Night mode is real. Jow Forums says iPhone cameras do not improve despite evidence to the contrary

Seething indian lacks sufficient rupees

She doesn't care. She literally dumped her bf because he wanted kids.

Is that true? I bet she'll regret it in 10 years.

Attached: 1497566914156.png (128x99, 21K)

This only matters to women who don't have tens of millions of dollars on their own.

mactoddlers btfo

Nope

>cranking the saturation to 11 is a revolutionary "new" nightmode
Get me off this timeline

I am skeptical about where camera phones are heading. From what I understand, you need bigger glass or something to actually have a better picture. As a phone will never have that, they are starting to resort to all of these bullshit tricks to keep selling new phones each year.

The problem is, are these photos anything like the actual thing you are looking at? In the video, it shows the scene taken with a high-end video camera, and it is completely dark. The photo taken by the iPhone and pixel is some made up day time thing. I mean, is this basically just cgi? It is like faceapp for photos. You find a bunch of features and enhance them with existing photos of similar things.

Do you say that about mkbhd, unbox therapy, etc? Do you say "Linus has sold out and shills for windows all his life?". Seems like something a poor person would say to keep having to fight against the constant cognitive dissonance.

Photography is the easy part that can be fixed with software "tricks". Video with movement and or low light is is not. For this you'll need a clean BSI sensor and a lens with a large aperture. This is the difference between expensive phones and cheap ones.

Really about me when phone reviews don't bother to check out low light video. 4k60 fps video in low light is the real test, not sticking a phone on a tripod and pasting long exposures on top of each other

No it's long and short exposures merged. The I age quality falls apart if there's any movement in the image. And you can forget about video. If the image took many seconds to make then video will look awful because each picture is 1/30 of a second at best. It's gonna be really dark. Hence what phones really need (and the top ones have) is BSI sensors with large aperture lenses. Samsung ship the S10 with the brightest aperture on any phone with an f/1.5 lens. My OnePlus 7pro has a 1.6. They work really well, but in both phones the other cameras have darker lenses(2.0 for wide angle, 2.4 for zoom) and the low light performance is way worse

As a hobby photographer phone "cameras" are the most autistic area of phone development and I don't know why everyone cares so much about camera comparisons, it's just comparing polished turds to polished turds.
We perfected cameras decades ago - an SLR from 30 years ago will produce better pictures than any smartphone ever will until the end of time, because of physics.
Phones with multiple cameras are the dumbest and most wasteful thing ever, it's the equivalent of having 6 different engines in a car for each speed instead of a 6 speed gearbox.

People should just accept the physical limitations of phone cameras, a single shitty sensor on the back of a phone that's good enough to take quick "hey, look at this thing" tier photos is all that 99% of people need, stop with all this phone camera comparison autism, if you actually want good picture quality then stop denying science and just buy a proper camera.

And yeah, phone camera comparisons have become nothing to do with the actual camera at all, it's now a comparison of which phone can digitally enhance the output from some shitty noisy sensor the best.

>>Jow Forums says
>IT MUST BE TRUE!!1

Yes, software upgrades can improve the post processing of images.

>Phones with multiple cameras are the dumbest and most wasteful thing ever, it's the equivalent of having 6 different engines in a car for each speed instead of a 6 speed gearbox.
Na, it actually makes sense to have multiple cameras in a phone because a phone generally doesn't have the space to have a multi purpose zoom lens because we haven't miniaturized the components enough yet.

But they still aren't GOOD cameras.

I can timagine being this butthurt because of technology and ease if use. But knocking phones for having more than 1 camera is just stupid. Wide angle is handy to have and the lens is bright enough for high quality video. Tele photo in phones aren't good enough yet and due to physics they had to create periscope lenses. So standard 27mm and wide angle cameras in today's phones are fantastic, highly portable and can take video even in low light or record in slow motion due to excellent sensors with fast readout. DUE TO PHYSICS. Good luck using your old SLR film camera doing any of that in a portable form factor.

It's not being butthurt over ease of use, it's getting tired of watching phonefags constantly fighting over who's turd looks the most polished.
You clearly don't own a proper camera.

My Ex had a proper camera.
Guess who used her iPhone 99.99% of the time instead?

And yes, different cameras on a phone are important.
I wish my Pixel had a wide angle one.

lmao

I got night mode, it's called flash

Me again. I've got a fucking x-t3. It's the current darling of mirrorless and it has massive shortcomings next to my phone.
slow motion is limited to 120fps at 1080p. Small sensor and fast storage in my phone means I have 480fps at similar image quality - but no way to change focal length which is the big difference. I can swap to the wide angle lens in a split second on my phone. I have to pack an 11mm on the Fuji and it's autofocus isn't as fast as my phone.

Ancient wifi standard (wireless 'N' was not advertised at launch because they knew it was bad even back in 2017).

Also the phone has x265 recording and fast storage. Good luck finding a 15000MB/s media for a dslr or mirrorless

Fucking kek, "I knew a woman who owned one but she preferred to use her iphone instead" could be used as an argument against any piece of technology that exists, it isn't a very convincing one.
Like I said, you obviously haven't personally experienced actually using a DSLR and working with DSLR pictures, or else you would realise how unbelievably shitty phone cameras are in comparison.

Yeah, flash is real useful in cases like (normies using flash is one of the most amusing things ever).

>Like I said, you obviously haven't personally experienced actually using a DSLR
You think I never used her camera?
It's ok for specific tasks, but phone is better for 95% and more convenient in 100%.
> and working with DSLR pictures
Didn't enjoy this part at all.
Had to manually modify them, so the colors are pleasant.
Phone makes it all automatically and in 1 touch.

Only time Camera was objectively better was when I took a pic of the Moon.

Not a great argument either. Put a phone camera vs proper digital cam at the same focal length and clack down the aperture for a clear shot (no bokeh - just land scape style) and there won't be much difference unless you pixel peep (or are using a cheap phone without OIS or crap lens or something)

These are all covenience arguments, I never claimed that phone cameras weren't more convenient, I'm claiming that phone camera quality is and will always be objectively shit due to physics.

>lowering the aperture increases the depth of field
Can you phonefags who have clearly never shot manually on a DSLR please stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about?

Ah but for video that's not so. Small sensors read out speeds are faster and better. Hence slow motion on the OnePlus 7pro being excellent. You got lots of light because the lens isnt cheap, the sensor is fast and the chipset is new. It's a great combo and unfortunately I can't post my results here because of the file size limit. I shot a wedding recently and switched to the phone for lots of slow mo of confetti and champagne bubbles.
My stuff look a lot better than YouTube reviewed who obviously are just looking to get the video done asap and haven't a clue how to use manual mode

I said clack down the aperture. Should I have said "stop" it down instead or are you too stupid to understand and just want to deliberately misconstrue my words

>All convenience arguments
Nigga, did you even read my comment?
Having to edit pictures so they look good is not a convenience argument.

>phone camera quality is and will always be objectively shit due to physics.
It is not shit.
It has not been shit for half a decade.
Pictures might not be as detailed, but in many cases they are better pictures.

>buying fuji for video
You'll need micro-four-turd. GH5 or something. But if phone works for you, it's all good.
Thing you don't understand is that most people don't really look at photos anymore. They rarely open them in full size, just glance on it at social media page and scroll further. More to that, they use phones or tablets. They don't open it on proper screens. And for that, phone quality and post processing is really great nowadays.
So just do your thing, use any camera that work for you. No reason to argue over nothing.

Attached: 1561540070905.gif (325x498, 909K)

>camera quality is and will always be objectively shit due to physics.
What part of physics do you mean? Diffraction is countered by the small distance of lens to sensor. Sure, smaller pixels see less light, but is that your only concern?

Gh5 takes crap photos. The Xt3 can do both pics and vids equally well. Gh5 has less rolling shutter but meh the Fuji has better good light video (27mpix downsampled 4k is beautiful) and timelapses are much better looking

This. As I've said on this thread the biggest hurdle for smartphones pic and vid quality is the cost of lenses. Your not getting bright aperture lenses when they are absolutely essential

>they're the same except they're different