[packetslave]

Here's the thing about iPhone photography (and Android too, I suppose): if you know what a DSLR is, or the difference between DSLR and mirrorless bodies, you are not the target audience.

Apple isn't trying compete with a $3500 Sony A7R4 with a $1000 90mm macro lens. They're aiming for people who see the example "macro" photos and say "neat! I want to try that". Or the people who have already bought a Moment macro lens (or one of the other clip-on/screw-on iPhone macro lenses) and are tired of carrying it around.

edit: formatting

[marcellus23]

Also always worth bringing up in these discussions: the best camera is the one you have with you. A DSLR is obviously a better camera, but you usually don't have one on you 24/7.

[packetslave]

The best camera you have with you with the lens you have on it at the time.

If I have to pick which of my heavy glass to carry around with me on a regular basis, the 90mm macro is going to stay on the shelf most days unless I'm specifically going out to shoot macro photos.

My iPhone Pro 13 is always going to be in my pocket.

[chillage]

Even further, it's the best camera with the lens AND tripod you have with you

Went for a night walk yesterday and saw a cool snail. The new iPhone 13 pro took a decent shot of the snail in the dark with automated long exposure and built in stacking. But I thought you know for a really excellent shot of the snail, if only I had with me my mirrorless camera.. AND macro lens.. AND tripod so I can get properly long low light exposure. Not to mention another 5-10 minutes out of my day to process the photo. Missing any one of these ingredients the iPhone wins.

But you know if I had to lug around all that camera gear I probably wouldn't have gone for the walk and seen the snail in the first place.

[mithr]

I think that's largely true -- if you frequently need to take professional macro shots, you'll already have your own, better setup anyhow, and won't be switching to a phone camera anytime soon. However, somewhat surprisingly (for me at least), this seems to actually be good enough to also satisfy those that do carry fancy cameras, but don't need to take macro shots that often... from https://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-13-pro-camera-review-tanz...:

> As a photographer passionate about the natural world, I carry a macro lens with me no matter what project I’m working on, just because I never know what tiny detail of interest might present itself. Now with the macro capability of the iPhone 13 Pro, I feel like I have my “in-a-pinch” macro shots covered and I can leave the rarely-used macro lens at home.

[EugeneOZ]

no, the difference between a full-frame DSLR and any phone camera is night and day. It's just ridiculous to read articles about phone cameras with their ugly photos where authors are writing something like “wow it's amazing - best camera ever, you don't need a pro camera anymore”. It's so funny.

[jacobolus]

No, the difference between a large-format 8″×10″-negative view camera + dye transfer printing process vs. a cute little digital DSLR is night and day. It’s just ridiculous to read articles about DLSRs with their ugly photos where authors are writing something like “wow it’s amazing – best camera ever, you don’t need a pro camera anymore”. It’s so funny.

[EugeneOZ]

I agree with everything except the first word - you are not denying my words ;)

[mithr]

He doesn't have to -- he's making the point that many professional photographers swear by full-frame DSLRs, but there are people who would treat that with the exact same dismissal that you applied towards iPhone photos.

The implication is that it's no more "ridiculous" to read articles about professional photographers using iPhones for their rarely-used macro shots than it is to read comments from people who find the idea of using phone cameras for this purpose laughable.

[PragmaticPulp]

I think the cellphone versus DSLR/mirrorless debate is largely an artificial internet debate.

Every real-world photographer I know is very happy that they can have both a cellphone and a full-size camera and choose appropriately for the situation.

[tshaddox]

I would have guessed quite the opposite: that people who know about and use DSLRs would be particularly interested in advancements in smartphone photography. I would have guessed that such people probably use their smartphone cameras more often (and more deliberately) than other people use their smartphone cameras. Heck, I bet a lot of these people even use their smartphone cameras more often than they use their DSLRs.

[Someone]

I think the group of people who know about and use DSLRs is too small to be the target audience of any of Apple’s smartphones.

Other smartphone manufacturers might be willing to do a product for, at best, a few million users, but Apple thinks focusing on fewer products is the better choice (for them, and, possibly, for all users because Apple can spend more effort on each design)

I would guess Apple’s target audience is everybody who wants to make better photos, whether they know about DSLRs or not.

Yes, they have RAW support, but I think they find that a nice to have, not a must for their product.

[passivate]

In my younger days I used to rail against unusable, slow, bloated apps, but most non tech people around me shrugged it off with a "dunno, works for me". I realized many people are happy with 2-3 second response times in software, which are horrendously slow when you care about performance.

Most tech has limitations/flaws, and there is always a target audience that doesn't care about those limitations/flaws.

[lm28469]

> Apple isn't trying compete with a $3500 Sony A7R4 with a $1000 90mm macro lens

tbh something like a Nikon d300 with a 200$ lens does a better job in good light

[sudosysgen]

A 200$ used up Sony Nex-3 with a 200$ Mitakon macro will do a much better job. I agree the iPhone is still convenient, but if your goal is to save money, not upgrading and buying a cheap camera is still going to have better results at a lower price, at the expense of convenience.

[megablast]

What are you talking about??

Sole us continuously improving their cameras on every iPhone release. They spend a lot of money on doing it.

They don’t care about competing with anyone. That is not their mindset. They just get better every year.

You are making up a rivalry that doesn’t exist.

[amelius]

It's the other way around. People with iPhones look at professional photography and will say "I want that too", and they're disappointed if their iPhone can't do it, so Apple makes sure it can.

[EugeneOZ]

No, laws of physics will not be changed just because customers want it. You want a more detailed photo - take a bigger sensor, better lenses. The software can improve something, but not create the details.

[chemmail]

I have friends who have over $30k in glass from Canon and Nikon (some use both!). And they barely touch it anymore because the iPhones have gotten so damn good.

[matwood]

> if you know what a DSLR is, or the difference between DSLR and mirrorless bodies, you are not the target audience.

I disagree. I have both a dslr and mirrorless bodies and love that my 12pro also takes great pictures. Anyone who enjoys taking pictures should be excited about the cameras improving on an always with you device.