After my last shoot with Stephanie using both the a7III and my iPhone 13 Pro that I posted here, where the iPhone performed quite well, wanted to try some lower light photos. Both have been edited of course, mostly just color tweaks. You can really see the iPhone doing the smartphone thing in the lower light. Weird looking skin and way over-sharpened being the worst. Im just using a 50 FE 1.8 lens too, cheapest lens Sony makes I believe and not known for its optics or colors at all. iPhone was a 1.9x on the standard wide angle lens which puts it at 50mm, to match the 50mm of the Sony shot.
The iPhone shot looks better on a phone but you can really see the flaws when you get it on to a computer with a 4K monitor. I probably could have made it look better with more editing, but just wanted to show it in its natural state with just a few color tweaks (unedited has a nasty green color cast as they all do in lower light) I think its safe to say the iPhone still has a ways to go against a FF dedicated camera unless you have bright sunlight.
I'll assume the top one is the phone picture. I notice the same "artifacts" in the bottom pic as last time. On her right breast, shirt arm and left leg.
The over-sharpening and flattening of the smartphone image may have been due to you "zooming" in camera, rather than cropping in post. I use android rather than apple, but I've noticed that when using the digital zoom feature, my camera app defaults to extra sharpening as an attempt to produce a better looking image despite resolution loss.
Doc25 wrote:
I'll assume the top one is the phone picture. I notice the same "artifacts" in the bottom pic as last time. On her right breast, shirt arm and left leg.
Is this maybe caused by compression of the photo?
Beautiful lady once again.
If the top was the iPhone, I would have sold my Sony day one 😃
amacal1 wrote:
The over-sharpening and flattening of the smartphone image may have been due to you "zooming" in camera, rather than cropping in post. I use android rather than apple, but I've noticed that when using the digital zoom feature, my camera app defaults to extra sharpening as an attempt to produce a better looking image despite resolution loss.
Hmmmm, I’ll have to experiment with that. It’s still an optical zoom I believe and shouldn’t effect image quality. I believe the digital zoom only kicks in past the 3x optical but I may be wrong. I’ll have to try it again in better light and see what happens.
Thats what I understood as well. RustyBug wrote:
Can you include to click the EXIF radio button so it is included below the image. Might be helpful for reduced confusion.
I thought that last time you said the one with the topographical artifacts was NOT the iPhone (i.e. in different light).
RustyBug wrote:
Can you include to click the EXIF radio button so it is included below the image. Might be helpful for reduced confusion.
I thought that last time you said the one with the topographical artifacts was NOT the iPhone (i.e. in different light).
Just an .02
Appreciate the comps
Sure, how would I do that? I can't post the original photos, they are way too large. So the EXIF data disappears when its resized. The artifacts are most likely from the preset I use in Luminar AI. I still dont see them though. Here is the original shot from the Sony below. Do you see it in the original?
In the original post I see two photos so what is the #3 you refer to? Presumably the first is with the Sony camera and lens and the second with the cell phone, Is that correct? The first photo is hands down vastly superior to the second. Just look at the awful rendition of the leaves in #2. The girl by the way is smoking hot, but a little Botaxed? Beautiful work.
Dexter75 wrote:
Odd. Can someone point out the areas they see this artifacting? I still dont see anything. Thanks
One from each set.
Other areas exist throughout, but this should allow you to see the kind of topographical artifact / banding that others are seeing.
If you're still not seeing it on your end (i.e. your files), then it might be something to do with uploading compression, etc. But, it's pretty clear on this end. In which case, if your files are clean ... that's the most important part.
Other areas exist throughout, but this should allow you to see the kind of topographical artifact / banding that others are seeing.
If you're still not seeing it on your end (i.e. your files), then it might be something to do with uploading compression, etc. But, it's pretty clear on this end. In which case, if your files are clean ... that's the most important part.
HTH
Ah ok. Well yea, these have been reduced down to about 1/4 their original size to post here because it kept saying they were too big to post when I was trying to upload. So punching into a low res file is gonna do that. The original Sony shots are 6000x4000 and like 13MB, these are 1200x1800 and like 1MB I think. iPhone shots are really compressed to post too. I just meant for them to be viewed at normal size, not punched in like 300% 😀
Dexter75 wrote:
Ah ok. Well yea, these have been reduced down to about 1/4 their original size to post here because it kept saying they were too big to post when I was trying to upload. So punching into a low res file is gonna do that. The original Sony shots are 6000x4000 and like 13MB, these are 1200x1800 and like 1MB I think. iPhone shots are really compressed to post too. I just meant for them to be viewed at normal size, not punched in like 300% 😀
Understood that normal viewing ... BUT, the premise of your thread / comparison was to compare the iPhone to the Sony. So, yeah ... when you suggest how good they are, folks are gonna take a deeper look to compare. Just found some surprise that wasn't expected.
Just lettin' you know ... just in case. If you're good, then that's what counts.
RustyBug wrote:
Understood that normal viewing ... BUT, the premise of your thread / comparison was to compare the iPhone to the Sony. So, yeah ... when you suggest how good they are, folks are gonna take a deeper look to compare. Just found some surprise that wasn't expected.
Just lettin' you know ... just in case. If you're good, then that's what counts.
Thanks. I think we can get a feel for how a camera performs without pixel peeping. Especially since no one views photos at 300, 200 or even 100%. I’m very much anti pixel peeping. It’s a trend that started with YouTube and it has nothing to do with the quality of a photo. Some of the best photos in history look terrible if you pixel peep them. It’s a fad I wish would just go away already. Thankfully it doesn’t exist outside of a small percentage of people on forums like this. Having said that, if I could post the full sized versions here I would but that’s not possible apparently. I do appreciate the feedback though.
