>>4306045
>If the old magnum photographers could choose between an iphone or their clunky 50s film cameras they would've chosen an iphone 9/10 times.
I mean they were a bunch of snapshitting early lifers so why not

>>/g/

>>4306045
phone cameras look like complete shit

>Stop being le pretentious
iPhone photos look like shit
Android photos come with essentially crippling your social life unless you're 40+

is having taste pretentious? Maybe to an american who considers the barn the peak of architecture. I'm technically american too, but I feel like i'm an alien here because most of my family is fresh off the boat from europe and i'm going to be honest here:
The amish are not unique among americans.
You ALL share their needlessly pretentious hatred of nice "immodest" things.

You ALL have the same neurosis from your evangelican protty "culture". It shows in your churches. And it shows in your "non-pretentious" camera that doesn't allow white, black, or blur, everything must be shown and sharp to be modest and utilitarian visual note taking with no creative flair. No soul.

All the amish lack of culture
But without the amish morality!

Fuck ya'll, I'll use a nice camera. Bitch about it. Cry "consoom" while you live in 2000, 4000sqft, pay $30k for a car, and eat out, I don't care, you have no taste, you have no morals, and you have no culture. Real cameras are based specifically because they refute this superficial modesty.

>>4306064
The burgerstanian modest working man larp is pervasive and cringe
>will drive luxo-truck and never use it for truck stuff
>sports car or luxury sedan? tiny dick tryhard pretentious faggot snob cork sniffer shithead!
>will drink overpriced “craft” beer. wine? faggooooot!
>will use $1500 iphone
>$800 sony a7c+tamron prime? WHY ARE YOU SO PRETENTIOUS FUCKING CONSIMERIST

>>4306064
>>4306089
Why are you samefagging and posting as anon, you fucking commie vatnig? Americans made it to the moon and your failed country didn't, deal with it fag.

>>4306091
>only one (you)
Be catholic or orthodox and you automatically notice americans hatred of nice things (and how it morphs into hypocrisy) because churches really form the base of a culture.

>>4306045
>RAW file on a phone is the same as RAW file on a camera
i have some really bad news for you...

also, in addition to that, image processors and both sensor size and design is WAY different (better) on even digishits, compared to phones.
phones are phones, devices made for communication and internet browsing and cameras are just one of many secondary options/gadgets of the device. there is quite literally no space in or on the phone, for manufacturers to put the same size/tech processors, image processors, sensors, lenses, etc.. etc... and all that allows for way better and way more detailed raw file coding and reading, resulting in way better image quality at the end... long story short: a dedicated device for taking images will always produce better images than a phone and thats a fact, whether you liked it or not.

even shitty compact cameras like TZ90, X100V, GRlllX and others OR even digishits... they all make and will continue to make WAY better images than any phone does and ever will, unless you make a phone the size of a brick, where you can put the same tech thats in an full size ILC...

>>4306091
Not a samefag, but i'm glad someone else sees the weird hypocrisy where americans think they're enlightened anti-materialists - with $1500 locked down, crippled, disposable phones that purport to, but do not, replace a proper computer and a camera, and mostly serve to pressure your friends to buy iphones to resolve compatibility disputes.
>$1500 disposable chiniPhone
>eats red meat and candy every day
>woah you have a dedicated camera that will last 10-20 years? tryhard.

If all you're doing is taking snapshits of your cat or doing """street""" photography sure an iphone is plenty fine, especially if all you're doing is posting shit on facebook or sending stuff to friends. But for any actual genre of photography worth a damn even a 15 year old dslr from your local pawn shop that costs 1/10 of the newest iphone will be better and offer more flexibility.

>>4306115
>must-earn gearfaggotry
you can use a nice camera for anything. just like you dont have to be an athlete to eat real food instead of fortified grain slop, beans, and ground meat.

>>4306115
Phone photos, even "good" phones, have an ugliness to them that you can do without. Just use a half decent camera.

>>4306045
I know this is a troll, but there are people who approach this level of retardedness regarding cell phone cameras. These same people cry out their phone has the bestest camera ever, and in 1 year, drop another $1200 on the next model and say the same thing.

>>4306045

These threads are all the same, the people who refuse to use iPhones or think phones suck for photos are always going to buy cheap shit phones that don’t take good photos. They then reinforce their wrong beliefs.

It’s all there on Flickr, go look, millions of photos from top quality high end iPhones.

The photos look amazing all things considered. Some tiny 1cm camera you carry around in your pocket. Especially once you factor in its video capabilities too. You won’t even be able to tell the difference from a dslr unless you zoom in or go searching for low light photos.

My iPhone now takes 80% of my photos while the d800 only comes out occasionally and I still take iPhone photos at the same time, d800 just has better focal length options with 24-70 and 70-200

>>4306476
>the photos look amazing
They look like actual shit. I’m unfollowing people for it.

Americans have no taste? Americans actively fight good taste across the world? I believe it. If it comes from the US it is anti-culture.

>>4306476
>”phones look amazing”
>has ken rockwells taste
Every time

>>4306480

I don’t know what you are expecting of a photo, dslr mirrorless are the ones on Flickr with Rockwell tier saturation and editing, phones just produce a nice balanced photo. Browsing the iPhone galleries is like browsing the film groups, the average standard is good, mirrorless dslr is a crapshoot of good and awful even for $10k models.

How can I get my phone to look like my D80? Nothing looks like my D80. Makes me sad.

>>4306491
>tasteless flickr boomers are how you measure cameras

>>4306495

Flickr is vastly superior to any test chart. It shows an exact average of the photos achieved by a regular person using the cameras.

File: Screenshot.png (273 KB, 592x583)

273 KB PNG

no thanks

>>4306100
>GRIIIX
You're wrong on this one.

>>4306501
Flickr shows the below average camera user.

File: dt_DSC00476_02.jpg (1.11 MB, 1393x1858)

1.11 MB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-W50
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:04:22 16:28:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	80
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1393
Image Height	1858
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

I shoot for fun and my fun comes from using cool cameras.
Phones aren't cool (anymore) so they're of no interest to me.

>>4306045
Well since I matured, and my social life has been dwindling. My phone is perfectly capable for my needs, I don't even think I'll be getting a flag ship next time round. The photos I take with it are OK, for what they are. But that's it. I only use the camera to quickly share something.

I recently dug out my wife's old Nikon digishit cameras, one has a broken door the other is pretty much new, L32.
One thing I did notice was I actually go through the photos, process them, and file them or print some. When I used my phone for quick photos they'd just pile up and I forget about them.
Not only that, but newer phones save all your photos on some sort of cloud, who knows what fucked up shit your photos are being use for nowadays... also, the optical zoom is worth it.

>>4306577
Every photo you take on an iphone is analyzed off site and apple asks that you trust they dont actually see the content, they're just identifying your friends, family, and even pets as unique repeating faces and making sure you dont have any CSAM bro, if you're against this you are literally in favor of legalizing pedophilia!

The precedent is unnerving. What's next, a video of state enforcers kicking protestors ends up auto-censored?

>>4306583
I'm more schizo than that. I believe AI is stealing our identities pretty much... I don't want my sons entire life recorded and stored on some cloud so when he's older some AI robot will look like him from birth to his adult years.

>>4306589
The NSA already had automated systems recording hours and hours of your voice to automatically flag you, or not flag you, as a domestic terrorist for future monitoring. What corporations are doing is childs play.

it probably won't ever hurt you unless you want to become a major public figure, then come the recordings of you admitting to molesting women

>>4306590
Deep fakes. Identify theft is what I'm worried about.

>>4306592
They've probably already been doing that. AI voice faking exists, the NSA has been bugging everything forever without a single human eye on most of the data, and a lot of that data includes hours of public figures voices. Who knows how many published phone calls from politicians were actually real and whether or not the man in question got his own phone call in the middle of the night telling him what he already said and that he better go along with it or else

If all of this worries you, dont shoot digital, the amount of baked in insecurity in all consumer technology is insane. Pretty much every PC made since the 2010s has the possibility of a third party accessing it via a small cell radio even if it is turned off and you think your drive is encrypted. This is a hardware feature, using loonix will not save you, and loonix is such a bloated mess (with lots of state contributions) it's probably bugged too. Shoot film only. Develop your own film. Print your own film, directly on photo paper, in a darkroom. Or use a computer and printer from 2005.

>>4306593
Ha. No... the chances become exponential once you get cell phones involved.

I'm not worried about other people, humans stealing identity. I'm worried about AI, robots, etc. Non humans having access to large swathes of data at all times.

If I use a digital camera, I could upload my photos offline, and process them and then save on an external device or print and delete.
Photos that my wife supposedly 'delted' off her old phone can be accessed through the cloud.

>>4306045
I used to be all about iPhone photography, all the way until the 14 Pro.

Then I bought a fucking Canon Rebel T7 as my first DSLR and once I got the settings down with a 50mm lens, it blew my smartphone out of the water.

>>4306045
>literally iphone cameras are fucking perfect for photography in general
No, no they are not.
iPhone cameras are trash memes. If you like the "iPhone look" you need to get off social media.
iPhones have done irreparable damage to the human psyche and people don't even know what things are supposed to look like anymore, between their post-processing in-camera faking details and imagining shit, to ugly photo stacking techniques and hideous tone mapping for /r/shittyHDR and plenty of denoising artifacts and unsharp masking, and high pass filters out the ass.

My budget android on the other hand, that actually supports RAW (not proprietary fake raw, but real RAW), is an acceptable camera.
The usability is simply cancer though. If phone nigger manufacturers would give us another side button that's touch activated to serve as a shutter button, they'd be less cancerous to try and use.
When the phone weighs a few ounces and has a clicky hard clicky clack clicky button for volume/power on, those buttons are not sutable for using as a psuedo shutter button, they are impossible to gently press without making the phone shake slightly. Real cameras have dual activation shutter buttons that allow a half press to engage AF then a gentle "full press" to let you more safely take the shot with minimal movement. Phones could do the same, but they don't.

Instead, I use my phone to control my real camera with the app so I don't have to buy a dumb remote shutter device.
Phones are great. Just not at being cameras. It's part hardware, part design. The biggest problem is badly designed products making it difficult to take decent photos.

Can anyone itt tell me why phone cameras are bad? All I'm hearing is vague shit like "it's just bad" or "it's just ugly bro" when modern phones are clearly capable of making competent pictures. Show me a comparison betweena a phone camera and a "real" camera and explains in technical terms why it's superior.

File: ough.jpg (209 KB, 1302x822)

209 KB JPG

>>4308104
left phone vs right 18 year old digishit
one looks soft, the other looks like baby poo

but for convenience phones cannot be beat

As much as I enjoy the convenience, I can’t stand the smudginess that is particularly visible at night or in low lighting.

>>4306045
I was initially in the "phones are just as good" side but they really aren't. The photos from my previous Pixel looked shitty when I looked back on them and while the new iPhone Pro RAW photos look really good, they still are not as good as a real camera.

So a iPhone Pro/Pixel Pro is fine if you don't have a main camera at the time or you're just starting out, but it is not as good as a proper camera. Not even close.

>>4308113
>>4308129
These. Though again, using RAW on the phone can mitigate this shit since it doesn't include almost all of the post processing of a normally taken phone photo.

>>4308151
>Though again, using RAW on the phone can mitigate this shit since it doesn't include almost all of the post processing of a normally taken phone photo.
If you use the proprietary fake RAW formats like Pro RAW, they do include the post-processing and are shit.
You need third party apps to get real RAWs and not all phones can even deliver that.

>>4308154
>If you use the proprietary fake RAW formats like Pro RAW, they do include the post-processing and are shit.
To a point. The part you can't remove is how it uses multiple exposures for the photo (not to create a HDR effect however, but for quality) as straight out of the camera has some noise. Otherwise, pretty much all of it can be turned off in post-processing, especially awful shit like sharpness and tone.

>You need third party apps to get real RAWs and not all phones can even deliver that.
True. The phones that can at least do it via third party apps are the iPhone Pro models and the Google Pixel Pro models. If someone is using some shit like Oppo or Motorola, then yeah, they won't allow RAW.

>>4306045
Fuck phones. I waited overnight for the original iPhone, prob before half you spring chickens were alive. Early adopter, early abandoner. The phone-cam's advantage is that if you're a simple fuck hooked on addictive design and the alternating dopamine & cortisol hits you get from it, then it's the camera that's with you, which is the best camera. Bit it's not a great camera, no matter how much bullshit they try to wedge in their algoriddms. Not enough light, suck a dick, learn to shoot film, then shoot med format digi or cry when ur kids hate u bc all you have of their childhood is fucking jpegs from a phone.

>>4308192
>Early adopter, early abandoner.
Well no shit, early anything is terrible. I was around for the time of chunky laptops that could barely last an hour and digital cameras with photo resolutions measured in the hundreds of pixels (pure sovl).

>cry when ur kids hate u bc all you have of their childhood is fucking jpegs from a phone.
I miss the days when every post on Facebook was written like this. I crie every tim. That's the same as cameras of our time anyway, such as with disposable film cameras and the like. They weren't invincible against shit quality, user error or being lost either.

We're in a lucky spot currently for phone cameras. The mid 2000s were grim since digital photos from the average person (i.e early phone cameras) were truly terrible, so every childhood from that time period is going to have some seriously low quality photos.

>>4308193
I miss u too sweet tits.
I jumped ship at the 13 Pro Max. The fucking 11 actually made a better image than the 13. and neither looks like anything compared to a 45mp sensor behind Nik's Z glass.

>>4308196
The 15 Pro Max has been really good and I did like the 13. But even then, a proper camera (be it DSLR or Mirrorless) shits on any phone camera on the market currently.

The best part of them by far is purely the "it's here and it's small" aspect.

>>4308113
Don't zoom in on pics taken on an iPhone 5 then. This is a non issue.

>>4308151
>still are not as good
Why?

>>4308216
I don't have to zoom in at all, all the ugly shit is noticeable even with my old 1080p monitors

>>4308197
>shits on any phone camera on the market currently
How?

>>4306064
It is unusual to read such an excellent post on this site.

>>4308113
That’s only if you want to walk around with a phone on you like some sad teenager on a digital leash bc they’ll be directionless and lonely without “feeling connected”. Carry a camera instead of a phone.

>>4308156
If you're allowing the camera to bake the images and do multi-exposure merging and noise reduction, that's not RAW.
The only way multi exposure merging works is when done through software on a PC, with RAWs done from a camera set up on a tripod for stationary subjects with controlled lighting. Like exposure bracketing.

You're NEVER going to get noise free images from a phone, if you think you do, you're dealing with overbaked denoised garbage.
Just accept a little noise (don't denoise it, leave it in) and with RAW the images can actually look fine.
The problem is in the post-processing.

Medium format cameras have noise in their lowest ISO setting. To think a phone can present an image with zero is hilarious. Obviously the noise in medium format, or full frame, is quite low with proper exposure but it is still present. APS-C approaches noisy territory with as little as 1 stop underexposure or 200 ISO, and micro four thirds is usually visibly noisy even at base ISO.
Phones will be noisier than micro four thirds at equivalent ISO values but considering some phones go down to like 40 ISO they might look like ISO 800 on full frame at their best, which isn't unusable. Inferior, but decent.

File: L1054524.jpg (3.46 MB, 3292x2351)

3.46 MB JPG

>>4308216
and that's a non-argument
"I don't like A very much because it doesn't do X, B does X so I like it more"
"Just dont do X then"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:27 20:08:25
Exposure Time	1/350 sec
F-Number	f/6.7
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/6.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3292
Image Height	2351
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	000000000000000000000000000033CC

>>4306064
>Android photos come with essentially crippling your social life
wut

>>4308301
It's a retarded American thing, when usinh iMessage or some retarded shit like that your conversation bubbles turn green if you are on Android

That is it

>>4308301
Applel copium trying to say you must buy Applel to be hip with the niggers who steal them, they rely solely on Applel fed software and services like "airdrop" because Applel faggots are incapable of knowing how to transfer files between themselves without it being Applel proprietary shit.

Most Applel phone owners don't even know how to copy their photos to their computer, and some simply upload to icloud and download (lossy compressed copies) back to their PC.

Trust me, that guy's an idiot.
If your social life depends on having a proprietary device you don't actually have one, you're just a child, and your schoolyard acquaintances have simply been groomed into the Applel ecosystem.
Some of these idiots think Androids are defective because they have different UIs for the messaging app, and different "emojis". Shit you not. This is how legitimately retarded they all are. They're worse than Adobe faggots who can't live with different software because learning different hotkeys would kill them or something, so they commit to paying monthly for Adobe cloud shit they can't even use when offline. All a meme.

>>4308301
Apple refuses to grow the fuck up and allow google to make android services compatible with theirs. So this means android users use whatsapp/telegram for a lot of that shit, and are eventually pressured to buy iphones because all their friends already have facetime and imessage (especially group messaging where an android user can fuck up the entire text) and not everyone is installing weirdo apps.

Eventually, the EU and DOJ will come down on apple for this so they've said they might implement better messaging compatibility with some RCS support, but something tells me it will be as half baked as facetime with android.

>>4308304
>Your friends are not your friends because they are not computer nerds
You have no idea how the real world works

Most people do not have, and never have had, any interest in how computers work, and especially no interest in showing others how to set up apt-get install something alias runthing='something -k -y -s --dragon-dildo=yes'

iPhones really do just werk, no learning about computers required, and in some ways this is why there's a wide push to get everyone to only use an iphone for evertyhing, because people who learn about computers tend to pirate software and music because it's your data on your hard drive and you're just sharing it, and disable web trackers, and circumvent anti-adblock screens.

>>4308311
>computer nerds
>incapable of drag/drop or share something via Discord (normie software, used by normie people)
You've been debunked. Shill.
Just shut the fuck up retard.

>>4308318
>Discord (normie software, used by normie people)
Wow I didnt know mason the sad gamer catboy was normal

>>4308319
Skype
Steam
Faceberg
Anything
You do not need Applel services to send somebody a JPEG

>>4309968
Dont forget bluetooth transfer if you wanna do peer 2 peer transfer without bouncing off the internet.
Or the old IR transfer protocol, but phones don't come with IR blasters anymore so its actually obsolete now.

>>4309968
>Alright I'm just going to need you to install
>What?
>You need to install steam
>WHAT
>Ok, install facebook
>They're stealing my data!
>Skype? telegram?
>What the fuck are you talking about just buy an iphone dear god whats wrong with them
>we-well you cant customize the homescreen as m-
>Stupid.
>and the camer-
>Why did you pay $2000 for a fuji

>>4309986
*Sends you a direct link to the image on my home server*
nothin personell kid

>>4308306
Wait, iphones don't have whatsapp?

>>4310698
You can't even connect an iPhone to a PC and transfer photos without internet access and an iCloud account.

>>4306057
Jej

>>4306045
>When
One week after I got le Pixel 7 pro

>>4306045
Terrible DoF
And no, your portrait mode looks like shit

File: ultra large.png (44 KB, 942x505)

44 KB PNG

LF doesnt cut it anymoar, you need ULF

I don't need to learn to stop being pretentious, you need to learn to use a camera

>>4306045
>I like it therefore everyone forever would have always liked it better than everything else innaworrrld

Fucking get a load of the size of your ego projecting out across time and space.

>>4306494
the D80 red colors are really something SOOC

>>4306045
My phone was basically my first camera. It had even digital bokeh. I mostly like Camera cameras because of digital detox, physical bokeh and the physical buttons. But for most people phones are the best choice. I'm not a gearfag. I'm beyond the mass consumerism illusion. Just spend as much or little as you want and shoot. you can even shoot with a 10$ second hand camera and get more artistic images than an casual Iphone or canon user. If there is no purpose in having bigger lenses and a bigger sensor than phones are just fine.

>>4311514
what is the point of having such a large sensor when someone only does snapshiting?

Nothing against the practicity of a compact point and shoot phone, but for me, it kills all the fun and creativity.

File: facts.jpg (172 KB, 1743x1205)

172 KB JPG

>>4306045
There's virtually no reason to use anything but a modern phone for photography anymore.

>>4306045
phones killed the point and shoot
back when film was the norm, gave a photographer a 5$ grocery store special, and a nube a slr, guess who came back with better photos.

I know there are some cunts that when you tell them "I don't want the pictures taken with an phone" they bring the shittiest dslr to punish you for paying them to do photography, but by and large it goes like this

normal people phones to take an in the moment image < professional with skill < someone who knows how to take a photo well on a slr/mirrorless < professional with good equipment.

>>4312069
Idiots consistently attempt to emulate the same dumb idioms and stereotypes about the mythical intelligentsia en masse. They think it hides their stupidity.
What was the last one the masses of substandards latched on to?
>THINK DIFFERENT

Idiots are also always desperately searching for whether A or B correlated with a higher IQ in a sample size of 200 so they can latch on to that to hide their stupidity so here's to the upcoming pop sci rag study on whether sony or canon users are smarter. Sample: 150 college students. Lets go! Last time you fuckers did this with cats and dogs. The world laughed.

File: a phone is good enough, t(...).jpg (1.52 MB, 2400x1793)

1.52 MB JPG

>A PHONE IS GOOD ENOUGH
>JUST
>STOP CROPPING
>STOP ZOOMING IN
>STOP EDITING
>STOP VIEWING ON SCREENS OTHER THAN PHONES
>STAND FURTHER AWAY FROM PRINTS
>STOP PRINTING
>STOP CARING
>STOP STOP STOP! IDIOT! CONSUMER! SNOB! FOOL! IDIOT! STOP!
Every day. You say the same things.

Why do you want to control how I enjoy photography
Why are you so desperate for me to use a worse camera

It's not really about me, or photography, is it?

>>4312076
Gotta agree with this. Phone photography involves so much post processing, resulting in "artificial" images out of the camera. Not to mention less details in actual post processing through a software.

>>4312071
My favorite idiot catchphrase is “brevity is the soul of wit”
They think being wrong in fewer words makes them right

File: IMG_9647.jpg (146 KB, 1057x806)

146 KB JPG

>>4312081
They misunderstood, it was always a quote about humor

>>4312069
You misunderstood, its a quote about purpose
>smartphone: does many things, complex
>camera: does two things, simple

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1057
Image Height	806
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4312084
A genius admires a stick dipped in a colored substance most of all

>>4312076
Its about profit, control and social stratification

lmao at the two pseuds patting each other on the back itt

>>4306062
This.

Sent from my iPhone

>>4312076
Your photos aren’t published.

>>4312102
>t. pseud that follows einstein quotes as dogma and purposefully leaves his desk a mess to attempt to appear like a busy intellectual
dont forget to get a cat because a pseud said cats were for intellectuals and drive a tesla so everyone knows you’re into “tech” lol

File: Screenshot_20240505_19265(...).jpg (720 KB, 1080x2400)

720 KB JPG

iPhone photo from a few days ago

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android TP1A.220624.014.G781VSQSDHXD2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	2400
Image Orientation	Unknown

>>4312132
Is there really no way to turn off this aggressive ai image touch up, outside of shooting raw, which looks like shit on apple phones?

>>4312132
>iPhone
Just use a more honest camera like the Pixel's

>>4310709
Are you literally retarded?

File: 20240511_153059_javasabr_(...).jpg (4.59 MB, 2720x3632)

4.59 MB JPG

>>4306045
Wew glad I found this thread. I'm on a never ending mission to see if it's possible to not have dog shit quality photos from a smartphone, especially zoomed.

S23 Ultra 10x periscope using Gcam, because ALL stock camera apps are responsible for that dog shit smartphone "look". Minor corrections in lightroom.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	SM-S918W
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Color Filter Array Pattern	672
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	230 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:12 02:43:17
Exposure Time	1/120 sec
F-Number	f/4.9
ISO Speed Rating	56
Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Brightness	7.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.55 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4312938
this looks like shit. everything looks like mush. 1.5x apsc is the smallest sensor with acceptable image quality. buy a real camera

>>4312938
this hurts my eyes

>>4306064
Insanely based post.

>>4306045
>You can even shoot RAW
I'm pretty sure it's not RAW, its still processed quite a lot.
Phones have amazing sensors, but shit lenses. Can't zoom in on a bird, and you know, bird is the only reason photography exists.
>>4306100
>also, in addition to that, image processors and both sensor size and design is WAY different (better) on even digishits, compared to phones.
iPhone 15? or whatever, it has pretty big sensor, bigger than your typical 1/2.3" found in the digicam. Not to mention its modern CMOS not CCD, so you can crank up that ISO and take photos in absolute darkness.
I don't remember the numbers, but i think iPhone had 1/1.7" ? idk.

>Point and shoot camera: :O
>Point and shoot camera, phone: >:(

>>4313359
Okay, I checked my android phone, and you can get the real RAW file. Image is slightly more detailed, comparable to compact camera.

>>4312938
flat, but not mush. just boring. better than an actual 2000s digicam quality wise

>>4313404
>Digishit point and shoot camera :O :O :O

File: 1_57e35474-cdd2-4281-b5bf(...).jpg (176 KB, 713x713)

176 KB JPG

gimmicks like this exist now.
Filters and anamorphic lenses to bolt onto your phone to make them look less like ass. They're good fun to play with.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.34
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	25 dpi
Vertical Resolution	25 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:14 14:51:30
Image Width	713
Image Height	713

>>4308076
The only non-nigger manufacturer you're talking about are Xperia phones with their pro camera apps. They even have a two-stage button where a half-press triggers auto-focus (just like a real camera!). Otherwise, you can map the volume buttons but still no AF half-press.

>>4308104
post-processing (typically mitigated by shooting in RAW) and cancerous ergonomics. You have most of the controls available to you on most camera apps these days but you have to use a touchscreen to adjust anything at all.
Also, you look like a sad faggot taking creepshots when using a phone.

>>4312132
>iPhone photo
>Android UI visible
What

imo, either use your phone or go at least aps-cope/cuck/crippled/cringe/castrated, no point in going below that if you want kinda serious shots

>>4306089
>>4306064
don't forget the american hysteria over age gaps because of this need to virtue signal how "moral" and puritanical they are

>>4306045
If you take self portraits with a phone, you're a narcissist. With an interchangeable lens camera, you're a serious photographer.

And serious photographers get more pussy than "guys with iPhones"

File: 35289652986.jpg (3.88 MB, 4096x3072)

3.88 MB JPG

I took this with my cheap phone, albeit it was done by stacking and processing a bunch of raws I'm impressed that you can capture the milky way with phone cameras nowadays

>>4319312
cool, I can't even see the milky way in my shithole city

>>4306045
when I had a kid
but I still shoot with leicas