Here's How the iPhone 16e Camera Stacks Up Against Its Siblings

[MacRumors]

When new iPhone models come out, Sebastiaan de With, the developer behind the popular Halide camera app, does a deep dive into the new camera technology. Last month, Apple released the iPhone 16e with an all-new standalone 48-megapixel camera, and de With checked it out to see how it compares to the cameras in Apple's flagship iPhone 16 models.

On paper, the iPhone 16e, the iPhone 16, and the iPhone 16 Pro seem to have the same main camera, described as a 48-megapixel Fusion camera that's able to take both 1x and 2x shots, but when you drill down into the specs, there's a difference. The iPhone 16 Pro has a camera with an f/1.78 aperture, while the iPhone 16 and 16e have a camera with an f/1.6 aperture. The iPhone 16e does not have sensor-shift optical image stabilization, while the iPhone 16 does, so it's clear these are different cameras.

According to de With, what Apple has done with the iPhone 16e is pair current-generation image processing enabled by the A18 chip with a smaller, older camera component. With just a single Wide lens, there's no Macro mode, no spatial photo or video capture, no Night mode for Portrait images, and no Cinematic or Action mode options when capturing video. There also aren't pro features like ProRAW.

In an image test compared with the iPhone 16 Pro, the iPhone 16e trended toward warmer images and it had a narrower field of view. The smaller sensor captured less detail, which de With said was most noticeable in lower light. 2x photos with the smaller sensor were lower quality with unpleasant processing.

According to de With, the iPhone 16e isn't on par with the iPhone 16 Pro or even the iPhone 16, but it is on par with prior non-Pro iPhones and the iPhone 14 Pro. The fact that it has no sensor-shift stabilization was the biggest limiting factor because it cuts down on image quality in low light and in night shots.

De With felt that the iPhone 16e's sensor has a grainy, moody sensor that he enjoyed as an alternative to the iPhone 16 Pro's larger sensor. "As the kids would say today, it's a vibe," de With wrote.

De With's full review, complete with comparison images, can be read over on the Lux website.

Article Link: Here's How the iPhone 16e Camera Stacks Up Against Its Siblings

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

De With felt that the iPhone 16e's sensor has a grainy, moody sensor that he enjoyed as an alternative to the iPhone 16 Pro's larger

… What? Oh wait I get it now.

So rather than simply making a better quality image look like it was taken on an iPhone 16e, one should by the 16e and enjoy its (inherent) moody qualities.

Hipsters are all over the 16e.

 

[Jxdawg]

What no comparison shots?? Disappointed.

 

[ThomasJL]

Yet another example of Tightwad Tim giving customers less in order to maximize profits.

The very first iPhone SE had the same camera as the then-current flagship iPhone 6s. The very first iPhone SE sold for a starting price of $399.

 

[brofkand]

It's a shame that Apple did not pass all these savings on to us.

 

[F23]

Sith Lord Tim: Master of the Spare Parts Bin is wielding his might upon us

 

[Smittywerben]

"There is a imposter among us."

 

[cicalinarrot]

To me, the greatest problem is still the lack of Dynamic Island (hence this thing has 2010-style notifications because of a software choice) but it's nice to see how many little details Apple has ruined to make this flagship-priced phone so inferior to its rivals.

 

[jntdroid]

It doesn't have macro mode, but can get much closer to objects while still maintaining focus. Obviously that's still not as good as a dedicated macro mode using a separate lens, but compared to the standard 15, 14, etc., it's actually pretty solid.

 

[Veinticinco]

De With felt that the iPhone 16e's sensor has a grainy, moody sensor that he enjoyed as an alternative to the iPhone 16 Pro's larger sensor. "As the kids would say today, it's a vibe," de With wrote.

I physically cringed at both the comparison and the attempted gaslighting here.

 

[jntdroid]

To me, the greatest problem is still the lack of Dynamic Island (hence this thing has 2010-style notifications because of a software choice) but it's nice to see how many little details Apple has ruined to make this flagship-priced phone so inferior to its rivals.

I hate to break it do you, but $600 is no longer flagship pricing, as much as I wish it was...

 

[kiensoy]

The smaller sensor captured less detail, which de With said was most noticeable in lower light. 2x photos with the smaller sensor were lower quality with unpleasant processing.

So the lens aperture and the image stabilization are not the only differences, the sensor size is smaller and the focal lens is less wide.

 

[citysnaps]

Holy smokes! People are astonished Apple charges more money for a better iPhone with a better camera? And less money for a less capable iPhone having a less capable camera?

What's the world coming to?

 

[cicalinarrot]

I hate to break it do you, but $600 is no longer flagship pricing, as much as I wish it was...

I know, I exaggerated a little but that's the price point where, especially with some discount, you can get phones that check most boxes and only lack some nice-to-have.
Where I live, the Pixel 9 (ok, not the Pro...) is 650€, 80€ cheaper than the 16e.

 

[Veinticinco]

Lots of talk from Apple and "reviewers" positioning this 16e somewhere alongside the 16 and better than the 14 Pro. Yet curiously no mention of the 18-month old iPhone 15 series as a comparator (the original Lux review being HERE...)

I mean, I could technically trade in my 15 Pro Max for the 16e and still just about come out with a small profit. Tempted to ask that question instore just to see how far they've been squeezed to boost sales of this gimped device.

 

[jntdroid]

Holy smokes! People are astonished Apple charges more money for a better iPhone with a better camera? And less money for a less capable iPhone having a less capable camera?

What's the world coming to?

I saw a comment earlier today that I thought was somewhat appropriate... I don't remember the exact wording, but it was basically this - "iPhone 16e reviewers seem to want the 16e to have the features of the 16 at the price of the SE3".

 

[mansplains]

What no comparison shots?? Disappointed.

De With's full review, complete with comparison images, can be read over on the Lux website.

They're not just gonna steal the source review

 

[JitteryJimmy]

Summary:

if you’re not into photography, this camera is perfectly fine.

If you are into photography, no phone will beat the leading purpose-built cameras.

If you’re in the middle, get what you want.

 

[sw1tcher]

Yet another example of Tightwad Tim giving customers less in order to maximize profits.

The very first iPhone SE had the same camera as the then-current flagship iPhone 6s. The very first iPhone SE sold for a starting price of $399.

$399.00 in 2016 is roughly $530.46 today when adjusted for inflation.

With the iPhone 16e, you're getting a lot more RAM (8GB vs 2GB on iPhone SE), a lot more storage (128GB vs 16GB on iPhone SE), a much faster SoC, faster modem, a much larger and better quality display, a better camera, etc. All for an extra $599.00 - $530.46 = $68.54

All the smart people aren't paying $599 for a 128GB iPhone 16e. They're paying 40% less.

 

[jz0309]

Holy smokes! People are astonished Apple charges more money for a better iPhone with a better camera? And less money for a less capable iPhone having a less capable camera?

What's the world coming to?

you know, this is MacRumors after all. Living up to its image.

 

[citysnaps]

I saw a comment earlier today that I thought was somewhat appropriate... I don't remember the exact wording, but it was basically this - "iPhone 16e reviewers seem to want the 16e to have the features of the 16 at the price of the SE3".

Hah... that's great. And I want a Rolex watch at the price of a Timex.

 

[Veinticinco]

$399.00 in 2016 is roughly $530.46 today when adjusted for inflation.

With the iPhone 16e, you're getting a lot more RAM (8GB vs 2GB on iPhone SE), a lot more storage (128GB vs 16GB on iPhone SE), a much faster SoC, faster modem, a much larger and better quality display, a better camera, etc. All for an extra $599.00 - $530.46 = $68.54

You can't really use that argument when it comes to say, the 2016 12" MacBook with Core M and 4GB at $1299 compared to the 2025 M4 MBA with 16GB at $999.

 

[goonie4life9]

This is FALSE! Apple has decreed that you only need one camera and the iPhone 16e is it! The era of single-camera phones is here! Later this year, Apple will take the single camera to a whole new level with the iPhone 17 Air.

 

[jntdroid]

You can't really use that argument when it comes to say, the 2016 12" MacBook with Core M and 4GB at $1299 compared to the 2025 M4 MBA with 16GB at $999.

The 16e is priced the same as the 14 was two weeks ago, $120 more than the 128gb SE3 was two weeks ago, and $200 less than the 16 now. I'm not saying it's perfectly priced, but it's not unreasonable by any means.

 

[BenGoren]

So … this year’s entry-level camera is on a par with the flagship models from the year before last … and … people here are upset because ...

… um, why, exactly?

b&