Lots of reasons to use a DSLR! Sharper, larger resolution, more color depth, lens options, depth of field, better focus control, physical control, and more potential dynamic range in hdr. Just imagine how cool it would be to see the same quality of computational photography applied to those superior sensors
artist_around _the_block the sharpness and variety of lenses. Also, the portrait mode on an iPhone is only a software gimmick to produce the look of shallow depth of field, but it has many unwanted issues. The phones are great, and portable, but you’re not getting the same level of image.
For wide-angle / landscape photos there is really nearly no reason to use a DSLR unless you want a specific look (editing the raw file), want to protect the highlights even more than a phone (one needs to edit the underexposed raw file), want more resolution than 12 megapixels or want to take high quality photos of moving objects in low-light conditions (but a Aps-c camera with f/3.5 lens probably won't give you really better results). Many Aps-c f/3.5 wide-angle kit lenses are even not very sharp. Already my Google Nexus 5x (which has basically the same HDR+ On image quality as the Pixel 3) captured better photos than a DSLR.
Check your iphone pictures on a big screen ... and then check a real camera image with a larger sensor. Right that moment you will understand why people use cameras :D Well of course if you are only use pictures on small displays there is no real need to use a camera :D
@@whoever_81 Because apple has sold literally a billion iphones and is grossing ~85 billion dollars a quarter. Canon grosses 1/10th that amount. Apple likely makes more money than all camera manufacturers do selling cameras combined, given that 98.4% of all cameras sold in 2016 were smartphones (DSLR's accounted for 0.5%). Moreover, while camera manufacturers typically specialize in making well, cameras, Apple is a tech company. Additionally, Apple is able to use every picture ever taken with one of their phones to improve their machine learning algorithms. I recently discovered I can say "siri, show me picture of cats" and it'll show me all the pictures I've taken of cats on my phone--despite the fact that my icloud storage is full and my pictures technically haven't been being backed up to the cloud for years. And it works with pretty frightening accuracy, it can even differentiate between different breeds of animal, as asking it for a pitbull yields pics I took of my friend's pitbull. Obviously this makes things like face detection a lot better, but just in general a smartphone camera is more readily able to identify various scenes in order to fine tune exposure rather than simply trying to rely on finding middle gray. This is on top of the sheer computational power advantage phones have: An iPhone XS/XR's A12 chip has a 6.9 billion transistor count, at a clockspeed of 2.4ghz. Interestingly though, Apple doesn't even make its own image sensors--they source those from Sony. Which, if there is a camera manufacturer at the forefront of computational photography it's Sony. Their eye AF and face detection is already leagues better than the competition and during Photokina they were talking about using machine learning to extend eye AF to animals. Being that Sony is a predominately a tech/electronics company with a lot of diversification, and because they supply sensors to so many other companies, they're one of the few companies with the capital to compete on this front. Canon's been trying hard to get out of cameras and expand market share into office equipment, but they're still predominately an imaging company. Nikon's been trying to expand into medical equipment. Those two companies will probably be ok moving forward based on their strength as lens manufacturers, but it'll be interesting to see if smaller camera-only companies can stay solvent moving forward. Edit: As a side note, computational photography is only available to mirrorless cameras. DSLR's are, by nature, unable to leverage this technology because they lack a full-time sensor readout of the scene the camera is seeing. That's why things like eye detect are possible on mirrorless: the camera is able to apply algorithms to determine what the sensor is "seeing." A DSLR, on the other hand, has no idea what's going on in a scene other than the rudimentary amount of data given to it from the exposure and autofocus sensors.
@@hugofranca8568 um but if he compared HDR from a DSLR the DSLR would win. Do you even understand why this is a stupid video? He is comparing ALREADY processed images into hdr to a single raw image. The dslr single image IS SOOO GOOD. it compared to the phone's HDR. Do you not get that? lol. Combine 3 exposures from the DSLR to make an HDR image or just get a dslr that does it for you and you'll see there is ZERO comparisons between the two. this video is clickbait. If anything what i see is phones are getting SO good they can compare to a single raw image. YAY. But that's a phone's HDR, a processed already edited set of exposures to create HDR to even come close to a single raw image or do a bit better. But thats all it is 3 expsoures into a single iamge If we did the same with the DSLR lmao. Why would we borrow from the smartphone? DSLRs do this too and we rarely do it. HDR is like... Its just a gimmick. It just looks too unnatural plus you can pull almost as much detail from a single raw image so imagine HDR from DSLR ? why not google it instead of believing the smart phone was ahead of dslr. Or learn what HDR even is. Its a very old thing. Why would we copy this from phones? lol. I think you got it backward.
I think it is a good comparison and as far as ‘time spent per photo’, the iPhone is winning. It is a touch unfair though because the iPhone is simply capturing and processing an HDR workflow right in camera. Essentially, you aren’t looking at the exposure data for just one photo, but rather multiple photos baked into the final result. This is being compared to just a SINGLE DSLR/mirrorless photo. I’m certain that even if you bracketed just two raw photos 3-5 stops apart and combined, the result would likely end up better. Of course, that’s where the comparison gets tough. It takes a lot of time to upload and process those photos whereas it’s instant with iPhone. Great vid, keep it up 👍
That's why I love my Sony mirrorless camera. It has in camera HDR so it takes 3 photos at different exposures and combines them right when they are taken! I hope they make the effort to keep their cameras upgraded with the software that smartphones are now coming with.
brandobond yeah I think it is incredible to see this computational photography approach being taken by smartphones. It eeks out every last drop of performance. If this approach can further leak its way into DSLR and mirror less, the results could be stunning.
I have the Nex-5R. Not sure which other cameras have that feature. I press the Fn button and it let's me choose between DRO (Dynamic Range Optimization), HDR (automatic, not bracketing), and off. It's one of the main reasons I bought the camera (mostly use it when traveling and there are tons of situations where the lighting is bad, flash won't help, but HDR manages to pick up tons of detail that would normally be lost).
@@Infosmercial It can, its just that the Samsung stopped making mirrorless cameras, including the Galaxy NX, which is a bsi 20mp aps-c ilc camera that runs Android 5. Just port the google camera app on there(if possible or the adobe lightroom camera app with it's new computational hdr feature, which also works in raw) and we could see how it turns out.
For basic point and shoot, a iPhone XS or a pixel 3 will produce same or even better result than a DSLR, given decent lighting condition. But that is not the purpose of most photographer. I can expose 1 stop below at sunrise and sunset and get way more details and micro-contrast out of the RAW files from a Canon full frame + L lens. Even with Smart HDR or HDR+, its still impossible to get the contrast and color that an L lens would produce. What I would love to see is Canon or Fuji or Sony incorporate these advanced AI and ML features of smartphone cameras into their pro line up!
Exactly. But they would need a beefy processor like the A12 or snapdragon 845 and both draw too much power to be useful in a camera like that. DSLR and mirrorless cameras are not designed to do that much in body processing. It's too demanding.
@@leecason9468 Well, they are actually designed to do a lot of processing. Sony A9 can shoot 20fps raw files. But the point is, they might not be right now at the level of the best and can't shoot continuously 10fps even in background like Google Pixel does and just use computational techniques to make you an image. But there is absolutely no reason they couldn't :) The Sony A7III is quite a small camera. If you made it larger, for example similar to 5DIV or even 1DX size, and used all the space gained to put better processor, memory and battery, I am pretty sure you could match the smartphones if you wanted to, or at least come close. I am sure that google would be able to develop a camera with a larger sensor and the same incredibly clever AI. I am sure google would be able to develop camera with larger sensor and the super clever AI. Actually, some of the crazy good tech for photographers is possibly here already, but the price is quite high :) For now, you can buy a RED camera and have 36mpix raw stills - with 30s prerecord before you press the shutter at 60fps :) petapixel.com/2017/06/19/8k-36mp-convergence-motion-still-photography/
Chiranjib Ghorai "not the purpose of most photographers" I definitely don't agree. One doesn't just take photos in order to produce a masterpiece. A natural reproduction of the scene is very important and when you edit a photo, you won't be able to know the correct colours afterwards. Furthermore finding the perfect exposure costs much time. Journalists don't have much time, they definitely don't want to miss details in certain situations.
The reason why you get more details than a sharp smartphone camera in perfect light conditions is the higher megapixel count. A Sony A7s II won't capture more details in perfect light conditions at 25mm.
Its actually true.. But you have to make it clear.. SLR camera shoot single exposure while iphone Xs camera shot multiple exposure, stitch and enhance the color based on phone algorithm and AI. Its possible due to smaller sensor. Iphone Xs camera have 23,52mm sensor area, while full frame camera have 624mm sensor area (its 26 times bigger). There are no processing power enough for SLR to deal with stacking multiple exposure while maintaining autofocus, other operation and many fps. i bet its possible when you put maybe 26 A12 processor on SLR camera. LOL
Yes, and this is actually really interesting if you think about it. What if e.g canon made a camera with a really small sensor and all the great software from google or apple and it had all the controls of a professional camera and more importantly the lenses, would that be a better way to go than what is the trend now which is to make full frame or even medium size sensors. See how well the iPhone does but imagine having canon glass on that iPhone is basically what I'm saying
What's actually interesting is that, sensor size will matter less in broad day light where there is lot of light. The iPhone XS will have plenty of light to play with and use HDR, besting DSLRs with single exposure. However, that advantage is gone in low light.
@@bryan7300 yes. The biggest difference which you probably will never to be able to get around is that the sensor size affect the compression and focus depth to a large degree. But if you shooting in good light as you said and at a not too extreme focal length and the quality of out of focus areas are not so important then smartphones give real cameras some real competition
6 ปีที่แล้ว +17
The sensor size does not affect processing performance, It's the Pixel count that matters. I am certain that the A12 chip could easily handle a DSLR Sensor!
@ hm, interesting, wonder why they're not implementing something like this then. I have for a long time wondered why dslr cameras are not using smartphone technology more.
Jonathan Morrison google is common with a night mode that will be extraordinary to many. I like to capture the mood, so much so that I prefer the Nikon to Canon that will fix the candle light for you. But in many occasions when you just want a memory , google software looks promising. It won’t be long before mirrorless cameras start to adopt the techniques.
Tbh i just felt sad on watching this video, its not the content is bad. But back at your hassleblad and pixel 2 comparison review we had a argument with my uncle that, I was saying that smartphones are catching up to professional cameras now, not better but they are catchinv up. He disagreed and said it will never catch up, and I showed him your video, he doesnt want to look at it cause to him it was "rubbish". I called him ignorant and he was not open to ideas. But boy was he mad. We never meet again ever since. I was excited to the progress of smartphone photography more this year, iphone got better, huawei got higher megapixels, google got nightsight. I was excited again to have a debate about photography with him. But And just this week, he passed away. Shocked. I think he was the only relative i could talk about tech. And the memory that played back again on again is your comparison with hassleblad, just sad he never saw my part of the argument.
Your uncle is right. Can you take bird in flight with phone? Can you take full zoom in of wild life in South Africa while you are on the safari truck with phone? How about using phone camera to take wedding photos on your wedding? Most professional photographer taking photo with full fledged dslr or mirrorless cameras will know the truth. People who compare phone and those dedicated camera is just wanting to get attention and view on youtube. It is really a waste of time arguing over this and your uncle did the right thing to stop further damage on the relationship. Phone camera is convenience, it is good to do common photography until up to certain degree, that's all.
Computational photography is great is great. And hasseblad did it as well. Not as extreme. I would say , computational is what is allowing smartphone to kind of touch the realm of a proper camera. With better depth separation and edge masking. You can pull off 50mm f0.95 or 21mm f1.4 in the future with ease. Then there is smart HDR, it’s way overtuned now, looks Samsung like. Unreal photos. Ok back to hasselblad, them and a few others like olympus, pentax were doing this thing called hi res sensor shifting thing. That’s how a 16megapixel Olympus can throw out 40megapixel files. Hasselblad was churning out 100 over megapixel. And talking about Olympus, their em5 brought an amazing tech called 5 axis stabiliser long ago, it made micro 4/3 viable, paired with a f1.4 lens I could make night scenes like night sight or Huawei long exposure. But true and better. I love it. I started to carry the tripod less and less. It’s truly amazing. Of course your uncle is right that a proper camera is great now. And you are right that computational is getting somewhere. Give it another 10 years and we’ll see if a smartphone can be a great enough camera. When mirrorless came to the scene everyone scoffed at it, lousy battery, poor tracking, bad evf, now it’s flipped. Same with dslr. When dslr came people were saying, dynamic can’t match film, resolution can’t match film, now surpassed film, unless you want those fuji film colours then get fuji. Sorry for your uncle I hope he wasn’t mad at you.
Your uncle is correct in many ways. A phone will not replace a dlsr or mirrorless for sports, weddings, wildlife or any situation where you need to seperate your subject from your background properly and without any cut out errors. Plus the small sensor from a phone gets taxed way more during low light situations. A phone, with the limitations it has, will always be a step behind a dslr, and several behind a professional mirrorless camera.
TheNickle i agree on your part, but the point of my argument was, phones are getting good. Not everybody is gonna pixel peep on those instagram and may be able to tell if is from a camera or phone anymore It is catching up.
Tell your uncle that he is WRONG, DSLR cameras are becoming obsolete. Give it another 10 years before the market dries up when manufacturers realize the majority of their users prefer cheaper alternatives. To those saying nobody would use a phone to take wedding photos or sports, ect.. well yeah with the current infrastructure of smartphones of course they wouldn't. That is until the smartphone lens surpasses DSLR (which it will) and we start seeing devices made specifically for photographers to use with their phones. The only people who don't understand this are those with degrees in photography. Modularity is the key, which yes, we will see modular smartphones designed around photography in the near future. - Certified SysAdmin (AKA I have 17 certifications surrounding technology, specifically hardware)
I think the concept and reality of computational photography is real and the shots are great. But I have to disagree with sensors wanting to underexpose and pull shadows. More data is always stored to the right of the histogram. In terms of iPhone shots the main problem is when you bring back the shadows then noise and lack of sharpness presents itself. But for Instagram if you don’t want to benefit from longer lenses smartphones are definitely a excellent quick solution.
Don't bother this guy is one of those who believe that 1 inches senzor on a Apple phone will change the photography but he forgot to zoom in to see the noise in daylight plus you can take 7 difrent exposure Whit canon and it's going to look 100 times better, this kind of computation is like you buy a formula 1 car to go at supermarket and point the finger on ford because they parking much faster.
No, when you overexpose, then you lose information in the highlights. When he mentions that one needs to underexpose, he just means that the highlights are correctly exposed. So the highlights are at the right side of the histogram and don't clip.
Now on the iPhone, turn HDR off, shoot one RAW file and push the shadows and the highlights. Underexpose it if you want to (not with iPhone stock camera app you don't). Because that's how you compare the 5Dmk4's photos to the iPhone result when you know the iPhone shot multiple exposures and stitch them instantly.
Tyler, been watching your videos for about a year now I believe. The quality, precision, and originality have been and are continuing to soar - gladly looking forward to this and more of what you have to offer!
I switched to android a few years ago, brand aside, whether it's an Apple or an android flagship, the cameras on these have improved drastically over the years. There are times I just shoot with my phone rather than use my full-frame camera, for casual shoots that is. I guess it's because of the convenience without having to edit heavily after taking photos. Pretty intriguing on how far you can stretch the limits of using phones.
For social media and websites, the iPhone is more than enough. For professional work, where every detail is important, the Canon is the one to go, no doubt. When you zoom in on both pictures, the iPhone lacks a serious amount of detail. I really wish Apple could put a much bigger sensor than they do right now, even if that means a thicker phone.
Yeah but when you print them both out, they both look the same to the naked eye, effectively making the latter pointless in that regard. The only reason you would want to zoom in so far is to touch up, which you can easily do with modern smartphone technology.
@@BenderBendingRodriguezOFFICIAL Dylan, there was a comparison between printed iPhone X photo along with a mid-range camera and a high-end one. It's very interesting, you should check it out.
Smart HDR is why I think the XS has the best camera on the market right now. It gives you the most flexibility. Like you said, Apple really undersold the camera this year. BTW loving the podcast 👍
Pixel 3 has the best HDR in the market. One obvious reason for this is, Google implemented this change in their smartphone cameras way before Apple did.
Marcos it’s better than the Pixel 3 for a few reasons. Love my Pixel 3, but the camera isn’t the best anymore. It has great processing but that’s about it.
Are you kidding? Dynamic range isn't everything in photography.... take in count iso, did the xr took photos above 12000 iso with sharp results? Can you recover lights and shadows in raw files at the level of a pro camera? Dude..... this is disrespectful for photography and photographers... by the way to my eyes dynamic range from iPhone photos looked very unnatural, clouds looked like paper cut outs.... plain colors and no depth information, is cool that a smartphone can achieve that results but is far from perfect.... also you can achieve that same results by doing what apple do on the iPhone, instead of adjusting just one file you need to shoot at least two, three or more photos at different exposures and merge all that photos in one single file.... then compare the results and for sure the DSLR photos will reveal how the dynamic range on the iPhone is very wrong..... is near judging by color but in details..... sharpness and quality.... there's no comparison.....
1. Most smartphone cameras never go above 4000 iso. 2. Although iPhone XS doesn't give RAW with smart HDR applied, Google Pixel 3 actually gives you single combined RAW with the multiple exposures and the frames aligned. It should have ton of information.
If you want a great smartphone camera try sony xperia xz2 premium. The phots are close to reality with minimal or no use of AI to enhance images. And dynamic range I superb.
Okay I see that there are a lot of photo enthusiasts in the comments, so please help me understand. He is comparing smart HDR photos taken on the iPhone XR to single shots on the Canon and showing that they have more dynamic range. Most modern cameras nowadays have a feature though when they take three pictures in a row, at three different exposures, which can then later be combined into awesome looking HDRs. Wouldn't it then be more fair to compare the HDR photos from the iPhone with HDRs made by post processing three photos taken on the Canon?
He's not simply comparing iPhone HDR photos to the Canon, he's iPhone HDR shots to the Canon's incorrectly exposed single shot. If you're blowing out the highlights, you are definitely not getting your full DR. It might well be a valid comparison on dynamic range, the iPhone stack vs. the Canon single shot, at least until you drop the iPhone sensor into the noise floor on those darker shots. But use the Canon correctly! The Canon has a 13.6EV dynamic range, which is about what you get if you bracket 6 iPhone shots with 1EV bracketing and then combine them. But he's also using basic Lightroom highlight/shadow adjustment, which does help compress that ~14-bits into the 8-bit image you can see on-screen (8-bits/color, aka, 24-bit color in computer language). But Apple's running some form of actual HDR compression, using tone mapping, microcontrast adjustment, pretty basic ways to make a better looking HDR image that plays on regular displays or prints. Lightroom isn't the right tool for that level of HDR adjustment. It it critically important to grok what I'm pointing out with reference to that raw image. Your monitor, like a JPEG, is only 8-bit, unless you paid enough to know that you actually have 10-bit monitor. You cannot see an entire raw image on your screen. The extra information will be lost in the highlights or the shadows or both, but what you see from a raw is nothing at all like what you'd get from an in-camera JPEG of the same shot. It is about as useful for human viewing on a monitor as a negative. It must be adjusted to compress the full 14-bits (or whatever) into an image that can be seen in its entirety, if you want to represent the orginal 14-stop DR on a medium that only supports 8-stops (or, in print, as little as 6-stops). And while Lightroom lets you do a bit of DR compression, without plugsins, it's all global. Apple will be using more advanced techniques like, as I mentioned, tone mapping and microcontrast adjustments. A dedicated HDR program might be needed in some cases. But you're not even close if you've blown out the highlights, as in those first shots. So he's trying to demonstrate that the iPhone can best the Canon SOOC, but when you shoot in raw, there is no SOOC. You ARE going to edit. RAW is not a delivery format. Expose it correctly and maybe you'll get it -- Apple's also boosting saturation above Canon's more natural colors, so they're not going to be a perfect match anyway. It would be interesting to process a 3-shot stack in a real HDR editor with the Canon as a comparison. Or even, since he wants to test SOOC photography, try the multi-shot HDR mode built-in to the 5D Mark 4. Yes, it has its own in-camera HDR fusion. Apple's may be better, but Canon's is no less accessible to the Canon user, so it should have been included.
"Wouldn't it then be more fair to compare the HDR photos from the iPhone with HDRs made by post processing three photos taken on the Canon?" Yeah, but he obviously isn't interested in the truth here. That video fluctuates between being misleading and flat-out lying over and over. Dave provides an excellent explanation.
My old Nikon D200 from 2005 with a kit lens still takes better photos than every smartphone ever made. Smartphones are great for ease of use but are not even close to what a big camera can achieve. What he compares here is HDR photography against normal photos from the Canon. Which is only fair if you think about ease of use. If you'd take a lower stop picture with the canon or an hdr you'd completely destroy the iPhone in picture quality, colors and so on. But if you want a shot fast at average quality, then a phone is great.
This is such an intriguing video. It made me think a lot about how I take a lot more photos on my pixel 2 than I do on my Sony A7ii, primarily because I feel like I’m not going to spend my time later having to edit the pictures. It’s fun to take photos, just for fun. I just take a picture, and share it, and it’s already a decent picture. It’s kind of exciting.
And this is the video that officially makes my iPhone 6S’ camera feel truly old and behind the times. One could easily argue the pixel 2 was pulling off similar feats last year, but seeing these shots side by side against a DSLR better than my own (I have a 6D) really drives the point home.
@@orionarclight that's exactly what he's saying.... Iso 2000 on the phone looks good awful. And because it's post processed in camera it is denoised and looks mushy and lacks any detail. Any modern mirroelsss or dslr can go up to 12-25,000 pretty handily. Especially Sony's lineups. Phones still suck even in moderate low light.
as a full-framed owner. I find it much easier and now - much more reliable to post instagram photos straight from my XS Max.. and my followers still didn't realize most of the photos from the past month are from my XS Max instead of my 4300 dollar camera lmao. but the full-framed camera wins 100% of the time if you blow it up on a computer or TV.. but most people don't even do that. they just upload to fb or insta
I lurk a lot on your videos because I'm still learning a lot with photography, but you genuinely inspire me to keep studying and working at photography and photo editing.
It's insane how quickly phone sensors and computational photography are catching up. I would have really loved to have seen some of those HDR camera shots though. I've been use the Canon 5D IV HDR mode a lot and I haven't run into ghosting issues when using it (maybe I'm lucky).
Seriously? This video is like comparing a basic economy car with Super cars by driving in middle of traffic road and complaining they both perform the same way!
Wow! Good video, I've been thinking this to myself, phones are becoming better and better, easy to edit and great quality, you always have your phone with you but not always your camera. Camera companies should start catching up, if only they progressed with the same pace... I can't imagine what a camera can do then
But.. you clipped the highlights with the DSLR?! How's that a fair comparison? Of course the image looks worse when you don't have the correct exposure
Jaymin Woodcock He explained it in the video. Furthermore it's a disadvantage when a camera doesn't do it better automatically. Planes have an auto mode despite having pilots...
Google and Samsung screwed it up with there saturated fake pictures. People have become to accustom to it and can't appreciate what photos are actually suppose to look like. Beat by Dre did the same thing to audio quality. Everyone thinks heavy bass "studio sound" is what music should sound like.
I clicked on this video wanting to hate it for a the title, but honestly did a pretty god job presenting your case. I will that “better” isn’t simply defined by dynamic range, and I seem to prefer the DSLR images, but your examples clearly depict your claim.
This is so true. I have been taking photos for social media for one company (in RAW), taking my time to edit them, and then one day, the boss shows me what a wonderful photo he took (with an iPhone X) and I am serious, it just looked amazing, with 0 edits, single click of a button. No wonder sales of regular cameras are dropping.
Expose for foreground then drag highlights down -100, then create a linear gradient but not on the image but off in the gray area of lightroom so that the entire image is adjusted. Then adjust that gradient highlights -100 to give you like -200 highlights. You can repeat this process if you would like to lower the highlights more. The adjustments on lr just max out at +-100. It doesn't mean that the dynamic range isn't there to adjust still. The photos are not better by any means they are just heavily processed in phone.
The cost difference is a little inacurate. You can get an apsc or micro four thirds camera with a kit lens and a laptop for as much as a new iphone, which will still have way more dynamic range than a single exposure from a cell phone camera. You dont have to pay thousands for a full frame camera and professional lens. Its still notable, but not in terms of price (after all the iphone is an expensive peice of equipment), but more in terms of size. Though think if camera companies got a bit more clever with what their sofware was doing.
I tested my iPhone XS max vs A7iii a few months ago for landscape photos. The shock came when I put both in lightroom and then pixel peeped at distant small details miles away on the desert. Smart HDR also added in a lot of detail. It added extra detail in also in panoramas and videos. Even in low light the iPhone is very good compared to the Sony with the 24-105 f4 or 55mm 1.8. I would think that the iPhone will get even better with the new one in a couple of months.
I studied photography when I was 16-18 and then only really started to understand its components when I was about 19/20, now I love photography and videography, and although I don’t study it at uni, I’m just constantly learning via trial and error and researching topics online. Watching your videos is super informative as well! Seriously appreciate your work man 👊🏼 P.S I had never listened to a podcast in my life and never planned to until I took a shot at yours just cause I wanted to hear more when I finished your videos 😂 love them, nice work Tyler
Compare Apple with apples please. Make the same comparison when you exposure bracket the $5000 camera shot (like a pro that uses such a tool would do) and you will notice, remarkably, that it BLOWS THE IPHONE AWAY.
I think the main reason is sensor size and how its being handled to take in the light. Because of a smaller one on the phone, its easier to make the HDR better. Thats why also the GH5 is still spotting a small sensor, instead of a full frame one. They managed to get the best out of the small one, same on todays smartphones. My Honor 10s HDR is amazingly good, the detail stays pure enough and and it makes surprisingly well balanced shots.
Great content as always ! Was these shot in Toronto and nearby ? I think I saw this monument at 4 minutes on King St. ? And those colors on trees. They can’t lie ahah 😁 I just came back from 3 weeks in Montreal and Toronto actually and can’t wait to come again soon ! Thank you for reminding me again how beautiful that was !
So the question becomes...when will we start seeing computational photography in mirrorless cameras? So we don't have to shoot stills underexposed or video in log but get the maximum results we want immediately in the camera.
I'm always wondering why Canon, Nikon and Sony are sleeping through these developments. It started with the Pixel 1 and Apple now brings the numbers. I really would love to see a consumer version of computational photography an a larger sensor. But it seems only the smartphone developers have the momentum it takes to drive this technology forward.
You could also use an ND/polarizer to achieve similar results. I would be curious to see the results when blown up to something bigger than phone screen size especially in terms of noise. I've always considered noise performance to be the main difference between professional and consumer cameras.
There is a reason he's showing them in small format. Because he knows the iphone image looks horrible when stressed even slightly. He just wants to justify his Iphone. I'd take that DSLR anyday.
That's why I still use my DSLR. Not only that but the optical choice and qulaity of lenses from interchangeable lens cameras is far superior. As I understand, most camera phones have a pretty limited range-usually wide/super wide angle which would be totally useless for what I like to photograph/film, which is wildlife. Try and take a decent image of a small songbird sitting in a tree that is 10 metres away with a camera phone and it will barely register as a blob!
@@koolkutz7 The only reason to use a DSLR IMO is for photoshoots or VERY serious shootings that require very high detail close, and at long range equally. Also for as the above mentioned, photography far away. Also they are good for long exposure shots in the dark, however the night mode for cellphones I think currently can sometimes offer a better picture oddly enough. I feel the tech, and software mostly in DLSR's are in need of some innovation. Powerful hardware with linear software will get you only so much. They are also the best for a longer battery life. Cellphones are not designed to be open in the camera app for an entire event taking thousands of pictures. Camera crashes, overheating, and reboots happen even on the best phones during such stress. There are other reasons as well. I just feel they seriously need to innovate on the software. Manual mode can not accomplish everything. There are some abilities that only a computer can produce. I'm sure with how popular night mode, and many other options on smartphones are many companies are creating these tools for DSLR's as well.
Yes I agree. I think some companies are trying to move forward with better features and technology such as Panasonic, Olympus, Sony & Fuji, but are still behind phone companies at the cutting edge. Ironically, Samsung produced some good mirrorless cameras and lenses but have ceased production. It's a shame as they would have pushed the likes of Sony and competition is always good for the consumer.
There’s no doubt the iPhone Xs is exceptional. I’m so impressed and pleased with it. However, i don’t think the dynamic range is at modern dslr levels yet. But for a quick result it’s amazing. Truly amazing.
I really like how you have the frame behind your head. It looks really good. About the video, if you were to underexpose on your Canon and brought up the shadows in post. You could've gotten a much better photo than the XS. EDIT: LMAO you did underexpose later in the video. My bad. I underestimated you and I am ashamed of myself.
I love your videos but we both know that you could get way more dynamic range out of the 5d iv if you exposed for the highlights and pushed the shadows in post (edit: nevermind)
You miss the point, the iPhone does it all on the phone with love preview. If you can't see why this is a revolution in photography you aren't smart enough.
but the iPhone XS will nail the exposure value 95% of the time. By the time you get to the computer with your 5D, you probably don't even remember how the scene looked like exactly.
Yes, because it is stacking. If you shoot in low light with my XS it becomes very noisy and fairly unusable, as should be expected given the small sensor size. Also, if you stack 3 images like the iPhone is doing, and which can be done automatically with some of the latest AI available for Capture One, LR, PS and such. It does take post-processing, but it looks a lot better in general than what I can get with my iPhone XS. However, it is a great phone to shoot with, and I always have it with me.
Canon/Nikon are assuming pro photographers will be taking what they shoot and processing it in LR or PS. No need for it to look great 'in camera'. People using phones would never be happy with what they immediately see, or go to the trouble of massaging the data to create a photo they're happy with. Apple/Samsung/Google are creating products they know will immediately please their users. As far as underexposing, it's always been the recommendation to pro users that they expose "to the right". The reason is the sensors capture more steps of tonality in the upper two thirds of the tonal range than they can do in the bottom two thirds of the range. It's harder to capture lots of shadow detail that highlight detail, as long as you don't over exposure the shot. I think I'm going to continue taking the advice of those experts about exposing to the right.
You are correct. However, the OP is also on point about computational photography advancing faster than the processing chips on dSLRs. I would love to see computational photography applied to dSLRs, just imagine getting the dynamic range from exposure stacking without having to deal with the hassle of merging a stack of RAW files into an HDR in a computer. Or a pixel by pixel autoISO feature that will prevent a pixel from being overexposed or underexposed to a point of collecting no detail.
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but just as some people say that mirrorless are more advanced (in that they have more potential) that SLR cameras, electronic shutters are more advanced than mechanical shutters (in that the electronic shutter has more potential). With the electronic shutter of an iPhone XS, you can take multiple shots, combine them and process them with a powerful 7nm chip. I guess we still don't have the processing power to correctly combine multiple full frame shots. Maybe with cameras like the A9 and their advanced sensors we're starting to get there.
This is pretty silly. you compare an HDR mode sofware to a single raw file of a camera. compare a single exposure of the iphone and the iphone picture will fall apart like a snowman in summer compare to the canon. I also can shoot 5 exposures on my camera and merge them to a super HDR pic. and software nowadays get rid of the ghosting pretty easily. So the Iphone here is NOT taking better photos. it just can process them faster to an HDR. but faster is not better. if i take my time i can get MUCH better results with the canon.
I have to say that processing the photo after the shoot is part of taking the photo. Smartphones do great job processing for us but would you really want your dslr to decide for you whats the photo should look like? probably not. Yes Phone can replace your traveling camera or pocket cameras which it all-ready did. but it will not be your first or last choice for any work/job/ or any thing that you will need to get pay for. Great video but i cant really agree
iPhone is blending multiple exposures while you are pulling data from one single DSLR raw exposure, which isn’t a fair comparison. Comp proc is awesome for casual shooters, but the whole point of having a big interchanging lens system is to have precise control over what you want.
How can any kind of smartphone with its tiny sensor and so called lens outperform a digital camera which is made for photography is beyond me. People say here phones are catching up thanks to their software but excuse me, software and chips used in cameras are also becoming more and more powerful... Thing is that there is no software to produce image with same quality and characteristics as dedicated lens mounted on digital camera. Imagine a hubble telescope with a bath mirror but very powerful software, you'll get a piece of **** instead of clean picture, but perhaps instantly thanks of its clever algorithms. So please stop comparing phones with digital cameras which are exclusively made for photographers.
@@ilpatongi Can't get your point. This is not about your skills, this video is comparison between the phone and the Canon 5D Mk4 which is a professional camera. If your money can buy it just for fun very nice but comparing it to the smartphone and saying that it's on the same level is just wrong and simply can't be.
Title is definitely click-bait-y and the argument is VERY misleading. The iPhone is indeed better for social media and fast processing (getting photo ready for IG). To claim that it exceeds dedicated cameras is wishful thinking when i comes to image resolution and overall quality. The only reason the iPhone looks better OOC is because the software does the HDR stacking/editing for you. To compare a merged HDR photo from iPhone with a single exposure with highlight suppression or shadow elevation is laughable. You can achieve the same/better result in lightroom with better image quality using a DSLR/mirrorless bracketing and post-process merging. I will concede that it is a lot more effort to do this yourself and the raw files take up a lot more space. The process of shaping the image to your liking and the joy of shooting with a dedicated camera is lost with the iPhone, so those of us who enjoy photography as a hobby (as opposed to enjoying it for social media and personal validation from receiving likes), your argument more than falls flat. However, for the social media junkie, phone cameras + blackbox computational tools is clearly the best option and "surpasses" other cameras in convenience and time saved.
The iPhone tends to product photos with less contrast and many reviewers are calling that a con. I don’t really get it. The lower contrast doesn’t look bad at all, and just like how I get more control over colors and lighting when editing flat or log videos, the lower contrast actually works really well with light editing or just applying filters.
Quick Rant: As soon as I saw this video, I knew that there would be a lot of touchy photographers & camera nerds loading up in the comments section to argue...I was not disappointed. They never admit it, but a lot of camera aficionados like to turn their noses up at the masses because they hate the way that smartphones have given the average everyday joe a platform to, all of a sudden, become a "trained photographer" without having put in any of the same time, effort, or classes that they themselves had to put in to earn their photography skills. They hate that apps like instagram have turned many untrained individuals into "professional" photographers now, even though most took the easy way to get there. Smartphone photography is for people who're lazy about the craft, and those who're serious about the craft, still use DSLRs, and they can't stand the thought of being classed in the same category as the masses who are untrained and ignorant about photography...which is exactly what's happening as smartphone photography tech evolves and the gap between smartphone and DSLR, rapidly closes. In other words, the edge that DSLR cameras give photographers, serves as the basis for their sense of elitism/purism, and without that edge, they have nothing that really separates them from the common iPhone photographer, who, in reality, knows little to nothing about photography...and, once again, the very thought of being classed within the same group as that person, scares the s**t out of them. Which is exactly why this video will receive a lot of the hate that it will...snobs really lol. Not every photographer is like that, but I know a lot who are, and to those who are, I say; get over yourselves and get with the times. You cannot stop the inevitable. Time is moving forward, with, or without you (shrug) - Rant over. Now, as far as the video goes, this video perfectly outlines an argument that I've been making for the past few years now, and I'm glad that someone else is finally taking note. I am a DSLR user myself (Nikon), but I also keep a very avid eye on the tech market, and I've been noticing that the smartphone market is drastically and rapidly catching up to what the camera market has been doing for years. Technology that has taken the camera market DECADES to perfect/implement, has taken the smartphone market just mere years to input, and the real scary part about all of this, is that it's doing it at just a fraction of the cost and for an even smaller fraction of your time...Which last I checked, is a pretty invaluable asset. There's no doubt that the camera market still has the edge on photography, but the big question here that's becoming more and more relevant as time goes on is; is the edge that having a DSLR camera gives you, large enough to justify the incredibly hefty price tag, time cost, and mobility loss that you incur?...With the knowledge in mind that the average person just shoots regular everyday photos, for about 90% of the world's population, the answer to that question is a hard - NO. There are very few situations where the photography results that you get out of a DSLR camera, are so much greater than what you would get out of a smartphone camera, that it justifies the ridiculous price difference between the two, and as I said earlier, as time goes on, that gap is just getting smaller and smaller. Great video. Great post man👍🏾
Wow, if only everyone else put so much thought into their comments! Yeah, if anyone didn’t watch the whole video they may not realize that the point is that it’s surprising how well the iPhone can compete. Obviously larger sensors can always outperform them when used properly
IPhones are not doing this at a fraction of the price. The cost of the iphone is well above a thousand dollars. Sure the phones are advancing, but to say they have better dynamic range really is clickbait though, there's no other word to describe this video. Another thing is that phones will always have a disadvantage due to their compactness and sensor size. For snapshots phones are pretty close, but for astrophotography, telephoto shots, sports, low light performance, wide landscapes, phones are nowhere close to the performance of cameras. It's going to take them 10 to 20 more years to catch up with dslrs right now and by then, cameras will have evolved even more. In the last few years especially, cameras have been growing at a rapid speed. Smart Phones have not had many major camera upgrades in the last 10 years that they've been out. The fact that BBC used a sony a7s for their show planet earth shows the low light capabilities of a camera that came out 5 years ago.
As a professional photographer making 100% of my income from photography, I have to say we are on a trip to Europe right now and my wife is getting as good or better photos with her iPhone XR than I am with my Fuji. I have a tripod with exposure bracketing, shooting long exposures at night of London, Trevi fountain, etc. Last night I left the camera at home and shot ‘live exposure mode’ to do long exposures and the photos turned out amazing. Throw it into snap seed and I’m a little disappointed that I have packed all my other stuff around for two weeks. I don’t know what will happen when we try and print after we get home. Honestly, I’m not printing 20x30s regardless. The last few days of our trip. I plan to try and find the limits of the XR. So far, all I can say is wow! Not trying to clickbait by any stretch, but if you want to see results, I post to Instagram on @freeheelRN
you are right. i was considering the same way when it came to clicking pics with apple and using my canon, and usually i just pop apple phone to click a best looking shot instead of getting into settings of dslr to capture the near perfect shot.
It should be possible that one day, the phone sensors catch up to larger sensor cameras for still life photography in decent lighting - but that's always where it will stop. When you want optical zoom to any focal length, or you have moving subjects, you want to print in size A3 or A2 or more, you want to shoot the night sky, you want to take portraits with natural depth of field and bokeh in low light, or even just want to see the amazing micro-contrast and colours that these larger sensors produce (this is where even in still life photography the FF sensor is king, and the reason people use even bigger sensors). Anyway, I think Tyler knows all this which is why he hasn't sold his two full frame cameras, and he's totally right when he says that people who aren't doing anything with their photos in post are misguided
Interesting that you chose to compare Canon and iPhone. Pixel 3 is better at computational photography, and Sony cameras are much better at dynamic range than Canons. And yes, that title is clickbait - you can get similar results from a FF camera + dynamic range is not the no.1 quality factor. Also, the photo on the beach - the one shot on the iPhone looks better only at a thumbnail distance. The oversaturated color blotches are terrible. This is not to say that for an average person an iPhone won't be a satisfactory camera, much better than a DSLR. But people who buy bigger cameras generally know it's not only about dynamic range.
Great video. Apple should partner with Canon or something, because an iPhone will never be able to capture the fidelity of one of those big sensors and huge chunks of glass, but on the other hand if Canon doesn't get some of that computational tech in their cameras they are going to lose lots of sales to smart phones.
This is what I've been wondering, when camera makers are going to get on board with computational photography. Imagine a neural engine tightly nit with its ISP like the A12 has, but with big sensors and glass in front of it.
The only purpose for anything that goes in-camera is to deliver a better image capture in the field. If you're serious about photography, you're going to shoot raw and edit in your "digital darkroom", because the darkroom is half of the creative process. This year, and maybe last a bit, all the top camera phones started doing lots of multishot tricks, not just for HDR like every P&S camera since the 2000s. But I had multishot for low noise in my Canon DSLR ages ago. A bunch of different multishot modes in my Olympus cameras for higher resolution, focus stacking, light stacking, etc...I'm not going to challenge or want to power a full on six core i7 in my camera, or edit on a 3.5" screen. Period. The goal on a phone is to shoot and post, probably skipping the darkroom work. Since they pretty much ran past the ability to improve sensors much (you know this because Apple finally gave up the 1/3" sensor and moved to 1/2.55" like everyone else) they're throwing increasing bits of image processing, AI, and other things to either get around the limits of the sensor or do the editing/adjustment that an enthusiast would normally do. It may not be artistic, but it can deliver a better output than the flat shot, and they have studies on what average people consider a good photo. So you get that.
I also tested this out with my 5D Mk IV. Situations where there is a LOT of Shadows und Light at the same time, the iPhone is just taking pictures effortlessly while with the 5D MkIV you really have to think and work on it to get results as good as from the iPhone (in terms of preserving highlights and shadows). If you don‘t know what you are doing an iPhone is not a bad choice! You might be even dissapointed of the DSLR because you don‘t know how to handle it.
Its actually not that it takes a better photos but that it takes very advanced post processing to give you a photo that never existed in the first place. The new Huawei can take good looking pictures in complete darkness where a human would not see a thing ( th-cam.com/video/peYgzUIOUp8/w-d-xo.htmlm53s ). The pictures are great but have little to do with what you saw. Modern phones take multiple pictures at different exposure and merge them with advanded algorithms to create a pleasing looking image. If you take 3 photos with different exposures on your full frame camera and merge them post you will have an absolutely superior image. Smartphones can do this on the fly since they have very good algorithms, fast processors and the raw pictures fom the sensor contain alot less information compared to full frame pictures. The point is that you have no control over what it does and it shows you stuff that is not there. A good example would be the skin softener that Apple used and that you could not turn off (I think they patched it). Also you lose information since the original image can not be restored (there was no single image in the first place). Smartphone cameras are superb at taking snapshots these days but is has nothing to do with photography.
One of the best comparisons videos I've seen recently. I'm an iPhone and a Canon DSLR user. They both have their time and place. I use my DSLR mostly for portraits or "bokeh" shots. Landscapes are kinda easier and better on an iPhone.
Even bokeh is not safe from smartphones. The fake bokeh now on phones still has flaws, but it's always improving. Cheap DSLR lenses can have rough bokeh too.
lol@better for landscapes. Shows you know little or nothing about photography. The second you post that image to anything that's not Instagram, you're gonna get shredded
Rounding up, yes, for general use, street, landscape, for posting on Instagram, iPhone y faster than a dslr. But, we have to remember one of the most important rules in digital photography, that is Protect your Highlights, always. And what you can do with a proper exposed raw file is way better for every use.
@@Chayc4 The canon clearly has vastly more detail, and has a wonderful "pleasantness" to the image. Besides the dynamic range when pointing and shooting without manual mode, the iphone holds not more detail, but better areas that require better dynamic range. Zoom in on a photo and you'll see a blurry garbage mess, and on the canon still crystle clear.
When I look at the ocean and the Sky in real life then it‘s „exposed totally fine“ and I see a lot of colors. So how is the one from Canon looking better? I guess we are used to a certain way of how PICTURES look like! But even these pictures are just interpretations of the reality and not the reality itself. Maybe the iPhone is closer to reality but we‘re not used to its interpretation.
But, are you aware that smartphone camera doesn't output RAW for you, just only highly processed final photo, which was made from 2-3 different EV photos shoot one after another for HDR mixup? Making the same on the DSLR would producec superior results. IMO you made a false statement, because you can't compare those completly dofferent devices, and say that smartphone can do better/same quality photos so it's equal to DSLR. Even more funny are people that want apple to make DSLRs after seeing this movie...
good points and something i have noticed as well. cameras just arent developed with the same speed as phones unfortunately. there seems to be a new phone with more features coming out each week, while dslr updates are minor and far in between.
Try long exposure with a mobile phone, or night shoot. Mobile phone picture in low light situation are very noisy. What about zooming and the real bokeh. Also what about using flash. Mobile phone produces image over saturated with a lot of contrast. This video is none sense, you can't compare mobile to a pro camera, there is nothing to compare.
Saying there is nothing to compare is nonsense. Comparisons are always possible. Just remember that any photographer's greatest tool is the one between the ears. Uniquely evocative images have been made with primitive, even toy cameras.
The problem is, most people buying "pro cameras" don't have the skill or time to get the best results, and for the kinds of photos most people take (kids, travel, etc) the iPhone wins. As far as low light, software is catching up there too. Just search for Google's new "Night Sight" feature that can take ridiculous night photos.
Using a DSLR for video feels like I’ve gone back ten years in time. I have to fiddle with memory cards and external drives, laptops and heavy software. When I shoot with my iPhone the videos are synced to the iCloud automatically and I can edit them straight away on my iPad in LumaFusion. Sure, pros need proper kit and software, but I think going “mobile only” is starting to be a great option for the prosumer market.
Wikipedia: “"Prosumer" is also a trade term, used from a business perspective, for high-end electronic devices (such as digital cameras), meaning a price point between "professional" and "consumer" devices.” Basically I just meant users who want to make quality content but their lives don’t depend on it. Somewhere between advanced amateur and professional.
Phones are a good choice for amateurs who have no interest in ever being enthusiasts or prosumers. They do not match prosumer (in the market, high-end consumer/low-end pro) quality. Well, let me rephrase that... they don't match the quality that can be had by an experienced enthusiast, much less a pro, correctly using the gear. A phone with top enhancement software will beat an entry level DSLR shooting JPEG on automatic with the kit lens. Which is, or at least was, a pretty significant slice of the consumer DSLR market.
even trough youtubes crappy compression I can easily tell the 5D images are looking much cleaner. like you say, better highlight rolloff and sharper details and more natural highlights and shadows.
What I said applies only to out the box result. If I were to edit a raw photo taken from the camera, the camera would have similar dynamic range as the phone.
Phones have good HDR because they take multiple exposures and merge them. DSLRs don't have this function built in. Besides a proper camera is significantly better at capturing fast subjects. HDR mostly works on static subjects.
Dslr's ain't build for automode. Better stick to the phone. I only shot my dslr in manual mode and raw files. The amount of flexibility in post proces is amazing.
This video really shows the advancement in silicon we have gotten in the past couple of years. The professional camera's sensor is miles ahead of the smartphone's camera sensor. Yet, the phone is able to capture multiple photos, stitch them together, and get the best possible result in under a second. Makes me wonder what would it be like if Canon or Sony used something as powerful as the A12 bionic chip.
It's crazy how phone/software company's are making more advancements in the realms of photography than dedicated companies like Canon and Nikon. Give it a few more years and we will see a major shift in phones taking over permenatly in this space. The results are already mind-blowing in what is being accomplished today. Take this video for instance. Insane how a super small camera modual on a phone is overtaking a beast in the professional world. Granted, there still is more detail in terms of pure image size in the professional bodies, but that doesn't matter as much anymore since most imagery is being viewed on phone sized screens in today's social media driven culture.
Smart HDR and all the similar modes available with other phones is a thing that I don't like at all. Most of the time these pictures look weird and I find that this HDR thing is "useful" only with specific scenes.
can u pls tell an example from this video that hdr on iphone look weird? because to my eyes actually iphone photos looks better ..and i am also in shock right now about this
Then why do people still use DSLR’s really?
Lots of reasons to use a DSLR! Sharper, larger resolution, more color depth, lens options, depth of field, better focus control, physical control, and more potential dynamic range in hdr.
Just imagine how cool it would be to see the same quality of computational photography applied to those superior sensors
Tyler Stalman oh yeah that makes tons of sense 😅
artist_around _the_block the sharpness and variety of lenses. Also, the portrait mode on an iPhone is only a software gimmick to produce the look of shallow depth of field, but it has many unwanted issues. The phones are great, and portable, but you’re not getting the same level of image.
For wide-angle / landscape photos there is really nearly no reason to use a DSLR unless you want a specific look (editing the raw file), want to protect the highlights even more than a phone (one needs to edit the underexposed raw file), want more resolution than 12 megapixels or want to take high quality photos of moving objects in low-light conditions (but a Aps-c camera with f/3.5 lens probably won't give you really better results). Many Aps-c f/3.5 wide-angle kit lenses are even not very sharp. Already my Google Nexus 5x (which has basically the same HDR+ On image quality as the Pixel 3) captured better photos than a DSLR.
Check your iphone pictures on a big screen ... and then check a real camera image with a larger sensor. Right that moment you will understand why people use cameras :D Well of course if you are only use pictures on small displays there is no real need to use a camera :D
"Computational photography is advancing faster than sensor performance." Nailed it!
Never
True story. But why traditional cameras don''t incorporate computational photography too? I don't get it. Why does it have to be a VS thing?
16 good sensors 😀
@@whoever_81 Because apple has sold literally a billion iphones and is grossing ~85 billion dollars a quarter. Canon grosses 1/10th that amount. Apple likely makes more money than all camera manufacturers do selling cameras combined, given that 98.4% of all cameras sold in 2016 were smartphones (DSLR's accounted for 0.5%). Moreover, while camera manufacturers typically specialize in making well, cameras, Apple is a tech company.
Additionally, Apple is able to use every picture ever taken with one of their phones to improve their machine learning algorithms. I recently discovered I can say "siri, show me picture of cats" and it'll show me all the pictures I've taken of cats on my phone--despite the fact that my icloud storage is full and my pictures technically haven't been being backed up to the cloud for years. And it works with pretty frightening accuracy, it can even differentiate between different breeds of animal, as asking it for a pitbull yields pics I took of my friend's pitbull.
Obviously this makes things like face detection a lot better, but just in general a smartphone camera is more readily able to identify various scenes in order to fine tune exposure rather than simply trying to rely on finding middle gray. This is on top of the sheer computational power advantage phones have: An iPhone XS/XR's A12 chip has a 6.9 billion transistor count, at a clockspeed of 2.4ghz.
Interestingly though, Apple doesn't even make its own image sensors--they source those from Sony. Which, if there is a camera manufacturer at the forefront of computational photography it's Sony. Their eye AF and face detection is already leagues better than the competition and during Photokina they were talking about using machine learning to extend eye AF to animals.
Being that Sony is a predominately a tech/electronics company with a lot of diversification, and because they supply sensors to so many other companies, they're one of the few companies with the capital to compete on this front. Canon's been trying hard to get out of cameras and expand market share into office equipment, but they're still predominately an imaging company. Nikon's been trying to expand into medical equipment. Those two companies will probably be ok moving forward based on their strength as lens manufacturers, but it'll be interesting to see if smaller camera-only companies can stay solvent moving forward.
Edit: As a side note, computational photography is only available to mirrorless cameras. DSLR's are, by nature, unable to leverage this technology because they lack a full-time sensor readout of the scene the camera is seeing. That's why things like eye detect are possible on mirrorless: the camera is able to apply algorithms to determine what the sensor is "seeing." A DSLR, on the other hand, has no idea what's going on in a scene other than the rudimentary amount of data given to it from the exposure and autofocus sensors.
@@hugofranca8568 um but if he compared HDR from a DSLR the DSLR would win. Do you even understand why this is a stupid video? He is comparing ALREADY processed images into hdr to a single raw image. The dslr single image IS SOOO GOOD. it compared to the phone's HDR. Do you not get that? lol. Combine 3 exposures from the DSLR to make an HDR image or just get a dslr that does it for you and you'll see there is ZERO comparisons between the two. this video is clickbait. If anything what i see is phones are getting SO good they can compare to a single raw image. YAY. But that's a phone's HDR, a processed already edited set of exposures to create HDR to even come close to a single raw image or do a bit better. But thats all it is 3 expsoures into a single iamge If we did the same with the DSLR lmao. Why would we borrow from the smartphone? DSLRs do this too and we rarely do it. HDR is like... Its just a gimmick. It just looks too unnatural plus you can pull almost as much detail from a single raw image so imagine HDR from DSLR ? why not google it instead of believing the smart phone was ahead of dslr. Or learn what HDR even is. Its a very old thing. Why would we copy this from phones? lol. I think you got it backward.
I think it is a good comparison and as far as ‘time spent per photo’, the iPhone is winning. It is a touch unfair though because the iPhone is simply capturing and processing an HDR workflow right in camera. Essentially, you aren’t looking at the exposure data for just one photo, but rather multiple photos baked into the final result. This is being compared to just a SINGLE DSLR/mirrorless photo. I’m certain that even if you bracketed just two raw photos 3-5 stops apart and combined, the result would likely end up better. Of course, that’s where the comparison gets tough. It takes a lot of time to upload and process those photos whereas it’s instant with iPhone.
Great vid, keep it up 👍
That's why I love my Sony mirrorless camera. It has in camera HDR so it takes 3 photos at different exposures and combines them right when they are taken! I hope they make the effort to keep their cameras upgraded with the software that smartphones are now coming with.
brandobond yeah I think it is incredible to see this computational photography approach being taken by smartphones. It eeks out every last drop of performance.
If this approach can further leak its way into DSLR and mirror less, the results could be stunning.
I have the Nex-5R. Not sure which other cameras have that feature. I press the Fn button and it let's me choose between DRO (Dynamic Range Optimization), HDR (automatic, not bracketing), and off. It's one of the main reasons I bought the camera (mostly use it when traveling and there are tons of situations where the lighting is bad, flash won't help, but HDR manages to pick up tons of detail that would normally be lost).
@@Infosmercial It can, its just that the Samsung stopped making mirrorless cameras, including the Galaxy NX, which is a bsi 20mp aps-c ilc camera that runs Android 5. Just port the google camera app on there(if possible or the adobe lightroom camera app with it's new computational hdr feature, which also works in raw) and we could see how it turns out.
Infosmercial It's a fair comparison. He compared what Canon gave him with what Apple gave him. Editing a photo wouldn't be the work of Canon/Apple.
For basic point and shoot, a iPhone XS or a pixel 3 will produce same or even better result than a DSLR, given decent lighting condition. But that is not the purpose of most photographer. I can expose 1 stop below at sunrise and sunset and get way more details and micro-contrast out of the RAW files from a Canon full frame + L lens. Even with Smart HDR or HDR+, its still impossible to get the contrast and color that an L lens would produce. What I would love to see is Canon or Fuji or Sony incorporate these advanced AI and ML features of smartphone cameras into their pro line up!
Exactly. But they would need a beefy processor like the A12 or snapdragon 845 and both draw too much power to be useful in a camera like that. DSLR and mirrorless cameras are not designed to do that much in body processing. It's too demanding.
What the point? Exposure bracketing and 30 seconds of post processing will be enough.
@@leecason9468 Well, they are actually designed to do a lot of processing. Sony A9 can shoot 20fps raw files. But the point is, they might not be right now at the level of the best and can't shoot continuously 10fps even in background like Google Pixel does and just use computational techniques to make you an image. But there is absolutely no reason they couldn't :)
The Sony A7III is quite a small camera. If you made it larger, for example similar to 5DIV or even 1DX size, and used all the space gained to put better processor, memory and battery, I am pretty sure you could match the smartphones if you wanted to, or at least come close.
I am sure that google would be able to develop a camera with a larger sensor and the same incredibly clever AI. I am sure google would be able to develop camera with larger sensor and the super clever AI.
Actually, some of the crazy good tech for photographers is possibly here already, but the price is quite high :) For now, you can buy a RED camera and have 36mpix raw stills - with 30s prerecord before you press the shutter at 60fps :)
petapixel.com/2017/06/19/8k-36mp-convergence-motion-still-photography/
Chiranjib Ghorai "not the purpose of most photographers"
I definitely don't agree. One doesn't just take photos in order to produce a masterpiece. A natural reproduction of the scene is very important and when you edit a photo, you won't be able to know the correct colours afterwards. Furthermore finding the perfect exposure costs much time. Journalists don't have much time, they definitely don't want to miss details in certain situations.
The reason why you get more details than a sharp smartphone camera in perfect light conditions is the higher megapixel count. A Sony A7s II won't capture more details in perfect light conditions at 25mm.
Its actually true.. But you have to make it clear.. SLR camera shoot single exposure while iphone Xs camera shot multiple exposure, stitch and enhance the color based on phone algorithm and AI.
Its possible due to smaller sensor. Iphone Xs camera have 23,52mm sensor area, while full frame camera have 624mm sensor area (its 26 times bigger). There are no processing power enough for SLR to deal with stacking multiple exposure while maintaining autofocus, other operation and many fps.
i bet its possible when you put maybe 26 A12 processor on SLR camera. LOL
Yes, and this is actually really interesting if you think about it. What if e.g canon made a camera with a really small sensor and all the great software from google or apple and it had all the controls of a professional camera and more importantly the lenses, would that be a better way to go than what is the trend now which is to make full frame or even medium size sensors. See how well the iPhone does but imagine having canon glass on that iPhone is basically what I'm saying
What's actually interesting is that, sensor size will matter less in broad day light where there is lot of light. The iPhone XS will have plenty of light to play with and use HDR, besting DSLRs with single exposure. However, that advantage is gone in low light.
@@bryan7300 yes. The biggest difference which you probably will never to be able to get around is that the sensor size affect the compression and focus depth to a large degree. But if you shooting in good light as you said and at a not too extreme focal length and the quality of out of focus areas are not so important then smartphones give real cameras some real competition
The sensor size does not affect processing performance, It's the Pixel count that matters. I am certain that the A12 chip could easily handle a DSLR Sensor!
@ hm, interesting, wonder why they're not implementing something like this then. I have for a long time wondered why dslr cameras are not using smartphone technology more.
Man. Great video dude. Makes me with Apple would make a camera lol.
So quick Jon on watching other people's videos. Hopefully you're not that bored with your channel..
*wish
Moe Hussein pal you went to a Justin Bieber concert so you really can’t talk about boredom.
Jonathan Morrison google is common with a night mode that will be extraordinary to many. I like to capture the mood, so much so that I prefer the Nikon to Canon that will fix the candle light for you. But in many occasions when you just want a memory , google software looks promising. It won’t be long before mirrorless cameras start to adopt the techniques.
Moe Hussein huh
Tbh i just felt sad on watching this video, its not the content is bad. But back at your hassleblad and pixel 2 comparison review we had a argument with my uncle that, I was saying that smartphones are catching up to professional cameras now, not better but they are catchinv up. He disagreed and said it will never catch up, and I showed him your video, he doesnt want to look at it cause to him it was "rubbish". I called him ignorant and he was not open to ideas. But boy was he mad. We never meet again ever since. I was excited to the progress of smartphone photography more this year, iphone got better, huawei got higher megapixels, google got nightsight. I was excited again to have a debate about photography with him. But And just this week, he passed away. Shocked. I think he was the only relative i could talk about tech. And the memory that played back again on again is your comparison with hassleblad, just sad he never saw my part of the argument.
Your uncle is right. Can you take bird in flight with phone? Can you take full zoom in of wild life in South Africa while you are on the safari truck with phone? How about using phone camera to take wedding photos on your wedding? Most professional photographer taking photo with full fledged dslr or mirrorless cameras will know the truth. People who compare phone and those dedicated camera is just wanting to get attention and view on youtube. It is really a waste of time arguing over this and your uncle did the right thing to stop further damage on the relationship. Phone camera is convenience, it is good to do common photography until up to certain degree, that's all.
Computational photography is great is great. And hasseblad did it as well. Not as extreme. I would say , computational is what is allowing smartphone to kind of touch the realm of a proper camera. With better depth separation and edge masking. You can pull off 50mm f0.95 or 21mm f1.4 in the future with ease. Then there is smart HDR, it’s way overtuned now, looks Samsung like. Unreal photos.
Ok back to hasselblad, them and a few others like olympus, pentax were doing this thing called hi res sensor shifting thing. That’s how a 16megapixel Olympus can throw out 40megapixel files. Hasselblad was churning out 100 over megapixel. And talking about Olympus, their em5 brought an amazing tech called 5 axis stabiliser long ago, it made micro 4/3 viable, paired with a f1.4 lens I could make night scenes like night sight or Huawei long exposure. But true and better. I love it. I started to carry the tripod less and less. It’s truly amazing.
Of course your uncle is right that a proper camera is great now. And you are right that computational is getting somewhere. Give it another 10 years and we’ll see if a smartphone can be a great enough camera. When mirrorless came to the scene everyone scoffed at it, lousy battery, poor tracking, bad evf, now it’s flipped. Same with dslr. When dslr came people were saying, dynamic can’t match film, resolution can’t match film, now surpassed film, unless you want those fuji film colours then get fuji. Sorry for your uncle I hope he wasn’t mad at you.
Your uncle is correct in many ways. A phone will not replace a dlsr or mirrorless for sports, weddings, wildlife or any situation where you need to seperate your subject from your background properly and without any cut out errors. Plus the small sensor from a phone gets taxed way more during low light situations. A phone, with the limitations it has, will always be a step behind a dslr, and several behind a professional mirrorless camera.
TheNickle i agree on your part, but the point of my argument was, phones are getting good. Not everybody is gonna pixel peep on those instagram and may be able to tell if is from a camera or phone anymore It is catching up.
Tell your uncle that he is WRONG, DSLR cameras are becoming obsolete. Give it another 10 years before the market dries up when manufacturers realize the majority of their users prefer cheaper alternatives. To those saying nobody would use a phone to take wedding photos or sports, ect.. well yeah with the current infrastructure of smartphones of course they wouldn't. That is until the smartphone lens surpasses DSLR (which it will) and we start seeing devices made specifically for photographers to use with their phones. The only people who don't understand this are those with degrees in photography. Modularity is the key, which yes, we will see modular smartphones designed around photography in the near future.
- Certified SysAdmin
(AKA I have 17 certifications surrounding technology, specifically hardware)
I think the concept and reality of computational photography is real and the shots are great. But I have to disagree with sensors wanting to underexpose and pull shadows. More data is always stored to the right of the histogram. In terms of iPhone shots the main problem is when you bring back the shadows then noise and lack of sharpness presents itself. But for Instagram if you don’t want to benefit from longer lenses smartphones are definitely a excellent quick solution.
Tell Him Nigel!!!😜
Nigel said it.
Don't bother this guy is one of those who believe that 1 inches senzor on a Apple phone will change the photography but he forgot to zoom in to see the noise in daylight plus you can take 7 difrent exposure Whit canon and it's going to look 100 times better, this kind of computation is like you buy a formula 1 car to go at supermarket and point the finger on ford because they parking much faster.
No, when you overexpose, then you lose information in the highlights. When he mentions that one needs to underexpose, he just means that the highlights are correctly exposed. So the highlights are at the right side of the histogram and don't clip.
Instagram stores photos at 1080x1080. Even digital zoom isn't much of a problem when your bar is that low.
Now on the iPhone, turn HDR off, shoot one RAW file and push the shadows and the highlights. Underexpose it if you want to (not with iPhone stock camera app you don't).
Because that's how you compare the 5Dmk4's photos to the iPhone result when you know the iPhone shot multiple exposures and stitch them instantly.
Tyler, been watching your videos for about a year now I believe. The quality, precision, and originality have been and are continuing to soar - gladly looking forward to this and more of what you have to offer!
I switched to android a few years ago, brand aside, whether it's an Apple or an android flagship, the cameras on these have improved drastically over the years. There are times I just shoot with my phone rather than use my full-frame camera, for casual shoots that is. I guess it's because of the convenience without having to edit heavily after taking photos. Pretty intriguing on how far you can stretch the limits of using phones.
For social media and websites, the iPhone is more than enough. For professional work, where every detail is important, the Canon is the one to go, no doubt. When you zoom in on both pictures, the iPhone lacks a serious amount of detail.
I really wish Apple could put a much bigger sensor than they do right now, even if that means a thicker phone.
Yeah but when you print them both out, they both look the same to the naked eye, effectively making the latter pointless in that regard. The only reason you would want to zoom in so far is to touch up, which you can easily do with modern smartphone technology.
Ask sony to start realeasing sensors for the phones...
@@BenderBendingRodriguezOFFICIAL Dylan, there was a comparison between printed iPhone X photo along with a mid-range camera and a high-end one. It's very interesting, you should check it out.
The sensor in the XS is 30% bigger than the X last year, Apple didn't really advertise this.
@@derekderekderek2 why will they advertise sensor since they buy that from #sony
The title should be: Why my iPhone Xr takes better snapshot than my Canon?
Yoci no it should be: Canon has really bad dynamic range.. Get a Nikon
better yet "just realised I need to work on my DSLR skills"
Xs
Totally right. the difference between a photograph and a snapshot lol...
the title should be "Why my Iphone Xr has the faster HDR software than the Canon"
Smart HDR is why I think the XS has the best camera on the market right now. It gives you the most flexibility. Like you said, Apple really undersold the camera this year. BTW loving the podcast 👍
Better than the Pixel 3? Matt, quit playing.
Marcos it is pixel 3 is same garbage as 2
Pixel 3 has the best HDR in the market. One obvious reason for this is, Google implemented this change in their smartphone cameras way before Apple did.
Marcos it’s better than the Pixel 3 for a few reasons. Love my Pixel 3, but the camera isn’t the best anymore. It has great processing but that’s about it.
If you want the most flexibility on phone camera go try Mate 20 Pro, it has no competition in that field
Are you kidding? Dynamic range isn't everything in photography.... take in count iso, did the xr took photos above 12000 iso with sharp results? Can you recover lights and shadows in raw files at the level of a pro camera? Dude..... this is disrespectful for photography and photographers... by the way to my eyes dynamic range from iPhone photos looked very unnatural, clouds looked like paper cut outs.... plain colors and no depth information, is cool that a smartphone can achieve that results but is far from perfect.... also you can achieve that same results by doing what apple do on the iPhone, instead of adjusting just one file you need to shoot at least two, three or more photos at different exposures and merge all that photos in one single file.... then compare the results and for sure the DSLR photos will reveal how the dynamic range on the iPhone is very wrong..... is near judging by color but in details..... sharpness and quality.... there's no comparison.....
1. Most smartphone cameras never go above 4000 iso.
2. Although iPhone XS doesn't give RAW with smart HDR applied, Google Pixel 3 actually gives you single combined RAW with the multiple exposures and the frames aligned. It should have ton of information.
great words
If you want a great smartphone camera try sony xperia xz2 premium. The phots are close to reality with minimal or no use of AI to enhance images. And dynamic range I superb.
Chill man.. he just want to get viewer.. if the iphone really that good why then he keep using the Canon..
Bunch of stupid crybaby here.. Listen to his point.. Dumbass..
I thought this video was a clickbait and you sir definitely delivered!
Apple should seriously use this video as an ad for the iPhone! Amazing video 👍
Okay I see that there are a lot of photo enthusiasts in the comments, so please help me understand. He is comparing smart HDR photos taken on the iPhone XR to single shots on the Canon and showing that they have more dynamic range. Most modern cameras nowadays have a feature though when they take three pictures in a row, at three different exposures, which can then later be combined into awesome looking HDRs. Wouldn't it then be more fair to compare the HDR photos from the iPhone with HDRs made by post processing three photos taken on the Canon?
He's not simply comparing iPhone HDR photos to the Canon, he's iPhone HDR shots to the Canon's incorrectly exposed single shot. If you're blowing out the highlights, you are definitely not getting your full DR. It might well be a valid comparison on dynamic range, the iPhone stack vs. the Canon single shot, at least until you drop the iPhone sensor into the noise floor on those darker shots. But use the Canon correctly! The Canon has a 13.6EV dynamic range, which is about what you get if you bracket 6 iPhone shots with 1EV bracketing and then combine them. But he's also using basic Lightroom highlight/shadow adjustment, which does help compress that ~14-bits into the 8-bit image you can see on-screen (8-bits/color, aka, 24-bit color in computer language). But Apple's running some form of actual HDR compression, using tone mapping, microcontrast adjustment, pretty basic ways to make a better looking HDR image that plays on regular displays or prints. Lightroom isn't the right tool for that level of HDR adjustment.
It it critically important to grok what I'm pointing out with reference to that raw image. Your monitor, like a JPEG, is only 8-bit, unless you paid enough to know that you actually have 10-bit monitor. You cannot see an entire raw image on your screen. The extra information will be lost in the highlights or the shadows or both, but what you see from a raw is nothing at all like what you'd get from an in-camera JPEG of the same shot. It is about as useful for human viewing on a monitor as a negative. It must be adjusted to compress the full 14-bits (or whatever) into an image that can be seen in its entirety, if you want to represent the orginal 14-stop DR on a medium that only supports 8-stops (or, in print, as little as 6-stops). And while Lightroom lets you do a bit of DR compression, without plugsins, it's all global. Apple will be using more advanced techniques like, as I mentioned, tone mapping and microcontrast adjustments. A dedicated HDR program might be needed in some cases. But you're not even close if you've blown out the highlights, as in those first shots.
So he's trying to demonstrate that the iPhone can best the Canon SOOC, but when you shoot in raw, there is no SOOC. You ARE going to edit. RAW is not a delivery format. Expose it correctly and maybe you'll get it -- Apple's also boosting saturation above Canon's more natural colors, so they're not going to be a perfect match anyway. It would be interesting to process a 3-shot stack in a real HDR editor with the Canon as a comparison. Or even, since he wants to test SOOC photography, try the multi-shot HDR mode built-in to the 5D Mark 4. Yes, it has its own in-camera HDR fusion. Apple's may be better, but Canon's is no less accessible to the Canon user, so it should have been included.
"Wouldn't it then be more fair to compare the HDR photos from the iPhone with HDRs made by post processing three photos taken on the Canon?"
Yeah, but he obviously isn't interested in the truth here. That video fluctuates between being misleading and flat-out lying over and over. Dave provides an excellent explanation.
Canon cameras don't have an HDR mode that you can take seriously. Furthermore you will lose raw, so Canon, etc will have no chance.
Quoutub Exposure bracketing?
My old Nikon D200 from 2005 with a kit lens still takes better photos than every smartphone ever made. Smartphones are great for ease of use but are not even close to what a big camera can achieve. What he compares here is HDR photography against normal photos from the Canon. Which is only fair if you think about ease of use. If you'd take a lower stop picture with the canon or an hdr you'd completely destroy the iPhone in picture quality, colors and so on. But if you want a shot fast at average quality, then a phone is great.
TLD brought me here and I'm glad he did you have an awesome channel man!
This is such an intriguing video. It made me think a lot about how I take a lot more photos on my pixel 2 than I do on my Sony A7ii, primarily because I feel like I’m not going to spend my time later having to edit the pictures. It’s fun to take photos, just for fun. I just take a picture, and share it, and it’s already a decent picture. It’s kind of exciting.
I agree that phone cameras are catching up but I feel like actual cameras are more flexible for different kind of photos atm.
And this is the video that officially makes my iPhone 6S’ camera feel truly old and behind the times. One could easily argue the pixel 2 was pulling off similar feats last year, but seeing these shots side by side against a DSLR better than my own (I have a 6D) really drives the point home.
Try iso 2000 with that iPhone 🤣
Iso doesn't mean much... My phone can go upto 3200.... And it sucks comparatively
@@orionarclight that's exactly what he's saying.... Iso 2000 on the phone looks good awful. And because it's post processed in camera it is denoised and looks mushy and lacks any detail. Any modern mirroelsss or dslr can go up to 12-25,000 pretty handily. Especially Sony's lineups. Phones still suck even in moderate low light.
Lee Cason But that’s not the point of this video.
ProCamera App takes care of low light photos!
@@Sherukka lol smh
as a full-framed owner. I find it much easier and now - much more reliable to post instagram photos straight from my XS Max.. and my followers still didn't realize most of the photos from the past month are from my XS Max instead of my 4300 dollar camera lmao. but the full-framed camera wins 100% of the time if you blow it up on a computer or TV.. but most people don't even do that. they just upload to fb or insta
I lurk a lot on your videos because I'm still learning a lot with photography, but you genuinely inspire me to keep studying and working at photography and photo editing.
It's insane how quickly phone sensors and computational photography are catching up. I would have really loved to have seen some of those HDR camera shots though. I've been use the Canon 5D IV HDR mode a lot and I haven't run into ghosting issues when using it (maybe I'm lucky).
Seriously? This video is like comparing a basic economy car with Super cars by driving in middle of traffic road and complaining they both perform the same way!
Siddharth Mahendran This is exactly what it is, if there is heavy traffic, do you need a supercar?
Wow! Good video, I've been thinking this to myself, phones are becoming better and better, easy to edit and great quality, you always have your phone with you but not always your camera. Camera companies should start catching up, if only they progressed with the same pace... I can't imagine what a camera can do then
But.. you clipped the highlights with the DSLR?! How's that a fair comparison? Of course the image looks worse when you don't have the correct exposure
Jaymin Woodcock He explained it in the video. Furthermore it's a disadvantage when a camera doesn't do it better automatically. Planes have an auto mode despite having pilots...
@@Quoutub if you're using auto mode with a DSLR you clearly don't have the need for it.
The real stunner is how good smart HDR works in video. Perfect exposure and dynamic range without and effort.
Google and Samsung screwed it up with there saturated fake pictures. People have become to accustom to it and can't appreciate what photos are actually suppose to look like. Beat by Dre did the same thing to audio quality. Everyone thinks heavy bass "studio sound" is what music should sound like.
Samsung? Yes but Google? Absolutely no. Almost everyone said that the pixels take more 'real to life' photos than Samsungs or iPhones
Ha... I think it all started with Fujifilm Velvia!
I clicked on this video wanting to hate it for a the title, but honestly did a pretty god job presenting your case.
I will that “better” isn’t simply defined by dynamic range, and I seem to prefer the DSLR images, but your examples clearly depict your claim.
This is so true. I have been taking photos for social media for one company (in RAW), taking my time to edit them, and then one day, the boss shows me what a wonderful photo he took (with an iPhone X) and I am serious, it just looked amazing, with 0 edits, single click of a button. No wonder sales of regular cameras are dropping.
Expose for foreground then drag highlights down -100, then create a linear gradient but not on the image but off in the gray area of lightroom so that the entire image is adjusted. Then adjust that gradient highlights -100 to give you like -200 highlights. You can repeat this process if you would like to lower the highlights more. The adjustments on lr just max out at +-100. It doesn't mean that the dynamic range isn't there to adjust still. The photos are not better by any means they are just heavily processed in phone.
Thank you **SONY** for those iPhone camera sensors...
Sad but people doesn't know this that Sony is king of camera in either it be smartphones or mirrorless
@@yogeshjadhav1976 computational photography is processor and software, any other phone making raws with the same sensor won't give these results
Good stuff. This kind of thing is the only reason I'm considering an Xr, myself.
The XR is a pretty safe bet
That’s pretty good seeing as it’s the most used camera in the world.
The cost difference is a little inacurate. You can get an apsc or micro four thirds camera with a kit lens and a laptop for as much as a new iphone, which will still have way more dynamic range than a single exposure from a cell phone camera. You dont have to pay thousands for a full frame camera and professional lens. Its still notable, but not in terms of price (after all the iphone is an expensive peice of equipment), but more in terms of size. Though think if camera companies got a bit more clever with what their sofware was doing.
So the HDR is better than one picture from the DSLR? Hardly surprising...
I tested my iPhone XS max vs A7iii a few months ago for landscape photos. The shock came when I put both in lightroom and then pixel peeped at distant small details miles away on the desert. Smart HDR also added in a lot of detail. It added extra detail in also in panoramas and videos. Even in low light the iPhone is very good compared to the Sony with the 24-105 f4 or 55mm 1.8. I would think that the iPhone will get even better with the new one in a couple of months.
I studied photography when I was 16-18 and then only really started to understand its components when I was about 19/20, now I love photography and videography, and although I don’t study it at uni, I’m just constantly learning via trial and error and researching topics online. Watching your videos is super informative as well! Seriously appreciate your work man 👊🏼
P.S I had never listened to a podcast in my life and never planned to until I took a shot at yours just cause I wanted to hear more when I finished your videos 😂 love them, nice work Tyler
I sure wish the camera companies used this tech in their devices. Imagine a full frame with this computational tech. I enjoyed this review.
Compare Apple with apples please. Make the same comparison when you exposure bracket the $5000 camera shot (like a pro that uses such a tool would do) and you will notice, remarkably, that it BLOWS THE IPHONE AWAY.
I think the main reason is sensor size and how its being handled to take in the light. Because of a smaller one on the phone, its easier to make the HDR better. Thats why also the GH5 is still spotting a small sensor, instead of a full frame one. They managed to get the best out of the small one, same on todays smartphones. My Honor 10s HDR is amazingly good, the detail stays pure enough and and it makes surprisingly well balanced shots.
TheRMSAndre1 gh5 uses a smaller sensor because it’s easier on the processing power needed.
Great content as always !
Was these shot in Toronto and nearby ? I think I saw this monument at 4 minutes on King St. ? And those colors on trees. They can’t lie ahah 😁
I just came back from 3 weeks in Montreal and Toronto actually and can’t wait to come again soon !
Thank you for reminding me again how beautiful that was !
So the question becomes...when will we start seeing computational photography in mirrorless cameras?
So we don't have to shoot stills underexposed or video in log but get the maximum results we want immediately in the camera.
Well didn't see the video yet, but I already liked your interior design :D
I'm always wondering why Canon, Nikon and Sony are sleeping through these developments. It started with the Pixel 1 and Apple now brings the numbers. I really would love to see a consumer version of computational photography an a larger sensor. But it seems only the smartphone developers have the momentum it takes to drive this technology forward.
You could also use an ND/polarizer to achieve similar results. I would be curious to see the results when blown up to something bigger than phone screen size especially in terms of noise. I've always considered noise performance to be the main difference between professional and consumer cameras.
There is a reason he's showing them in small format. Because he knows the iphone image looks horrible when stressed even slightly.
He just wants to justify his Iphone. I'd take that DSLR anyday.
That's why I still use my DSLR. Not only that but the optical choice and qulaity of lenses from interchangeable lens cameras is far superior. As I understand, most camera phones have a pretty limited range-usually wide/super wide angle which would be totally useless for what I like to photograph/film, which is wildlife. Try and take a decent image of a small songbird sitting in a tree that is 10 metres away with a camera phone and it will barely register as a blob!
@@koolkutz7 The only reason to use a DSLR IMO is for photoshoots or VERY serious shootings that require very high detail close, and at long range equally.
Also for as the above mentioned, photography far away. Also they are good for long exposure shots in the dark, however the night mode for cellphones I think currently can sometimes offer a better picture oddly enough. I feel the tech, and software mostly in DLSR's are in need of some innovation. Powerful hardware with linear software will get you only so much.
They are also the best for a longer battery life. Cellphones are not designed to be open in the camera app for an entire event taking thousands of pictures. Camera crashes, overheating, and reboots happen even on the best phones during such stress.
There are other reasons as well.
I just feel they seriously need to innovate on the software. Manual mode can not accomplish everything. There are some abilities that only a computer can produce.
I'm sure with how popular night mode, and many other options on smartphones are many companies are creating these tools for DSLR's as well.
Yes I agree. I think some companies are trying to move forward with better features and technology such as Panasonic, Olympus, Sony & Fuji, but are still behind phone companies at the cutting edge. Ironically, Samsung produced some good mirrorless cameras and lenses but have ceased production. It's a shame as they would have pushed the likes of Sony and competition is always good for the consumer.
Was about to comment about underexposing and pulling shadows but I’m glad you covered that in the end.
Ive seen plenty of video comparisons between expensive cameras vs phones and this was the most down to earth unbiased one.
When shooting with a digital camera you're supposed to expose for the highlights, as you did in the last couple of examples. It's just the way it is
One word. " Software."
No, processing.
@@JtheKproduction exactly
So he's giving stick to a DLSR just because it didn't process the image for him ?
@@benjamin7114 exactly.
There’s no doubt the iPhone Xs is exceptional. I’m so impressed and pleased with it. However, i don’t think the dynamic range is at modern dslr levels yet.
But for a quick result it’s amazing. Truly amazing.
I really like how you have the frame behind your head. It looks really good. About the video, if you were to underexpose on your Canon and brought up the shadows in post. You could've gotten a much better photo than the XS.
EDIT: LMAO you did underexpose later in the video. My bad. I underestimated you and I am ashamed of myself.
6:08 "now we are getting close to what iphone looks like"
Tyler Stalman 2018
I love your videos but we both know that you could get way more dynamic range out of the 5d iv if you exposed for the highlights and pushed the shadows in post (edit: nevermind)
I hope you watched the whole video
@@stalman yeah I got to that part about 10 seconds after I commented, sorry my bad 😅
You miss the point, the iPhone does it all on the phone with love preview. If you can't see why this is a revolution in photography you aren't smart enough.
but the iPhone XS will nail the exposure value 95% of the time. By the time you get to the computer with your 5D, you probably don't even remember how the scene looked like exactly.
Yes, because it is stacking. If you shoot in low light with my XS it becomes very noisy and fairly unusable, as should be expected given the small sensor size. Also, if you stack 3 images like the iPhone is doing, and which can be done automatically with some of the latest AI available for Capture One, LR, PS and such. It does take post-processing, but it looks a lot better in general than what I can get with my iPhone XS. However, it is a great phone to shoot with, and I always have it with me.
Canon/Nikon are assuming pro photographers will be taking what they shoot and processing it in LR or PS. No need for it to look great 'in camera'. People using phones would never be happy with what they immediately see, or go to the trouble of massaging the data to create a photo they're happy with. Apple/Samsung/Google are creating products they know will immediately please their users. As far as underexposing, it's always been the recommendation to pro users that they expose "to the right". The reason is the sensors capture more steps of tonality in the upper two thirds of the tonal range than they can do in the bottom two thirds of the range. It's harder to capture lots of shadow detail that highlight detail, as long as you don't over exposure the shot. I think I'm going to continue taking the advice of those experts about exposing to the right.
You are correct. However, the OP is also on point about computational photography advancing faster than the processing chips on dSLRs. I would love to see computational photography applied to dSLRs, just imagine getting the dynamic range from exposure stacking without having to deal with the hassle of merging a stack of RAW files into an HDR in a computer. Or a pixel by pixel autoISO feature that will prevent a pixel from being overexposed or underexposed to a point of collecting no detail.
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but just as some people say that mirrorless are more advanced (in that they have more potential) that SLR cameras, electronic shutters are more advanced than mechanical shutters (in that the electronic shutter has more potential). With the electronic shutter of an iPhone XS, you can take multiple shots, combine them and process them with a powerful 7nm chip. I guess we still don't have the processing power to correctly combine multiple full frame shots. Maybe with cameras like the A9 and their advanced sensors we're starting to get there.
This is pretty silly. you compare an HDR mode sofware to a single raw file of a camera. compare a single exposure of the iphone and the iphone picture will fall apart like a snowman in summer compare to the canon. I also can shoot 5 exposures on my camera and merge them to a super HDR pic. and software nowadays get rid of the ghosting pretty easily.
So the Iphone here is NOT taking better photos. it just can process them faster to an HDR. but faster is not better. if i take my time i can get MUCH better results with the canon.
Exactly. I used to take bracketed HDR shots on my old Nikon D70s (6MP CCD) and it would still crush a phone image today.
I have to say that processing the photo after the shoot is part of taking the photo. Smartphones do great job processing for us but would you really want your dslr to decide for you whats the photo should look like? probably not. Yes Phone can replace your traveling camera or pocket cameras which it all-ready did. but it will not be your first or last choice for any work/job/ or any thing that you will need to get pay for.
Great video but i cant really agree
Classy AF
iPhone is blending multiple exposures while you are pulling data from one single DSLR raw exposure, which isn’t a fair comparison.
Comp proc is awesome for casual shooters, but the whole point of having a big interchanging lens system is to have precise control over what you want.
How can any kind of smartphone with its tiny sensor and so called lens outperform a digital camera which is made for photography is beyond me. People say here phones are catching up thanks to their software but excuse me, software and chips used in cameras are also becoming more and more powerful... Thing is that there is no software to produce image with same quality and characteristics as dedicated lens mounted on digital camera. Imagine a hubble telescope with a bath mirror but very powerful software, you'll get a piece of **** instead of clean picture, but perhaps instantly thanks of its clever algorithms. So please stop comparing phones with digital cameras which are exclusively made for photographers.
Lev Ani Not true.
I can go out and buy a camera. Doesn’t mean I’m a professional
@@ilpatongi Can't get your point. This is not about your skills, this video is comparison between the phone and the Canon 5D Mk4 which is a professional camera. If your money can buy it just for fun very nice but comparing it to the smartphone and saying that it's on the same level is just wrong and simply can't be.
Lev Ani He never said it’s at the same level
That was a great video ! more detail than I expected and RIGHT TO THE POINT. A+. Subscribed
Title is definitely click-bait-y and the argument is VERY misleading. The iPhone is indeed better for social media and fast processing (getting photo ready for IG). To claim that it exceeds dedicated cameras is wishful thinking when i comes to image resolution and overall quality. The only reason the iPhone looks better OOC is because the software does the HDR stacking/editing for you. To compare a merged HDR photo from iPhone with a single exposure with highlight suppression or shadow elevation is laughable. You can achieve the same/better result in lightroom with better image quality using a DSLR/mirrorless bracketing and post-process merging. I will concede that it is a lot more effort to do this yourself and the raw files take up a lot more space.
The process of shaping the image to your liking and the joy of shooting with a dedicated camera is lost with the iPhone, so those of us who enjoy photography as a hobby (as opposed to enjoying it for social media and personal validation from receiving likes), your argument more than falls flat.
However, for the social media junkie, phone cameras + blackbox computational tools is clearly the best option and "surpasses" other cameras in convenience and time saved.
You can in-camera bracket too and blow away these shitty HDR pics
The iPhone tends to product photos with less contrast and many reviewers are calling that a con. I don’t really get it. The lower contrast doesn’t look bad at all, and just like how I get more control over colors and lighting when editing flat or log videos, the lower contrast actually works really well with light editing or just applying filters.
Quick Rant: As soon as I saw this video, I knew that there would be a lot of touchy photographers & camera nerds loading up in the comments section to argue...I was not disappointed.
They never admit it, but a lot of camera aficionados like to turn their noses up at the masses because they hate the way that smartphones have given the average everyday joe a platform to, all of a sudden, become a "trained photographer" without having put in any of the same time, effort, or classes that they themselves had to put in to earn their photography skills. They hate that apps like instagram have turned many untrained individuals into "professional" photographers now, even though most took the easy way to get there. Smartphone photography is for people who're lazy about the craft, and those who're serious about the craft, still use DSLRs, and they can't stand the thought of being classed in the same category as the masses who are untrained and ignorant about photography...which is exactly what's happening as smartphone photography tech evolves and the gap between smartphone and DSLR, rapidly closes. In other words, the edge that DSLR cameras give photographers, serves as the basis for their sense of elitism/purism, and without that edge, they have nothing that really separates them from the common iPhone photographer, who, in reality, knows little to nothing about photography...and, once again, the very thought of being classed within the same group as that person, scares the s**t out of them. Which is exactly why this video will receive a lot of the hate that it will...snobs really lol.
Not every photographer is like that, but I know a lot who are, and to those who are, I say; get over yourselves and get with the times. You cannot stop the inevitable. Time is moving forward, with, or without you (shrug) - Rant over.
Now, as far as the video goes, this video perfectly outlines an argument that I've been making for the past few years now, and I'm glad that someone else is finally taking note. I am a DSLR user myself (Nikon), but I also keep a very avid eye on the tech market, and I've been noticing that the smartphone market is drastically and rapidly catching up to what the camera market has been doing for years. Technology that has taken the camera market DECADES to perfect/implement, has taken the smartphone market just mere years to input, and the real scary part about all of this, is that it's doing it at just a fraction of the cost and for an even smaller fraction of your time...Which last I checked, is a pretty invaluable asset.
There's no doubt that the camera market still has the edge on photography, but the big question here that's becoming more and more relevant as time goes on is; is the edge that having a DSLR camera gives you, large enough to justify the incredibly hefty price tag, time cost, and mobility loss that you incur?...With the knowledge in mind that the average person just shoots regular everyday photos, for about 90% of the world's population, the answer to that question is a hard - NO. There are very few situations where the photography results that you get out of a DSLR camera, are so much greater than what you would get out of a smartphone camera, that it justifies the ridiculous price difference between the two, and as I said earlier, as time goes on, that gap is just getting smaller and smaller.
Great video. Great post man👍🏾
Wow, if only everyone else put so much thought into their comments! Yeah, if anyone didn’t watch the whole video they may not realize that the point is that it’s surprising how well the iPhone can compete. Obviously larger sensors can always outperform them when used properly
IPhones are not doing this at a fraction of the price. The cost of the iphone is well above a thousand dollars. Sure the phones are advancing, but to say they have better dynamic range really is clickbait though, there's no other word to describe this video. Another thing is that phones will always have a disadvantage due to their compactness and sensor size. For snapshots phones are pretty close, but for astrophotography, telephoto shots, sports, low light performance, wide landscapes, phones are nowhere close to the performance of cameras. It's going to take them 10 to 20 more years to catch up with dslrs right now and by then, cameras will have evolved even more. In the last few years especially, cameras have been growing at a rapid speed. Smart Phones have not had many major camera upgrades in the last 10 years that they've been out. The fact that BBC used a sony a7s for their show planet earth shows the low light capabilities of a camera that came out 5 years ago.
There'll be a lot of childs/organs for sale if 90% of the population get that iphone.
Because of the length of this comment, it sounds more a rant than those actually ranting. Sorry bro. lol
@@pingwong117 kudos to you for knowing what you need. :)
As a professional photographer making 100% of my income from photography, I have to say we are on a trip to Europe right now and my wife is getting as good or better photos with her iPhone XR than I am with my Fuji. I have a tripod with exposure bracketing, shooting long exposures at night of London, Trevi fountain, etc. Last night I left the camera at home and shot ‘live exposure mode’ to do long exposures and the photos turned out amazing. Throw it into snap seed and I’m a little disappointed that I have packed all my other stuff around for two weeks. I don’t know what will happen when we try and print after we get home. Honestly, I’m not printing 20x30s regardless. The last few days of our trip. I plan to try and find the limits of the XR. So far, all I can say is wow! Not trying to clickbait by any stretch, but if you want to see results, I post to Instagram on @freeheelRN
you are right. i was considering the same way when it came to clicking pics with apple and using my canon, and usually i just pop apple phone to click a best looking shot instead of getting into settings of dslr to capture the near perfect shot.
At 5:54, the pixel contrast the pine tree at the centre much better, the Xr’s looks flat.
Sam Chiu iphone xs was overall better
It should be possible that one day, the phone sensors catch up to larger sensor cameras for still life photography in decent lighting - but that's always where it will stop. When you want optical zoom to any focal length, or you have moving subjects, you want to print in size A3 or A2 or more, you want to shoot the night sky, you want to take portraits with natural depth of field and bokeh in low light, or even just want to see the amazing micro-contrast and colours that these larger sensors produce (this is where even in still life photography the FF sensor is king, and the reason people use even bigger sensors). Anyway, I think Tyler knows all this which is why he hasn't sold his two full frame cameras, and he's totally right when he says that people who aren't doing anything with their photos in post are misguided
Interesting that you chose to compare Canon and iPhone. Pixel 3 is better at computational photography, and Sony cameras are much better at dynamic range than Canons. And yes, that title is clickbait - you can get similar results from a FF camera + dynamic range is not the no.1 quality factor. Also, the photo on the beach - the one shot on the iPhone looks better only at a thumbnail distance. The oversaturated color blotches are terrible. This is not to say that for an average person an iPhone won't be a satisfactory camera, much better than a DSLR. But people who buy bigger cameras generally know it's not only about dynamic range.
zomgonzo who the fuck uses sony in 2018
THE UNDISPUTED Aparently some idiots still do:..
Real classy guys ;) Typical YT comments.
zomgonzo I don’t have to be “classy” in a TH-cam comment section
You can always add something to the conversation instead of spewing random insults. That is, if you know the subject.
Great video. Apple should partner with Canon or something, because an iPhone will never be able to capture the fidelity of one of those big sensors and huge chunks of glass, but on the other hand if Canon doesn't get some of that computational tech in their cameras they are going to lose lots of sales to smart phones.
only if Tyler did a Sony A7III review
This is what I've been wondering, when camera makers are going to get on board with computational photography. Imagine a neural engine tightly nit with its ISP like the A12 has, but with big sensors and glass in front of it.
The only purpose for anything that goes in-camera is to deliver a better image capture in the field. If you're serious about photography, you're going to shoot raw and edit in your "digital darkroom", because the darkroom is half of the creative process. This year, and maybe last a bit, all the top camera phones started doing lots of multishot tricks, not just for HDR like every P&S camera since the 2000s. But I had multishot for low noise in my Canon DSLR ages ago. A bunch of different multishot modes in my Olympus cameras for higher resolution, focus stacking, light stacking, etc...I'm not going to challenge or want to power a full on six core i7 in my camera, or edit on a 3.5" screen. Period. The goal on a phone is to shoot and post, probably skipping the darkroom work. Since they pretty much ran past the ability to improve sensors much (you know this because Apple finally gave up the 1/3" sensor and moved to 1/2.55" like everyone else) they're throwing increasing bits of image processing, AI, and other things to either get around the limits of the sensor or do the editing/adjustment that an enthusiast would normally do. It may not be artistic, but it can deliver a better output than the flat shot, and they have studies on what average people consider a good photo. So you get that.
Why is my iPhone XR Taking Better Photos Than a $5,000 Canon? You are doing something wrong...
boris kozjan elaborate
boris kozjan clearly didnt watch video
I also tested this out with my 5D Mk IV. Situations where there is a LOT of Shadows und Light at the same time, the iPhone is just taking pictures effortlessly while with the 5D MkIV you really have to think and work on it to get results as good as from the iPhone (in terms of preserving highlights and shadows). If you don‘t know what you are doing an iPhone is not a bad choice! You might be even dissapointed of the DSLR because you don‘t know how to handle it.
boris kozjan Because he’s comparing an HDR frame and a regular frame and then focusing on Dynamic Range. Not an apples to apples comparison
Its actually not that it takes a better photos but that it takes very advanced post processing to give you a photo that never existed in the first place.
The new Huawei can take good looking pictures in complete darkness where a human would not see a thing ( th-cam.com/video/peYgzUIOUp8/w-d-xo.htmlm53s ).
The pictures are great but have little to do with what you saw.
Modern phones take multiple pictures at different exposure and merge them with advanded algorithms to create a pleasing looking image.
If you take 3 photos with different exposures on your full frame camera and merge them post you will have an absolutely superior image.
Smartphones can do this on the fly since they have very good algorithms, fast processors and the raw pictures fom the sensor contain alot less information compared to full frame pictures.
The point is that you have no control over what it does and it shows you stuff that is not there. A good example would be the skin softener that Apple used and that you could not turn off (I think they patched it).
Also you lose information since the original image can not be restored (there was no single image in the first place).
Smartphone cameras are superb at taking snapshots these days but is has nothing to do with photography.
Tyler your videos are phenomenal dude. The quality is insane... #OneDay
Hey man, where can I get those glasses you are wearing?
He probably doesn’t use this but I recommend Warby Parker. It’s a website
Is the video better too?
One of the best comparisons videos I've seen recently. I'm an iPhone and a Canon DSLR user. They both have their time and place. I use my DSLR mostly for portraits or "bokeh" shots. Landscapes are kinda easier and better on an iPhone.
Even bokeh is not safe from smartphones. The fake bokeh now on phones still has flaws, but it's always improving. Cheap DSLR lenses can have rough bokeh too.
lol@better for landscapes. Shows you know little or nothing about photography. The second you post that image to anything that's not Instagram, you're gonna get shredded
I agree @@derekderekderek2
Rounding up, yes, for general use, street, landscape, for posting on Instagram, iPhone y faster than a dslr. But, we have to remember one of the most important rules in digital photography, that is Protect your Highlights, always. And what you can do with a proper exposed raw file is way better for every use.
The Canon pictures look way more pleasant. The iPhone always looks fake and over processed
No it doesnt. Im a samsung sheep but i agree that the iphone is better
@@Chayc4 The canon clearly has vastly more detail, and has a wonderful "pleasantness" to the image. Besides the dynamic range when pointing and shooting without manual mode, the iphone holds not more detail, but better areas that require better dynamic range.
Zoom in on a photo and you'll see a blurry garbage mess, and on the canon still crystle clear.
not at all honestly. The Canon 5D pictures look like they came from phones from 2015 (in terms of dynamic range).
When I look at the ocean and the Sky in real life then it‘s „exposed totally fine“ and I see a lot of colors. So how is the one from Canon looking better? I guess we are used to a certain way of how PICTURES look like! But even these pictures are just interpretations of the reality and not the reality itself. Maybe the iPhone is closer to reality but we‘re not used to its interpretation.
Cool comparison. Thank you for presenting. Just bought the Xs and loving the photos. Not just the results - it's also FUN to use!
But, are you aware that smartphone camera doesn't output RAW for you, just only highly processed final photo, which was made from 2-3 different EV photos shoot one after another for HDR mixup? Making the same on the DSLR would producec superior results. IMO you made a false statement, because you can't compare those completly dofferent devices, and say that smartphone can do better/same quality photos so it's equal to DSLR. Even more funny are people that want apple to make DSLRs after seeing this movie...
I don’t think I said the creates better quality photos. I don’t think anyone would say that.
good points and something i have noticed as well. cameras just arent developed with the same speed as phones unfortunately. there seems to be a new phone with more features coming out each week, while dslr updates are minor and far in between.
Try long exposure with a mobile phone, or night shoot. Mobile phone picture in low light situation are very noisy. What about zooming and the real bokeh. Also what about using flash. Mobile phone produces image over saturated with a lot of contrast. This video is none sense, you can't compare mobile to a pro camera, there is nothing to compare.
Saying there is nothing to compare is nonsense. Comparisons are always possible. Just remember that any photographer's greatest tool is the one between the ears. Uniquely evocative images have been made with primitive, even toy cameras.
in paper yes you canot compare them... but in reality he did ..and actually to my eyes iphone look better..and i am so in shock right now!
The problem is, most people buying "pro cameras" don't have the skill or time to get the best results, and for the kinds of photos most people take (kids, travel, etc) the iPhone wins. As far as low light, software is catching up there too. Just search for Google's new "Night Sight" feature that can take ridiculous night photos.
I haven't used any smartphone in a year!! so excited to get back into the world of smartphones and iphone xs has been teasing my curiosity
Using a DSLR for video feels like I’ve gone back ten years in time. I have to fiddle with memory cards and external drives, laptops and heavy software. When I shoot with my iPhone the videos are synced to the iCloud automatically and I can edit them straight away on my iPad in LumaFusion. Sure, pros need proper kit and software, but I think going “mobile only” is starting to be a great option for the prosumer market.
Carlos Kynäslahti
Prosumer? Is that the inverse of amaducer?
Stephen Arling More like the inverse of amafessional 😂
Wikipedia: “"Prosumer" is also a trade term, used from a business perspective, for high-end electronic devices (such as digital cameras), meaning a price point between "professional" and "consumer" devices.”
Basically I just meant users who want to make quality content but their lives don’t depend on it. Somewhere between advanced amateur and professional.
Phones are a good choice for amateurs who have no interest in ever being enthusiasts or prosumers. They do not match prosumer (in the market, high-end consumer/low-end pro) quality. Well, let me rephrase that... they don't match the quality that can be had by an experienced enthusiast, much less a pro, correctly using the gear. A phone with top enhancement software will beat an entry level DSLR shooting JPEG on automatic with the kit lens. Which is, or at least was, a pretty significant slice of the consumer DSLR market.
even trough youtubes crappy compression I can easily tell the 5D images are looking much cleaner. like you say, better highlight rolloff and sharper details and more natural highlights and shadows.
My 200 dollar Phone has better dynamic range than my 500 dollar camera with HDR toggled on. I wish cameras had amazing software like phones.
What I said applies only to out the box result. If I were to edit a raw photo taken from the camera, the camera would have similar dynamic range as the phone.
@@saputrasaputra3347 Check out the Image I posted in twitter. The link is posted above.
Phones have good HDR because they take multiple exposures and merge them. DSLRs don't have this function built in. Besides a proper camera is significantly better at capturing fast subjects. HDR mostly works on static subjects.
I know this, that's why I said I wish cameras had this option. It would be nice to have the option when the situation is suitable.
Dslr's ain't build for automode. Better stick to the phone.
I only shot my dslr in manual mode and raw files. The amount of flexibility in post proces is amazing.
This video really shows the advancement in silicon we have gotten in the past couple of years. The professional camera's sensor is miles ahead of the smartphone's camera sensor. Yet, the phone is able to capture multiple photos, stitch them together, and get the best possible result in under a second. Makes me wonder what would it be like if Canon or Sony used something as powerful as the A12 bionic chip.
Not just about chip. Now smartphone camera sensors intentionally have very fast read outs optimized for HDR and multi-frame stitching.
Ok give us the raw files so i can pixel peep and debunk this whole thing, thanks
It's crazy how phone/software company's are making more advancements in the realms of photography than dedicated companies like Canon and Nikon. Give it a few more years and we will see a major shift in phones taking over permenatly in this space. The results are already mind-blowing in what is being accomplished today. Take this video for instance. Insane how a super small camera modual on a phone is overtaking a beast in the professional world. Granted, there still is more detail in terms of pure image size in the professional bodies, but that doesn't matter as much anymore since most imagery is being viewed on phone sized screens in today's social media driven culture.
Smart HDR and all the similar modes available with other phones is a thing that I don't like at all. Most of the time these pictures look weird and I find that this HDR thing is "useful" only with specific scenes.
can u pls tell an example from this video that hdr on iphone look weird? because to my eyes actually iphone photos looks better ..and i am also in shock right now about this
@@mariospavlou8421 The second pictures in the video when he talks about bad HDR is the perfect example of that.
Loved it tyler! Agree a 100%. Plus my insta is on the phone and not on the camera so thats another step less.
A good way to end the weekend a tyler video
Great video Tyler! Thanks so much for taking the time to do all the comparisons!