Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hoodlum

iPhone XR, XS

Recommended Posts

The original Sony A7 is like $700//800 new. Not sure why you'd buy a phone camera over a full frame mirrorless. For video tho, sure, the iPhone destroys the original A7. But for photos? The A7 is your best bet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
On 9/23/2018 at 4:45 PM, ryne275 said:

The original Sony A7 is like $700//800 new. Not sure why you'd buy a phone camera over a full frame mirrorless. For video tho, sure, the iPhone destroys the original A7. But for photos? The A7 is your best bet

Because you can have a better updated mirrorless camera body with you and save the phone device when the best acquisition tool is the one you can use it... As simple as that ; ) To be on budget doesn't mean to be restricted to a single budget, unless you are a high-school student living with and from resources of your own : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear god, now a faster HDR is "a whole new camera"? Most flagship phones are doing it already (for a few generations), so a faster processors that can process a few additional frames does not equal "a whole new camera". HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it. Did Apple decide that the hardware cannot be improved? Are their engineers being beaten by Ive every time they suggest a little bit thicker camera module?

Maybe they should start an honest campaign - this is a small as hell sensor, so don't expect it to blow away your dedicated ILC. But we can blur the background for you, so there's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Dear god, now a faster HDR is "a whole new camera"? Most flagship phones are doing it already (for a few generations), so a faster processors that can process a few additional frames does not equal "a whole new camera". HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it. Did Apple decide that the hardware cannot be improved? Are their engineers being beaten by Ive every time they suggest a little bit thicker camera module?

Maybe they should start an honest campaign - this is a small as hell sensor, so don't expect it to blow away your dedicated ILC. But we can blur the background for you, so there's that.

In a sense, it is a whole new camera.  A camera is really a sensor + lens + controller + post processing, and if the sensor is new, if the FOV is wider (it might be the same lens though), if the controller makes different decisions, and if the post processing is also significantly altered then that would represent a relatively significant change.  Marketing does tend to over-do everything, but it's not like they tweaked the settings a bit and called it a day.  

The article is interesting in the sense that Apple has basically departed from the traditional approach to photography.  The traditional approach to photography is that you expose once, and apart from your "colour science" the rest is about using the purist and highest performing elements - the best sensors lenses filters and everything else.  Computational photography says "screw that" and basically reverse-engineers the whole process of arriving at a nice image and ends up having taken a completely different route.

If you do traditional analysis on a device that uses computational photography then it won't apply, it's just different.

Computational photography is just getting started, so it's a bit early to judge.  In terms of your question - "HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it" the answer is that Apple took a ~$30 camera module, put it in a phone, made it the most popular camera on earth, and made zillions of dollars on it.

Go ahead and tell me they're wrong, but show me your world famous camera and fat bank account while you're at it, or I might not believe that you know better than they do....  😆😆😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for the first time considering getting a phone that expensive. I mean, I was considering an RX100VI for trips and family non pro stuff mixed with some youtube and gimbal things but the computational thing makes it interesting for family and holiday stuff, the streaming capabilities makes it a faster youtube machine. HDR, ISO 400 max and Filmic pro extreme codec makes it a mostly viable daylight tool, the Zhiyun is less than 200€ for gimbal stuff and you can connect an external microphone.

I'm going to wait for Google pixel 3 and see what they offer but these mobiles are getting so good that some people will start to consider them instead of 1 inch cameras, which I thought I would never see it happen.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah these newer Smartphones are nothing to sneeze at anymore. You are hard pressed to take photos any better quickly with a APSC camera with an equivalent lens. They are almost fool proof anymore. For 98% of the people in the world a real camera is a total waste of time. They will get better results out of the Phone. They have really moved the ball down the field as they say with Smartphones.

We would have 3000 dollar Arri Alexa's by now if all that tech was applied to Cine Cameras. Smartphones are scary good anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×