Remix clone Hacker News

> And in a lot of conditions, my Android phone takes better photos, by virtue of more advanced technology.

> I have tens of thousands of dollars of camera equipment -- mostly more than a decade old -- and there just haven't been advancements warranting an upgrade. A modern camera will be maybe 30% better than a 2012-era one in terms of image quality, and otherwise, will have slightly more megapixels, somewhat better autofocus, and obviously be much smaller by the loss of a mirror. Video improved too.

I thought the same thing, and then I went and rented a Nikon Z8 to try out over a weekend and I was blown away by the "somewhat better autofocus". As someone who used to travel with a Pelican case full of camera gear, to just carrying an iPhone, I'm back to packing camera gear because I'm able to do things like capture tack-sharp birds in flight like I'm taking snapshots from the hip thanks to the massive increase in compute power and autofocus algorithms. "Subject Eye Detection AF" is a game-changer, and while phones do it, they don't have enough optical performance in their tiny sensors/lenses to do it at the necessary precision and speed to resolve things on fast-moving subjects.

In terms of IQ, weight, and all that, it's definitely not a huge difference. I would say it's better, but not so much that I particularly cared coming from a 12-year old DSLR. But the new AF absolutely shocked me with how good it is. It completely changed my outlook.

I say this, not to take away from your overall point, however, which is that a phone is good enough for almost everyone about 90% of the time. It's good enough that even though I upgraded my gear, I only bought one body when I traded in two, because my phone can handle short-focal length / landscape just fine, I don't need my Z8 for that. But a phone doesn't get anywhere close to what I can do with a 300mm or longer focal length lens on the Z8 with fast moving subjects.

▲

Koffiepoeder 11 days ago | parent [-]

I use my Canon EOS 90D fairly often, but there is one exception for me. For low-light conditions my phone often exceeds the performance of my camera. Especially for high movement & dynamic scenes, I would definitely recommend having a high end phone nearby :)

▲

tristor 11 days ago | parent | next [-]

The sensor in the 90D isn't capable of the high ISO performance of some newer sensors. For low-light conditions the things that matter more than anything is: 1. pixel pitch 2. sensor ISO performance 3. native denoising

For sure a new high end phone will do better than a mid-range camera that's older, but on the high-end it's the other way around. My Z8 has significantly better low-light performance than my iPhone 16 Pro, however the upside from the iPhone is that I don't need to do additional denoising in post-processing (I usually use DXO) where it's required on anything taken above around ISO 12800 on a digital body.

The Z8 is usable to print (e.g. noise is almost completely removable if you aren't cropping) up to ISO 25600 (which is the maximum ISO of a 90D), and is usable for moment capture (e.g. not trying to win any awards) nearly to its maximum ISO (102400). Many newer camera sensors, including the Z8's sensor, are "dual gain", meaning I can shoot basically noiseless at ISO 500 w/ almost 13 stops EV of dynamic range preserved, which is simply not possible on any phone camera or on most older bodies.

If you're shooting in low-light often enough, there are specific sensors and cameras which are far better than others, even if the other cameras would be better than in other situations. Generally speaking though, larger sensors are better than smaller sensors in low-light at the same pixel pitch.

In the Canon world, an R6 II is comparable to the Z8 in low-light performance, although I think the Z8 just barely edges it out. So don't take anything I'm saying here as being brand-specific. Modern full-frame mirrorless cameras are almost all better at low-light performance than any preceding full sized (DSLR style) camera, mirrorless or not, because the sensors have gotten better but maybe even more importantly the native denoising has gotten better.

▲

frognumber 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

<-- This

People are leaving off which lens. In my experience, for low-light:

Large sensor + kit (zoom) lens < Pixel Pro < Large sensor + f/1.4 prime

It's not apples-to-apples, since my phone has no optical zoom in the lens (although it somewhat makes up for it by having wide/normal/tele fixed lenses). But shooting with the main lens, it definitely beats a large sensor for low-light with a kit lens.

I think the key difference is intelligent multiframe denoising algorithms on the phone. It, in effect, shoots a video and combines.

	▲	tristor 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's very true, lenses on a camera work very similarly to a telescope. A larger objective (opening at the end of the lens) combined with a large aperture (lower f number) means that a lens is able to gather a lot more light at a given focal length. Certainly some of my commentary is related to the fact that my primary lenses are f/0.95, f/1.2, and f/1.8. I only shoot "fast" primes on a camera body. That said, a /lot/ of low light performance is simply having a much larger sensor with a wider pixel pitch that is able to gather more light in the given time allotted. You cannot beat physical size in some ways for digital photography and light gathering is one of them, as it is primarily about surface area.

▲

ronaldj 11 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For low light conditions my full frame mirrorless is way better than a phone.