Talk to me about the iPhone 7 (and 7 Plus) cameras. 12 MP f/1.8

>>2986458
Smartphones have tiny sensors. That will never change due to size constraints. Their ultimate image quality will always be limited by that fact compared to real cameras.

>>2986459
>real cameras

File: 161103140714-chicago-tribune-sun-times-split-780x439.jpg (381KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 780x439px

They're good, but I doubt we'll be able to see any real advancement in our lifetimes (or at least we will be too old and senile to know how to use it). As >>2986459 said, the tiny sensor is the greatest drawback and for that it will never replace a larger sensor like in that of a DSLR.

A good example would be the photos from the Cub's win last month. On the left is a trained photographer with a professional kit, and on the right is an intern with an iPhone.

>>2986462
What's the comparison supposed to be showing?

Left is a far better photo

>>2986464
That a smartphone can replace the camera for day to day snaps, but can't replace a full fledged camera for actual work.

>>2986465
Is that a fair comparison?

If you had two professional photographers, one with a pro kit and another with an iPhone 7, I'm sure they would both produce good photos that an average person couldn't tell the difference between

>>2986468

That dude is a fucking idiot. Both images were shot on professional slr's by "professional" photographers.

The only difference is that the Tribune's photo was shot by a staff photographer who has something like 25-30 years' experience, and the Sun-Times's photo was shot by a freelancer fuckoff who probably only has 4 or 5 years under his belt.

>>2986458
>Will there be any point to even owning a standalone camera for 99% of people (including photographers) in the near future?

It's a phone. And an iphone especially, which means

>can't replace the battery if it dies
>can't upgrade or swap memory
>giant ass screen must be on to take a shot, drains battery quickly, can't be used if battery is below a certain level
>terrible ergonomics
>one button and a touch screen to control everything
>fixed lens(es)
>no true shallow depth of field

In the end a dedicated product will always make more sense, especially when it comes to cameras. If all you do is casual snapshotting and you don't care about any of the above things then sure, the iPhone is all you need. If you're so lazy that a camera above 1/8th a pound is too big and too heavy for you, by all means use your fucking phone for everything.

But shooting on a phone IMO is like shooting on a point and shoot camera. It's a complete regression from every good reason to use a "real" camera to begin with. Notwithstanding is the image quality; I work in electronics sales and was thoroughly unimpressed by the iPhone 7's camera even compared to the $250 point and shoot compacts we sell. Yeah they might look great on the screen or on instagram but that's usually where it stops.

My Pixel phone looks down at this camera and has a belly laugh

>>2986458
>Will there be any point to even owning a standalone camera for 99% of people

cut the will, there already isn't

>>2986533
Hope you enjoy your terrible flare issue, m8

>>2986543
I am a few hundred photos in. No flare issues. Trumped up, Lloyd Chambers tier bullshit.

>>2986470
I am also willing to bet that freelancer took a few much better photos that the editor didn't choose because they might not have looked right or fit the narrative of whatever it is they were to trying to convey. So let's not rip too hard into that freelancer.

>>2986458
>I've seen some stunning photos taken with newer models of smartphones.
They're always taken in good light.

>Will there be any point to even owning a standalone camera for 99% of people (including photographers) in the near future?
The fact that you're asking this question shows that you're so ignorant to the basic facts of photography and the basic aspects of image quality that it's not even funny.

i have the Galaxy S7
that shit shot amazing photos compared to less expensive DSLR's
not today but in a few years they will be as good as great expensive camera

>>2986594
>that shit shot amazing photos compared to less expensive DSLR's

No it didn't. You just didn't know how to use a DSLR. Sorry. Even a nikon D80 probably has better noise performance and dynamic range than your S7. Sure the performance is good for a PHONE camera, but it's shite compared to even consumer level (non point-and-shit) cameras.

>not today but in a few years they will be as good as great expensive camera

No they won't. You know absolutely nothing about how cameras work. You can keep packing more and more pixels into that TINY sensor and get more megapickles (anyone who knows anything about photography knows megapickles are one of the least reliable indicators of image quality). The shitty little optics and minuscule pixel pitch will ALWAYS inherently limit performance.

Your galaxy s7 has a 1.4 micron pixel pitch, this is an inherent and non-surmountable limitation. As technology improves, the smaller pixel in the phone's sensor will perform better as it always does, but the technology is also advancing for sensors with larger pixels. The amount of light captured is limited by the laws of physics, not technology, and the bigger pixel in the DSLR's sensor will always have an advantage in low light performance and dynamic range.

>>2986598
I have a Galaxy s7 active and a canon 750D. And while the s7 is "okay" for snapshits it gets blown out by my 750D. Like I say, until they make a phone with at least a micro 4/3rds sensor, hot shoe, and an ef mount, I'll stick to my dslr.

>>2986598
you butthurt afraid of the future

>>2986760
>you butthurt afraid of the future

kek what does this even mean? this guy is a fucking retard

>>2986470
Didn't the Sun lay off all it's full time photographers and trained their journalists in iPhone photography though?

>>2986459
you're assuming conventional camera design. compound lenses or tricky internal optics, e.g. could get around the sensor size limit. and there's a lot of r&d money being poured into this technology.

>>2986458
when they all have a 1" sensor in it.

When can I put in a roll of film or two?

>>2986886
It's about the one inch sensor in your soul anon. The one u always have with you