iPhone 17 Pro Has the camera bumps gotten higher?

[Macintosh IIcx]

I can see that the depth of the new iPhones have increased according to the official specifications.

Question is whether this is down to an increased thickness of the camera bumps? I mean the depth from screen to end of the camera lens.

Yes, I know that the new iPhones introduces the concept of the plateau, but I’m talking about the max depth of the new iPhone.

I haven’t seen this covered?

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

I guess my question comes from the fact that the official specifications doesn’t give you a depth value for both the main lower part of the iPhone and the max depth where the camera lenses end.

Hopefully some reviews will show this in more detail as the 17 Pro seem be somewhat thicker than my current 14 Pro but how this handles in real life in a back pocket is not something the specs will reveal.

 

[Moreplease]

I would like to know too.

It’s absurd that Apple doesn’t provide this max-thickness spec, but it’s also annoying that reviewers ignore it.

Every reviewer should put a calliper over the phone’s thickest point (one of the lenses). A piece of paper on either side, subtracted from the width afterwards, will prevent any damage from a Vernier calliper’s jaws. Not hard.

 

[JPack]

Plateau is not a new concept. Apple has been calling that area (previously made of square glass) for years.

To answer your question, 8.75mm depth does not include the camera plateau.

 

[JPack]

Every reviewer should put a calliper over the phone’s thickest point (one of the lenses). A piece of paper on either side, subtracted from the width afterwards, will prevent any damage from a Vernier calliper’s jaws. Not hard.

No need. The exact measurements are provided by Apple.

https://developer.apple.com/accessories/Accessory-Design-Guidelines.pdf

 

[Moreplease]

To answer your question, 8.75mm depth does not include the camera plateau.

Well, duh. We know that.

No need. The exact measurements are provided by Apple.

https://developer.apple.com/accessories/Accessory-Design-Guidelines.pdf

That’s a 621-page document full of irrelevant information. Which page has the iPhone 17 Pro thickness?

 

[bsmr]

Well, duh. We know that.


That’s a 621-page document full of irrelevant information. Which page has the iPhone 17 Pro thickness?

It starts at p. 321

 

[bsmr]

Question is whether this is down to an increased thickness of the camera bumps?

iPhone 16 Pro:
- product thickness: 8.25mm
- bump to end of camera glass: 4.28mm
- overall: 12.53mm

iPhone 17:
- product thickness: 7,95mm
- back glass to end of camera glass: 3.45mm
- overall: 11.4mm

iPhone 17 Pro:
- product thickness: 8,75mm
- back plate to plateau: 2.55mm
- plateau to end of camera glass: 1.88mm
- overall: 13.18mm

iPhone 17 Pro is 0.65mm thicker overall than iPhone 16 Pro

 

[Moreplease]

It starts at p. 321

Thanks. Pretty lazy of the person with the link, who apparently knew the 621-page document contained dimensions, to not tell us the relevant page number.

iPhone 16 Pro:
- product thickness: 8.25mm
- bump to end of camera glass: 4.28mm
- overall: 12.53mm

iPhone 17:
- product thickness: 7,95mm
- back glass to end of camera glass: 3.45mm
- overall: 11.4mm

iPhone 17 Pro:
- product thickness: 8,75mm
- back plate to plateau: 2.55mm
- plateau to end of camera glass: 1.88mm
- overall: 13.18mm

iPhone 17 Pro is 0.65mm thicker overall than iPhone 16 Pro

That is interesting, because it shows that although the main body of the 17 Pro got only 0.5 mm thicker, the camera section got 0.65 mm thicker. Of course the 0.15 mm discrepancy is not a lot, but I wonder why it exists.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

iPhone 16 Pro:
- product thickness: 8.25mm
- bump to end of camera glass: 4.28mm
- overall: 12.53mm

iPhone 17:
- product thickness: 7,95mm
- back glass to end of camera glass: 3.45mm
- overall: 11.4mm

iPhone 17 Pro:
- product thickness: 8,75mm
- back plate to plateau: 2.55mm
- plateau to end of camera glass: 1.88mm
- overall: 13.18mm

iPhone 17 Pro is 0.65mm thicker overall than iPhone 16 Pro

Thanks, to answer my own question then about the 14 Pro:

- product thickness: 7.85 mm
- back glass to end of camera glass: 4.18 mm
- overall: 12.03 mm

 

[ArchEtech]

I don’t know but the cameras sure appear to keep sticking out more and more, and the lens protectors even more and more needed. I went through 3 sets on the 16 in a year from minor drops.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

I don’t know but the cameras sure appear to keep sticking out more and more, and the lens protectors even more and more needed. I went through 3 sets on the 16 in a year from minor drops.

It is just the price we have to pay for higher photo image quality. As an example, when you increase the sensor size, the optics normally also have to increase somewhat. The image quality we can get from smartphones these days are rather impressive, after all.

Still, it would be nice if we could start going in the opposite direction and slimming things down a touch again, I guess.

 

[klasma]

Thanks. Pretty lazy of the person with the link, who apparently knew the 621-page document contained dimensions, to not tell us the relevant page number.

It’s work to pick out the numbers, I’ve done it many times over the years and it’s tedious, so I can understand very well that they only provide the link. You were too lazy as well to do the work of picking out the numbers yourself. You didn’t even look far enough to see that each iPhone model is linked in the table of contents of the document.

It’s better to teach people how they can find the information themselves instead of spoon-feeding them everything they ask for.

That is interesting, because it shows that although the main body of the 17 Pro got only 0.5 mm thicker, the camera section got 0.65 mm thicker. Of course the 0.15 mm discrepancy is not a lot, but I wonder why it exists.

Better cameras generally require deeper lenses. That’s why the bump is increasing in height almost every year.

The Air’s total thickness is 11.32 mm, by the way.

 

[eyoungren]

It is just the price we have to pay for higher photo image quality. As an example, when you increase the sensor size, the optics normally also have to increase somewhat. The image quality we can get from smartphones these days are rather impressive, after all.

Still, it would be nice if we could start going in the opposite direction and slimming things down a touch again, I guess.

I hate the camera bump, now camera plateau. It was one reason I waited a few years to go from the iPhone 5 to the iPhone 6+. But Apple does not consult me and I will again predict (as I have done on MR before) that one day the entire back of the device will be one giant set of camera lenses.

And also that at that point, Apple will be selling the iCamera - with limited phone capability. The inverse of what was originally offered, a phone with a limited camera.

As so many seem to value the camera in the iPhone above all else and Apple keeps catering to that because it sells, I have no doubt this will happen.

 

[Moreplease]

It’s work to pick out the numbers, I’ve done it many times over the years and it’s tedious, so I can understand very well that they only provide the link. You were too lazy as well to do the work of picking out the numbers yourself.

I’ve learned from experience that many people skim-read a discussion and dump irrelevant information on us in a flood-the-zone style. Usually the people who do that don’t provide details like a page number. Someone else generously provided a page number, but I had asked the supplier of the document to do so.

The difference between the commenter providing the page number and readers finding it for themselves is that there is one poster and thousands of readers. So it’s thousands of times more work for readers to do that. (Plus the poster already knows where to find the info whereas we don’t.)

Better cameras generally require deeper lenses. That’s why the bump is increasing in height almost every year.

Since the main camera has not been upgraded, that’s not the explanation this year.