That was my thought as well, plus the ability to shoot macro. I'm really tempted by the 17 pro, but it's just so much larger than my 13 mini. I'll have to see the phones in person to judge whether I could live with the pro, or just keep waiting for Apple to make a smaller phone again.
Can we please stop referring to 2x and 8x as optical zoom options? Those are both digital zoom options, literally cropping in to 12MP on the main lens for 2x and 12MP on the telephoto lens for 8x. This phone only has 0.5x, 1x, and 4x optical zoom.
Yes, Apple's marketing is ridiculous here, but I would not be surprised if the quality of the 17 pro at 8x was just as good (if not better) as the 16 pro at 5x.
absolutley agree!
You're right! I didn't catch that when I checked out the specs.
That's fair, I do the same. In fact since i'm not a photographer by profession anymore I often leave my camera at home even when I go on a trip or vacation. Convenience over quality. I will say, no matter what settings you use on an iPhone, the quality leaves a lot to be desired. Sure the sensors are great and the processor is awesome. What cannot compare is the lens. A lens the size of a pencil eraser with a front element designed to be stored in a pocket full of keys and loose change will never ever compare to a piece of kit designed to cover a full frame or APS-C sensor. No matter what technology shows up in phones, the physics of light will always be the limiting factor.
Totally agree. Running AI models on my 16 GB GPU is fun but nowhere near professional level outputs. Anything "pro" level needs significantly larger resources than consumer-grade hardware can currently provide. I guess that's why we are largely left with Image Playground (a small model + strict embeddings + style Loras?) and some text editing tools.
Sounds like you have fallen for Apple's marketing here. The "smaller 12MP sensor" is just the middle of the 48MP sensor. Apple went all out with their BS to make it sound like there were two separate cameras under one lens.
It’s a strange phone. It is worse than the base model except for the processor yet costs $200 more. IMO, it’s a novelty. The only sale pitch it has to offer is being thin and light. It’s not even a smaller footprint than the base model, just thinner. It may have been a compelling choice if was priced the same as the base model, but otherwise it’s a head scratcher.
And I suspect due to the reality that they seem to be reducing the trade in values.
I've never needed a thinner or lighter phone. However I have needed more battery life, better camera, more storage, faster data transfers. I have 14 Pro currently so a 17 Pro is the logical choice for me. I was never a fan of the bigger Max size, I'm fine with a medium (regular?) sized phone.
