DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Google’s former SVP suggests you should buy an iPhone “if you truly care about great photography”

by 37 Comments

Vic Gundotra, Google’s former Senior Vice President, recently published quite a passionate praise of the iPhone 7’s camera. He didn’t just call it the killer of DSLR, but also pointed out advantages of the iOS over Android. Not something you’d expect from a former Google’s SVP, right?

In a Facebook post, Gundotra published two photos of his children, with the comment reading the following:

The end of the DSLR for most people has already arrived. I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at dinner with my iPhone 7 using computational photography (portrait mode as Apple calls it). Hard not to call these results (in a restaurant, taken on a mobile phone with no flash) stunning. Great job Apple.

The end of the DSLR for most people has already arrived. I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at…

Posted by Vic Gundotra on Saturday, July 29, 2017

I find it interesting (to say the least) that a person who worked for Google would publicly praise a competitor’s phone. After all, the Google Pixel shows some pretty impressive results, as we could have seen through some test shots. However, what I find even more interesting is that Gundotra trashes Android OS, and even Google.

When one of the friends pointed out that Samsung S8 does a better job than the iPhone 7, this was the response:

Here is the problem: It’s Android. Android is an open source (mostly) operating system that has to be neutral to all parties. This sounds good until you get into the details. Ever wonder why a Samsung phone has a confused and bewildering array of photo options? Should I use the Samsung Camera? Or the Android Camera? Samsung gallery or Google Photos?

It’s because when Samsung innovates with the underlying hardware (like a better camera) they have to convince Google to allow that innovation to be surfaced to other applications via the appropriate API. That can take YEARS.

Also the greatest innovation isn’t even happening at the hardware level – it’s happening at the computational photography level. (Google was crushing this 5 years ago – they had had “auto awesome” that used AI techniques to automatically remove wrinkles, whiten teeth, add vignetting, etc… but recently Google has fallen back).

Apple doesn’t have all these constraints. They innovate in the underlying hardware, and just simply update the software with their latest innovations (like portrait mode) and ship it.

Bottom line: If you truly care about great photography, you own an iPhone. If you don’t mind being a few years behind, buy an Android.

I believe Gundotra’s comment is honest and based on his experience and personal opinion. However, it’s strange to see that he undermines the OS used by Google’s Pixel smartphone and that he even mentions Google’s fallback with the software. It sounds a bit like badmouthing your ex. I know Apple users love their gadgets, but former Google’s SVP is not the first person I’d expect to show his admiration for iPhone so transparently, even if it’s really better than Samsung or Pixel smartphones.

[via Mac Rumors, image credits: Boseritwik (adapted)]

Related posts:

Apple Makes Changes to Photography With iOS 8 Playing Catch With Android Android’s Next Update Set to Bring Manual Focus, DNG, Exposure Control, and More The iPhone 7 Camera Could Offer DSLR-like Performance Thanks to Apple’s Latest Acquisition Google finally opens up Visual Core chip for HDR+ to third party apps on the Pixel 2
  • Troublemann

    Wow he took photos of his children, let me see him take photos in strong sunlight, such as with the bright sun behind the subject, let me see him take photos of an entire wedding and reception, let me see him do a fashion photo shoot, or head shots, at the end of the day it’s a phone that take photos and would he heir a professional photographer and pay for that photographer to use an iphone?

  • iPhones are brilliant for macro.

    • Totally agree with you.
      Umtil you need to blow them up to 16×20″ or larger.

  • Now, would you waste almost 1000 $ on a phone that takes crappy selfies? I don’t think anybody would. Phone cameras are made to make AT THE VERY LEAST decent pictures.

  • Just a clown. Nothing to see here.

  • Or just buy a real camera

  • What’s happening DIYPhotography ? No real news to publish ? This post looks like a troll… 🙁

  • I think he’s underestimating how many people still think buying a DSLR will make them a photographer. My brother’s wife wanted one, i convinced him that he’s better off getting the updated iPhone, given her needs.

    • ” given her needs.” that

  • I suggest he buy me an iphone if he truly cares. Otherwise, I’m good with my DSLR thanks.

  • Wrong. Have you guys seen the jpeg artifacts/compression when zoomed in at 100% on lightroom? Apple has known of this issue and they have not fixed it. Google’s Pixel cameras render better colors and produce less artifacts than Apples offering.

  • Sorry but Samsung Galaxy has a better camera. It takes great photos and you can set it just like any DSLR camera. I don’t take selfies so I don’t need an iPhone. It’s my backup camera if my Sony a7Rii ever stops working. I had 1 iPhone and I kept it a year and traded it out. Hated it.

  • or ill buy an android and still have enough left over for a decent camera and a few lenses haha

    • fatlantis

      Now this is the real truth.

  • Jon

    …please, any entry level DSLR at half or less, the cost of an iPhone will take ‘better’ quality photos, albeit some basic knowledge of photography is required…

  • Kriztoper

    It’s window light dummy. Any camera will look good at window light.

  • Jimmy Harris

    Vic Gundotra is kind of known for having a personal vendetta against Google for shutting down his baby, Google Plus, which hastened his exit from the company. So it’s not surprising that he hates everything about Google, including Android. What is surprising, is that this poor piece of click-bait journalism didn’t mention that fact.

  • catlett

    All credibility full stop gone if he thinks any current cell phone kills DSLR or Mirrorles.

    • Michael Chastain

      I think a more accurate statement would be an iPhone can replace your dSLR if you never really needed a sale in the first place. There are lots of people out there that bought dSLRs that would have been better served by a compact camera of some sort. They may get along fine with just their phone.

  • Tiny lens, tiny sensor. Yeah, a lot better than a DSLR, especially when you throw in a selfie stick.

  • I know Google strives to hire the smartest people, but obviously there are cracks in the system. 😂😂😂

  • If it’s about good photos while my DSLR is not on me, my very outdated Galaxy S6 mops the floor with any iphone. Did I mention RAW capture?
    But sure, if it’s Apple.
    Cue the fanboys 🙄

    • I don’t agree with the guy, but you are aware that the iPhone 6S and up can also shoot RAW, no? His comments were in respect to his iPhone 7.

    • Yes, I know. A feature present on Android since 2014 I believe yet one he calls “years behind”.

    • I think you’re missing the point… You did mention RAW capture, it’s not relevant now. Fanboys aren’t specific to a brand.

    • Do you even understand the very definition of the word fanboy? Facepalm. I’m done here.

  • Jeff Wasserman

    I bought the iPhone 7 Plus for the camera. Photos at the beach have tons of artifacting in the sky and lots of watercolor effect in different areas. Light colored dog fur looks more like a painting than a photograph. Big thumbs down. Might be fine for snaps of the kids but DSLR not dead by a long shot.

  • I suppose it has to do with limitations: an iphone or Android can take good photos across a table or selfies (maybe without the bokeh). If you’re photos will live only on the screen, then mobiles are fine. But if you’re shooting wide angle landscapes or long shots for printing or if you want to shoot RAW and adjust the photo then of course you need the tools to do that. If you shoot within the camera or phone’s limitations, they’re both useful.

  • John W. O’Brien III

    Fuck that guy, if you care about photography, you use an actual camera.

  • Comparing an iPhone with a “true” camera is like comparing a rubber doll with a real woman.

  • Sure those f apple fan boys use one of those vagina fleshlights

  • I took this on my iPhone 5S last week at St Ives, edited with Adobe Ps Express

    This is ok looking at it on a phone screen, but try printing it on an A4 print or larger and you’ll quickly see the limitations of tiny sensors.

  • John James

    Bullsh*t

  • Given that I take photos of wildlife… iPhone or my current phone isn’t the best option. Many animals won’t let you get too close and some of the smaller animals (grass bugs) will actively hide behind blades of grass if they can see you upto 2-3 meters away. Then there’s the butterflies, I bought a lens specifically for them.

    A telephoto lens is required! So no, I disagree with him!

    For landscapes, then yes. I would agree… Even my phone can give my DSLR a good run for it’s money.

  • It always makes me laugh when I zoom into these photos taken in portrait mode on an iPhone 7… The edges from subject to background always look cartoonish like a really bad selection done in PS and then apply MAXIMUM blur!!!

  • KC

    This is a variation of the “smartphone will replace (all/any cameras)” headline grab. Saying an iPhone is better than an Android phone is a bit hazy, There’s few current iPhone variations, and hundreds of Android phone variations. Why not Sony’s Android phones? They do make cameras, I hear. Then there’s the dizzy array of camera apps, the default ones, and those that enhance the functionalities.

    Cutting through all the headline grabbing hype, this is a variation of any Brand A is better Brand B debate, with Brand C through Z piping in.

    To be fair, the iPhone camera ecosystem of peripherals is much better supported than the Android camera ecosystem, because there are more Android phones to make peripherals for.

    And yet, that’s not really the big point here. If you consider an iOS or Android device as a camera first, with communication and computational abilities second, they’re outrageously expensive, limited cameras. Dollar for dollar, there are better, more flexible, dedicated cameras.

    Smartphone cameras are killing off dedicated “snappy” cameras, and rightly so. Most haven’t changed in any significant way in years. They beat the drum of an old workflow. Snap picture, run to computer, import images, then print them out or post them somewhere. Not everyone has a computer or printer these days. This is fine for enthusiasts and pros. It’s a dead workflow for candid photographers.

    As for Vic’s Google+, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a project so poorly designed, defined, and described, as Google+. It came not long after the much hated, controversial, and ridiculously over-sharing, Buzz. Google+ started wrong with the “real name policy”, by demanding, and making public, more private info than most people wanted to give, without adequately explaining why, and with little benefits or protection for doing so. At the core, it’s an identity service, without an opt-out, and little reason to opt-in.

Recent Posts