Do Full Frame Cameras Really Capture Astronomy Photos Worse Than This? Locked

Started 4 weeks ago | Discussions thread
Flat view
This thread is locked.
FluidKnowledge Regular Member • Posts: 448
Do Full Frame Cameras Really Capture Astronomy Photos Worse Than This?

PetaPixel has a new "iPhone vs DSLR" article up just now and in this one they have a "pro" photographer who says his iPhone 11 Pro took better photos of the aurora lights than his Sony RX100 VII camera. But I am confused, do real cameras really take worse astronomy photos of the night sky than what he posted?

Both his unedited and edited iPhone photos have really obvious artifacts and tons of noise and pixellation, even viewing on my phone and not zooming in. Even the aurora lights in his photo have tons of pixellation and artifacts I can easily spot on my phone without zooming in. When zoomed in at 100% it is absolutely terrible and not anything I would be proud of.

Tell me a full frame DSLR or mirrorless could do a better job of this? This "pro" photographer says he did it with a 3 second handheld exposure on his iPhone. But wouldn't any full frame camera at a half second exposure do a far better job?

I just can't believe that he says what he took are good photos and better than from a real camera when what he posted is absolute garbage.

Oh yeah, Tony Northrup is in the comment section of that PetaPixel article praising these iPhone photos. Am I blind or is this a joke article by PetaPixel and co?

Sony RX1 Sony RX100 Sony RX100 V
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Labe
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow