[HN Gopher] iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap ___________________________________________________________________ iPhone 14 Pro camera review: A small step, a huge leap Author : robflaherty Score : 230 points Date : 2022-11-01 18:19 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (lux.camera) (TXT) w3m dump (lux.camera) | nicolashahn wrote: | These pictures are fantastic. For anyone but professionals the | reasons to buy a DSLR or mirrorless are virtually gone. | nop_slide wrote: | I disagree and as a n00b/amateur I recently picked up my first | "real" camera, a Fujifilm x-t20. I've managed to take some | amazing photos that simply wouldn't have turned out as good on | my iPhone 12. | | I was sick of the smudgy look that happened often on the iPhone | when the lighting wasn't perfect, and also there is a unique | "look" that the Fuji mirrorless cameras spit out due to their | x-trans sensor[1]. In my short 2 weeks with the camera I've had | a ton of fun and gotten some great shots. | | While no doubt the 14 pro is amazing, your statement isn't | true. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor | emkoemko wrote: | that smudgy, painting look on phones is the phone trying to | remove noise in the image | nop_slide wrote: | Yes I'm aware, and my point is that it doesn't happen with | a better sensor/camera and the lack of "smart" processing. | Even my small compact point and shoot would take sharper | photos in the same lighting than my iPhone 12. As mentioned | in the article the processing the iPhone does has seem to | become more aggressive as well. | k2enemy wrote: | The author clearly knows a lot about photography, so I don't | think this is a mistake in the article... When did "depth of | field" begin meaning the opposite of what it traditionally meant | in photography? | | For example: _A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit | more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really | can't expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows | some nice blurry figures in the background._ | | For as long as I can remember, depth of field referred to the | range of distance that is in focus. So more depth of field would | mean more things in focus and less subject separation. And | "distance to subject" and "field of view" equal, a larger sensor | results in less depth of field. | | But in the article it is clearly the opposite. This isn't the | only place I've noticed the change in meaning either. | [deleted] | formerly_proven wrote: | Because "depth of field is when blurry" | Tepix wrote: | You're right, he should have written shallow depth of field. | thfuran wrote: | I'd guess that Photoshop et al. are the cause, with virtual | depth of field effects. | numlocked wrote: | Perhaps it's technically inaccurate but seems easy to read it | as: | | " A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of | field _effect_ ". | | Eg referring to the visual effect of shallow DoF, not the DoF | itself. Because the following sentence is unambiguous about his | intent, I'm inclined to not be overly pedantic here and let us | slide. | namdnay wrote: | I think it stems from the "depth of field effect" tool in post- | processing, which then caused people to call the visual effect | "depth of field" (instead of "shallowness of field" i guess) | cdevroe wrote: | I think you're right. The point they were trying to make is | that there is more separation between the subject and the | background. So, in a way, an _improved_ DOF if not a _greater_ | or _shallower_ DOF. | | Maybe? | solardev wrote: | Coming from a Pixel 5 to the iPhone 14 Pro, I gotta say I'm | pretty disappointed. The pictures are mediocre at best, and just | plain bad in dim light especially. | | Google's computational photography is years ahead. The latest | Pixel has better sensors too. | user_7832 wrote: | As a Pixel 5 user I don't really have any complaints about the | cameras. If you pixel peep it definitely shows up, and I | suppose the 48MP would be better, but gcam (Google camera) is | probably one of the best pieces of software on android. | | Having said that, I would love to see a large sensor camera | with gcam esque chops. It's not too hard to run into the | limitations of the small sensor. | saiya-jin wrote: | One problem that Apple actually considers a hard won feature is | color inaccuracy. They like to do default images look very | instagram-ish, which may be what many folks like to see but | they are pretty far from reality, more than most. Skin | smoothing is another topic on its own. | | Maybe I am very biased by almost a decade of full frame | shooting basically everything, but I like photo representing | what I actually see with my own eyes at that moment. | | When talking about Pixels, when I saw some non-ideal light | samples from latest one, it was pretty clear neither Apple nor | ie Samsung (which I own and love, S22 ultra) are in same league | in many aspects of photography. But Pixel 6 had some pretty | annoying issues from user reports. On the other side it costed | (and v7 still does) significantly less from day 1. | fumar wrote: | Do you have examples to share? I am interested as I shoot with | film, mirrorless, and on iPhones. | nurblieh wrote: | Coming from the Pixel 6 Pro, I feel the same. The camera is | comparatively very slow with even daytime indoor lighting. Half | the photos I take of a child at play end up in the trash due to | blur. Hoping to find out that I'm just "holding it wrong". | anotheryou wrote: | Lol, nothing is better about the dark skyline image. It's a | blurry noise canceled mess with bad white balance. | keepquestioning wrote: | Reality Distortion Field. | Kukumber wrote: | To me that's a downgrade, it should be smaller, not bigger | [deleted] | foldr wrote: | The size of the sensor isn't as important as people think it is. | What really matters is the diameter of the aperture (the absolute | diameter, not the f number). Consider a cone of light for a given | angle of view hitting a small sensor close to the aperture and a | large sensor further from the aperture: o | < aperture of a given diameter /\ / \ | ---- < small sensor (less area, more light per unit area) | / \ / \ -------- < large sensor (more | area, less light per unit area) | | If you compare typical shooting apertures for DLSRs and camera | phones, they're not radically different. Say you are shooting a | 50mm lens at f8 on a DSLR. That's an aperture of 6.25mm. A | typical smartphone camera will have an aperture of around 3-4mm. | In this scenario, then, the DLSR is getting about 3 times more | light (or ~1.5 stops). | | Of course you _can_ use much wider apertures on DSLRs, but their | use is more limited given the shallow depth of field that | results. If you 're shooting e.g. landscapes, then you're | probably not going to use apertures much wider than f8 anyway. | azalemeth wrote: | This is related to the conservation of Etendue [1] in an | optical system, which is basically a statement of conservation | of power: you rightly point out that radiant flux is determined | by the source and constant - and for that reason, the primary | numerical aperture or f-number of the lens is ultimately what | really matters - assuming, as you point out, that you want to | use the narrower DoF that arises (in which case SNR scales as | the square root of sensor area). | | However, sensors get noise from different sources: and while | you're right to point out that you might be up against photon | shot noise, read noise goes down with pixel area: so, as long | as pixel area scales with sensor area, and that scaling is | performed by uniformly scaling the pixel, the larger sensor is | intrinsically "a little bit better". Quoting shamelessly again | from wikipedia [2] | | > The read noise is the total of all the electronic noises in | the conversion chain for the pixels in the sensor array. To | compare it with photon noise, it must be referred back to its | equivalent in photoelectrons, which requires the division of | the noise measured in volts by the conversion gain of the | pixel. This is given, for an active pixel sensor, by the | voltage at the input (gate) of the read transistor divided by | the charge which generates that voltage, CG = V_{rt}/Q_{rt}. | This is the inverse of the capacitance of the read transistor | gate (and the attached floating diffusion) since capacitance C | = Q/V. Thus CG = 1/C_{rt}. | | As capacitance is proportional to area, pixel area matters here | - read noise is proportional to it linearly. In low-light | conditions, read noise dominated most cellphone sensors (mostly | for the above). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Read_noise | Wolfegard wrote: | sys32768 wrote: | I am still not understanding why my iPhone 13 landscape photos | look as good as those from my $900 Nikkor Z 24mm f/1.8 S prime | lens with its superior optics on a $2k DSLR body. | | If the reason is fancy post-processing, then why can't Nikon have | a tiny lens like the iPhone 13 and just add fancy post-processing | to it? | stavros wrote: | Try photographing at night with short exposures. | fassssst wrote: | Just shoot your mirrorless in RAW and process them later. | Lightroom gives great results, but you can also use Apple | Photos to get similar color processing as your iPhone photos. | | The mirrorless photos will look much better on a laptop or | bigger screen but about the same on a phone. | sys32768 wrote: | Thanks for the tip on Apple Photos. Had not tried that. | 323 wrote: | For the same reason you can't upload to Instagram from your $2k | camera - they know how to make hardware. | | But the idea of enhancing filters or social media features is | completely alien to them. | m463 wrote: | I've noticed it's getting easier and easier to take photos with | the _SUN_ in the frame than when digital sensors first came | out. | sudosysgen wrote: | What settings are you shooting? How do you edit your images? | sys32768 wrote: | On my Z5 I can use the built-in Landscape mode, and on the Z6 | I can use auto or manual. | | Autocorrect RAW in Adobe Photoshop looks good. And certainly | on a 4k monitor the DSLR images reveal more detail. | | My post here has me realizing I need to take iPhone and DSLR | shots side-by-side in the same place with the same lighting | and begin to compare them in-camera and in post-processing. | sudosysgen wrote: | What aperture are you shooting at? You probably already | know it, but for landscapes you'd be looking at f/5.6 or so | unless you're hurting for light. | | Popular notion is that at f/11 only will diffraction start | to affect you, but with modern high resolution cameras | diffraction starts to creep in as early as f/9, so f/5.6 is | generally best unless you really need the deeper field. | You're probably going to be fine at 24MP, though. | emkoemko wrote: | "What aperture are you shooting at? You probably already | know it, but for landscapes you'd be looking at f/5.6 or so | unless you're hurting for light." | | this is bad advice.... shoot on a tripod and set your f | stop to get the DOF you need or do a focus stack, f/5.6 | would work if your shooting a distant landscape but having | anything in the foreground f5.6 would not be enough, i | usually stay at around F10 any higher i don't like because | diffraction starts to reduce image quality and if i need | more DOF i just focus stack | | for ISO set it to 100 or what ever your cameras base ISO is | | then adjust your shutter speed until you get correct | exposure | [deleted] | GoToRO wrote: | Good looking != captures reality. | | iPhones apply filters to make the photos look more vivid and to | make them "ready to share". If a professional camera would do | that, it would not be professional. | astrange wrote: | It doesn't do that unless you turn on vivid photographic | styles. It's tuned pretty much like a dedicated camera. | | This does annoy many people who then switch to Snow/BeautyCam | to actually take their pictures since they want to look | prettier. | GoToRO wrote: | By default, the pictures they take have nothing to do with | reality. You can check it yourself by comparing the picture | on the screen with the scene you pictured. Try it with some | clouds f.e. This was my experience. | pyfork wrote: | I dn, all the pictures of my friends and family and dog | look pretty close to reality. I'm not sure I care if a | cloud is slightly different, to be honest. | shishy wrote: | I doubt those iphone photos look the exact same as the nikon | ones on a large display (i.e. anything bigger than an | iphone...) It has not been the case for me. | saiya-jin wrote: | Obviously you don't look at close detail on computer, which is | very strange for seemingly such a power photo user. Phones | these days are good but not yet _that_ good if you don 't do | some beginner mistakes with camera. Maybe Pixel 7 pro based on | samples I saw, but definitely not ie iphone 13 pro max. | | What people often mean by similar statements is they like | default phone processing compared to 0 in the camera, and there | is enough detail due to tons of light and due to landscapes | being generally easiest scene to shoot. | | As for why they are not comparable, also a very strange | question from seemingly experienced photo shooter - compare | software development department and budget in Apple vs Nikon, | who is a tiny player we all love (have D750 since it came out | and carried it everywhere up to 6000m), they use very | specialized CPUs which are very good for 1 thing only (basic | operations on raw sensor data and potential jpeg | transformation), and various ML and stacking transformations | aren't simply available there at performance required. The | whole construction of camera and processing hardware isn't | around snapping 30 pics and combining them together under 1s, | pre-taking pictures before actually hitting shutter etc. | reedf1 wrote: | It really won't beat modern fast lenses. Try a lowlight | situation. You will not be able to beat a larger aperture for | light collection, it's simply how many photons you can catch. | sfmike wrote: | Apple and photography processing at this point is like TSMC and | chips. They probably have a great deal of algorithmic knowhow | that is in house and they're doing things that no one else is | quite getting close to at any of the big camera brands. Maybe | just Pixel phones have some clue in's on some of the post | processing hacks. I'd guess in the dark ex apple helped | consult. | jsmith99 wrote: | The Nikon photos will be under sharpened because it's so easy | to apply sharpening in post, and the amount of sharpening is | very dependent on the size and format of your desired output. | Also, in ideal conditions (medium sized, evenly and brightly | lit, static subject a moderate distance away) practically all | cameras will give good results: try comparing in less ideal | circumstances like a darkish area indoors. | JALTU wrote: | Nikon and Canon and all the other camera companies, Japanese, | German, or otherwise, are not software companies and have a | pretty awful track record for even the basic software in their | camera interfaces. Post processing is something they could not | or would not get involved in. | | Apple ate their lunches and then some. While I'm an old-school | photographer who thinks a great SLR camera is the photographic | equivalent of driving a Porsche, I don't miss carrying pounds | of gear around. (OTOH I HATE the Ux of iPhones for | photography.) I digress. The camera biz is a classic biz school | study in humans being human. | qbasic_forever wrote: | A landscape photo is the easiest thing for any camera to | capture. Focus is at infinity and no depth of field means the | lens can be literally a greasy pinhole and still get sharp | shots. You're probably taking photos in direct sunlight so | again the camera has to do very little work and is flooded with | light. | | Try taking a portrait photo in iffy lighting, like at a | concert, wedding, sporting event, etc. Something that really | needs a fast and sharp lens. | asciimov wrote: | Targeted audience doesn't demand the feature. | | If a users needs are being met by an iPhone then they shouldn't | worry about dslrs. | | If a users needs aren't being met by the dslr gotta wonder is | it the technology or the skill of the user? | pb7 wrote: | Do they look the same when zoomed in/at 100% zoom? Phone photos | look great on small screens but show weaknesses on desktop. | pcurve wrote: | Yep. Dslr and large sensors count when it comes to making | every pixel count without introducing artifacts | TedShiller wrote: | iPhone 13 photos will look just as good as a Nikon photo on | your iPhone. As soon as you view the iPhone photos on a monitor | or print them out, everything falls apart. | | iPhone photos are excellent as long as viewers are only seeing | them on iPhones. | foldr wrote: | I wouldn't necessarily assume that the optics are superior. | Smartphone lenses are pretty sophisticated. Also, their smaller | size and far greater production numbers open up manufacturing | techniques that wouldn't be practical for DSLR lenses. | | _Edit_ : Apologies for commenting on downvotes, but I'd be | genuinely curious to see some objective evidence that the | optics of a typical DSLR lens have a superior design. Of course | it is true that larger lenses for larger sensors _tend_ to be | superior because they do not need to resolve as many lines per | mm and they do not need to be machined as precisely (all else | being equal). But does anyone know of any actual lab tests that | make relevant comparisons? I am a bit tired of people just | assuming that DLSR lenses are higher quality than smartphone | lenses, even though the cost of modern smartphones, and the | enormous disparity in the number of units sold, makes it far | from obvious that this should be the case. | pb7 wrote: | I didn't downvote but I imagine at least someone did because | the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't | capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality. This | is why cameras have started trending to be larger rather than | smaller. Only so much you can do software-wise before you hit | physical limitations. | foldr wrote: | >the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors | can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar | quality. | | This is not really true to a very great extent once you | take depth of field into account. At least, it would be | helpful if you could indicate what it is exactly that you | take the laws of physics to imply in this context. I made a | comment here that's relevant: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540 | | I took 'superior optics' to be a claim of greater | sophistication or higher quality, but perhaps that is not | what was meant, and the poster was merely referring to the | difference in size. | adrr wrote: | Never got why camera manufactures never followed the phones. | Like Live photo,and automatic hdr. Can we get rid of the | shutter? | FireBeyond wrote: | > Can we get rid of the shutter? | | That's a challenge, I think. Take an R5 (only because I'm | most familiar with it). | | 47 megapixels, 12 bpp 211.5MB, maximum shutter speed of | 1/8000. In other words, you need to be able to pull data off | the sensor (and to be clear, there's parallelization | available, I just don't know what) at a global rate of | 1.6TB/s. | adrr wrote: | They have global shutter sensors around the 12 megapixel | level. They could split the sensor up into different | processing paths. Do these 200 megapixel phone camera | sensors have really bad rolling sensor issues? They are | using electronic rolling shutters like your R5 when in | silent mode or whatever canon calls it now. | [deleted] | FireBeyond wrote: | What 200 mp phone camera sensors? The iPhone 14 is closer | to a 12MP digital camera (quad bayer 48 million sensors). | And from what I recall, 8 or maybe 10 bit. So in | comparison to the 211MB of sensor data coming off the R5, | there's 36 to 45MB of data coming off the phone camera. | And I believe the 14's max shutter speed is 1/1000, so | there's up to 35 times less data needing to be read off | the sensor (45GB/s versus 1.6TB/s) | | And I'm sure there is multiple processing paths - I just | don't know the fine details about how that raw data is | slurped off the sensor. | adrr wrote: | https://semiconductor.samsung.com/image-sensor/mobile- | image-... | emkoemko wrote: | i am glad they don't but in any case what is live photo? | automatic HDR? well shoot a bracket +- certain EV ? get rid | of the shutter? would need a global shutter unless you like | rolling shutter look, phone sensors are tiny they can have | fast enough readout vs a 35mm or larger | kybernetyk wrote: | The Nikon does minimal post processing. The iPhone throws a | metric shit ton of algorithms at the image data to make it | passable. For normal people the iPhone output is good enough - | though it often looks very over-processed. | | Nikon just expects you to handle that post processing part that | your iPhone is doing for you. In exchange you get way more | control over the final image. | | Both devices are aimed at different people. I myself have an | iPhone 13 pro and a Nikon Z6ii. I tend to take snapshots with | my iPhone because getting out the Nikon + playing around with | sliders in Capture One is just too much hassle for a snapshot. | Now would I take the iPhone and do a landscape photo where I | hiked 6 hours to the photo location at 3 a.m. in the morning? | Probably not. ;) | MurrayHill1980 wrote: | Because deep down, it's not what they do. They are optics and | camera hardware companies. In the race between physics and | software, they are on the physics side. This is evident in the | entire user experience. They keep missing the boat with the way | people actually use photography today, and don't even seem to | care much. There's not much evidence they have the kind of | research expertise that Apple, Google or Adobe built in signal | processing and image processing, either. | | See also https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news- | archives/nikon-201... and | https://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/news-archives/nikon-201... | majormajor wrote: | Mine don't (iPhone 13 Pro Max, Fuji XT-2 and various lenses). | They do in daylight, sure, but things like sunrise/sunset or | unusual colors throw them off like crazy. | | Textures can also throw them off - "amplification" of the | texture effect, almost. | | They also suffer a bit zoomed in. | | The post-processing fixes a lot of problems of older phone | cameras but it has its limits. | | On good camera hardware there's very little that all that post- | processing would add outside of extreme-high-ISO-noise, IMO. | Which - would it be nice? Sure. But you can find software and | stack exposures manually and such for those situations too. | | And a lot of the other smart stuff gets fooled too easily. | sys32768 wrote: | This is true. I should have added "in good light". | | The DSLR images also retain much more detail in cropping. | ghaff wrote: | And even moderate optical telephoto lenses are pretty | powerful tools as well--especially in poorer light. | dylan604 wrote: | I hate when you get one of those amazing sunsets where the | whole sky changes color, but the phone auto-correct | removes/corrects the color tone. | qbasic_forever wrote: | You can shoot in raw on iphones now to prevent this or fix | it later. | dylan604 wrote: | Thanks, but now doesn't do me any good then | andrewia wrote: | I think it's processing power and engineering effort. I got a | Sony RX100M2 for my mom and it has the same computational | photography techniques that Google released the following year | (https://ai.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high- | dyn...). But Sony's image stacking is only in "Superior Auto" | mode, and is only used when necessary. Google's implementation | does a lot of advanced work, including selecting and blending | parts of the photo depending on motion, that Sony doesn't do. I | assume Sony's imaging engineers have less expertise in advanced | processing, and didn't have the resources to implement the | features that Google did. Sony also has to devote engineering | resources to other features - a lot of their sales are to | photographers that will edit in post (RAW), and later, | videographers. So features that are only in "auto" mode may | have limited budget. | paxys wrote: | Because Nikon's target audience (photographers) don't want that | "fancy post-processing" done by their camera. | packetlost wrote: | Try zooming in, even a little bit. You'll notice squiggly | oversharpening artifacts pretty quickly. Yes they probably look | _fine_ on a phone screen, but blow them up at all and they | start to show their weaknesses | TaylorAlexander wrote: | The oversharpening on the iphone is so frustrating! I like | the utility of the basic camera app, but the pictures look so | weird. I guess I should explore alternative apps. | sp332 wrote: | I think Nikkor assumes that you would use software to do the | post processing. It gives you something a lot closer to what's | coming from the sensor, so you can choose which $XXX image | editing suite you want to run it through. The iPhone knows the | vast majority of people won't do that with their photos, so | they can go all-out, but you're stuck with their specific | result baked in to your photo. | theturtletalks wrote: | Apple has always been about making the choice for it's users. | Jobs always thought giving users too many options was | problematic. | pwinnski wrote: | Not just Jobs! There is no end[0] to research[1] showing | that many options is terrible[2], and "too many options" is | terrible by definition. | | 0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/07/3 | 1/br... | | 1. https://mediaroom.iese.edu/new-research-shows-why-the- | human-... | | 2. https://bigthink.com/thinking/choice-analysis-paralysis/ | tshaddox wrote: | That's a bit silly in this context. It's not like the | person's intentions aren't fairly clear when they decided | between buying an iPhone or buying a $3000 DSLR setup. Is | it really so evil that Apple "decided" the person who | bought the iPhone probably wanted the pictures to be | heavily post processed instead of raw data from the sensor? | NavinF wrote: | I don't see how that's relevant. You can tap the RAW button | in the iOS camera app to switch between the two choices, | both of which looks great. Most DSLRs only have one option | because the second one (in-camera JPEG) looks like crap. | They can barely do auto focus/wb/iso/shutter/aperture let | alone postprocessing. | lemonberry wrote: | While in training at my first restaurant job I asked a | party where they would like to sit in the dining room. The | owner pulled me aside and said to never give people a | choice. They'll get confused and think that there's a | "best" table and that their dinner could suffer if they | feel like they didn't get it. | | I don't know if it's "real" or not but between work and my | personal life I've got decision fatigue. Help make | decisions. Especially about non-important ones that feel | important at the time. | m463 wrote: | Fascinating. | | It seems like some table choices are better for the | customer, some are better for the server. As a customer I | like to be away from the other tables and the server | wants everyone together in a noisy clump. | throwaway287391 wrote: | I absolutely loathe those setups in some tiny restaurants | where they line up 2 person tables in a row with 6-12" | between tables so you can hear the stranger next to you | talking more clearly than your partner across the table. | Nothing else triggers my unbearable social anxiety like | it. I've gotten seated at _those_ when there 's, like, an | entire half of the restaurant empty. | isolli wrote: | Yes, I remember that campgrounds in the American Rockies | let you choose your spot, while in the Canadian Rockies | they assign you one. And I realized we were simply | happier in Canada! | enw wrote: | It's definitely real! At least as far as my N=1 dataset | is concerned. I dislike having to pick a seat when | they're all kind of the same. Just tell me where to go, I | have to make enough decisions at other times in life. | c5karl wrote: | Circuit City stores, back when they had entire walls of | VCRs and tape decks and receivers, all of which were "on | sale" (ahem), instructed their salespeople to always give | customers definitive advice in their price range. "Oh, | this Sony is the absolute best tape deck." Once people | had reassurance that they were making the right choice, | even from a total stranger, they'd open their wallets. | But not before. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | By the way I know this is not your point, but there are | excellent editing options for zero dollars! Which, I suppose | X=0 is valid for your comment. | | https://www.rawtherapee.com/ | jillesvangurp wrote: | Well, put bluntly, the reason is that you probably are not | using the Nikon properly. So, your photos are not coming out | that great or as you hoped. Don't take this personally, I also | have my limitations using cameras properly. But I understand | I'm an amateur when it comes to this and that I'm part of the | problem. I try to learn to do better. I try, and sometimes it | works out nicely and I get a really nice shot. Landscape | photography is tough to get right. You really need to | understand your camera and lenses to make that work. | | The point of such a camera is not the in camera processing, | which most pro users would not use on principle. Instead it's | gaining a lot of control over setting up the shot properly with | a lot of control over all the parameters that matter to achieve | a look that matches what you want, intentionally. And then you | finish the job in post processing. There's reason these things | have so many buttons and dials: you need to use them to get the | most out of the camera. And the point of owning such a camera | is having that level of control. The flip side is that that | makes you responsible for the intelligence. That kind of is the | whole point. If that's not what you wanted, you bought the | wrong camera. | | The iphone has a very limited set of controls. You actually | have very little control over it. Nice if that's what you want | and the AI is awesome. But it's also a bit limiting if you want | more. Of course it's very nice when that's the camera you have | and you want to take a shot quickly by just pointing and | clicking. Nothing wrong with that. I have a Pixel 6 and a Fuji | X-T30. I use them both but not the same way. | berkut wrote: | Do the jpegs (or hief?) look as good on a 27-inch monitor, or | just on the phone screen? | | Capturing non-raw in my experience (iPhone 6S, now have 13 | mini) the jpegs are _heavily_ de-noised, and really don 't look | that good 1:1 on a large monitor: on the iphone screen they | look very good, as they're downsampled. | | The article mentions the 'watercolor' effect since the iPhone | 8, but I definitely had the issue with all the jpegs taken on | my iPhone 6S since 2015... | | DNGs however DO look very good, so clearly the sensor is | capable of pretty nice images. | jeffbee wrote: | I guess the physics of the problem are really against these tiny | cameras, but even so the bokeh on the caterpillar macro shot is | surprisingly painful. Is there anything they can do about that, | optically or computationally? | MBCook wrote: | A real macro lens on a DSLR is like that. You could stop the | lens down for more to be in focus, but then because you're | getting close to a pinhole camera you need a TON of light. | | Maybe the iPhone would do better in studio conditions, I don't | know. | | But it's a very tough problem. | jeffbee wrote: | No? If I took that photo with my 100mm f/2.8 EF macro, | everything behind the caterpillar would just be vaguely | green. There's be no structure to it at all. I mean it would | be _way_ out of focus. The DoF even at f /11 would be ~1cm. | | The problem with the photo in the article is the structure of | the background is quite apparent and all the details in the | background have been multiplied into hexagons which is very | distracting. | | Directly comparable macro photograph of a moth. https://www.s | lrphotographyguide.com/images/butterflymacro.jp... | MBCook wrote: | Oh, I thought you wanted _more_ depth of field. | | My mistake. | oldstrangers wrote: | Would be curious to see what they think of the Pixel 7 Pro | camera. Video is still worse, but picture quality overall seems | to be slightly (but noticeably) better than the iPhone 14 Pro. | dont__panic wrote: | I believe the Pixel Pro phones also recently migrated from 12MP | to 48MP, between the 6 Pro and the 7 Pro. I wonder if this | blogger is already looking into the Pixel? They mentioned that | it takes a couple of months to come to a conclusion on a new | phone camera, and the Pixel 7 has only been out for a month- | ish. | beezle wrote: | You won't see one. All their past postings appear to be | iPhone/pad camera reviews and they make two apps for the same. | As a result, I am a little queasy about their objectivity too. | anamexis wrote: | I don't see an issue, given that they don't intend to do an | objective comparison to other (non-Apple) smartphones. | simlevesque wrote: | Why is "huge" not in the title ? | | edit: it's fixed now | atarian wrote: | character limit is my guess | dang wrote: | Because it's huge in clickbait. I've put it back in the title | above. | mastax wrote: | The HN game: | | - Was it editorialized by the submitter? | | - Was it changed by dang to de-clickbait it? (probably not in | this case) | | - Did one of HN's title filters remove some words? | xeromal wrote: | That is strange. lol | m348e912 wrote: | Probably unintentional, but enough to get flagged for | "editorializing" the title. | city17 wrote: | The funny thing is that for all the amazing technological | improvements discussed, all the pictures in the article actually | show that A. having a photographer who knows how to frame things, | and sees the right moment to capture an image, and B. having a | subject worthwhile photographing, are way more important than | having a top tier quality camera. | alberth wrote: | > "I think the 12 MP shooting default is a wise choice on Apple's | part, but it does mean that the giant leap in image quality on | iPhone 14 Pro remains mostly hidden unless you choose to use a | third party app to shoot 48 MP JPG / HEIC images or shoot in | ProRAW and edit your photos later." | | This, 100%. | | The massive difference in image quality is when shooting in RAW. | That's when you actually get the 48MP. The picture are fantastic. | | But that's not the default. The default is 12MP. | | That's why reviewers are so torn on this camera system. If the | default was a 48MP picture, everyone would be praising the camera | system. But when the default is 12MP, it's par for the course. | m348e912 wrote: | The iPhone 14 has a fantastic camera. It's a noticeable | improvement from previous models and takes fantastic photos that | rival or surpass many SLR cameras on the market. If Apple had | taken another leap and included usb-c port it would have been | enough for me to upgrade. For now, I wait. | thefounder wrote: | The EU will force them switch to USB on the next iPhone so | better start saving :) | sbierwagen wrote: | Every iPhone release since the 11 I've been waiting for them to | add support for Wifi 6E. So far not yet... | Mikeb85 wrote: | Phones don't rival or surpass DSLRs or any proper digital | camera. | | They just have lots of fancy processing that makes quick snaps | look better than the same amount of effort on a camera. | mc32 wrote: | Yeah, it's hard to compare 35mm full frame sensors with | miniscule camera sensors. As you said the magic is their | processing which compensates for that. | scrumbledober wrote: | it is hard, but it's getting a little easier with the | larger cameras | mkaic wrote: | Until that same fancy processing is available on a DSLR, I | think the comparison OP is making is valid. At the end of the | day, what I as a consumer care about is "is photo look 1. | pleasing, 2. accurate to my perception, and 3. easy to | create?" and in those regards, the iPhone absolutely | outperforms every DSLR I've ever used. | bosie wrote: | Couldn't you take those photos and apply it back on the | computer? Yet when i try to do HDR with 5 shots in | Lightroom, it takes 10s of seconds or even minutes. It | seems computer haven't caught up either? | squeaky-clean wrote: | Take a photo with your iPhone and very quickly tap the | thumbnail of the new image that appears in the bottom | left. You can watch it progressively process the image. | Mikeb85 wrote: | I didn't say a phone camera isn't better for the average | consumer... I use my phone camera far more often than my | actual camera... | | But there's no world in which it's technically superior to | a real camera, especially one with in-camera processing or | in the hands of a professional with access to and skill | with professional post-processing software. | stu2b50 wrote: | The OP didn't say it was technically superior as a camera | - they said it produced better photos. Which you can | argue it does, with all the fancy post processing. The | statement was only about the final result, which for the | eyes for whom most peoples photos are presented to are | excellent. | refulgentis wrote: | Idk man. | | If I zoom out from parsing word by word... | | ...feels like I'm saying a Keurig "rivals and surpasses | espresso machines" because it can produce a better | espresso than an arbitrary espresso machine in arbitrary | hands. | | Yeah, true. Not very meaningful though. | | There's probably a McDonald's hamburger analogy here | that's better, but, here we are. | | My challenge to an ambituous reader looking to comment: | make that one work too. | foldr wrote: | >real camera | | A minor and pedantic point, but could we stop with the | idea that smartphone cameras are somehow not 'real'? They | are enormously sophisticated imaging devices that | comprehensively outperform, for example, the 35mm film | SLRs that many photographers were using in the 90s. An | iPhone 14 enables you to take technically superior photos | to the photos that professional photographers were taking | only a couple of decades ago. | cthalupa wrote: | >They are enormously sophisticated imaging devices that | comprehensively outperform, for example, the 35mm film | SLRs that many photographers were using in the 90s. | | I'm not so sure about that. I'm impressed by what | smartphone cameras do these days, but the Nikon F100 | snuck into the 90s and beats the pants off my iPhone 14 | Pro's camera, while still being very much in the | hobbyist/prosumer price range. | foldr wrote: | Have you done any side by side comparison shots? Even | with a high quality scan, you're unlikely to get the same | resolution and dynamic range from a 35mm negative. And | that's leaving aside the obviously vast differences in | convenience and flexibility. (I'm old enough to have used | 35mm SLRs, and I have absolutely no nostalgia for that | era.) | appletrotter wrote: | Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals. | It's more work, for a reward. | | Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small | on phones to gather enough light to look decent. | turbo_fart wrote: | With google night sight you can basically take pictures | in the dark. | speedgoose wrote: | The sensors are small but the software is good. Night | photography is easy on a recent smartphone and you don't | even need a tripod. | sudosysgen wrote: | I've tried it with an iPhone 13 and an older camera with | significantly worse low light performance than any camera | from the past 7 years, and even if I disable the built-in | image stacking, the mirrorless camera with an f/1.4 lens | is incomparably better. I could properly expose my | backyard with nothing but light pollution handheld. | | Newer cameras can even film video with nothing but | moonlight. | MBCook wrote: | I always wonder what a one-off joint Apple DSLR/mirrorless | could be. If they provided the smarts for a Sony or Canon or | Nikon, just how good could the pictures be? | | Too bad we'll never know. | adrr wrote: | Raw photo off DSLR is very bland looking till you process it. | No one is using raw information off a sensor as a final | product and you need "fancy" processing to make it decent | looking. | slowhand09 wrote: | Its not a phone. Its a camera with comms and apps | capabilities. | criddell wrote: | Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on | computational photography? Seeing what Apple and Google get | out of tiny sensors in a phone makes me wonder what would be | possible on a big camera with a better sensor. | biftek wrote: | There is computational photography happening on cameras but | I think it's mostly opt in features. | | Olympus and Panasonic can take 80-100MP shots by shifting | the sensor a small amount and stitching multiple shots | together. This can even be done handheld on the newer | models. I imagine phones will get this eventually (maybe | some do already). | | Then there's all the subject detection auto focus available | on basically every camera nowadays. | Mikeb85 wrote: | > Are there any large sensor cameras that are working on | computational photography? | | Not sure about the current state of the art but I do know | Fuji has had some pretty fancy in-camera processing for | years now. | | When I was more into photography however it seemed the | 'culture' was more into post-processing with computer | software for reasons. | formerly_proven wrote: | The computational photography for those is done on a | computer. | astrange wrote: | Where it has more power, but lacks info like how the OIS | was moving as the pictures were taken, so isn't | necessarily as good. | | And none of those products have nearly the sales of a | smartphone to sustain R&D. Similar to how the headphone | dongle of an iPhone is much cheaper and yet better | quality than most audiophile equipment. | cthalupa wrote: | I would consider myself barely passable in skills | compared to the average hobbyist photographer and have | never seen in-phone computational work that I would take | over what can be done manually in Lightroom, or if you | want to go the automatic route, with Skylum's offerings. | criddell wrote: | A phone can do on-camera stuff or capture RAW and let you | mess with it on your computer. Are there any big sensor | cameras that give you those same options? I'm not aware | of any and it baffles me that the camera companies feel | so little need to innovate. I kind of wish Apple would do | a dedicated big-sensor camera. | | Also, are you saying you could reproduce any of the on- | phone stuff easily on your computer? I'm thinking about | the astrophotography modes, portrait modes, live photos, | and low light features. | [deleted] | emkoemko wrote: | innovate what? what pro needs in camera processing? when | you can process on a computer that is way more powerful | and better UX for processing a large number of images? | criddell wrote: | The consumer market is a pretty big part of most DSLR | sales. There really aren't all that many professional | photographers, relatively speaking. | lastofthemojito wrote: | To be clear, it's the iPhone 14 Pro models that have the 48MP | camera (with telephoto) described in the article. The non-Pro | iPhone 14 camera is said to be improved somewhat over the | iPhone 13 (slightly faster lens, software magic, etc), but it | is not the high-end system in the iPhone 14 Pro. | willis936 wrote: | The 48 MP bayer mode is indeed impressive, but it does not | increase the spatial frequency response. I recently used it to | document some color transition errors on LG OLED displays and | even with the 48 MP "RAW" mode there are artifacts from the | limited spatial resolution. One of the images properly captures | the display sub-pixel layout, but that is taken closer to the | display. Enabling/disabling "RAW" did not change the spatial | resolution of the photos. | | https://imgur.com/gallery/amP2lR4 | coder543 wrote: | If you take a photo of a subject that is closer than 7.8 | inches, you're no longer using the main camera on the 14 Pro. | It automatically switches to the ultrawide camera and crops in | to show the same field of view. I suspect that is happening to | you in some cases, but you're unaware, based on the fact that | you didn't mention anything about this limit. | | The 48MP camera has the same _color_ spatial resolution as a | 12MP camera, but it has 48MP of monochromatic spatial | resolution. Humans aren 't as sensitive to color resolution as | they are to spatial resolution in general. This is why the "2x" | mode on the 14 Pro look great compared to what you might expect | based on your comment. The 2x crop only has "3MP" of color | resolution, but the 12MP of spatial resolution from the 2x crop | makes it perfectly usable. | | For your specific use case, the ultrawide camera may work fine | as a "macro" lens, depending on the size of the pixels you're | trying to capture. A real macro lens on an interchangeable lens | camera would obviously do better. | jxramos wrote: | I've been playing block the sensor with that little IR lidar | thing or whatever it is beside the lenses same size as the | flash but is a dark spot. I was trying to photograph some VVT | solenoid channels with illumination creeping out the ports | and it got the camera into a cycle of switching lenses. I | covered the sensor and the toggling ceased so I could focus | the photo and get a good image. | coder543 wrote: | Much better to just go in and turn on Settings -> Camera -> | Macro Control | sudosysgen wrote: | Note that in the real world it's going to have much less than | 48MP of monochromatic spatial resolution due to aberrations. | | Even if the lens was operating at the limit of physics, you'd | get a 2 micron first ring of the airy disk at 500nm, which is | bigger than the size of the pixels. It can help a bit to have | pixels smaller than the smallest detail the lens can resolve, | but at the same time the lens isn't operating at the physical | limit, so there is probably only a small increase in spatial | resolution. | willis936 wrote: | Ah that would be my problem. I took zoomed photos to avoid | lens distortion. The ultrawide would have been a better | option. | | This wasn't meant to be a nice dataset, it was just something | I quickly tried to document my observation to a single other | human. I would have been more careful if I expected to share | it more widely. | squeaky-clean wrote: | I think if you disable automatic Macro Mode in the camera app | settings and make sure it's off when you take the photo | (flower icon that appears should be grey not yellow) it | avoids this. Though it seems like the other cameras can't | actually focus at this distance. | stetrain wrote: | I've been using the Halide app to take most of my daylight | shots in 48mp HEIC mode (which has the benefit of being 5-15kb | per photo). | | The main advantage to me is that the result is much less | affected by Apple's always-on edge-sharpening processing. The | effective "resolution" of the processing artifacts is higher. | | In previous iPhones if you take a photo of a bunch of leaves on | a tree it's almost like it tries to draw a little sharpened | outline around each one, which looks like a watercolor mess if | you zoom in at all and doesn't capture what your eye sees. | | With the 48mp compressed shots I find landscapes and trees look | much more natural and in general you can crop and zoom into | photos further before the detail is lost in the processing | mess. | NavinF wrote: | Why does that happen? Is it because there's a physical | antialiasing filter in the lens? | coder543 wrote: | Quad Bayer: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4088675 | 984/Quad_Ba... | | The 48MP sensor still has 48MP of monochromatic resolution, | but it only has 12MP of effective color resolution. You'll | still see fine details, but the colors are not as high | resolution as the details. This is rarely a problem, given | the way the human eye processes color. | willis936 wrote: | I'm not an optics expert, but I expect that the physical | system's spatial bandwidth is much higher than the sensor's | bandwidth. That is to say, if there were more light sensing | elements I think the spatial bandwidth would be higher. | | I don't think the artifacts are directly from aliasing but | rather an artifact of software interpolation. | | It anyone knows better please correct me. | sudosysgen wrote: | This is generally not the case here, if the lens was | physically perfect it could not resolve two points closer | than two pixels as per the Rayleigh criterion. | cthalupa wrote: | Unfortunately, it still takes crappy concert photos. The | combination of low light, crazy lighting, etc., still wreak havoc | on the images. | | Fortunately, most of the venues I go to for shows generally have | a "No detachable lens cameras" rule, which means my Fuji X100 is | allowed. Unfortunately, security at the venues often ignores the | policy and I don't want to be That Guy holding up the line | arguing with them about it. | | (I'm also not one of those people that is taking pictures [and I | never record video] the whole show, I just want a handful of high | quality shots to help me remember the show) | jibbers wrote: | What is the thinking behind the "no detachable lens cameras" | rule? I can't wrap my head around that choice. | adrr wrote: | No professional photographers. I was told at a hotel that i | couldn't use my mirrorless camera on their property by their | security and that was the reason. | MBCook wrote: | I would guess to prevent professionals from taking pictures | "for free" instead of getting contracts with the bands/venues | and paying fees for the privilege. | | Or maybe they just annoy other patrons. | cthalupa wrote: | I have managed to get a press pass for some shows and bring | my a7r3, nice lenses, etc. I've never been asked to pay any | sort of fee for the pass. | MBCook wrote: | That's good to know. That was my "everyone is greedy | these days" part of my guess. | | Was it hard to get the press pass? Maybe it's just to | stop people avoiding that process. | cthalupa wrote: | It varies. A couple of times I just sent an email and | they told me when/where to pick it up. Other times they | wanted to see my work - a few of these, a personal blog | with basically no traffic was enough to pass muster, a | few, they wanted to see me working at some sort of actual | publication (digital was fine, but it needed to be more | than "cthalupa's concert blog") | fortylove wrote: | I'd guess it's to avoid professional photography equipment | that can take up a lot of space (think zoom lenses) | cthalupa wrote: | There's a few primary reasons | | 1) Historically, some bands have been concerned about their | image and felt that professional-looking photos that painted | them in a bad light, whatever that meant in reality, would be | more damaging than amateur photos. I don't hear this as much | today, but 15 years ago it was frequently given. | | 2) Concerts with a lot of standing room near the stage | already get quite crowded. Someone showing up with a bulky | dslr (or even prosumer grade mirrorless) body and a 200mm | lens is going to take up quite a bit of room. Prior to the | advent of half the damn crowd keeping their phones in the air | recording the show for the entirety of it I would also say it | obscures vision and annoys people, but now it's really not | any worse than that | | 3) They don't want someone to try and hold them liable if | something goes wrong and some expensive camera body or glass | gets broken. | | On the times I've been able to bring my full camera gear in | without a press pass, I stick to as small of a lens as I can | and avoid being near the front of the crowd. Thankfully, even | quite a ways back from the front of the crowd, a 50mm prime | lens will still take some fantastic photos on a real camera | vs. what you get with a smartphone. I understand why the | rules are in place, though, and I don't really have a problem | with them in general. | jakobdabo wrote: | A good reason to own a Ricoh GR IIIx (or Ricoh GR III, which | has a 28mm equiv. lense instead of 40mm on the "x" version). It | looks very simple and non-professional, but the picture quality | is comparable with the latest Fuji X100 series cameras. | cthalupa wrote: | Thanks! I'll have to check it out. I've got an RX100 VII that | I picked up for this purpose a few years ago, but haven't | been particularly impressed with the concert results. | gigatexal wrote: | Since my wife bought a Canon 90D for shots that matter I have | since "meh"d about camera phones. | | I wish I could just have a simple dumb phone with a calendar, | GPS, and texting, and it doesn't cost 1400 bucks. | naet wrote: | You can have that. Just don't buy a new model "pro" iPhone... | kwanbix wrote: | Any cheap Android phone offers all that for 200 or even less. | 2c2c2c wrote: | i did a point and shoot picture of a cat while a group of friends | and I were sitting on the floor of a halloween party bathroom | | later, when sharing the photos, i realized we could distinctly | see my partner and I in the reflection of the cat's eye. the CSI | enhance memes are real :-) | chasd00 wrote: | > sitting on the floor of a halloween party bathroom | | i feel there is more to this story | pigtailgirl wrote: | -- anyone else find it annoying how protruded the lens is? -- | EA wrote: | Yes, it is a minor annoyance and actually seems to be counter | to Apple's historical product design | MBCook wrote: | You're not wrong at all. My 12 Pro was much better, but still a | bit annoying. | | But optics can't beat physics. Better cameras need more space | for lenses and sensors. They could make the whole phone | thicker, but haven't done that yet. | | The trajectory seems unsustainable. We'll see what happens I | guess. | stetrain wrote: | As long as it's smaller than a smartphone plus an RX100 taped | together I consider it a net win. | chasd00 wrote: | yeah not a fan, my iphone12 mini is bad enough. I get that | taking a photo and posting it to instagram is 95% of the use | case for the iphone but i still don't like the way the camera | lenses protrude. | SebastianKra wrote: | Since the iPhone 11, the primary stated purpose of the Pro | variants has been photography. | | For users less interested in photography, the regular iPhones | have a more subtle camera array. | bydo wrote: | Only marginally. The iPhone 14 non-Pro has the (also | enormous) camera system from the 13 Pro, only with the | telephoto lens removed. | brookst wrote: | Well this detailed camera review conclusively proves that I am a | mediocre photographer who doesn't go anywhere interesting. Thanks | a lot, lux.camera. Thanks a lot. | [deleted] | pj_mukh wrote: | "To review this camera we went to these most interesting, most | beautiful places." | | Okay...but how does it perform taking pictures of my toy dog in | suburb-town USA? | stingrae wrote: | Coming from a iPhone 12 to the 14, the aggressive switching | between lenses is pretty annoying in close and far shots. The | lens shift screws up framing and hits at unpredictable times. | kooshball wrote: | can't you turn that off? | zimpenfish wrote: | Not in the stock Camera app, no, but other apps let you | specifically control which lens is being used. | CharlesW wrote: | You can turn off automatic macro switching: | https://support.apple.com/en- | us/HT210571#:~:text=You%20can%2.... | i_have_an_idea wrote: | Same. As a casual Camera user / not an enthusiast, I find the | camera experience on the 14 pro unpleasant and a downgrade from | the 12 pro. | zimpenfish wrote: | Using something like Halide[1] gives you more control - once | you pick a lens, it stays picked. | | [1] Other camera apps are available, etc. | sangeeth96 wrote: | Agreed. I thought mine was broken when I received it but alas, | this is how it is. Was hoping a software update would fix the | framing issues. | efields wrote: | I have a Genius Bar appointment I've rescheduled twice to | discuss this, but it sounds like i really have no reason to | believe there's anything "wrong" with my phone. I do hope | software fixes can help, but maybe there's just some | expectations in my head I need to recalibrate. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-01 23:01 UTC)