Nbd Digital Camera 4k 48mp Review
Jamie Swearengin
Last year, I did a fun comparison between my Canon R5 and iPhone 13 Pro. Those results were quite impressive, so much so that I ended up printing images from that test to see just how far we could push the iPhone 13 Pro image. While I was happy with the results, at no point did I inspect the images and feel comfortable saying I could shoot with the iPhone in place of my Canon R5 given the two options. I expected the same results this year, and midway through editing my images, I realized something was different.
Notice the areas in shadow compared to those snow-capped peaks getting hit by bright direct light. Both cameras were able to capture this amount of dynamic range without much trouble, a noted improvement from last year for the iPhone. This is where things get interesting and what completely blew my mind when editing the photos. Zooming in was always where the iPhone image fell apart to immediately give away which camera took each image. Brace yourself.
Low light is where all small sensors struggle, and phone sensors are the smallest of the bunch. Any review you read will continually mention low-light performance being directly correlated to how large the sensor is. This was the hardest test in this year's comparison for the iPhone 14 Pro.
This is how the image started, straight from the iPhone. Keeping in mind almost every raw photo from the iPhone looks like a black hole in scenes like this. This should provide some context in how far the image was pushed in the edit.
Another blue sky sunrise with a large dynamic range, so much, in fact, that many of the photographers around me were shooting bracketed shots, yet I was able to capture everything in a single exposure with both cameras.
In this final image, we test a more realistic time for those of you out there not waking up for sunrise or staying out for sunset. This was taken a few hours before sunset, giving us long shadows, a ton of contrast, and most of all testing just how much detail the iPhone 14 Pro can pick up in a busy scene.
Below is a gallery of all the images throughout this comparison so you can enlarge them a bit more. Also included are a few images straight out of camera from the iPhone 14 Pro, which are comically bad in comparison to their raw counterparts. I would love to know your thoughts in the comments, as this was an eye-opening experience for me.
Alex Armitage has traveled the world to photograph and film some of the most beautiful places it has to offer. No matter the location, perfecting it's presentation to those absent in the moment is always the goal; hopefully to transmute the feeling of being there into a visual medium.
If you think the larger photos are comparable, honestly you need to buy a new monitor. Not trying to be snarkey, but there's a pretty profound difference on my calibrated monitors - And they're not flash ones either.
you are shooting in great light. what happens when the light sucks and you need to composite? I've owned every iPhone in hopes it could replace my backup, but my canon EOS R and R5 do a far superior job in any situation. Sensor size, dynamic range, and pixel density are no match. This is relying on software computations from developers who are giving their own take on photography.
Nicely done video. Just one comment about the forest floor shots. The iPhone shows better detail in foreground, and I think that's because its camera gives you more depth of field. All other things being equal, DOF will be proportional to CoC / (FL * FL), where CoC is circle of confusion, and FL is the actual focal length of the lens (not the full frame equivalent). I did not do the calculations for your shots, but I suspect there will be a significant difference. I wrote about this issue in a post on the DPReview forum.
My phone will never replace my camera. I buy my phones as communication devices and my cameras as imaging devices.
Yes, I can a take good pictures with my phone. Sure. But is my phone as good as a dedicated imaging device as my camera is. NO.
It's funny, when this comes up people always leap from "can it compete with my camera" straight to "can it COMPLETELY replace my camera in everything?". I got an S22 Ultra with the intent on using it to supplement my professional work. I use it all the time. I use it to generate quick, easy & good looking videos for social and BTS of my shoots that I can now charge extra for. The HDR capabilities in video sometimes actually beat my Z6 & BMPCC for range. Beautiful blue skies where the proper cameras are blown out white.
You'd have to pry my Z6 and BMPCC4K and thousands of dollars of lenses, lighting and other tools out of my cold dead hands and obviously in most situations, you need the pro gear... but as an extra tool you're missing out if you sleep on camera capabilities of modern smartphones.
I think it could be good for herp photography (reptiles and amphibians) on a limited basis, but only the herp photography that is done in daylight, and only that which does not require a true macro magnification or tilt/shift capabilities or very shallow depth of field.
And this is why photography and art in general usually suffer. This doesn't have to be a divided topic. There is a place for everything. There is a place for camera phones and a place for professional gear. Why does it always have to be a new camera comes out the first thing we as a community does is try make a case for why we will never do something? So i'll say this and leave it. When your work and clients start to dry up, money slows and you fade into obscurity, just remember you had a choice. You had a choice to use every tool available to make great art/work. Instead you chose to cling to a specific system, or brand or whatever. Unless they are paying you there is no need for your undying allegiance to these brands and systems, If you're a photographer you're a photographer with a camera phone or a camera. Use the tools you have. If you're shooting a billboard of course bring out the big guns, but if you're shooting a social media campaign could you get away with an iphone for images and video? ABSOLUTELY. This world changes everyday with or without us. So be grateful that we all get to participate in this beautiful thing called photography because none of us own it. Adapt to the changes and stay true to your craft. Or you can cling to the stupidity of past photographers just like the ones who fought the change from film to digital. It's truly adapt or die. Either way, I'll still be here to extract the fossils of you dinosaurs that couldn't let go of the past. Oh and for those talking about ergonomics, there are cages made for your phone just like they make for your camera that make it very ergonomic. Come pout of your caves, there's a big world out here.
You seem to have a lot of bitterness and negativity for those who choose to continue using their ILCs instead of switching to cell phones. Instead of using 70% of your words to put people down, perhaps you could re-write your post so that those words are positively supporting the virtues of cell phone photography.
Basically what I am saying is that your point is not likely to be accepted if you are primarily putting others down for thinking differently than you do. But if you show acceptance for these people, and accept their position as viable from certain standpoints, then go on to say positive things about cell phone imagery, those very people may actually listen to what you're saying, and consider your points thoughtfully.
I came here to be annoyed but I left pretty convinced. I've been telling friends and family to skip buying a camera and get a new phone for a few years now and I'm pretty convinced. One think I wish and maybe it's coming to future phones is that they would use the same large sensors for the wide, ultrawide and tele cams. In the androids I've owned you get great quality from the middle camera and they cheap out a bit on the other two.
Well done, the iPhone did a great job! Wouldn't be much help with my landscape photography tho, as I generally shoot wide(14-20) or telephoto. Too bad the quad bayer filter is only used on the main 24mm equivalent lens. Just wondering if you ever saw any evidence of artifacts or ghosting using the 48 mpx mode.
Did you really read the entire article carefully before you posted this comment? I ask you this question because the author DID put a link to original files in the article. So why are you asking him to do what he has already done? Didn't you read this part of the article?
Instead of asking the author to do what he has already done, it would have been more useful if you had followed the link he posted, downloaded the RAW files, examined them on a hi resolution monitor, and then posted your thoughts after careful examination of the images.
Before saying that, I wonder if you noticed the color differences, in the sky mainly... Canon typically, and it is true for decades now, have the blue of the sky with added magenta to it (sometimes moves all the way to - having a pink cast), while Iphone's skies have just a little bit of green cast to it (resembles Sony from a few years back)?
- Anyway, at one point, Mr. Alex - the writer, wrote: "Brace yourself" trying to show us the differences in zoomed images, in which iPhone's one have better contrast and sharpness as compared to Canon.
It does appear so, on screen.
However, the difference was NOT made by a camera, it was made by the AI algorithm! And that is the big difference and the reason why in some of these examples iPhone did better. It simply recognizes the scene and AI does its magic. This is a fairly common scene, and in those, AI will shine. If MR. Alex tried to shoot something less predictable or common, the iPhone would surely fall apart (in his words), not just in zoom...
That said, AI is coming, fast, the algorithms will become more and more sophisticated and ... even better (because they are quite good now) - and it will shift the game, completely. That is certain. It will become easier and with less involvement, or photographic knowledge, to make great photos, IF we can call AI-generated stuff photos ... ;)
c80f0f1006