Took some Live photos on my X of my kids using sparklers on bonfire night here in the UK at the weekend, and there was very obvious lens flare in every one - though I appreciate that my subject was probably the perfect situation for causing flare.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photographer Austin Mann Lauds iPhone X's Telephoto Lens and Size in Camera Review
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Took some Live photos on my X of my kids using sparklers on bonfire night here in the UK at the weekend, and there was very obvious lens flare in every one - though I appreciate that my subject was probably the perfect situation for causing flare.
Exactly. The DSLR has a much more secure grip. It's important when you're doing handheld HDR or low-light photography - it's easier to stay very stable with a DSLR, even when pressing the shutter release (moreover, on pro models, you can add a fraction of second delay to minimize even that) than with a smartphone.
Also, a DSLR has way better ergonomics. Especially a Pro DSLR, they are the easiest to operate. They mostly stick to one button = one action. This means you can just focus on decisive instant and composition with your eye and rely on muscle memory from your fingers for the rest. I'm used to my D800, but I have troubles with consumer DSLR, because they don't have enough buttons. And smartphones, with no buttons, are of course the worst, you spend way too much time navigating menus or looking at the GUI instead of the scene.
Decent photos for a small phone, but still can’t compare to even 10 year old entry-level DSLR + standard lens sets. It’s sufficient for most everyday situations where you just want a quick decent photo memory, but the clarity, color detail, distant details, pixel noise and especially low-light-capabilities still are nowhere near my first DSLR, a Canon EOS 400D. You can still more or less forget to take pictures in darkness with current Apple cameras.
Good luck making a wall size, or even a decent size print with that photo like I can with my Nikon DSLR.
DSLR extremists can't help themselves as usual, virtue signaling about how "professional" they are. The X camera is amazing, obviously it won't replace a DSLR for certain types of photography, but it'll satisfy the needs of 99.99% of consumers. I have a nice Pany GX-1 with 3 lenses that I'm considering selling precisely because it's impractical to carry around, let alone turn on and use at a moments notice to take a photo I may want. Professionals include a far broader range of people than simply photographers, and most professionals will have all of their photo needs met with the X.
It's not being extremist on be it a DSLR or a point and shoot as well as a mirrorless and so on, first and foremost the best camera is the one you have with you at the moment you see something you valuate worth shooting at, this said be it the 1.3xx euros/dollars iPhone X or whatever it is doesn't matter but if I go out to take pictures I would sure take both because the intention is to take photographs and as such I carry a dedicated tool and the mobile always finds place in the bag or a pocket so it's not a matter of which does it better but rather, in my opinion, at which one you have with you by the time you need it...
The day somebody, be it DXO (which seems to give the highest rates ever to whatever any other new camera/lens reaches the market in the past few weeks, see Nikon D850 then Sony and so on...) or whoever else, can proof that a few millimeters lens/sensor can give same results as a 77mm diameter lens coupled to a 36x24mm sensor I will gladly sell it all and get the iPhoneXX or whatever that magic tool will be (and I am not a pro photographer nor a pro in any other field but as an amateur I like to use the right tool for the specific occurrancy).
True, but most of the pictures taken on a smartphones are shared on social media, and viewed on a similar device.
The DSLR quality is no match for a smartphone if you print the pictures on paper, especially in big formats, but if you look at them on a small display it is harder to spot the differences, and a smartphone can deliver a pretty good results. It will never reach a DSLR, but can get close. If you look at portrait mode pictures on a smartphone they look stunning, then when you take a closer look on bigger display such as a laptop or a desktop you start to recognise the bokeh effect is artificial.
Well, aren’t you a clever one. So, if you fill a bucket with water using a pencil size stream vs. a fire hose at equal water pressures, do you consider that the fire hose lets water get in the bucket, “more quickly”? So in his original statement, he was referring to the volume of photons, not the velocity at which they travel. SMH. Some people really look hard to find ways to be a critic.
I have a 40D sitting on a shelf somewhere, a year newer than your 400D, and with the newer DIGIC III processor in it but the same 10 megapixels. The only place it it excels over modern phones (all makes) is low light noise. Clarity and color on phones have caught up, and with the built in wide aperture many of them produce some really great shots with decent DOF right out of the pocket, without the portrait mode tricks. Regarding color, the 400D and 40D don’t shoot DCI P3 color space either, so I am not sure where you are getting higher color detail on old cameras that don’t have the same overall color space.
While low light isn’t amazing on modern smartphones, it isn’t far off the pace of 10yo SLR cameras.
What a rather bizarre attitude.
Also, you obviously haven't heard - The DxO scores have been declared corrupt and thus invalid by many of the people on this site. You can check it out in the "Google Pixel 2 Camera Takes Top Spot From iPhone 8 Plus in DxO Labs Tests" article.
Forget it.
If you think that you need an expensive camera for a good photo you‘ll never be a good photographer.
Sorry to say that.
Andy
no, i would say the bucket fills up more quickly. just another point that he doesnt know what hes talking about.
Was just going to post the same thing– none of these pictures look that great, they still smack of "cellphone camera" to my eyes.
[doublepost=1510067420][/doublepost]
haha, tell that to my iPhone 6S which is worse than the iP6 that preceded it.
Love LOVE the fake bokeh on the hand and how it makes part of his thumb disappear. And what's it doing to the right side of the forearm? Seriously, you couldn't pry my Nikon D850 from my cold, dead hands. Smartphones are cameras for the narcissistic "must have it right now" and "look at me" social media generation. Those of us who appreciate good, quality photography have real tools to use.
I'm an Apple only guy. Will never use an Android/Sammy as a primary device. However the Pixel2 camera is much better. Let's get real here.
I think he's more talking about the fact that one handed operation is a pain in the butt. DSLRs and MILCs have grips which make it easier to deal with, the phone really doesn't so a smaller frame is nice to have.
One aspect of a lens is speed (or how fast it is). Speed is a measure of aperture; the wider the maximum aperture, the faster the lens. Why? Because it allows us to reduce the exposure time. This means a fast lens literally does “let light in more quickly” than a slower lens.
Of course, this assumes “more quickly” refers to exposure time, not the speed of light. It could mean either. Considering we’re talking about photography not physics, it’s safe to assume he’s talking about exposure time.
If you aren’t able to understand, it’s you who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I have a link to some pics in my signature and, some of them have been printed, after cropping, to 20x20 inches, I am curious to see your pictures and I'd be glad to see them just on the web and not hung up some wall...
by the way, I didn't say it takes an 800$ lens to take a good pic but some specialized lenses are just expensive