Slashdot Mirror
Is the iPhone 'Years' Ahead of Android In Photography? (9to5mac.com)
Former Google senior vice president of Social, Vic Gundotra, said that Android phones are years behind the iPhone when it comes to photography. In a Facebook post, Gundotra said: "The end of the DSLR for most people has already arrived. I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at dinner with my iPhone 7 using computational photography (portrait mode as Apple calls it). Hard not to call these results (in a restaurant, taken on a mobile phone with no flash) stunning. Great job Apple." 9to5Mac reports: In response to a comment suggesting that the Samsung S8 camera was even better, Business Insider spotted that Gundotra disagreed. He said that not only was Apple way ahead of Samsung, but Android was to blame. From Gundotra's Facebook post: "I would never use an Android phone for photos! Here is the problem: It's Android. Android is an open source (mostly) operating system that has to be neutral to all parties. This sounds good until you get into the details. Ever wonder why a Samsung phone has a confused and bewildering array of photo options? Should I use the Samsung Camera? Or the Android Camera? Samsung gallery or Google Photos? It's because when Samsung innovates with the underlying hardware (like a better camera) they have to convince Google to allow that innovation to be surfaced to other applications via the appropriate API. That can take YEARS. Also the greatest innovation isn't even happening at the hardware level -- it's happening at the computational photography level. (Google was crushing this 5 years ago -- they had had 'auto awesome' that used AI techniques to automatically remove wrinkles, whiten teeth, add vignetting, etc... but recently Google has fallen back). Apple doesn't have all these constraints. They innovate in the underlying hardware, and just simply update the software with their latest innovations (like portrait mode) and ship it. Bottom line: If you truly care about great photography, you own an iPhone. If you don't mind being a few years behind, buy an Android."
The post is flame bait, whatever. Sony phones have cameras that are years ahead of the iphone. That said, nobody who knows anything about photography expects a phone to replace a DSLR. The sensors and lenses simply cannot be even remotely similar, due to size limitations in phones.
Odd post, Gundotra isn't a photographer. But we all have opinions.
I'll trust my wife's opinion, because she *is* a professional food photographer. When we're out to dinner and she just has to make a photograph (usually of *my* food, but I'm well used to this now), she typically bypasses her iPhone 7 and asks for my Pixel XL. Why? She says she can make better photographs, get a smoother response especially in the shadows, with the Pixel. But she'll be one of the first to tell you that the difference is really pretty small.
I'm thinking Mr. Gundotra has an axe to grind with his former employer. Which is OK, but this is a funny way to deal with it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That makes no sense whatsoever. I have an iPhone and I have 8 or 10 camera apps. Each one has strengths and weaknesses, including the standard Apple Camera app. In fact over the last 3 releases Apple has been opening up more of the camera APIs and functions to app developers, resulting in more camera apps rather than fewer.
The problem is with low light situations. Sensor area matters.
Like most generalizations it applies "in general" to lowest common denominator users. So yes maybe a walled garden appliance works very competently. If that is what you need, then it is indeed the best. If you want a choice of applications to use with your camera then it definitely is not the best. The guy is just spouting marketing speak, or half truths as most critical thinkers will concur.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
The iPhone camera is decidedly middle of the pack for high end phones. It's competitive but far from the best overall. If there is any overall champion it's the Google Pixel camera, which really is light years ahead with their computational photography system that has moved beyond just faster electronics and marginally better lenses. It's also by far the fastest.
The iPhone camera is good, don't get me wrong. It tends to end up looking artificial, especially in low light conditions, due to the heavy processing that Apple does. But as a point-and-shoot it's fine and gives generally good results most of the time. It just can't match the HDR ability of a Pixel or Samsung camera.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They brought "depth of field" to small-sensor photography, and that is no easy task. "Depth of field" is what gives you that effect of a foreground in focus and a blurry background (or vice versa, like in some movie transitions).
I think you meant to say HTC and LG brought "depth of field" to small-sensor photography on Android two years ago.
And yes, the iPhone camera sensors, which are made by Sony, are pretty good also.
It's not even about good cameras. It's about a software feature to emulate a defect in large aperture lenses even though the phone has a tiny lens that isn't susceptable to that defect. Nevermind that Google was emulating this same defect with a single lens since 2014 (the feature is only available on iPhones with dual lens cameras).
The iPhone 7 camera is not synthesizing bokeh in software. Portrait mode combines the sharp image of a face taken with the long lens with the blurred background taken by the short lens.
Blurred background isn't caused by lens length. It is caused by a large lens aperture creating a small depth of field.
Also the smaller the image sensor, the greater depth of field. Phones have tiny image sensors creating almost unlimited depth of field, which is why everything is in focus normally.
His point was that even someone with very pedestrian standards for picture quality could recognize that Cnet's review was not worth a lick.