Great video! Split between a 16 and 16 pro. What diff would the 16 pro make for nature landscape shots? Would it objectively offer certain types of photography affordances?
my Pixel says it's 50MP but the raw file is only 12.5MP. sales says that they're telling the truth because the sensor is 50MP because of 'binning'. it's a phone and great for phone calls, texting, and other things but it's not a professional camera. i think they're misleading newbies about camera image quality.
The ultra wide has been terrible so far on my 16 Pro. In a way, worst than the 15 Pro. The issue is that the sensor did not get any larger. The lens is still 2.2 aperture.
This! Ive noticed softer images in daylight and darker images in low light for the 16 Pro Ultrawide. Worse performance than my 15 Pro. It is definitely because they crammed more megapixels into the same sized sensor. I thought Apple would have at least upgraded the 1/2.55" sensor to a 1/1.9" sensor (like the one they used on the 12 Pro Max's main 1x sensor)
I’m a bit disappointed with the new 48mp ultra wide camera. It still significantly falls behind the main 48mp sensor. Hope they gonna improve the lens quality and give faster aparature in next model.
Like video short. No difference in all models. Only if you are a photo geek you can see some. But all sensors are the same bs. Apple marketing is killing mobile photography and real improvements. Sadly
It’s always android mfs that that compare their phones having a 8 billion mp sensor to iPhone 40mp or whatever sensor, completely ignoring that sensor is the same size. Like if you’re taking a picture on the sun there might be enough light for the phone to process each of those individually, but chances are it’s just using pixel binning.
What would be interesting is comparing the AF of Nikon Z8 vs Samsung S24. The phone will wipe the Z8 especially in tracking. Try out the test and be shocked😅
I shoot raw's a lot on my iPhone 14 Pro when I'm not carrying either my a7R V or a7C II, but videos can't replicate what it's actually like using a phone and a camera in the real world. A dedicated camera will give you so much more consistent high quality results, while a smartphone only performs well with 1) tons of light or 2) very little motion. I don't even bother shooting with my phone indoors, at events and rarely do at night. You'll be lucky to get a sharp image at all out of a it, even when viewed on it's tiny display, while i can shoot at 1/125th at ISO 25600 with a fast prime on my Sony's and STILL get similar or even better results in terms of detail than what my phone would give me in daylight at base ISO. These videos give the impression that it's close, and it might be for most people that aren't passionate about photography and mainly post and view on social media. But if you spend any time bothering taking good pictures and manually processing them, then you know that phones still aren't close in replacing mid-tier aps-c, let alone pro-grade camera gear.
So basically modern phones are actually very good during optimal conditions: motionless, bright daylight while cameras are for the specific shots like fast action, night/low-light conditions, wildlife requiring a real zoom lens, and difficult lighting conditions.
Almost 20 minutes of samsung advertisement. To compare and stand well against a 2-3000eur fullframe is crazy. That phone is sold for half the price, "fits" in your pocket and ready to be used 24/7 at any moment. I was expecting waaaaay worse results but in good light conditions this camera scored really solid points. crazy.
Fair video - getting 28-400 sale off - all in one zoom lite travel lens for my Z DX & Z FF's and using my 80-400 AFS VR Mk 2 until it gives up ghost; / breaks completely before aiming (mid - term ) for the 100-400
Keep in mind the 50MP 5x telephoto and the 200MP 1x telephoto are both pixel binned megapixels, 16:1 binning on the 200MP, and 4:1 binning on the 50MP, which means it's actual detail is just 12.5 megapixels. pixel binning means that sub pixels of each color sensors are divided into more pixels, but it is still only dividing sub pixels, it's not increasing the actual number of pixels, which means in a pixel that have 2 green sub pixel, 1 blue sub pixel, and 1 red sub pixel, if we have a 4:1 pixel binning, we have 4 times the sub pixel, but the 4 blue sub pixels will be on the same area as one blue sub pixel on a none binned sub pixel. and same as the red and green sub pixels.
Aperture is king! If Samsung comes up with a phone with larger sensor and the option to attach an external 20-25mm lens to it for a more professional result, it will be a game changer for many photographers.
my Samsung S24ultra sucks comparative to my old (15years) 18 mp canon crop DSLR. I think it doesn't make sens to compare it with fullframe actual camera .
I have literally been looking for someone with your kind of expertise to do this review because im on the lookout for a new phone. Keep up the great work mate!
I mean for a Smartphone the camera quality is really impressive. Yes it does lose against pro camera but still how well it can hold it's really mind blowing how good these phones have become.
That fact you have to zoom in x100 times to pick any difference in quality shows that phone cameras and software has come a long way. In dark conditions the full frame would obviously smash the phone.
Like you I have both of these cameras. It's a hard question to answer. I do love the Z6iii for the autofocus and yet I do miss the extra resolution when I use the Z6iii. I still have a 850 but as many ask, I do prefer the Z 7ii over the 850, but as you say it totally depends on what type of photography one does. I do quite a bit of studio work and when it comes to portrait work the autofocus on the Z 7ii is perfectly fine. If you are shooting wildlife or birds in flight etc the Z 6iii is fantastic and is by far better than the Z 7ii
Yeah the Z6III is def better for autofocus and video. I do hope Nikon will release a Z7III with high resolution + their advanced autofocus while maintaining the smaller form factor. The Z8 is almost perfect for me but I prefer the smaller bodies, especially when adding an L-bracket
I did a similar comparison between iPhone 14 pro and Canon EOS R50 with kit lens. iPhone has a 48mp main camera and Canon has 24.6mp. For details iPhone won by just a little. Shot in really good light conditions and didn’t test the extremes. Comparing sensor sizes and the results was really surprising. Phone Cameras can never replace real Cameras but they have advanced a lot.
Did a similar comparison between my 14 Pro and my old Nikon D5300 and 18-105 kit lens (which was mediocre glass at best even at it's launch back in the late 2000s). Detail-wise both were very similar, the D5300 could obviously shoot at a much faster rate and utilise it's zoom to deliver better detail. But that's a camera + glass combo that now costs like 200€. Didn't even bother pitching my 14 Pro against my a7R V with a sharp prime or even my (lower res) a7C II, but I might just for fun.
Voggers… please stop wasting your time on this tests and experiments trying to show the mobile as a replacement for the pro cameras, this videos are made only for kids who don’t know anything about the real photography. We as pro photographers don’t care , so play alone with kids. Regards
