Hacker News Reader

Comment by foldr | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't necessarily assume that the optics are superior. Smartphone lenses are pretty sophisticated. Also, their smaller size and far greater production numbers open up manufacturing techniques that wouldn't be practical for DSLR lenses.

Edit: Apologies for commenting on downvotes, but I'd be genuinely curious to see some objective evidence that the optics of a typical DSLR lens have a superior design. Of course it is true that larger lenses for larger sensors tend to be superior because they do not need to resolve as many lines per mm and they do not need to be machined as precisely (all else being equal). But does anyone know of any actual lab tests that make relevant comparisons? I am a bit tired of people just assuming that DLSR lenses are higher quality than smartphone lenses, even though the cost of modern smartphones, and the enormous disparity in the number of units sold, makes it far from obvious that this should be the case.

View on HN

I didn't downvote but I imagine at least someone did because the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality. This is why cameras have started trending to be larger rather than smaller. Only so much you can do software-wise before you hit physical limitations.

>the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality.

This is not really true to a very great extent once you take depth of field into account. At least, it would be helpful if you could indicate what it is exactly that you take the laws of physics to imply in this context. I made a comment here that's relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540

I took 'superior optics' to be a claim of greater sophistication or higher quality, but perhaps that is not what was meant, and the poster was merely referring to the difference in size.

If the size of the lens wasn't important, we wouldn't have built a 100" mirror on Mt. Wilson followed by a 200" mirror at Palomar Observatory.

A 14mm wide-angle lens with a primary opening of 2mm is never going to let in the same amount of light as a 14mm wide-angle with a 114mm primary opening will. Ratio of the sensor size has nothing to do with the ability of the light entering the front lens. There are some adapters that are known as speed boosters that reduce the exit pupil for full frame lenses that will actually add a stop to the lens.

>Ratio of the sensor size has nothing to do with the ability of the light entering the front lens.

I'm aware of that – that's the point I made in my post that I linked. But DoF considerations entail that you can't just keep arbitrarily increasing the size of the opening.

the size of the chips on mobile devices will always mean there is infinite depth of field without software effects. it's like 1990s news camera footage. everybody everywhere in the frame is in focus. boring boring boring.

You could disprove this with a few seconds of experimentation. Modern phone cameras have focusing mechanisms for a reason. Here is a shot taken with the main camera of the iPhone 12 Pro Max for illustration:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akuK5v_PB8DwzDnJC1oJXOETr_S...

Without getting too much into subjective territory, I am personally tired of the bokeh obsession. There's nothing inherently interesting about photos with blurry backgrounds (see above for confirmation!) And if you want background blur, achieving it using software effects is perfectly legitimate.

> There’s nothing inherently interesting about photos with a blurry background

Congrats! You took a bad photo with a shallow depth of field! I guess the photographer does matter more than the equipment.

> Achieving it with software effects is perfectly legitimate

Sure you can. But if you think software bokeh can compete with any dedicated camera bokeh (even a vintage 35mm camera for that matter) than you need to try and use a dedicated camera with a good prime lens, ie 50mm f/2.

The biggest thing that a dedicated camera can get you is simply options. You can choose the depth of field of the shot. You can choose the shutter speed. You can choose the focal length. Sure you have some control over these things in some apps, but it’s not the same level of control.

I shot on my iPhone for years, but after I got my mirrorless camera I have taken so many pictures that never would have been possible on an iPhone.

I have used dedicated cameras with prime lenses. I quite enjoy using old film cameras as a hobby, including large format cameras which can create extremely shallow depth of field using movements. The only point of the linked photo was to show that current cell phone cameras clearly do not have 'infinite' depth of field (as the other poster claimed).

It is true that a dedicated camera gives you more options. (I did not deny this.)

>You can choose the shutter speed

Pedantic point: you can also choose the shutter speed on a cell phone camera if you use one of many apps that give manual control over shutter speed and ISO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com