Photography Is Evolving Quickly
Nov 28, 2020 18:59:54 #
baron_silverton wrote:
Yes - this for images on the web this is true - trying blowing up those iphone photos - they fall apart.
Howzabout this display of blowups of iPhone images? Think they are “falling apart”?
I suggest you shoot some good images as 12 bit-depth raw captures, convert the raw files to 12bit tiffs and have them printed. They’ll knock your socks off! Those images posted below ain’t fakes! They all were taken by folks who bought an iPhone and decided to practice photography with them.
Dave
Dave
Nov 28, 2020 19:06:31 #
After reading thru this thread, it sounds like a bunch of craggy old men sitting around arguing that "my tool is bigger and longer than your tool." When in reality and looking at some of the posts, most could have done equally well (or not so well) using their little tiny tool, their smartphone.
Over the last couple of years, the same arguments on this site have been about DSLR's vs mirrorless, with heated arguments how mirrorless cameras were just toys, not real cameras. Well the market is currently answering that questions and the mirrorless isn't the abandoned step-child any more. It's estimated that there are about 4.6M DSLR's and 4M mirrorless cameras shipped in 2019. Almost equal. But the market for all these cameras are shrinking. In 2012, there were about 20M ILC cameras shipped and that has consistently dropped to 8.6M in 2019 and 2020 looks 'significantly' worse than 2019. The market is shrinking because most people don't buy the value argument some hoggers are trying to make here.
Computational photography IS the future of photography and smartphones are way ahead in this field. And the technological advancements in smartphone camera's are much much greater than in the big cameras. To give a comparison of the user base, there were about 1.5 billion smartphones shipped in 2019 with an annual growth rate of about 10%. Technology is going to go to where the money is.
So is the iPhone capable of producing a good 11x16 print. You bet it is. Can you inspect a print made with a 12Mpx camera to a 24Mpx (or even a 50Mpx) camera and see a difference. Yes you can, but that's true even with the high end ILC cameras. But is it good enough for most? The market says yes. Will CPU photography get better, you bet it will.
It would be interesting to know just how many 11x16 or larger prints are actually made with ILC cameras vs smartphone cameras. I'll bet we would be surprised.
When all us craggy old men have faded into history, the old technology we hang on to will be relegated to history, just like the Edsel. Are there Edsel's out there? Yea, but not many.
For me, I play with both. And my iPhone is the camera I always have with me. So I want that to be as good as it can get. And my big cameras nor my iPhone are the limiting factors in my photography skills. It's still my eyes behind the camera.
That's my rant. Now I'm exhausted and time for a nap.
Over the last couple of years, the same arguments on this site have been about DSLR's vs mirrorless, with heated arguments how mirrorless cameras were just toys, not real cameras. Well the market is currently answering that questions and the mirrorless isn't the abandoned step-child any more. It's estimated that there are about 4.6M DSLR's and 4M mirrorless cameras shipped in 2019. Almost equal. But the market for all these cameras are shrinking. In 2012, there were about 20M ILC cameras shipped and that has consistently dropped to 8.6M in 2019 and 2020 looks 'significantly' worse than 2019. The market is shrinking because most people don't buy the value argument some hoggers are trying to make here.
Computational photography IS the future of photography and smartphones are way ahead in this field. And the technological advancements in smartphone camera's are much much greater than in the big cameras. To give a comparison of the user base, there were about 1.5 billion smartphones shipped in 2019 with an annual growth rate of about 10%. Technology is going to go to where the money is.
So is the iPhone capable of producing a good 11x16 print. You bet it is. Can you inspect a print made with a 12Mpx camera to a 24Mpx (or even a 50Mpx) camera and see a difference. Yes you can, but that's true even with the high end ILC cameras. But is it good enough for most? The market says yes. Will CPU photography get better, you bet it will.
It would be interesting to know just how many 11x16 or larger prints are actually made with ILC cameras vs smartphone cameras. I'll bet we would be surprised.
When all us craggy old men have faded into history, the old technology we hang on to will be relegated to history, just like the Edsel. Are there Edsel's out there? Yea, but not many.
For me, I play with both. And my iPhone is the camera I always have with me. So I want that to be as good as it can get. And my big cameras nor my iPhone are the limiting factors in my photography skills. It's still my eyes behind the camera.
That's my rant. Now I'm exhausted and time for a nap.
Nov 28, 2020 19:13:21 #
Uuglypher wrote:
Howzabout this display of blowups of iPhone images? Think they are “falling apart”?
I suggest you shoot some good images as 12 bit-depth raw captures, convert the raw files to 12bit tiffs and have them printed. They’ll knock your socks off! Those images posted above ain’t fakes!
Dave
Dave
I suggest you shoot some good images as 12 bit-depth raw captures, convert the raw files to 12bit tiffs and have them printed. They’ll knock your socks off! Those images posted above ain’t fakes!
Dave
Dave
Nov 28, 2020 19:22:51 #
Fstop12 wrote:
To reduce file size, Iphone can use HEIF/HEVC format. Not good! You can set your phone to capture in Most Compatible JPEG/H.264. To do this, go to your settings, then scroll down to you see Camera>Formats> then check the Most Compatible.
Just a minor point of clarification. The H.265 is what's used in the HEIF compression in iphones. Jpeg compression is based on the DCT and was developed in 1974. H.265 was developed by MPEG in 2012. H.265 is a much more efficient compression scheme that jpeg.
Nov 28, 2020 19:25:28 #
SalvageDiver wrote:
Thanks, Mike.
I thought your rant was spot-on!
Dave
Nov 28, 2020 20:05:22 #
Bill_de wrote:
I want a camera like the I-Phone 12, without the phone.
---
---
Nov 29, 2020 00:21:51 #
My camera doesnt send me a bill with all sorts of taxes and surcharges, green fees, 9-1-1 enhancement and every other damn thing ATT can think of. I will stick with my D850 and peace and quiet. No phone calls. :)
Nov 29, 2020 04:20:44 #
John Hicks
Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England
I still think that cameras take better photographs than phones, can you adjust is on a phone for low light, can you adjust the aperture for depth of field, can you take colour or b+w with a phone and change as you want to can you adjust the range of the lens on a phone.
For the price of an iPhone you can buy many different names of camera that will last for years where as phones last two or three use years if you are lucky.
To sum up you take pictures on a phone but on a camera you take photographs
For the price of an iPhone you can buy many different names of camera that will last for years where as phones last two or three use years if you are lucky.
To sum up you take pictures on a phone but on a camera you take photographs
Nov 29, 2020 06:10:10 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Mac wrote:
WOW!
I originally asked if it was a Glossy Ibis then I saw your later comment that it was. I have seen them on the ground but never in flight. They are beautiful and your photograph is fantastic.
Thanks for posting it.
I originally asked if it was a Glossy Ibis then I saw your later comment that it was. I have seen them on the ground but never in flight. They are beautiful and your photograph is fantastic.
Thanks for posting it.
Thank you. In mating season they get a beautiful lure color around the males eye and most of the feathers take on an even greater glow. From a distance this bird appears a dull dark black, but up close the opposite is true.
Nov 29, 2020 06:17:30 #
The comparison was not based on image quality, but rather the model pose, lighting and post processing. This is not a real comparison in my opinion. Any smart phone will compare well in this type of comparison.
Nov 29, 2020 06:18:23 #
joer wrote:
I recently participated in an F-Stoppers experiment comparing images form a D850 and an I-Phone in combination with a Profoto strobe.
Each image was processed then reviewed by a large number of people who were asked to pick the best between them. The I-Phone won 55% to 45%.
I was in the minority but still very impressed.
I can only image where the technology will be in a few years with phones, strobes/flashes and AI processing.
Wish I was 10 years younger.
Each image was processed then reviewed by a large number of people who were asked to pick the best between them. The I-Phone won 55% to 45%.
I was in the minority but still very impressed.
I can only image where the technology will be in a few years with phones, strobes/flashes and AI processing.
Wish I was 10 years younger.
It is amazing but try duplicating that experiment without the supplemental lighting on a cloudy day. We should lose the either/exclusive OR mentality and start thinking the right tool for the right place and time. I use my android camera for documentary purposes, quick selfies and family pics mainly and I think that's where they are best suited. I had to put an Otter case on my Galaxy S10e because it was impossible to grip securely, especially for taking pics or even general use (many also use the collapsible knobs). For most other serious enthusiast photography nothing beats the handling and versatility of an ILC larger sensor/body. But yes it does show amazing technical progress in the last 15 years and what we can do with a sensor smaller than your fingernail. It kind of makes the FF vs. ASPC debate less dramatic!
Nov 29, 2020 07:31:39 #
John Hicks wrote:
I am sure an IPhone will never take photographs as for as as a top line Canon or Nikon DSLR as you can change the range of your lenses and alter the iOS to suit the lighting conditions, or change aperture to suit depth of field
Cell phones have had an impact on the market share for DSLR manufactures. A couple of years ago, my son calls me and wants to know if I want to spend a couple of days skiing. If I did not have my cell phone I would have missed this shot. I looked over at him and this is what I saw. DSLR's and mirrorless are taking a back seat. Young people...young people with families are not into or are buying cameras.
Nov 29, 2020 07:44:59 #
baron_silverton wrote:
Yes - this for images on the web this is true - trying blowing up those iphone photos - they fall apart.
Nonsense. Image below taken with an iPhone 6 - 8 mp camera. It is big enough for you? As Uuglypher illustrated, the point is that at smaller sizes, where the viewer is closer - and can see correspondingly more detail - it will be easier for the viewer to see faults in the image. Shorter viewing distance, not larger print size, will reveal the flaws. So it is exactly the opposite of what you wrote.
Nov 29, 2020 07:52:30 #
joer wrote:
I recently participated in an F-Stoppers experiment comparing images form a D850 and an I-Phone in combination with a Profoto strobe.
Each image was processed then reviewed by a large number of people who were asked to pick the best between them. The I-Phone won 55% to 45%.
I was in the minority but still very impressed.
I can only image where the technology will be in a few years with phones, strobes/flashes and AI processing.
Wish I was 10 years younger.
Each image was processed then reviewed by a large number of people who were asked to pick the best between them. The I-Phone won 55% to 45%.
I was in the minority but still very impressed.
I can only image where the technology will be in a few years with phones, strobes/flashes and AI processing.
Wish I was 10 years younger.
Cellphone cameras a very good, but with obvious limitations, compared to their larger sensor counterparts. Larger sensor cameras produce better looking images when processed correctly - than cellphone cameras. How an image is displayed will often minimize the differences. The proof is when you pixel peep a print.
Nov 29, 2020 09:23:49 #
Gene51 wrote:
Cellphone cameras a very good, but with obvious limitations, compared to their larger sensor counterparts. Larger sensor cameras produce better looking images when processed correctly - than cellphone cameras. How an image is displayed will often minimize the differences. The proof is when you pixel peep a print.
It also depends on whether you are looking at the images on your smartphone or tablet rather than on a large, calibrated display.
Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that 14-bit raw has a clear and easily demonstrated advantage over 12-bit raw is ignorant or wearing blinders.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.