cuiviénen their eyes beheld first of all things the stars of heaven. Therefore they have ever loved the starlight, and have revered Varda Elentári above all the Valar."
Yes.
As a teenager, with my grandparents, we were camped here for a while: https://goo.gl/maps/zYf5SvSZ2WMaFQpx5 The moon was new, and not yet risen. Even though it was mid summer, near midnight, the outside temperature was below freezing.
I walked out away from the camp, past a small ridge, and suddenly, for the first time in my life, I could see not a single artificial light.
At more than 10,000 feet of elevation, the air was sharp as a knife. It was dark, yet it wasn't. The arc of our galaxy looked like cotton, it was so bright and clear. The stars were steady, with barely any atmospheric distortion.
I sat on a large rock and opened the book I was carrying.
"By the starlit mere of Cuiviénen, Water of Awakening, they rose from the sleep of Ilúvatar; and while they dwelt yet silent by Cuiviénen their eyes beheld first of all things the stars of heaven. Therefore they have ever loved the starlight, and have revered Varda Elentári above all the Valar."
Thanks for sharing, that was a great story.
A photographer friend shared with me a long time ago very similar advice to get better shots: location, timing, make the subject wear red, and push the shutter button more.
You can't frame what you didn't take.
A photographer friend shared with me a long time ago very similar advice to get better shots: location, timing, make the subject wear red, and push the shutter button more.
You can't frame what you didn't take.
Being able to pre-visualize the photo in your mind is the key skill aspect of photography. That skill can absolutely be learned so you can look and anticipate an interesting photo before you shoot it. Often that requires you to move around a bit and see what the camera can “see”. The latter is why phone cameras are so amazing compared to, say a DSLR which shows you what your eye can see (which is quite different). The former requires training your mind to see objects differently. You can do this through deliberate practice, e.g., shoot round things for the next month and look back to see how you are improving. Good luck!
I moved to a Pixel 3 last year, another phone known for having a good camera. I find that the automated settings take much better pictures than I was able to do before. Am I taking professional level pics? Not even close. But I get excellent everyday photos that are leagues above my previous phone. It sounds like this latest iPhone does even better (although I'm sure the upcoming Pixel 4 will have a few tricks up its sleeve as well).
Yeah, exactly this. I mostly take photos of my kids using Portrait mode on the iPhone. People often comment on how good the photos look, and I’ve done nothing special beyond switch to Portrait mode.
And photo purists complain about portrait mode on the iPhone all the time. For the everyday picture taker, the phones we have in our pockets are amazing.
It's insane. I don't have a professional photographer to take pictures of my kids. I have me and my phone. Anything that makes those pictures look better is something I will appreciate for the rest of my life as I look at and revisit those photos.
So I want to throw out something quickly - just because someone claims a photo has been shot on an iPhone doesn't mean that they shot it in the same way as you or I would. Lots of people have special lenses that they attach in front of the iPhone camera lens to get a macro / wide angle view. They almost always shoot RAW with an app that supports this. They also use a mini tripod to stabilize the photo and use techniques like long exposure.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEH38ZxUYAQDPBT?format=jpg&name=...
There's also a lot of editing skill that goes into this - a photographer won't simply take whatever processing the phone comes up with use it out of the box.
I personally use the lightroom mobile camera to capture RAW photos and play around a bit with curves, exposure, hsl etc. to get the look I want. I assume if they're a pro photographer, they move the RAW photo to the PC / iPad and add some photoshop magic as well.
The output (depends on the photographer ofcourse but for the ones I like) looks very natural and doesn't have the same look as simply applying an instagram filter on top of an iPhone camera shot image.
Obviously the composition etc., that folks are talking about matter a lot as well but IMO, these days camera hardware is so good that you can get all sorts of detail out of what you assumed was a blown out camera RAW. Crops work fairly well too because of how high-res the photos are, so if you're not too pleased with your initial composition, crop + photoshop fixes will get you a long way. As a whole, photography these days is about 70% editing and 30% photo taking technique (lighting, composition, aperture, shutter speed, iso etc.)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEH38ZxUYAQDPBT?format=jpg&name=...
There's also a lot of editing skill that goes into this - a photographer won't simply take whatever processing the phone comes up with use it out of the box.
I personally use the lightroom mobile camera to capture RAW photos and play around a bit with curves, exposure, hsl etc. to get the look I want. I assume if they're a pro photographer, they move the RAW photo to the PC / iPad and add some photoshop magic as well.
The output (depends on the photographer ofcourse but for the ones I like) looks very natural and doesn't have the same look as simply applying an instagram filter on top of an iPhone camera shot image.
Obviously the composition etc., that folks are talking about matter a lot as well but IMO, these days camera hardware is so good that you can get all sorts of detail out of what you assumed was a blown out camera RAW. Crops work fairly well too because of how high-res the photos are, so if you're not too pleased with your initial composition, crop + photoshop fixes will get you a long way. As a whole, photography these days is about 70% editing and 30% photo taking technique (lighting, composition, aperture, shutter speed, iso etc.)
> people have special lenses that they attach in front of the iPhone camera lens to get a macro / wide angle view
To be fair, one of the things highlighted in this review is that the new iPhone has this functionality built in. Everyone (with this phone) has a wide angle view now.
To be fair, one of the things highlighted in this review is that the new iPhone has this functionality built in. Everyone (with this phone) has a wide angle view now.
To nitpick a bit, the standard iPhone lenses have always been wide angle. The new ones are ultrawide.
True, but only by the standards of traditional photography...
The standard iPhone lens (26mm) has always been pretty much normal for phone camera lenses. When Apple introduced the second lens (51mm), they called it "telephoto," even though that focal length is pretty much dead-on the traditional definition for a "standard" lens. No traditional photographer would call a 51mm lens a telephoto lens.
So, for people who grew up with phones as their primary cameras, the new 13mm lens really is the first thing that they'd call a "wide angle" lens.
/end_nitpick ;)
The standard iPhone lens (26mm) has always been pretty much normal for phone camera lenses. When Apple introduced the second lens (51mm), they called it "telephoto," even though that focal length is pretty much dead-on the traditional definition for a "standard" lens. No traditional photographer would call a 51mm lens a telephoto lens.
So, for people who grew up with phones as their primary cameras, the new 13mm lens really is the first thing that they'd call a "wide angle" lens.
/end_nitpick ;)
Can we please speak in terms of angle of view? Converting everything to "35mm SLR equivalent" focal lengths is tiresome and misleading.
The main camera on an iPhone has a 70-degree field of view, which most people consider wide.
The main camera on an iPhone has a 70-degree field of view, which most people consider wide.
While I agree with you (hobbyist DSLR photog with everything from 14mm to 500mm lenses) that field of view is more precise, I think most people don't know the correlation between the two. I'd say that far more people in the general population understand the 35mm equivalent.
The main camera is a wide by traditional standards, but not by phone camera standards, where the main (primary, "normal") camera has always been a wide angle, so nobody whose primary camera is a phone would think of it as wide.
The main camera is a wide by traditional standards, but not by phone camera standards, where the main (primary, "normal") camera has always been a wide angle, so nobody whose primary camera is a phone would think of it as wide.
To continue this, “normal” is a technical term in photography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens
The author has claimed that these are unedited pictures. Do you have any information that contradicts this?
It seems very unlikely that they are unedited. Any link to that claim? I just re skimmed the article and didn’t find anything along those lines.
For example I would guess this pic has some photoshop to emphasize the light and atleast some simple Lightroom.
https://bit.ly/2kSXgc8
For example I would guess this pic has some photoshop to emphasize the light and atleast some simple Lightroom.
https://bit.ly/2kSXgc8
Um, because the images have the text "Unedited Iphone XS" on them..? But ok, I don't want to go over and dissect every single image here. That is of no benefit to either of us. The larger point is your "let me throw something out" simply muddies the waters without basing it in fact. "I don't believe it" is not really a basis for making a claim about someones work, and actually is quite unfair to both the author and the audience. Sorry, I'm a bit touchy about photography like that ;)
You're right that equipment does not make the photographer. But, if having better equipment gets you out taking more pictures, it will improve your photography. It just takes practice.
We all have amazing cameras in our pockets, and it's possible to take thousands of shots (ie, practice) for effectively no additional cost. When I was a kid, film and developing was expensive to the point that taking a picture was a somewhat special thing.
We all have amazing cameras in our pockets, and it's possible to take thousands of shots (ie, practice) for effectively no additional cost. When I was a kid, film and developing was expensive to the point that taking a picture was a somewhat special thing.
Practice is deliberate, though. Merely taking a ton of photos won’t make you better if you aren’t actively trying to improve. Lots of people have phones full of photos of their kids that look no different than the photos they would have taken with a 35mm point and shoot.
Most people don’t even try to frame properly, because they don’t know it’s a thing, and also because they don’t really care.
Most people don’t even try to frame properly, because they don’t know it’s a thing, and also because they don’t really care.
Ten rules of photography and when to break them is a decent guide to start with:
http://photonlab.com/photography-classes-florida/creativity-...
http://photonlab.com/photography-classes-florida/creativity-...
Many peoples' photos can be improved by 1) trying to be more still while the HDR photos are being captured, 2) resist the urge to zoom, 3) tap on the area of the photo you want to be in focus before shooting, and 4) generally stick with landscape mode.
This is especially true when taking a picture of someone in front of a mountain (or something similar). Don't zoom! Take a picture of the mountains with the people in view, not a close up picture of the people with a sliver of mountain in the background.
This is especially true when taking a picture of someone in front of a mountain (or something similar). Don't zoom! Take a picture of the mountains with the people in view, not a close up picture of the people with a sliver of mountain in the background.
Experiment with perspective, take a photo from up above your head tilted downward, or lower from the waist. Sometimes it helps to get closer to the subject to fill the frame and get some natural depth of field. Also,a cheap tripod selfie stick works wonders, esp. at night with manual exposure time. And a personal gripe, don't ever ever cut off the feet, people end up looking like cardboard cutouts.
>wondering if it will make my pictures any better
It will make your pictures better in angle of view possibilities, better low light, and more correct exposure. That is, in the technical aspects that they've improved on.
It wont make your framing better, or the subject matter more interesting.
It will make your pictures better in angle of view possibilities, better low light, and more correct exposure. That is, in the technical aspects that they've improved on.
It wont make your framing better, or the subject matter more interesting.
The Lighting at the time is more important than the lens being used
The Lens being used is more important than the camera sensor being used
The camera sensor is more important than the camera body being used
Stick to this fundamental reality in that order and the novelty of “a pHoNE dID ThIs” wears off quick.
Now, I can say that the depth cameras and non-destructive software depth processing is getting some amazing effects and enhancements outside of this framework.
The Lens being used is more important than the camera sensor being used
The camera sensor is more important than the camera body being used
Stick to this fundamental reality in that order and the novelty of “a pHoNE dID ThIs” wears off quick.
Now, I can say that the depth cameras and non-destructive software depth processing is getting some amazing effects and enhancements outside of this framework.
These seem like half-truths which don't really apply any more. Especially in smartphones, the body makes more difference than the sensor if you consider that most advancements are in software not sensor tech.
I think if you learn the rule of 2 thirds then it helps a lot. The few people I’ve taught that rule to are much happier with their photos.
Agreed. I took a photography class in college, and I've turned the guidelines on for previews. I still don't have the command of light and expertise with framing demonstrated here, and I'm not carrying a tripod with me anywhere.
IMO the guidelines should be on by default. It's the first setting I change when I get a new phone or camera.
Like you said even if you're not a "photographer" it can make a huge difference.
EDIT: Also even if somebody has no clue what they're for, it can help keep the image level at the very least.
Like you said even if you're not a "photographer" it can make a huge difference.
EDIT: Also even if somebody has no clue what they're for, it can help keep the image level at the very least.
I've been taking pictures with my iPhone for years and I never knew about the guidelines as an option. (Or I did, and I turned them off many phones ago without realizing their benefit, forgot, and the settings have been dragged with me since.) Thank you.
The low light performance seems like a genuine leap forward compared to previous iPhones, so your low-light shots will probably look considerably better with no effort required on your part. But to get the rest of the benefits and take pictures like the other, you’ll need genuine photographic training/experience.
A newer camera will only help if you were actually limited by the previous camera. If you consider photography to be art, then to an extent the camera is just a tool to express your creativity. Different cameras/tools have different limitations, and certain things are impossible without the right tool - you can't get the oil painting look using watercolor, etc.
> The photography in these kinds of reviews is amazing
That's because making a nice photo is less about the tool used and more about framing, contrast, subject, &c.
I can't find it right now but there was a website showing amazing pictures taken with early digital cameras which were horrendous compared to today's entry smartphones.
That's because making a nice photo is less about the tool used and more about framing, contrast, subject, &c.
I can't find it right now but there was a website showing amazing pictures taken with early digital cameras which were horrendous compared to today's entry smartphones.
I got one of the recent Android phones with a superwide angle lens, and being able to zoom out is a real boon for group photos, indoor photos, and occasional landscape/cityscape shots. It doesn't make my shots better but it means I can take pictures I just couldn't otherwise.
Of course, these photographs first show how good a photographer the author is :). But to get these results, the camera needs to be good enough, and they are stunning for smartphone pictures, especially in low light. Also, the comparisons with the XS show, how much progress has been made.
Then this review might be more up your alley :D
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/iphone-1...
I remember a friend photobug taking a few photos with her flip phone camera and it was phenomenal for what it was. There is definitely a skill there that goes beyond lense quality.
> I'm certainly not going to be able to capture many images like the ones in this review.
The cormorant fisherman literally pose in costume in front of dramatic landscape features. All you need to do is show up at the right time of day and give them a few yuan to take their picture, and you will get comparable results.
The cormorant fisherman literally pose in costume in front of dramatic landscape features. All you need to do is show up at the right time of day and give them a few yuan to take their picture, and you will get comparable results.
I would love a high-resolution photos of these. The small size look amazing for phones like Huawei P30 Pro or Samsung Note 10, but then you realize that the full size version has blotched textures or excessive sharpness
Gruber has the originals on his review: https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones...
People have always questioned the usefulness of smaller sensor cameras (Ie M43) with the improvement in cellphone cameras, but it looks like I'll still carry my Olympus EM5.2 when I travel.
The iPhone 11 gets great social media photos, but I wouldn't want to get any of those printed (at least not larger than 4x6). Of course the best camera is the one you have with you so I am still happy to see the improvements over my Xr and my wife's 8+.
The iPhone 11 gets great social media photos, but I wouldn't want to get any of those printed (at least not larger than 4x6). Of course the best camera is the one you have with you so I am still happy to see the improvements over my Xr and my wife's 8+.
M43 cameras are still relevant as the depth of field blur in these phone cameras is faked, sometimes with odd results. An f/1.8 aperture on most camera sensors translates to something like an f/8 full frame equivalent (for comparison, f/1.8 on M43 looks like f/3.6 on full frame). It still lets the same amount of light in, but there's no shallow depth/blur.
Yeah, there's also the benefits you get from longer exposures and the ability to swap lenses. I carry an Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, which gives me a massive focal length range to play with in a relatively small package.
For a hobbyist like me M43 is great and won't be replaced by a cell phone any time soon. And as much as I'd like an A7iii I can't justify the extra cost and lens size for what I do.
For a hobbyist like me M43 is great and won't be replaced by a cell phone any time soon. And as much as I'd like an A7iii I can't justify the extra cost and lens size for what I do.
I recently sold my M43 gear that I primarily used for video (GH5, GH5S), but I had to hang on to my GX85 and Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 for photos -- perfect little walk around combo!
Then I accidentally broke the GX85, and it didn't take long to get the itch to take photos again. So I finally made the jump to full frame with a used A7RII. Man, big difference. In image quality and size of course. Not trying to convert you, M43 still has a place in my heart, but check out used prices on the Sony Alphas. You can get something like an A7II for less than the cost of that Oly 12-40. ;)
Then I accidentally broke the GX85, and it didn't take long to get the itch to take photos again. So I finally made the jump to full frame with a used A7RII. Man, big difference. In image quality and size of course. Not trying to convert you, M43 still has a place in my heart, but check out used prices on the Sony Alphas. You can get something like an A7II for less than the cost of that Oly 12-40. ;)
Wish you wouldn’t have shown me that.. this time next year I’ll be surrounded by a pile of Sony GM Lenses.
Olympus also makes great weather sealed bodies. My iphone overheated a few times this summer when I was traveling in utah. My dslr just kept ticking along. People who are new to cameras, don't actually know what hidden features real cameras provide...
I moved back to aps-c after I noticed my EM10 was giving me nearly zero benefit over the iPhone in terms of quality or resolution. The 16MP vs 12MP is barely noticeable, and the iPhone was actually sharper and had better tone in side-by-side shoots.
That was with a 6S!
That was with a 6S!
It would be interesting to know which lenses you used on the E-M10, but while I made good photos with the 6s, in general they wouldn't compare to what I consistently get with mFT. The size difference between mFT and APS-C is neglible compared to the difference to the smartphone cameras.
Where the iPhone shines is getting nicely automatically post-processed pictures. Olympus has an iAuto mode, which also aims for that. There are also a lot of in-camera settings where you can tweak the produced jpegs, if you don't want to post-process. The best quality you would get though by post-processing raw images on your computer.
Where the iPhone shines is getting nicely automatically post-processed pictures. Olympus has an iAuto mode, which also aims for that. There are also a lot of in-camera settings where you can tweak the produced jpegs, if you don't want to post-process. The best quality you would get though by post-processing raw images on your computer.
Yeah, I'm curious too. I've got a E-M5.2 and the photos I get on it are consistently better than what I get on my Xr. I mostly shoot in Aperture priority mode, but I switch to full manual in tricky situations. I do very basic editing with Darktable.
Before I bought my E-M5.2 I had an E-PL2, looking at some of the pictures I took with the kit lens they are generally still better than the pictures I've taken on my phone.
Before I bought my E-M5.2 I had an E-PL2, looking at some of the pictures I took with the kit lens they are generally still better than the pictures I've taken on my phone.
I used mostly a Lumix 20mm 1.7, plus the kit 14-42mm and 40-150mm. As far as I know the sensor is the same in the EM5.
Of course the camera gives a lot more creative freedom, but it felt pointless to carry a body + lenses for little improvement in quality, light as they were. I switched to a Fuji XT-2 and am much, much happier.
Of course the camera gives a lot more creative freedom, but it felt pointless to carry a body + lenses for little improvement in quality, light as they were. I switched to a Fuji XT-2 and am much, much happier.
The pictures do look good, the colors are nice and the small image on the page is nice. But I haven't seen any 100% crops or full images. it's there that you'll see that the image is worse than a DSLR or another camera with a big lens and sensor.
I can get nice pictures (= vibrant and nice colors) with any camera, what I can't get is a sharp image, with sharp edges.
I went to a trip with my Android Phone and DSLR, and my GF has an iPhone 6.
We took pictures with all 3 devices. When I looked at jpg photos from Android phone on my PC, they had all "perfect" (=vibrant and catchy) colors, but when you zoom in, it's all a blurry mess with no detail. The iPhone was nice and sharp (at least much sharper than the android pics). The DSLR was of course the sharpest one.
Now on the android phone, I have a "pro" settings that captures RAW image. And it's incredibly sharp, the colors are bland of course, but the data is there and we can add/process the colors in post. But why is the image so much worse when using JPG.
My idea it that normal jpg has HDR enabled and is being processed too much, thus losing a lot of detail. You don't get that loss when capturing RAW.
What I'm afraid is that the new iPhone dark mode (or even the P30 Pro and other phones with post processing) will also process the images too much and stack them thus losing a lot of detail. When put on instagram or made smaller for Facebook/websites, you won't see the missing details, but the colors will be vibrant and that's "good enough" for most people.
When I take a picture I rather have the real RAW data in the picture instead of processed jpg that I can't control. What do you guys think about the automatic post processing done by your device, that when done incorrectly, you'll lose a perfect picture because the implementation just lost you a lot of detail...
I guess the post processing trend is there because you just can't make a good lens and sensor that small and still have nice results. The phone makers are just trying to fix this with post processing...
I can get nice pictures (= vibrant and nice colors) with any camera, what I can't get is a sharp image, with sharp edges.
I went to a trip with my Android Phone and DSLR, and my GF has an iPhone 6.
We took pictures with all 3 devices. When I looked at jpg photos from Android phone on my PC, they had all "perfect" (=vibrant and catchy) colors, but when you zoom in, it's all a blurry mess with no detail. The iPhone was nice and sharp (at least much sharper than the android pics). The DSLR was of course the sharpest one.
Now on the android phone, I have a "pro" settings that captures RAW image. And it's incredibly sharp, the colors are bland of course, but the data is there and we can add/process the colors in post. But why is the image so much worse when using JPG.
My idea it that normal jpg has HDR enabled and is being processed too much, thus losing a lot of detail. You don't get that loss when capturing RAW.
What I'm afraid is that the new iPhone dark mode (or even the P30 Pro and other phones with post processing) will also process the images too much and stack them thus losing a lot of detail. When put on instagram or made smaller for Facebook/websites, you won't see the missing details, but the colors will be vibrant and that's "good enough" for most people.
When I take a picture I rather have the real RAW data in the picture instead of processed jpg that I can't control. What do you guys think about the automatic post processing done by your device, that when done incorrectly, you'll lose a perfect picture because the implementation just lost you a lot of detail...
I guess the post processing trend is there because you just can't make a good lens and sensor that small and still have nice results. The phone makers are just trying to fix this with post processing...
I mostly thought the same but came to the realisation that the target of these devices are people using instagram, reddit, snapchat, &c. or taking quick snapshots to send to their friends/family. These pictures are made to be consumed and discarded in < 5s by the average viewer so it's not really a big deal. They'll scroll, say "oh wow" internally, click the like button and continue on scrolling.
No one will ever print those in 20x30in and frame them, hence no one cares about edge to edge sharpness or raw files. The "auto" post processing and night mode are the important parts.
> When I take a picture I rather have the real RAW data in the picture instead of processed jpg that I can't control.
afaik you can do that on most smartphones worth taking pictures with.
No one will ever print those in 20x30in and frame them, hence no one cares about edge to edge sharpness or raw files. The "auto" post processing and night mode are the important parts.
> When I take a picture I rather have the real RAW data in the picture instead of processed jpg that I can't control.
afaik you can do that on most smartphones worth taking pictures with.
> No one will ever print those in 20x30in and frame them, hence no one cares about edge to edge sharpness or raw files.
People still want to hang pictures on the walls and have family albums. Maybe it's a diminishing use case, but the sad thing is, it's not this that makes camera optimized for quick, ephemeral snapshots. It's the optimization for quick snapshots that's pushing out the more permanent use of photos.
People still want to hang pictures on the walls and have family albums. Maybe it's a diminishing use case, but the sad thing is, it's not this that makes camera optimized for quick, ephemeral snapshots. It's the optimization for quick snapshots that's pushing out the more permanent use of photos.
Most people don't zoom in on their photos. They look at them on their phones, full screen on their computers, or at best on a TV (1080p or maybe 4K, but sitting far away).
This is what manufacturers optimize for. Getting great pictures for the 95%.
Who cares if the hairs on the dog are blurry when you zoom in so much you can't see the rest of the picture? Well, Pros who might want to crop the photo later. And for them, DSLRs will still exist.
This is what manufacturers optimize for. Getting great pictures for the 95%.
Who cares if the hairs on the dog are blurry when you zoom in so much you can't see the rest of the picture? Well, Pros who might want to crop the photo later. And for them, DSLRs will still exist.
Except those few times when they e.g. want a new profile picture for their Facebook/Instagram, find that photo on which they look really good but are only part of the whole shot, try to crop it (e.g. with the cropping tool that's available on most social media platforms when uploading a profile picture) and then they discover the result is a blurry mess.
Or, they want to print the photos they made on their phones into a family album, and the result again comes back as blurry mess that looks nowhere near as nice as it did on the phone.
So I'd add: manufacturers optimize for great pictures for the 95% that look great when shot, not when later used.
Or, they want to print the photos they made on their phones into a family album, and the result again comes back as blurry mess that looks nowhere near as nice as it did on the phone.
So I'd add: manufacturers optimize for great pictures for the 95% that look great when shot, not when later used.
That's what I thought, and indeed, the full res is useful when you want to post crop and to print them out.
And that's why Apple and Samsung are still using 1/2.5 (5.8mm by 4.3mm) 12MP sensors, typical of generic point and shoot cameras. Compare to lower end 'prosumer' type fourthirds cams that use a 17mmx13mm sensor and 15-18MP. That's almost 9 times the area for 25-50% more pixels.
>What I'm afraid is that the new iPhone dark mode (or even the P30 Pro and other phones with post processing) will also process the images too much and stack them thus losing a lot of detail. When put on instagram or made smaller for Facebook/websites, you won't see the missing details, but the colors will be vibrant and that's "good enough" for most people.
BTW - one nitpick, stacking images will _improve_ image quality. Specifically - averaging images (after aligning them) taken sequentially is a common way to reduce noise artifacts. Photon noise follows a Poisson distribution and so if you take multiple images and average them you will generally get a cleaner image. The caveat being that you must be on a tripod and your subject must be still for those shots.. (ideally landscape kinda shots)
BTW - one nitpick, stacking images will _improve_ image quality. Specifically - averaging images (after aligning them) taken sequentially is a common way to reduce noise artifacts. Photon noise follows a Poisson distribution and so if you take multiple images and average them you will generally get a cleaner image. The caveat being that you must be on a tripod and your subject must be still for those shots.. (ideally landscape kinda shots)
An iPhone 6 has a dxomark score of 73, last years iPhone XS Max was 106.. the 11 pro will see an even higher score than last years model so comparing the current lineup to an iPhone 6 isn't a fair comparison anymore imho
FWIW there are multiple links to reviews with full-size images in these comments.
Ok, just looked at these images: https://daringfireball.net/2019/09/the_iphone_11_and_iphones... in full res and indeed, they are very blurry and the detail loss is still there:
look at the hairs of the dog: https://daringfireball.net/misc/2019/09/iphones-11-review/mo... They are all blurry
Is it possible to shoot RAW with iPhone?
look at the hairs of the dog: https://daringfireball.net/misc/2019/09/iphones-11-review/mo... They are all blurry
Is it possible to shoot RAW with iPhone?
I think the iPhone 11 makes some good advances as outlined in the linked article, but a lot of the pictures didn't particularly wow me at all from a camera capabilities perspective. A bunch of the images at the top of the article are nice, but that is entirely due to the photographer's skill at composing aesthetically pleasing shots and have little to do with the actual capabilities of the iPhone 11.
As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical. I guess the point I am making is that while it's exciting to have a wide-angle lens on the iPhone 11, it doesn't in any way move the bar compared to what's been out there for a while.
Where the iPhone 11 has improved drastically, is with night mode shots, and that's somewhere it has been lacking substantially compared to the competition. They've done a really good job catching up and maybe even surpassing the competition in some areas. Kudos to them for that.
That being said, you aren't going to get great prints out of night mode images for anything much larger than post-card sized prints with the iPhone 11 (or any other smart phone camera to be honest). I love the image of the person in the boat at dusk, but even at the size displayed, you can see a bunch of artifacts from noise reduction. As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens. I personally think it's absurd to make that comparison, but I just had to say this because every article about the latest smartphone camera ends up having a bunch of comments about how they are superior to DSLRs at this point (which they are on the computational photography side of things, but good luck getting clean, large prints out of a phone camera, especially in low-light situations)
As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical. I guess the point I am making is that while it's exciting to have a wide-angle lens on the iPhone 11, it doesn't in any way move the bar compared to what's been out there for a while.
Where the iPhone 11 has improved drastically, is with night mode shots, and that's somewhere it has been lacking substantially compared to the competition. They've done a really good job catching up and maybe even surpassing the competition in some areas. Kudos to them for that.
That being said, you aren't going to get great prints out of night mode images for anything much larger than post-card sized prints with the iPhone 11 (or any other smart phone camera to be honest). I love the image of the person in the boat at dusk, but even at the size displayed, you can see a bunch of artifacts from noise reduction. As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens. I personally think it's absurd to make that comparison, but I just had to say this because every article about the latest smartphone camera ends up having a bunch of comments about how they are superior to DSLRs at this point (which they are on the computational photography side of things, but good luck getting clean, large prints out of a phone camera, especially in low-light situations)
"As someone who owned the LG G3 years ago, and absolutely loved the wide-angle lens on that phone, most of these pictures would look identical"
They wouldn't look remotely alike. Many of those simple shots are incredibly complex dynamic range scenes were the results are quite spectacular. With a lesser device the results would have been a blah photo, which is the point of the amazing progress that is happening in computational photography and the hardware that feeds it (focus pixels, secondary depth analysis, and sensors that have much better dynamic range than they did -- even current SLRs have much better dynamic range than a few years ago).
As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.
"As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens."
This is a strawman. No one is hating on DSLRs, and I can't find a single comment claiming that they're superior to DSLRs, beyond in the computational photography realm. But yes, smartphones are good enough that we often leave our DSLR at home, and when we do bring it there are many situations where the smarts of the smartphone yield usable to excellent photos where the DSLR will stumble. All things being equal a larger sensor is ideal, though things get more debatable on the lens side (larger lenses equal a longer focal length equal a much shallower depth of field, which while beneficial for bokeh, in many situations because a serious hindrance rather than benefit).
They wouldn't look remotely alike. Many of those simple shots are incredibly complex dynamic range scenes were the results are quite spectacular. With a lesser device the results would have been a blah photo, which is the point of the amazing progress that is happening in computational photography and the hardware that feeds it (focus pixels, secondary depth analysis, and sensors that have much better dynamic range than they did -- even current SLRs have much better dynamic range than a few years ago).
As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.
"As much as everyone loves to hate on DSLRs these days, you are going to get much cleaner images in these light starved environments with a large sensor and good lens."
This is a strawman. No one is hating on DSLRs, and I can't find a single comment claiming that they're superior to DSLRs, beyond in the computational photography realm. But yes, smartphones are good enough that we often leave our DSLR at home, and when we do bring it there are many situations where the smarts of the smartphone yield usable to excellent photos where the DSLR will stumble. All things being equal a larger sensor is ideal, though things get more debatable on the lens side (larger lenses equal a longer focal length equal a much shallower depth of field, which while beneficial for bokeh, in many situations because a serious hindrance rather than benefit).
I suggest you pick up an LG G3 and test it's capabilities out. It's not like HDR is some new invention that just came about in the smart phone space. It's been around forever. Yes, some of the algorithms have gotten better, and the HDR tonemapping has been improved, but I've taken thousands of HDR images with my G3 many years ago that looked great.
Case in point - https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7
> As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.
Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason. All I stated was that it would suffer for prints, which is factual and nothing you stated really adds value to that. I didn't say that it was no good because of that...
Case in point - https://photos.app.goo.gl/RMMcJe9X6XjaEqcw7
> As to print outs, almost no one actually prints out anything. Most photography is for social media, your own camera roll, etc.
Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason. All I stated was that it would suffer for prints, which is factual and nothing you stated really adds value to that. I didn't say that it was no good because of that...
I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless. Taking even current, top of the line smartphones and taking photos in perfectly equal conditions often yields significant differences in outcomes, yet you're seriously arguing that a five year old smartphone would be equal, with zero proof.
"Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason."
You stated that they wouldn't look good printed out which is a claim I didn't even want to argue (despite it being very wrong), instead pointing out that people generally don't print out often anyways, so... That isn't defensive, it's factual, as you say. No need to get defensive about it.
Feel free to get a G3 and an iPhone 11 and take comparable photos and show everyone, including the entire industry that recognizes the advances, how wrong they are -- it will surely see a lot of hits and attention.
"Well, you're certainly very defensive for no apparent reason."
You stated that they wouldn't look good printed out which is a claim I didn't even want to argue (despite it being very wrong), instead pointing out that people generally don't print out often anyways, so... That isn't defensive, it's factual, as you say. No need to get defensive about it.
Feel free to get a G3 and an iPhone 11 and take comparable photos and show everyone, including the entire industry that recognizes the advances, how wrong they are -- it will surely see a lot of hits and attention.
> I didn't say the G3 couldn't take good pictures. However saying "my G3 once took a good picture, therefore it's equivalent to this" isn't reasonable. Those are difficult scenes and unless you have a G3 to take a picture in the same lighting and conditions, your claim is baseless.
Talk about moving goalposts. What a bunch of baloney. Apparently now you can't argue any point without replicating exactly those specific images in the article. It isn't worth continuing a discussion since you don't have much constructive to add. I actually showed you a great example of a challenging HDR image snapped by a G3, which is more "proof" than anything you've provided so far.
Like I said in my original post, the iPhone 11 makes a great improvement in general. I pointed out that a lot of the excitement that the OP has about the wide-angle lens at the top of the article is justified in that wide-angle on smart phones is a lot of fun from a photography perspective (I've been able to enjoy it for several years already). But it has less to do with the wide-angle shots being miles superior than what has already been out there. No reason to take those observations so personally.
Talk about moving goalposts. What a bunch of baloney. Apparently now you can't argue any point without replicating exactly those specific images in the article. It isn't worth continuing a discussion since you don't have much constructive to add. I actually showed you a great example of a challenging HDR image snapped by a G3, which is more "proof" than anything you've provided so far.
Like I said in my original post, the iPhone 11 makes a great improvement in general. I pointed out that a lot of the excitement that the OP has about the wide-angle lens at the top of the article is justified in that wide-angle on smart phones is a lot of fun from a photography perspective (I've been able to enjoy it for several years already). But it has less to do with the wide-angle shots being miles superior than what has already been out there. No reason to take those observations so personally.
Get a friend with an iPhone 11, the G3, and compare. No need for this whole word duel. I think you'll be surprised.
[deleted]
That photo looks terrible compared to what a modern device would capture...
It's easy to take an aesthetically pleasing scene and capture it in a way that looks vaguely pleasing when zoomed out.
The moment I zoomed in an extremely moderate amount it looked horrible, especially at the hardest part to capture, the clouds and sun.
It's easy to take an aesthetically pleasing scene and capture it in a way that looks vaguely pleasing when zoomed out.
The moment I zoomed in an extremely moderate amount it looked horrible, especially at the hardest part to capture, the clouds and sun.
The original image of the person on the boat at dusk is 1000 x 667 pixels, so I'm pretty sure they cropped that. It's also being displayed at 1500 pixels wide, so it's being enlarged from the original. It's a Squarespace site, and I wouldn't mind betting that either Squarespace or the author did some compression on the photo before they uploaded it so the page wasn't slow to load too. I'm not sure there's much you can tell from the quality of that image.
thanks!
How could anyone read this without knowing it's an advertisement:
"today I’m just as thrilled to be putting an entirely new Ultra Wide lens in my pocket. It gives us another format to tell the story, another perspective to visualize, and a better rounded tool for doing our best creative work."
"today I’m just as thrilled to be putting an entirely new Ultra Wide lens in my pocket. It gives us another format to tell the story, another perspective to visualize, and a better rounded tool for doing our best creative work."
I'm not sure what you mean. I understand it to be a review by a professional photographer - but one with an obvious bias towards Apple, as they have been a client of his, he uses their phone's cameras in his work, and he has a book about how to take pictures with their phones. But that does not make it an advertisement, as far as I know, he is not paid by Apple, nor did Apple provide the phone or control what he said.
How did he get hands on a phone that hasn’t been released yet if Apple didn’t provide it?
A lot of prominent bloggers and tech news sites, including John Gruber, The Verge, and many others, got advance devices to review. This is normal, and not unique to Apple. They also get Pixels and Galaxies in advance.
Unfortunately, alot early reviewers have perverse incentive to give good reviews to continue receiving early units and getting that as revenue first.
Sure, and respected camera review websites like DPReview get the majority of their revenue through people clicking through their site to purchase cameras. Is it a conflict of interest? Oh hell yes, and you should keep it in mind. Does it make the review wrong? Well...probably not, but keep it in mind.
I think Apple has plenty of incentive not to yank reviewable units from people who've gotten them early in the past, when/if they get a bad review.
Taints the whole point of doing reviews.
Taints the whole point of doing reviews.
> Taints the whole point of doing reviews.
It certainly does, which is why you can never trust an early review of an Apple product. https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-manipu...
It certainly does, which is why you can never trust an early review of an Apple product. https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-manipu...
Okay but there’s no concrete examples there. There’s a bunch of broad claims that Apple will blacklist journalists for X, Y, and Z but no names or evidence that it’s actually happening.
I can believe that Apple might do this (especially since he also cites openly breaking rules by doing things like live-streaming when it’s been explicitly forbidden) but this article doesn’t convince me it’s happening or educate me on how much of a problem it really is.
I can believe that Apple might do this (especially since he also cites openly breaking rules by doing things like live-streaming when it’s been explicitly forbidden) but this article doesn’t convince me it’s happening or educate me on how much of a problem it really is.
The article links to a few concrete examples. You'll have to use the Wayback Machine to access them.
No it doesn’t. It contains a link to an article about supposed “whitelisting” and one about supposedly giving WaPo and exclusive interview in retaliation to the NYT’s critical reporting. These are both the exact opposite of the blacklisting the article asserts exists. Then it links to an article about blacklisting but dismissed it as inaccurate. So there’s nothing linked about actual blacklisting examples by Apple unless I’ve missed something. Elgan doesn’t even say why he is blacklisted.
This article is about somebody who got a loaner, which means they are specifically whitelisted as my article's link says, which means that they are uncritical of Apple products. I don't know why you are hung up on blacklisting specifically as I have not mentioned that, only that prelaunch reviews of Apple products are not credible.
Because this comment chain, including your original reply, was about blacklisting critical reviewers.
Also because the article you linked is about blacklisting.
Also because the article you linked is about blacklisting.
The article is extremely weak and then tried to explain way why some publications who say negative things don’t get blacklisted.
why would ppl keep trusting them if they keep writing bogus positive reviews.
That doesn't make their reviews advertisements.
That's fair, it may be a provided phone. But then that puts him in a similar situation as any site that has a review for the phone now. You know his relationship with the phone itself and Apple. Consider his review with that perspective - but I still think it's a valid review.
And now if he doesn't write a glorious review then he won't be ever contacted by Apple again in the future. Really hard to trust objectivity of his review in these circumstances.
The review by John Gruber of the Touch Bar based MacBook was critical of the feel of the keyboard - this was before the actual reliability problems came up.
He along with everyone else was critical of the first Apple Watch.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/03/patel-apple-wat...
Seeing that he still not only gets review units every year, he gets the prime live interview every year after WWDC with top Apple executives, I don’t think he has been blacklisted.
Not to mention that Marco Arment is often critical of Apple and got a review unit of the Mac Mini last year.
He along with everyone else was critical of the first Apple Watch.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/03/patel-apple-wat...
Seeing that he still not only gets review units every year, he gets the prime live interview every year after WWDC with top Apple executives, I don’t think he has been blacklisted.
Not to mention that Marco Arment is often critical of Apple and got a review unit of the Mac Mini last year.
Those two bloggers will only criticize Apple products in comparison to other Apple products. They will never say a competitor's product is better even if most other reviewers say so.
John Gruber on Pixel’s Night Site Camera
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/25/night-sight
Gruber has stated repeatedly how much of an embarrassment that the MacBook keyboards have become but he famously still uses an old ADB Apple keyboard so he doesn’t have as much first hand experience as Marco who buys computers more frequently.
They have both complained about Macs falling behind compared to what Microsoft is doing with the Surface line.
Marco routinely criticizes the Apple Watch and compares it to the non smart watches he prefers. Gruber also prefers regular watches.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/25/night-sight
Gruber has stated repeatedly how much of an embarrassment that the MacBook keyboards have become but he famously still uses an old ADB Apple keyboard so he doesn’t have as much first hand experience as Marco who buys computers more frequently.
They have both complained about Macs falling behind compared to what Microsoft is doing with the Surface line.
Marco routinely criticizes the Apple Watch and compares it to the non smart watches he prefers. Gruber also prefers regular watches.
It is a completely ridiculous breathless review of a phone that matches a Pixel or Huawei from 1-2 years ago.
Of course Apple did provide the phone. it’s not in stores yet.
And of course he gets ‘paid’. If not directly by Apple in dollars, but by Apple in exposure of his name and thus his business. He does this (great) PR piece pre-launch for Apple, we all learn his name, some will want him to be their photographer of choice and thus the cycle closes.
And of course he gets ‘paid’. If not directly by Apple in dollars, but by Apple in exposure of his name and thus his business. He does this (great) PR piece pre-launch for Apple, we all learn his name, some will want him to be their photographer of choice and thus the cycle closes.
Maybe he found it in a bar?
Early test releases are not uncommon.
[deleted]
Does the author have a bias? Certainly.
Is this an advertisement? Ads are paid announcements. There was nothing noting it was paid for in any capacity.
There's a difference between an ad and a bias. I find it useful to notice biases because we all have them. Ads are quite different.
Is this an advertisement? Ads are paid announcements. There was nothing noting it was paid for in any capacity.
There's a difference between an ad and a bias. I find it useful to notice biases because we all have them. Ads are quite different.
First, there can be a big power discrepancy in cases where free product is provided for review purposes. It's different if you are part of a traditional media outfit and have a significant, steady readership. But for someone like this, there can be a lot of pressure to give very favorable write-ups.
Second, this wouldn't be the first time someone did a paid promotion without noting it was paid. I don't know anything about this guy, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules. (See game streamers and their odd tendency to open tons of 'loot boxes' on stream & get significantly better results than expected.)
Finally a lot of the copy reads like it's straight from a press release, with capitalized words and everything.
Whether it's enough to constitute an ad in a regulatory sense, I don't know. But you can be advertised to without the source being a literal ad according to a legal definition.
Second, this wouldn't be the first time someone did a paid promotion without noting it was paid. I don't know anything about this guy, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules. (See game streamers and their odd tendency to open tons of 'loot boxes' on stream & get significantly better results than expected.)
Finally a lot of the copy reads like it's straight from a press release, with capitalized words and everything.
Whether it's enough to constitute an ad in a regulatory sense, I don't know. But you can be advertised to without the source being a literal ad according to a legal definition.
Whats the point of muddying the waters without having verifiable facts? The thing with speculation is .. anyone can speculate, on anything, for any reason. That doesn't make it true.
>I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules.
Who exactly said that?
>I'm just saying it's naive to think that everyone is always highly committed to playing nice with the FTC rules.
Who exactly said that?
Look at the quote at the beginning of this thread.
If it looks like an ad, if it reads unnaturally, like something no real person would say to convey a honest opinion, then it's most likely an ad.
If it looks like an ad, if it reads unnaturally, like something no real person would say to convey a honest opinion, then it's most likely an ad.
I read the post and it read fairly naturally to me. There are a wide variety of people out there who communicate differently.
Given the date of the post, time to write it up, and time to take the pictures this phone is in the hands of something before the official release date.
I read this like I read something from John Gruber about something Apple.
Given the date of the post, time to write it up, and time to take the pictures this phone is in the hands of something before the official release date.
I read this like I read something from John Gruber about something Apple.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It didn't read like an ad to me. It reads like someone who was excited to use a cool new product, and wrote about it on their own website.
Promoted content exists, where publishers accept money from companies to write articles promoting a good or service, to subsidize their revenue. Most of the time they do not disclose this.
He received a device in exchange for his review, so yes he was paid.
Apple doesn't give out devices (unlike a variety of other companies that do). They lend it for review or development purposes and then you return it. That's how they work. Of course that is still a gift of sorts given that it gives some people a headstart, but for some random photographer that doesn't seem to be selling anything or have ads...eh, it's kind of a not super big value.
Further he never thanked Apple. He thanked a maker of a camera app for iOS. At most it seems to be an ad for a camera app, and they likely provided the device to him.
Further he never thanked Apple. He thanked a maker of a camera app for iOS. At most it seems to be an ad for a camera app, and they likely provided the device to him.
Ok, it's not an ad. It's an advertorial. Happy now?
And he's just beating the strawman with his review.
- Did we need a "review" to learn that the new iPhone can shoot better pictures than previous iPhones?
- Where are all the full-resolution pictures–especially from the night shots? Everything looks nice and sharp if you scale it to 750x560. Even for the single lens camera of my 3 years-old android.
- Would it break Apple's heart to include a comparison of their "pro camera" with a real professional camera? Even a low-end one.
And let's not stick with the payment thing. We have no way to verify whether or not he received or will receive compensation from Apple. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
And he's just beating the strawman with his review.
- Did we need a "review" to learn that the new iPhone can shoot better pictures than previous iPhones?
- Where are all the full-resolution pictures–especially from the night shots? Everything looks nice and sharp if you scale it to 750x560. Even for the single lens camera of my 3 years-old android.
- Would it break Apple's heart to include a comparison of their "pro camera" with a real professional camera? Even a low-end one.
And let's not stick with the payment thing. We have no way to verify whether or not he received or will receive compensation from Apple. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
> Would it break Apple's heart to include a comparison of their "pro camera" with a real professional camera? Even a low-end one.
Why would they? That's not who they're competing against.
Why would they? That's not who they're competing against.
Hell, photographers know that any iPhone can't compete a midrange camera.
But Apple clearly wants the average person to believe that it can. Why else stick a "pro" description to your phone's camera? Of course they can't spell it clearly, because they will become a laughing stock. But they do imply it at every opportunity: "Pro camera system. We’ve three‑upped ourselves.", review by professional photographer etc.
It would be fair game if they had a professional instagrammer review the new iPhone. Because that's the only kind of "professional" camerawork you can do with any phone.
But Apple clearly wants the average person to believe that it can. Why else stick a "pro" description to your phone's camera? Of course they can't spell it clearly, because they will become a laughing stock. But they do imply it at every opportunity: "Pro camera system. We’ve three‑upped ourselves.", review by professional photographer etc.
It would be fair game if they had a professional instagrammer review the new iPhone. Because that's the only kind of "professional" camerawork you can do with any phone.
He doesn't even compare it to non-Apple phone cameras. Only to previous generation Apple cameras. That's one tipoff that the article is a submarine.
I'm not really sure what you are talking about. An advertisement of what? Ultra wide lenses? The author is a photographer who writes about being excited to now have the ability to carry an ultra wide lense - something that has exited in the photography world for decades - as part of his phone. He then write a review about the performance of this lense. Nothing about this is even close to being an advertisement.
To use a word review, I expect at least an attempt to be objective. The article doesn't feel that way at all, even more if you actually shoot at least as a hobby, ie with some APS-C or fullframe.
Discussing whether he is just subjectively biased towards Apple or outright paid is already kind of moot point
Discussing whether he is just subjectively biased towards Apple or outright paid is already kind of moot point
Reviews are never "objective." They are always a single person's experience with a thing.
Why would you want a camera review to be “objective?” What would that even mean? Other than some tech specs (which the article does provide), there’s not a whole lot of relevant “objective” information about a camera.
Austin Mann has reviewed every new iPhone for awhile in this manner. Reviewing equipment while taking travel photos is what he does.
The replies to this observation are hilarious. The "article" is as marketingy as it gets. It's blatantly obvious. But noo, "I don't know what you mean", "you sound mad" haha.
The assertion by the original commenter was that this article was an "advertisement" - meaning paid.
While the article may well serve as a function of marketing because some pro photographer got a loner from Apple and wrote up a gushing review. I don't believe the word "advertisement" holds water.
I think this comment said it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21016402
While the article may well serve as a function of marketing because some pro photographer got a loner from Apple and wrote up a gushing review. I don't believe the word "advertisement" holds water.
I think this comment said it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21016402
Ads don't have to be paid. Promo-for-product is still an ad - sometimes called an advertorial.
It's unprofessional at best and dishonest at worst to pretend that this isn't just corporate PR.
And ironically, the image quality really isn't all that amazing. It's +/- other phone cams - better in some conditions, not as good in others. And in absolute terms, these photos are nowhere close to the sharpness, dynamic range, and saturation of professional equipment. Night mode is good, but the daylight shots are okay but not awesome.
You could argue it's unfair to expect anything better from a (relatively) cheap phone cam - but it's a (relatively) cheap phone cam with a "pro" tag being marketed as a "pro" product.
In photographic terms, it simply isn't - except maybe for the fairly forgiving social media photo niche.
It's unprofessional at best and dishonest at worst to pretend that this isn't just corporate PR.
And ironically, the image quality really isn't all that amazing. It's +/- other phone cams - better in some conditions, not as good in others. And in absolute terms, these photos are nowhere close to the sharpness, dynamic range, and saturation of professional equipment. Night mode is good, but the daylight shots are okay but not awesome.
You could argue it's unfair to expect anything better from a (relatively) cheap phone cam - but it's a (relatively) cheap phone cam with a "pro" tag being marketed as a "pro" product.
In photographic terms, it simply isn't - except maybe for the fairly forgiving social media photo niche.
PR and advertising are not the same thing. Seeding review units to product reviewers is part of effective PR for consumer electronics. It isn't advertising, though. Standard practice (at least among Apple reviewers) is for the devices to be returned after some period of time.
> "PR and advertising are not the same thing."
A distinction without substance.
A distinction without substance.
Please don't conflate different terms for the purpose of making a glib point. It really doesn't help the conversation. They are different words because they mean different things.
From the perspective of a consumer, the difference is totally irrelevant. Why should the particulars of the exchange between the shill and the company matter to me? They don't.
The Verge regularly gets review units from Apple. Their editor, Joshua Topolsky, is not what you would describe as warm and enthusiastic about Apple and their products. When The Verge reviews an iPhone, they are not them engaging in advertising for Apple. If you think every tech outlet is a shill for the manufacturers, then you're just plain wrong about how the world works.
Spot on.
I think the replies from toasterlovin (below) summed it up on the diff between PR and ads so I'll leave it at that.
The root of what you are asserting is that is ANY review is corp PR. Which is partially true - a review (good or bad), and esp high profile reviews, can shift conversations around its subject.
For smaller entities, any publicity is good publicity, not as true for larger entities.
So if Apple gave a review copy of a phone to a photographer, that based on his past writings, Apple was fairly sure would write something "positive" - they made a good bet and the review copy of the phone paid dividends.
That being said, the article isn't corp PR - it reads like a "fanboy" review and that's exactly how I took it. Not an advert.
Personally for camera tech I like sites like dpreview.com (no review site is perfect).
I did like some of the example photos in this article tho - don't know if I could ever reach that quality but I'm not a pro photographer.
The root of what you are asserting is that is ANY review is corp PR. Which is partially true - a review (good or bad), and esp high profile reviews, can shift conversations around its subject.
For smaller entities, any publicity is good publicity, not as true for larger entities.
So if Apple gave a review copy of a phone to a photographer, that based on his past writings, Apple was fairly sure would write something "positive" - they made a good bet and the review copy of the phone paid dividends.
That being said, the article isn't corp PR - it reads like a "fanboy" review and that's exactly how I took it. Not an advert.
Personally for camera tech I like sites like dpreview.com (no review site is perfect).
I did like some of the example photos in this article tho - don't know if I could ever reach that quality but I'm not a pro photographer.
> Promo-for-product is still an ad - sometimes called an advertorial.
Are you suggesting that Apple gave or lent the author products with a contractual obligation that the author write a positive review? I think that is extremely unlikely, and I believe anyone familiar with how Apple works with reviewers/influencers/content producers would agree. I would need to see compelling evidence to change my mind.
Are you suggesting that Apple gave or lent the author products with a contractual obligation that the author write a positive review? I think that is extremely unlikely, and I believe anyone familiar with how Apple works with reviewers/influencers/content producers would agree. I would need to see compelling evidence to change my mind.
It's very unlikely that this article was written with any direction, payment, or remotely direct incentive from Apple. This is how the author writes, and anyone familiar with the author's work (he has written many iPhone camera reviews) will find this to be not at all unusual.
You can say the language is "marketingy," sure, but it is extremely unlikely that the author is involved in or paid by Apple's marketing or advertising team.
You can say the language is "marketingy," sure, but it is extremely unlikely that the author is involved in or paid by Apple's marketing or advertising team.
It's in that zone where the limit between native content and advertisement becomes blurry. Where do you draw the line where an advertorial [1] starts? Or native advertising [2]? This type of content is likely to become more common, too. With the rise of ad-blockers, companies are putting more weight on alternative methods.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising
Well, I'm not sure how to answer the "how," but I was certainly about to read it and not think it's an advertisement. Unless of course by "advertisement" you mean any review written by someone who is experienced with Apple products and has done other paid work for Apple in the past.
I think almost anyone reading it will feel that it's drenched in corp-o-speak, and will simply ignore most of these paragraphs.
It's not even meant to be subtle. Everybody knows how it works. You receive some gadget form a manufacturer, you present it in a positive way, you can keep it and expect more to come. If you break the rules, you won't receive the next one. There is no incentive to break the rules on either side.
Does anyone though ?
I just scrolled down to the side by side images.
helpPeople(2)
dadarepublic(1)
Beautiful photos, but why is the Exif scrubbed? I would have liked to see details.
Probably because most of the photos were post-processed (with exception for some where he explicitly wrote "Un-edited").
Good question. To remove GPS metadata perhaps?
I always thought it would be safer to forge the GPS data so it points to a police station, instead of just removing it. Then your stalkers and thieves might be arrested for loitering and breaking and entering there, instead of at your own home.
Which police station? What coordinates precisely? Could there be signs of which software you used to alter the data?
All these things could leak bits of identifying information, which I think is strictly worse than the 1 bit of information leaked by removing EXIF entirely.
All these things could leak bits of identifying information, which I think is strictly worse than the 1 bit of information leaked by removing EXIF entirely.
One that will cost your enemies a lot of money to travel to, in a dangerous neighborhood, with a long record of police brutality and violence.
> Then your stalkers and thieves might be arrested for loitering and breaking and entering there, instead of at your own home.
So I have 0 experience as a stalker - but won't they put that data into Google maps, see it's a police station, and probably assume that isn't your home?
You'd have to be really brave and stupid to loiter and break and enter a station thinking it was somebody's home.
So I have 0 experience as a stalker - but won't they put that data into Google maps, see it's a police station, and probably assume that isn't your home?
You'd have to be really brave and stupid to loiter and break and enter a station thinking it was somebody's home.
By the way, what happens to exif when you upload online (or also fb or instagram)?
Does it get removed or can everyone see my location?
Does it get removed or can everyone see my location?
Facebook will usually resize the photo, which ditches most of the EXIF information I think. You can be damn sure that facebook are tracking your location though.
It doesn't automatically get removed. Some services will remove some information. Facebook, predictably, uses the info itself but strips it from downloads. https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/what-can-you-tell-fr...
Imgur removes exif: https://help.imgur.com/hc/en-us/articles/201746817-Post-Priv...
I have an EXIF viewer browser plugin and it's interesting to see how many images online retain their metadata.
You see it in lots of places, from newspapers to forums and portfolios.
You see it in lots of places, from newspapers to forums and portfolios.
My DSLR is aging out...they've changed lens mounts (manufacturers seem to do that just long enough to blow the cost benefit of keeping lenses long term...I use my phone for 98% of my photos. The last one I actually printed out (a panorama) came from my iPhone XS Max.
I just can't justify a $1200 camera purchase to replace my Sony A57...and I'm a little sad about it.
I just can't justify a $1200 camera purchase to replace my Sony A57...and I'm a little sad about it.
It must have been the move to mirrorless that forced a mount change. Even Nikon abandoned their F mount line (which started in 1959) and introduced Z mount for their mirrorless.
Also given how often Sony is churning out new cameras these days, going secondhand will save you serious dough.
Also given how often Sony is churning out new cameras these days, going secondhand will save you serious dough.
I think you're right on all accounts. The adapter to let the old lenses work on the new bodies is the thickness of the pentaprism on the old camera. It's designed to keep the geometry of the stuff that got removed when they went mirrorless.
A lightly used A-mount (like an A77) is an intriguing thought...if it had a kit lens, then my kids could keep using the a57 til it failed completely.
A lightly used A-mount (like an A77) is an intriguing thought...if it had a kit lens, then my kids could keep using the a57 til it failed completely.
I have two requirements for camera: fast startup time from a standby to taking photos, and working touch exposure control. The majority of phones I've tested do not provide these. For some reason, on Oneplus 5 it works. I tested a newer model and it was worse. Sure, on a newer phone the photos are better for example resolution wise, but that's usually not the limiting factor.
I have some street photo / rangefinder hobby background where the idea is to not endlessly twiddle some knobs but be able to take technically decent enough photos quickly. No posing or setting up a still life but real events. When I carried a dedicated camera, it wasn't in a bag but in my neck, usually even without a lens cap. Fixed focal length lens, Canon Canonet or Panasonic GF. It's not necessary about automation or "AI" that helps you to be quick, but rather just less features and actual working interfaces.
I have some street photo / rangefinder hobby background where the idea is to not endlessly twiddle some knobs but be able to take technically decent enough photos quickly. No posing or setting up a still life but real events. When I carried a dedicated camera, it wasn't in a bag but in my neck, usually even without a lens cap. Fixed focal length lens, Canon Canonet or Panasonic GF. It's not necessary about automation or "AI" that helps you to be quick, but rather just less features and actual working interfaces.
> working touch exposure control
what do you mean? A long press gives you immediate access to exposure on the iPhone. There are also dedicated photo apps (like Halide, mentioned in the article) that offer more advanced controls.
what do you mean? A long press gives you immediate access to exposure on the iPhone. There are also dedicated photo apps (like Halide, mentioned in the article) that offer more advanced controls.
Let's say I'm photographing someone who is backlit, against the sky. By default, the person looks like black silhouette since the camera chooses an exposure that doesn't make the sky completely white.
I also don't want to have the person in the center of the frame, because that would be really boring framing. Photography 101.
On my current phone I can do the framing how I want, then touch the person on the touch screen. The phone instantly readjusts the exposure upwards so that now the person is more properly exposed and the sky is overexposed. This is what I wanted. Then I continue on to take the photo. This doesn't seem to work on many other phones. I never enter any menus or do any wheel adjustments. It takes extremely little time and is a very natural workflow.
On a rangefinder camera one would aim the center of the screen at the person, then hold the shutter halfway so it would pick the exposure from there, then frame (=aim somewhere else) and take the photo. If you have autofocus, it also focuses on the half-press.
In neither case are there any manual adjustments or looking at any buttons. Your eyes are on the viewfinder / photo area all the time.
I also don't want to have the person in the center of the frame, because that would be really boring framing. Photography 101.
On my current phone I can do the framing how I want, then touch the person on the touch screen. The phone instantly readjusts the exposure upwards so that now the person is more properly exposed and the sky is overexposed. This is what I wanted. Then I continue on to take the photo. This doesn't seem to work on many other phones. I never enter any menus or do any wheel adjustments. It takes extremely little time and is a very natural workflow.
On a rangefinder camera one would aim the center of the screen at the person, then hold the shutter halfway so it would pick the exposure from there, then frame (=aim somewhere else) and take the photo. If you have autofocus, it also focuses on the half-press.
In neither case are there any manual adjustments or looking at any buttons. Your eyes are on the viewfinder / photo area all the time.
What I'd like to see is a direct comparison of an Xs running neuralcam and the 11 night mode. I've taken a couple of photos so far and the app has done wonders. https://imgur.com/a/BwvW6J8
Nice one, I’ve been looking for an app like that. The new iPhone does seem like it has a great camera but I wish Apple would bring “night mode” for all the other iPhones.
So far I like the app. It doesn't work miracles but definitely helps in low light situations. You have to hold it still while it does the work, and the best part is that it is all on the phone, no internet needed for it to work. I'm stingy but this is one app I actually bought and didn't feel ripped off.
>We are truly in a golden age for taking pictures of dark shit with phone cameras.
Apparently I take pictures of different things than the author. Different kinks for different folks I guess.
Apparently I take pictures of different things than the author. Different kinks for different folks I guess.
Just wondering how much this is really just software performing the "upgrade"? The Pixel 3 camera app made every camera better in the end.
The new iPhone camera looks pretty sweet but the part that I'm starting to disagree with is what they call, "semantic rendering." This is where the camera recognizes different things in the photo and treats them different like sharpening some areas, smoothing others, etc.
To me this this aspect feels like basically an Instagram filter. Are we going for accuracy or how pleasing the photos are? They're definitely more pleasing but not an accurate representation.
To me this this aspect feels like basically an Instagram filter. Are we going for accuracy or how pleasing the photos are? They're definitely more pleasing but not an accurate representation.
There is no such thing as an accurate image. What your brain sees when it looks at an image is totally different from what it would see if it was standing in front of the lens. And what my brain would see is different still.
Lenses are subjective. The question is: what do you want to see, and what lenses see that?
Lenses are subjective. The question is: what do you want to see, and what lenses see that?
This! The sideloaded pixel camera app made me want to hold on to my 3 year old One Plus 3 for more years to come.
These night mode shots are seriously impressive. This might give DSLR manufacturers something to catch up with.
DSLR manufacturers already have compact mirrorless to catch up with. Now only if the mirrorless moguls would recognize the potential of ehnancing their comparatively giant APS-C sensors with at least half the computational photography wits of modern camera phones, now that would be magnificent.
Also, for me personally, the next waypoint for the phones should be the development of compact telephoto lenses -- it seems only Huawei got that right with their P30Pro.
Also, for me personally, the next waypoint for the phones should be the development of compact telephoto lenses -- it seems only Huawei got that right with their P30Pro.
I’m not sure how it is at APS-C (I use a full frame DSLR) but I don’t think there’s much room in the workflow of a lot people using DSLRs for more computation I’m the camera itself.
I know if I want a _great_ picture I
- shoot raw. - shoot on manual mode (often still with auto exposure). - put the photo into Lightroom.
With a huge sensor and a fast lens there’s no need for a lot of the computational photography phones are doing:
- “portrait mode” - unneeded when you have a fast lens and can get more real bokeh than you could ever need. - “night mode” - with modern sensors you can get usable images even at 6400/12800 ISO. This lets you get a solid image even at a reasonable, handheld shutter speed.
The real improvement other than sensor dynamic range and pixel count has been in autofocus. I still miss some some shots with my Canon because I didn’t react fast enough to nail my focus.
I know if I want a _great_ picture I
- shoot raw. - shoot on manual mode (often still with auto exposure). - put the photo into Lightroom.
With a huge sensor and a fast lens there’s no need for a lot of the computational photography phones are doing:
- “portrait mode” - unneeded when you have a fast lens and can get more real bokeh than you could ever need. - “night mode” - with modern sensors you can get usable images even at 6400/12800 ISO. This lets you get a solid image even at a reasonable, handheld shutter speed.
The real improvement other than sensor dynamic range and pixel count has been in autofocus. I still miss some some shots with my Canon because I didn’t react fast enough to nail my focus.
Panasonic has really good image stabilization for MFT systems where lens stabilization and sensor stabilization system work in tandem allowing to take shots with up to 1 second exposure handheld.
Basically it's like having gimble inside the camera.
Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (50mm f/3.5 equivalent full frame) is under $200 and is an excellent portrait lens.
With initial release of GH5 autofocus was pretty bad, but with the last firmware upgrade apparently it's quite good now.
I however cant yet justify upgrade from GH4, which doesn't have sensor stabilization.
Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (50mm f/3.5 equivalent full frame) is under $200 and is an excellent portrait lens.
With initial release of GH5 autofocus was pretty bad, but with the last firmware upgrade apparently it's quite good now.
I however cant yet justify upgrade from GH4, which doesn't have sensor stabilization.
It's exactly about rising the performance of current inexpensive APS-C cameras to the level of professional full-frame models.
As an amateur photographer I'd never take with me a mammoth gear that is some Canon 5D mk3 w/ 70-200 F/4, yet I'm somehow pretty sure that some good processing would allow a compact like Sony a6000 w/ 18-135 F/5.6 get close to its performance in 90% of cases.
The thing is, I sometimes can do that in Lr/Ps, but it's just much more work than I'd like to do for most of the photos.
As an amateur photographer I'd never take with me a mammoth gear that is some Canon 5D mk3 w/ 70-200 F/4, yet I'm somehow pretty sure that some good processing would allow a compact like Sony a6000 w/ 18-135 F/5.6 get close to its performance in 90% of cases.
The thing is, I sometimes can do that in Lr/Ps, but it's just much more work than I'd like to do for most of the photos.
> would recognize the potential
Oh I'm sure they've recognized the potential all right. But these smartphone manufacturers have massive software development departments with heaps of funds poured into AI research for multiple reasons other than this specific field, which is now really starting to benefit them. It's a different culture.
And even if we assume a camera manufacturer would have the finances to build this culture on their home turf (a huge assumption to make), they then run into the next problem that their sensors are too big! They can't compete as strongly here because they capture much more information with their larger sensor sizes and even with tiny smartphone sizes, you need laptop level performance on a ~7-10 nm transistor scale and dedicated AI hardware to pull it off without destroying battery life. They're so far behind both in know how and difficulty of the problem that I'm not sure how they'll ever be able to do it in the foreseeable future at least with full frame cameras.
Oh I'm sure they've recognized the potential all right. But these smartphone manufacturers have massive software development departments with heaps of funds poured into AI research for multiple reasons other than this specific field, which is now really starting to benefit them. It's a different culture.
And even if we assume a camera manufacturer would have the finances to build this culture on their home turf (a huge assumption to make), they then run into the next problem that their sensors are too big! They can't compete as strongly here because they capture much more information with their larger sensor sizes and even with tiny smartphone sizes, you need laptop level performance on a ~7-10 nm transistor scale and dedicated AI hardware to pull it off without destroying battery life. They're so far behind both in know how and difficulty of the problem that I'm not sure how they'll ever be able to do it in the foreseeable future at least with full frame cameras.
> they capture much more information with their larger sensor sizes
Most modern cameras are around 24 MPx irrespective of sensor size, this one is 3x12=36 MPx which is about the same total information content (or even less) given these 24 MPx have more bits per pixel.
Another point in case is that one could implement more in-camera techniques for collecting raw data for further offline processing, like focus stacking or aperture simulation which today require external hardware and a decent amount of skill.
Another point in case is that one could implement more in-camera techniques for collecting raw data for further offline processing, like focus stacking or aperture simulation which today require external hardware and a decent amount of skill.
I wonder why traditional camera manufacturers have been so reluctant to leverage the advances in computational photography that the mobile phone world has embraced. I mean I get why they want to have neutral default settings for people who want to do their own editing, but why are their 'scene' settings so crap when compared to mobile phones. Is it simply because they're worried that a sufficiently powerful processor is going to draw too much power?
Conservative management. What happens to those who don’t swim?
I'm into taking photos to craft an image of reality. Myself. I couldn't care less for any AI crafting it's image of typical reality for me. I think that's quite set for anyone taking pictures for fun vs. admoney/instafame/...
There's still such thing as physically correct image reconstruction, i.e. removing technical limitations via computational means. Super-resolution, focus stacking, HDR (proper one, without fake colors), highlight color preservation (try to photograph light source while preserving color while not underexposing everything around).
Basically, make images that are currently possible on $3000+ hardware, on $600 hardware.
There's also such thing as perceptually correct image rendering, but that's a whole another can of worms (image appearance models and the like), it isn't scientifically ready just yet.
Basically, make images that are currently possible on $3000+ hardware, on $600 hardware.
There's also such thing as perceptually correct image rendering, but that's a whole another can of worms (image appearance models and the like), it isn't scientifically ready just yet.
And you can do all of this with an ILC too and will profit from the fact that it has far less technical limitations.
Basically most of the really "cool" applications center around using the electronic shutter which up to 2-3years ago none of the ILC-companies dared to offer for the masses because it has some shortcomings which the "hey I can finally shoot in the dark"-crowd might not notice/care about, but people buying an ILC will, even if they're not technical enough to understand that it's their own problem...
Basically most of the really "cool" applications center around using the electronic shutter which up to 2-3years ago none of the ILC-companies dared to offer for the masses because it has some shortcomings which the "hey I can finally shoot in the dark"-crowd might not notice/care about, but people buying an ILC will, even if they're not technical enough to understand that it's their own problem...
I can't speak for the manufacturers but as a DLSR user I love the total predictability (exposure, DoF, focus, etc) when it is in manual mode. I really don't want the camera to try to anticipate the type of picture I am aiming for.
This totally applies to scenes. Portrait, sports, landscape, etc are all just different permutations of shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
This totally applies to scenes. Portrait, sports, landscape, etc are all just different permutations of shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
I would love someone to design and manufacture an enclosure for an iPhone that allowed for better ergonomics and controls.
I think the Camera app is one of the pinnacles of Apple's software engineering, but sometimes shooting on my DSLR really makes me value how beneficial things like knobs and buttons.
Obviously this might require using a 3rd party app as well, but I would gladly pay several hundred dollars for such a device.
I think the Camera app is one of the pinnacles of Apple's software engineering, but sometimes shooting on my DSLR really makes me value how beneficial things like knobs and buttons.
Obviously this might require using a 3rd party app as well, but I would gladly pay several hundred dollars for such a device.
>I would love someone to design and manufacture an enclosure for an iPhone that allowed for better ergonomics and controls
There are several third party solutions that offer just that, have been for years, e.g.:
https://icdn9.digitaltrends.com/image/digitaltrends/pictar-i...
http://blog.incipio.com/home/incipio-focal-wireless-bluetoot...
and even more mainstream brands...
There are several third party solutions that offer just that, have been for years, e.g.:
https://icdn9.digitaltrends.com/image/digitaltrends/pictar-i...
http://blog.incipio.com/home/incipio-focal-wireless-bluetoot...
and even more mainstream brands...
The next step over from that logic is Fuji's XT-3 (and other cameras in that line) that have brought back many of the physical controls that have been removed from newer DSLR cameras.
I've thought about this a lot, it's certainly something I want too. I think a case with a dial in each corner for shutter speed, ev compensation, aperture and iso would be enough for me to consider selling my camera. Perhaps they could even be customised?
For now, being able to quickly set one of these values depending on the scene is very important to me - so I keep the camera going for now...
For now, being able to quickly set one of these values depending on the scene is very important to me - so I keep the camera going for now...
I'm not a photo guy -- I have like 4 photos on my phone total (one for each of the people I care the most about -- but it seems to me like Apple should just create a DSLR camera.
It doesn't seem any more out-of-place for them as the HomePod, the idea of which is to have a bigger device just for listening because there's a physics limit to just using a tiny device for outputting sound. They then combine that with super advanced software for something unique. Doesn't sound different from photography, to me.
Why wouldn't Apple want to create the best camera in the world?
It doesn't seem any more out-of-place for them as the HomePod, the idea of which is to have a bigger device just for listening because there's a physics limit to just using a tiny device for outputting sound. They then combine that with super advanced software for something unique. Doesn't sound different from photography, to me.
Why wouldn't Apple want to create the best camera in the world?
Why wouldn't Apple want to create the best camera in the world?
To create "the best camera in the world" you have to be really really good at optics, sensor design and signal processing. Apples core strength using very clever software tricks to make pictures that look really good on a computer screen despite bad bad optics and sensors (in an absolute sense).
To create "the best camera in the world" you have to be really really good at optics, sensor design and signal processing. Apples core strength using very clever software tricks to make pictures that look really good on a computer screen despite bad bad optics and sensors (in an absolute sense).
Because it is much more lucrative for them to have a phone with the best camera in the world.
In some ways, this reminds me of the debate over whether it's "worth it" to make the Mac Pro. As a percentage of sales it's tiny. But there are other reasons they do it that aren't about the profit they get from that single device sold, other ways it impacts the company.
From a technical point of view I'm quite sure my >10 years old Rebel XSi will yield similar photos after editing the raw-file. If you are impressed by this you're probably not really following the tech, don't have any clue about image processing and are just blindly following what Apples advertising is selling you.
Most of the "cool" iphone-pictures in non-optimal lighting are about 50% post-processing and they show (for example the linked pictures are about 1.5MP and while they have nicely matched colors, there's barely any texture left (it's the same for the ads on apple.com). This might be fine for viewing and even a small print but that's nothing a DSLR of yore couldn't do. And believe me, once you print a poster of the nice fisherman and compare image quality form the iPhone and a modern ILC you'll see that there's a lot to catch up for the iPhone.
I'd take a typical ILC for ~300 USD over a iPhone everyday from a technical point of view (and so would most photographers if there wasn't the ad-money)
Most of the "cool" iphone-pictures in non-optimal lighting are about 50% post-processing and they show (for example the linked pictures are about 1.5MP and while they have nicely matched colors, there's barely any texture left (it's the same for the ads on apple.com). This might be fine for viewing and even a small print but that's nothing a DSLR of yore couldn't do. And believe me, once you print a poster of the nice fisherman and compare image quality form the iPhone and a modern ILC you'll see that there's a lot to catch up for the iPhone.
I'd take a typical ILC for ~300 USD over a iPhone everyday from a technical point of view (and so would most photographers if there wasn't the ad-money)
You clearly didn't read the article (which covers the technical details of night mode). It's taking multiple exposures at different shutter speeds and combining together. Allowing you to take sharp photos with long exposure times, hand held. Your Rebel XSi (and even the latest Rebel) can't do that (although they have the advantage of a bigger sensor).
Yeah I read the article alright, but what I see there is something you can do just fine "handheld" with any cheap(ish) ILC. Arguably the method is relatively irrelevant for such comparison.
Thanks for the kind words! I would honestly be curious to see a low light comparison with (older or newer) DSLRs. You might be right that the comparisons on this blog post exaggerate the performance because the XS is just terrible, but the process described in the post where a series of images are merged together in post processing and you can make long-exposure hand-held shots is just not something that's going to work in DSLRs easily. I can imagine that there are situations where this would make certain shots feasible that would have motion blur on a DSLR. Then again, I've imagined wrong before.
Rebel XSi will yield similar photos after editing the raw-file
Well obviously. The whole point here and the impressive part of the technology is that you get these results by simply pointing and shooting in full auto mode, no manual post processing and with tiny optics and sensors.
Well obviously. The whole point here and the impressive part of the technology is that you get these results by simply pointing and shooting in full auto mode, no manual post processing and with tiny optics and sensors.
I don't think it's that impressive to buy a 1100$ phone (which for the most part does nothing more than a 100$ one...) and then justify the price/novelty with the "new" camera, when you can get a much better camera (which will not be obsolescent for a quite long time) for 400$.
And actually I'm also not really impressed by image-improvement algorithms anymore, the likes of them have been pretty standard for some time now across vendors (it's not 2010 any more), yet picture quality isn't anywhere above snapshot-level.
And actually I'm also not really impressed by image-improvement algorithms anymore, the likes of them have been pretty standard for some time now across vendors (it's not 2010 any more), yet picture quality isn't anywhere above snapshot-level.
Can someone explain to me what is so special in those photos? These look like snapped on the phone...
I want to see an app: full frame high rate recording with all cameras, marking "photos" as time & subframe. From there, be able to later roll individual "photos" forward/back in time, and shift/rotate/zoom/interpolate within that video space. When satisfied, dump the (massive) video and keep the selected photos. Likewise for sub-videos.
I want to focus on getting photos without having to get it right at that moment. Get me ALL the image data, let me indicate what/when I want a picture of, and save details of framing & timing for later.
Live Photos is just the smallest beginning of what we should be able to do with 3 60fps >4K cameras, a half terabyte storage, and an unlimited data plan.
I want to focus on getting photos without having to get it right at that moment. Get me ALL the image data, let me indicate what/when I want a picture of, and save details of framing & timing for later.
Live Photos is just the smallest beginning of what we should be able to do with 3 60fps >4K cameras, a half terabyte storage, and an unlimited data plan.
I wonder when Apple will address the elephant in the room: "how can we keep our lens always clean like our SLR lenses?" iPhone is a good camera but I haven't found any good case to keep it dust-free. It's even worse nowadays with lens bumps.
Does this mean that I can justify the staggering price of an iPhone 11 Pro by saying that I won't be needing a new camera? Not that I was really in market for a new point-and-shoot, but I feel like I need something to justify it.
Still prefer how Pixel 3 photos look like on the phone that was released a year ago [1]. Interestingly I recall my first Android to be Samsung i977 some 9 years ago and photos were more vivid than iPhone X.
However Pixel comes with unlimited (!!) photo and 4k video storage [2]. Apple cannot beat that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_3
[2] https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3
However Pixel comes with unlimited (!!) photo and 4k video storage [2]. Apple cannot beat that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_3
[2] https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3
> However Pixel comes with unlimited (!!) photo and 4k video storage [2].
Yup, this is why we switched to Pixel, back when the first version came out, and we haven't looked back.
Yup, this is why we switched to Pixel, back when the first version came out, and we haven't looked back.
For some perspective on this, go look at Austin's iPhone 6s camera review [1].
If you aren't shooting photos like his with your iPhone X, upgrading to an 11 series is not going to make much of a difference.
1. http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-6s-camera-review-switzerla...
If you aren't shooting photos like his with your iPhone X, upgrading to an 11 series is not going to make much of a difference.
1. http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-6s-camera-review-switzerla...
I have the Nikon full frame D850 along with the holy trilogy of lenses (14-24mm + 24-70mm + 70-200mm f2.8 zoom lenses).
in 2018, for every picture I took with the D800/850, I took +200 iphone pictures.
I still believe there is room for a high caliber camera but I don't want to own it anymore, I just want to rent whenever I need it.
in 2018, for every picture I took with the D800/850, I took +200 iphone pictures.
I still believe there is room for a high caliber camera but I don't want to own it anymore, I just want to rent whenever I need it.
I want a high caliber camera but I never want to have to carry it around with me...
If discouraged by the weight, but not the price, consider a compact Leica (e.g., the Q).
There's a common saying that the best camera is the one you have with you. We're getting to the point where the one you have with you is more than good enough for many situations anyway.
I feel for the compact camera manufacturers.
Smartphones killed the 2/3" sensor market. Now they've killed the 1" sensor market too. Micro 4/3 is stale with no major sensor advancements for years now. What's left, APS-C and up?
Smartphones killed the 2/3" sensor market. Now they've killed the 1" sensor market too. Micro 4/3 is stale with no major sensor advancements for years now. What's left, APS-C and up?
I feel for all camera manufacturers. Why isn't there a Canon or Nikon or Sony cloud service where photos are sent to? Why haven't the big camera companies embraced computation in their cameras? Do DSLR bodies even have GPS capabilities for tagging photos?
It feels like there's no innovation in the camera space outside of Apple and Google.
It feels like there's no innovation in the camera space outside of Apple and Google.
I have an app on my mobile, where I can upload my pictures from the cam via Wifi and then share them if I feel the need. I'm fine with that and syncthing just get's away with the stuff.
And yeah, DSLR bodies do have GPS but since they have a kind of "real" GPS it's more expensive and more power hungry, hence it's not really mainstream. (and about your phone's GPS: just enable flight mode and try to use it. Enjoy!)
And yeah, DSLR bodies do have GPS but since they have a kind of "real" GPS it's more expensive and more power hungry, hence it's not really mainstream. (and about your phone's GPS: just enable flight mode and try to use it. Enjoy!)
What makes you think they haven't embraced computation in their cameras?
https://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/assets/cyber-shot/2012h1...
https://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/assets/cyber-shot/2012h1...
Sony has the best chance of surviving IMHO. My #1 complaint about Sony is how awful they are at naming their stuff.
Leica will survive too, but mostly because they are beautiful things.
Leica will survive too, but mostly because they are beautiful things.
I posted about this in another thread here but I think it's basically about the larger sensor sizes causes ridiculous CPU demands. Consider how even on an iPhone 11 with a tiny sensor, you need a 7 nm CPU with dedicated AI circuitry to do it seamlessly and with maintained battery life. That feels like a mountain to climb for them, and then their sensor problem isn't even solved.
The iPhone 11 Pro can simultaneously record streams from all four cameras.
Those larger sensors have larger pixels and the CPU demands aren't going to be all that great.
Those larger sensors have larger pixels and the CPU demands aren't going to be all that great.
Very few DSLR bodies have GPS capability built in. This is kind of stupid because integrating a modern GNSS receiver would have only a trivial impact on size, weight, cost, and battery life. The odd thing is that GPS is somewhat common on much cheaper compact cameras.
Some of DSLR manufacturers do offer fragile, awkward GPS accessories that you can plug in externally. And they generally provide some sort of geo-tagging feature in the software included with cameras.
GPS does have some limitations for photography because it takes a while to lock on and doesn't work indoors. Modern smartphones can achieve much better location accuracy due to using multiple means. So the ideal solution would probably be for the camera to obtain location data from the phone via Bluetooth.
Some of DSLR manufacturers do offer fragile, awkward GPS accessories that you can plug in externally. And they generally provide some sort of geo-tagging feature in the software included with cameras.
GPS does have some limitations for photography because it takes a while to lock on and doesn't work indoors. Modern smartphones can achieve much better location accuracy due to using multiple means. So the ideal solution would probably be for the camera to obtain location data from the phone via Bluetooth.
> GPS does have some limitations for photography because it takes a while to lock on
My Canon offers multiple GPS modes, including periodic sampling even in standby mode, and "always on", for this reason.
My Canon offers multiple GPS modes, including periodic sampling even in standby mode, and "always on", for this reason.
> So the ideal solution would probably be for the camera to obtain location data from the phone via Bluetooth.
Which at least Nikon offers. But you have to have the paired device with you, leave the camera in the right mode, etc, etc.
Which at least Nikon offers. But you have to have the paired device with you, leave the camera in the right mode, etc, etc.
It's the one thing I miss having upgraded from a D5300 to a D500. I loved the GPS and not having to rely on SnapBridge.
> So the ideal solution would probably be for the camera to obtain location data from the phone via Bluetooth.
My Olympus E-M10 (bought in 2014, and still going strong) does this with a companion phone app, and it's incredibly useful.
My Olympus E-M10 (bought in 2014, and still going strong) does this with a companion phone app, and it's incredibly useful.
The problem is the older camera companies are camera hardware companies first. Software has eaten the world, and the old guard companies struggle in the software department. Sony is probably the best in this regard right now, but it's really a tallest person in the land of midgets. The Nikon software is atrociously bad, and the Sony's is just bad (I've only used Nikon and Sony).
I dream of Apple putting an A13 processor in a Nikon mirrorless body running iOS. Or, somehow attaching my Nikon glass to the end of my iPhone.
I dream of Apple putting an A13 processor in a Nikon mirrorless body running iOS. Or, somehow attaching my Nikon glass to the end of my iPhone.
I haven't seen any innovation from Apple or Google because all they're doing is catching up to DSLRs which are still hundreds of miles ahead in picture quality. For amateur use, the iphone can certainly satisfy, or so can pretty much any camera made within the last 10 years.
Amateurs rarely benefit from pro grade equipment. Atleast photography is somewhat cheap as a hobby. I see friends buying expensive amps or guitars because so and so uses them and they end up still sounding the same. People who were buying all these cameras, were never photographers to begin with, they jsut wanted something to record their memories with, and a smartphone is amazing for that.
If you compare like to like, same sensor tech, same quality glass .. there is absolutely no way a tiny sensor can out-resolve or out-perform a larger sensor when it comes to image quality. There are other metrics where it can - for e.g. power consumption/heat output, ability to stabilize the sensor (smaller = easier), faster readout (generally easier on smaller sensors), etc.
If you compare like to like, same sensor tech, same quality glass .. there is absolutely no way a tiny sensor can out-resolve or out-perform a larger sensor when it comes to image quality. There are other metrics where it can - for e.g. power consumption/heat output, ability to stabilize the sensor (smaller = easier), faster readout (generally easier on smaller sensors), etc.
> Amateurs rarely benefit from pro grade equipment. Atleast photography is somewhat cheap as a hobby. I see friends buying expensive amps or guitars because so and so uses them and they end up still sounding the same.
This doesn't follow. Photography can be astoundingly expensive as a hobby or otherwise. Lenses into the five digit reason, many in the thousands. You can buy expensive lenses, bodies, flashes, tripods etc. I don't think most people see photography as a cheap hobby, once you get beyond the bottom tier Point n Shoot, or entry level APS-C DSLR with kit lens.
This doesn't follow. Photography can be astoundingly expensive as a hobby or otherwise. Lenses into the five digit reason, many in the thousands. You can buy expensive lenses, bodies, flashes, tripods etc. I don't think most people see photography as a cheap hobby, once you get beyond the bottom tier Point n Shoot, or entry level APS-C DSLR with kit lens.
I have those cameras and lenses you're referring to. I've sunk in over 20K over the past many years. I still think its inexpensive compared to what I see others doing. For e.g. Cars :) :)
Yeah, it's gotta be rough right now.
I hiked a mountain about a year ago with my fiance, and she begged me to lug her Nikon DSLR up so we could get some good photos.
The only one we printed? An 18x60" shot I got on my iPhone 6s in panorama mode. We could have (and would have liked to) go even larger but framing started becoming an issue.
I hiked a mountain about a year ago with my fiance, and she begged me to lug her Nikon DSLR up so we could get some good photos.
The only one we printed? An 18x60" shot I got on my iPhone 6s in panorama mode. We could have (and would have liked to) go even larger but framing started becoming an issue.
The big advancement for micro 4/3 in the last two years has been image stabilization using lens and sensor working in tandem.
A more recent sensor advancement is dual native ISO in GH5s, which make the system's long downside -- low light performance, a much better proposition. I'm hoping this technology will find its way to cheaper offerings.
There are a few fast new lenses that have come out. I particularly like 25mm f/1.7 that's under $200, there are also a few ones on the higher end.
Another selling point for micro 4/3 that they can use virtually any vintage lens with a simple adapter.
A more recent sensor advancement is dual native ISO in GH5s, which make the system's long downside -- low light performance, a much better proposition. I'm hoping this technology will find its way to cheaper offerings.
There are a few fast new lenses that have come out. I particularly like 25mm f/1.7 that's under $200, there are also a few ones on the higher end.
Another selling point for micro 4/3 that they can use virtually any vintage lens with a simple adapter.
Mirrorless cameras seem to be fleeing uphill towards larger sensors, with the Sony A7s and Fuji medium formats.
It would be interesting to see how it will score in DxOMark (the best unbiased source for comparing both mobile and standalone cameras) tests comparing to current top-players. This review feels biased.
Its nice that his wishlist are all software ux tweaks
I’ll be getting the Iphone 11 Pro for the camera technology and wide support, along with the dual SIM feature that I’d like to know more about
I’ll be getting the Iphone 11 Pro for the camera technology and wide support, along with the dual SIM feature that I’d like to know more about
Super weird to read this text. I just came home from our first Japan trip and we both had a DSLR with us and three lenses. Heavy to carry around.
I expect 3-4k pictures from dslrs and 2k made by our smartphones. I'm really curious how our end result will look like.
I expect 100-300 images but this is our first holiday where we took considerable amounts of pictures/snapshots by phone.
At least on my Samsung s9 and my wives pixel 3a lots of those images look sharp.
I expect 3-4k pictures from dslrs and 2k made by our smartphones. I'm really curious how our end result will look like.
I expect 100-300 images but this is our first holiday where we took considerable amounts of pictures/snapshots by phone.
At least on my Samsung s9 and my wives pixel 3a lots of those images look sharp.
I recently started appreciating 60fps screen but,
iPhone 11 came up with 240 fps
Galaxy Note10+ came up with 960fps
and now Huawei Mate 30 Pro with 7680 fps
iPhone 11 came up with 240 fps
Galaxy Note10+ came up with 960fps
and now Huawei Mate 30 Pro with 7680 fps
Those are video framerates, usable for slowing down things like jumps to water / with skis etc. No screen for general public has 7k+ framerate, would be completely useless waste of energy (and money for expensive research)
That high FPS mode will be at a tiny resolution and need tons of light. Still interesting of course.
Edit: I stand corrected it’s still 720p
Edit: I stand corrected it’s still 720p
At what point is it no longer noticeable?
Very early, but that's beside the point. The point is one can make a slow-motion video out of a high-fps one.
I never considered the camera when buying a phone, and in fact would love a price discount in higher phone models with a cheaper or even no cameras.
Question for professional photographers from someone that has no idea about photography: why would you use a phone when you can use your professional camera?
Question for professional photographers from someone that has no idea about photography: why would you use a phone when you can use your professional camera?
I’ve been doing professional photography for over a decade, having used a wide range of DSLR’s and mirrorless cameras.
I really enjoy using my iPhone for photography when not working. It removes the friction of taking photos. I don’t have to carry a large camera while traveling, don’t have to charge extra things, it’s just overall easier. Whatever quality I’m losing is made up by simply capturing more moments than I otherwise would have if I was using my DSLR.
I really enjoy using my iPhone for photography when not working. It removes the friction of taking photos. I don’t have to carry a large camera while traveling, don’t have to charge extra things, it’s just overall easier. Whatever quality I’m losing is made up by simply capturing more moments than I otherwise would have if I was using my DSLR.
There is a wide range of professional photography and a good smartphone camera can fill some of those needs. Shooting for a magazine? You’ll want a dslr. Shooting for social media in a professional context? The phone is great.
>why would you use a phone when you can use your professional camera?
Most don't. Having a great smartphone camera is mostly about convince for pros. It's always there, and sometimes your pro camera isn't.
Most don't. Having a great smartphone camera is mostly about convince for pros. It's always there, and sometimes your pro camera isn't.
How much better is the Pro camera than regular iPhone 11 camera?
Cameras and chips are identical, however the Pro gives you the Telephoto lens. (That’s the “third” lens on Pro.)
Actually, it’s the ultra wide lens that is unique to the pro.
No, it's the telephoto. The 11 has the ultrawide.
No, briandear is right. The Pro has the telephoto, and the wide and ultrawide, where as the 11 just has the wide and ultrawide.
No, you have it backwards - the 11 got the utlra-wide lens as it's second camera.
[1] https://www.apple.com/iphone-11/
[1] https://www.apple.com/iphone-11/
Does the telephoto help at all with photos unless it's for zooming in and out?
Good to know that iPhone 11 Pro camera holds up to the expectations of a professional photographer. Now everyone else should aspire to be a professional photographer and buy iPhone 11 Pro according to Apple.
The fisherman seen in that photo is also in these very similar photos...
http://davidbuddphotography.com/galleries/01-places/china/gu...
http://davidbuddphotography.com/galleries/01-places/china/gu...
this guy runs a really popular tourist photography show in Yangshuo, China, which is one of the most popular tourist destinations within China both for local Chinese and foreigners. He uses a bird to catch fish for him. The birds throat is clamped so it cannot swallow the fish. I think it reflects an old way that fishing used to happen, but nowadays it’s purely a show for photographer tourists and you have to pay him some money for the show. (Shamless plug, but here is a video my wife and I made of our climbing trip to the region - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnlYUA-fmTE)
"Fisherman/men in a canoe like boat at dusk/night in asia" is such a cliche it should be forbidden...
Knowing the journalist/fixer trade a little, this is some well known place/person, and photographers who go to China are taken by their local helpers (who know the drill) there to shoot "interesting" pictures.
This fisherman guy probably makes (or could make) more money posing for tourists than fishing...
Knowing the journalist/fixer trade a little, this is some well known place/person, and photographers who go to China are taken by their local helpers (who know the drill) there to shoot "interesting" pictures.
This fisherman guy probably makes (or could make) more money posing for tourists than fishing...
You can pay a photographer guide to help you get this exact shot. Author used this, as suggested by the footer perhaps: https://www.mercierzeng.com/guilin-photography-tours
This kind of stuff exists for many popular shots with local photographers you can hire to take you and even have you get up close with locals.
This kind of stuff exists for many popular shots with local photographers you can hire to take you and even have you get up close with locals.
That photo is from guilin, and I have similar photos. The "fishermen" take people on raft (gondola) rides and will even sing to you in their local dialect. They also like to pick out the most foreign looking tourists and encourage them to sing as well.
Guilin is amazing photography-wise, but the tourism there has a very manufactured feel to it, as it does in most of the very popular places to visit there.
Guilin is amazing photography-wise, but the tourism there has a very manufactured feel to it, as it does in most of the very popular places to visit there.
Because it's a tourist trap, they're all staged for tourists who pay about 10 yuan (maybe more nowadays?) to snap their picture. Cormorant fishing hasn't been used in decades, so instead the fishermen charge and pose for photos for tourists.
I have a word for you Apple fans: H U A W E I
Its amazing to me that the smartphone wars are now just about cameras.... and more broadly content generation.
It also amazes me that everyone's is wooed over these iPhone specs. I've had my OnePlus 7T Pro for a few months now. Most of the top-line specs match or beat the new iPhone. Nightscape on the OnePlus is also amazing - takes great low light photos.
Seems like iPhone has been chasing some of the more advanced Android-phones for a few generations now.
It also amazes me that everyone's is wooed over these iPhone specs. I've had my OnePlus 7T Pro for a few months now. Most of the top-line specs match or beat the new iPhone. Nightscape on the OnePlus is also amazing - takes great low light photos.
Seems like iPhone has been chasing some of the more advanced Android-phones for a few generations now.
What I want to know is whether there are any phone-sized stand-alone cameras that can compete with any of the modern amazing phone cameras.
I love my Pixel 2's camera, it shoots gorgeous pictures, but I'm seriously considering downsizing my phone significantly. I'd love to have a nearly-dumb-phone but... can't give up the camera.
If someone sold a standalone camera that is as portable and as good, I would take it and a dumb-phone in a minute.
I love my Pixel 2's camera, it shoots gorgeous pictures, but I'm seriously considering downsizing my phone significantly. I'd love to have a nearly-dumb-phone but... can't give up the camera.
If someone sold a standalone camera that is as portable and as good, I would take it and a dumb-phone in a minute.
It's not _quite_ as small but _way_ better than every smart phone camera on the market, the Ricoh GR3.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-3/
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-3/
I hate my one plus 7 pros camera. It's terrible after a Pixel 2. I'm planning on getting my wife a Pixel 4 so one of us has a good camera.
It's because processor performance and screens are already way past good enough. My phone is 2 generations old and is fast enough. The only thing I would possibly wish for is a better camera.
@Austin Mann, https://letsencrypt.org/
Looks like it’s on SquareSpace, which does their own cert provisioning. Maybe the author just hasn’t set that up or has it misconfigured.
Exotic locations and good light make a better photo than simply having the newest iPhone--I think everyone here can agree.
Brian Chen, whom I respect, from NYTimes reviewed the newest iPhone and compared all his notes, photos, and videos to his iPhone reviews in the past and said there was hardly a difference in quality and performance.
I'm not saying the camera advancements aren't nice, but as a working photographer I have pretty strong opinions about some of the new features like night shot. There are already apps that exist for iOS that do this (take multiple photos and average them out to produce a brighter image with less noise). Also, I believe that if it's really too dark to take a good photo, it's not worth taking a photo at all because even the night shot image won't look that great (and of course they look great when you see them because they are side-by-side comparisons with the darker, more crappy photo, but as standalone photos they look like garbage). I'd rather find or make good light if I want to take a portrait.
Brian Chen, whom I respect, from NYTimes reviewed the newest iPhone and compared all his notes, photos, and videos to his iPhone reviews in the past and said there was hardly a difference in quality and performance.
I'm not saying the camera advancements aren't nice, but as a working photographer I have pretty strong opinions about some of the new features like night shot. There are already apps that exist for iOS that do this (take multiple photos and average them out to produce a brighter image with less noise). Also, I believe that if it's really too dark to take a good photo, it's not worth taking a photo at all because even the night shot image won't look that great (and of course they look great when you see them because they are side-by-side comparisons with the darker, more crappy photo, but as standalone photos they look like garbage). I'd rather find or make good light if I want to take a portrait.