iPhone 16e I am shocked! 16e "48MP Fusion camera" sensor size is same as iPhone XR back in 2018!

[drugdoubles]

This whole thread makes so much more sense now.

I really just share my living experience over here. This is not a good city at all.

 

[UpsideDownEclair]

I honestly like the Apple logo, it does make me feel better, I am replying you with a pro phone.

The city I live in is a realistic one, and some people would treat you badly or bring up none sense agreement or bully you if they guess you are poor. Bringing a 3 camera pro phone is practical over here for a more peacful living.

The burden isn’t on Apple to solve classism. It’s on all of us – always has been.

Respectfully, our planet’s dying, cost of living crises currently have even more of a chokehold on regular folk, and almost nobody in the US can afford eggs. But sure, Apple spamming lenses on the back of a phone is what we should turn our attention to. Because it looking flashy should totally take precedence.

 

[drugdoubles]

You're looking at the cheapest spec iPhone and comparing it to a third party flagship.

Well, a new s24 plus which is flagship grade is same price as 16e over here

 

[James6s]

Plenty of 16e camera test videos appearing on YouTube if you want to see how it performs for real.

The only real difference being in super low light situation’s against the iPhone 16’s main camera.

 

[Unggoy Murderer]

Megapixels might tell you how many pixels are crammed onto a sensor, but sensor size—surprise, surprise—plays a massive role in detail, especially when you zoom in. Bigger sensors, like full frame or APS-C, have larger photosites, even at the same megapixel count, compared to the tiny sensor in an iPhone Pro. Larger photosites capture more light and finer detail, which absolutely translates to better resolution and clarity in the final image—especially when you’re pixel-peeping or cropping.
The quality of the data captured by those pixels isn’t magically equalized because it’s saved as a JPEG or whatever. A bigger sensor with better dynamic range and less noise doesn’t just vanish in post-processing—it’s baked into the image. That’s why a 24MP full-frame camera will mop the floor with a 48MP iPhone sensor when you zoom in

Uhhh, no. As I said in my comment before, megapixels determine the number of pixels on the sensor, not its size. A 24mp sensor that's full-frame will capture an image with the exact size and number of pixels as a 24mp smartphone sensor. The full-frame sensor will absolutely capture a more accurate, less noisy image, but the detail won't be any different, because it can't magically create detail from pixels that simply don't exist.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about so I'm not going to bother engaging anymore.

 

[BenGoren]

Uhhh, no. As I said in my comment before, megapixels determine the number of pixels on the sensor, not its size. A 24mp sensor that's full-frame will capture an image with the exact size and number of pixels as a 24mp smartphone sensor. The full-frame sensor will absolutely capture a more accurate, less noisy image, but the detail won't be any different, because it can't magically create detail from pixels that simply don't exist.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about so I'm not going to bother engaging anymore.

While I share your opinion of the original poster, permit me to expand on the complexity of the matter?

Take two sensors, different physical dimensions, same pixel count. Assume the underlying technology is basically the same. The one with the larger physical dimensions will have a lower signal-to-noise ratio because each pixel is larger and captures more photons. This better signal-to-noise ratio will allow it to resolve more detail than the smaller sensor. Fine details will be smudged and indistinguishable with the smaller sensor which will be clear and distinguishable with the larger sensor.

Note that I “handwaved” away some other important details. For example, this assumes that the two sensors are part of different camera systems — for example, that the large-sensor-system is using a longer focal length lens to match the same field of view.

It is, in fact, possible to “rig” the test in such a way that the small sensor appears to be the winner — such as by using lenses of the same (not “equivalent”) focal length and aperture and comparing the same cropped portion of the test image (such as a crop of an entire dollar bill taped to a brick wall). What such a test demonstrates is that, all else equal, smaller pixels capture finer details.

But, of course, all else is never equal; it’s the complete system that matters — else nobody would ever pay (for example) $6300 for a 24 megapixel Canon R1 when $4000 gets you a 45 megapixel Canon R5.

Really, the original poster’s complaint boils down to Nikon’s Z 30 having “only” 20.9 megapixels for $610, whereas Canon’s R50 gets you 24.2 megapixels for $580, so what kind of idiot would ever buy the Nikon?

I’m a Canon guy, but I’m certain that the Nikon is a fantastic camera and would not even think to steer anybody away from it.

Nor do I care, frankly, about the technology used by Apple or Samsung in their entry-level phones, especially considering they both create comparable photographs, most especially considering they’re mind-blowingly awesome cameras by the standards of not all that long ago.

b&

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Firstly the Xiaomi does not have a 1 inch sensor, it has a 1 inch TYPE sensor. Research better!

Secondly, I'm not going to trust indianexpress.com as any source of knowledge - the camera sensor is likely the same as the 14/15 without the sensor shift stabilisation, as you can see on the tear down video that was out the day after the phone was released. You can work that out by the aperture being f1.6 if it was a tiny sensor it wouldn't be that low. The camera is good, I've had the 15 Pro and have a 16e now - in anything but very low light the images are identical whether zoomed (pixel peeping) or regular viewing.

Do you think Apple just magically added megapixels to an old sensor? It doesn't work like that. At worst its the sensor from the 14/15, at best it's a variation of a completely new sensor they've been working on likely that will be seen on the iPhone Air releasing later this year and sits a lot thinner in the body of the device.

Apple iPhone 16e - Full phone specifications

www.gsmarena.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892483614434062608

you're very naive lol. it's definitely not the same sensor as the 15 or the 14 . it's not even the same as the 13. not the same as the 12 pro either. it's likely to be the same as the iphone xs

 

[cuzo]

After 7 years, Cook sells you a XR kind of phone with a XR grade camera sensor with $599, I am impressed. With the name "48MP Fusion camera", I thought Apple would at least sell the iPhone 14 camera sensor and all youtubers are promoting the camera is so good, my guessing was so wrong before I check it out.

iPhone 16e vs iPhone 16: Which one should you pick?

Apple iPhone 16e vs. iPhone 16: A side-by-side comparison listing five key differences to help you decide which iPhone suits your needs best.

indianexpress.com

How bad is 1/2.55? The latest Xiaomi 15 Ultra phone has 1 inch sensor, which is around 487% sensor size of 1/2.55

48MP photo is nothing. When you zoom in is just some "pattern" without any detail. 1/2.55 photo is not even clear without any zoom in.

Flossy carter spoke on this, here it is.

The first picture is the 16e.

Second picture is a 15 pro max

 

[jntdroid]

it's likely to be the same as the iphone xs

Not a huge deal, but your own link contradicts that assumption. It sounds more like it's similar to the 12 with the newer ISP doing some heavy lifting.

But regardless it doesn't really matter. The SE3 was still using the same sensor as the 8, and took significantly better photos than the 8.

I don't know why everybody seems to want to bag on this so much. They use a cheaper camera system to save $$, and software to help make that cheaper camera work pretty good in most situations relative to current flagships. Why is that a problem?

 

[jntdroid]

Flossy carter spoke on this, here it is.

The first picture is the 16e.

Second picture is a 15 pro max

I mean, you're talking about a phone with a true 5x optical zoom vs. a phone with a lesser sensor that has 2x "optical-quality" (i.e. decent-but-not-real-optical) zoom. 🤷‍♂️

For anybody that wants to see where those photos came from:

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Not a huge deal, but your own link contradicts that assumption. It sounds more like it's similar to the 12 with the newer ISP doing some heavy lifting.

But regardless it doesn't really matter. The SE3 was still using the same sensor as the 8, and took significantly better photos than the 8.

I don't know why everybody seems to want to bag on this so much. They use a cheaper camera system to save $$, and software to help make that cheaper camera work pretty good in most situations relative to current flagships. Why is that a problem?

because they save too much money for a phone that's priced fairly high

 

[jntdroid]

because they save too much money for a phone that's priced fairly high

Maybe? They also didn't skimp in some other areas and this is priced the same as the standard iPhone 14 they were just selling a week ago.

Anybody that thinks this phone should be priced the same as the SE3 (which was $479 for the 128gb) is living a pipe dream IMO.

 

[James6s]

It’s funny how the 16e has caused this much fuss over what sensor it has! Does it really matter…

Plenty of real world tests to see now. It’s certainly punching above its weight regardless of the sensor size!

I put the iPhone 16e vs iPhone 16 vs iPhone SE through a 10-round photo shoot-out — and I'm shocked by the results

Don't knock the iPhone 16e for having just one camera

www.tomsguide.com

 

[Allen_Wentz]

After 7 years, Cook sells you a XR kind of phone with a XR grade camera sensor with $599, I am impressed. With the name "48MP Fusion camera", I thought Apple would at least sell the iPhone 14 camera sensor and all youtubers are promoting the camera is so good, my guessing was so wrong before I check it out.

iPhone 16e vs iPhone 16: Which one should you pick?

Apple iPhone 16e vs. iPhone 16: A side-by-side comparison listing five key differences to help you decide which iPhone suits your needs best.

indianexpress.com

How bad is 1/2.55? The latest Xiaomi 15 Ultra phone has 1 inch sensor, which is around 487% sensor size of 1/2.55

48MP photo is nothing. When you zoom in is just some "pattern" without any detail. 1/2.55 photo is not even clear without any zoom in.

Sorry but this OP post is nonsensical. One needs to wait and have a new phone in hand and personally test it before making such outrageous negative commentary. Camera competence is always about much more than simplistic specs.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

S25 sensor size is S25 Plus sensor area is 2.68 times of 16e. Their latest flagships show their camera AI level is very similar and Apple definitely would not apply their latest camera AI in 16e, 16e doesn't have sensor-shift optical image stabilization, how can 16e camera outcome could be comparable with S25 Plus?

The 16e wasn't designed to be comparable to flagship phones from any company. It was designed to be "low cost", though that often just means "costs less than the next model up".

Even if you don't compare the 16e to any flagship models, but instead just compare it to the base 16, it's not an appropriate comparison. The 16e wasn’t designed to be a “real” part of the 16 “family”, despite the name change, but rather an upgraded version of the iPhone SE series, none of which had sensor-shift optical image stabilization. The same is largely true of some of the 16e’s other camera specs—more like an SE than like the other 16 series models.

$599 does seem somewhat steep for the 16e, considering some of its lesser specs—I think it should have been priced no higher than $549—but it does have quite a few upgraded parts compared to the SE (3rd Gen). In any case, many people will get it for less than $599, or even free, through carrier deals, sales, their workplace, etc.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Unless battery life is your #1 priority and other perks are not, it's hard to argue with this assuming the same or similar cost.

The problem is they're still harder to come by, you'll have no (or very limited) warranty, and you won't always know the history of where it came from or what its been through.

It’s all completely true and something I don’t think a lot of people are thinking about.
I just took a look out of interest and… Apple isn’t even selling refurbished 15 pros near me anymore.
What is Apple selling refurbished? Well… a 14 pro. For $929.

I have a 15 pro right now, I’d love to sit here and say that I would fully recommend someone purchase it before the 16e.
But the only option seems to be Facebook marketplace/eBay which… I do not recommend purchasing a phone from.
So with the 15 pro either being unavailable or over $900 with a proper warranty, I still think the several hundred dollars cheaper 16e is probably the more responsible purchase.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

With the name "48MP Fusion camera", I thought Apple would at least sell the iPhone 14 camera sensor

But why would you assume Apple should have done that, even though the 16e is supposed to be the successor to the SE series, and not equivalent to an iPhone 14?

 

[jntdroid]

It’s all completely true and something I don’t think a lot of people are thinking about.
I just took a look out of interest and… Apple isn’t even selling refurbished 15 pros near me anymore.
What is Apple selling refurbished? Well… a 14 pro. For $929.

I have a 15 pro right now, I’d love to sit here and say that I would fully recommend someone purchase it before the 16e.
But the only option seems to be Facebook marketplace/eBay which… I do not recommend purchasing a phone from.
So with the 15 pro either being unavailable or over $900 with a proper warranty, I still think the several hundred dollars cheaper 16e is probably the more responsible purchase.

You're very right. Best Buy sells official refurbs with a very limited 3rd party warranty, most with 100% battery and basically like new - I trust that more than secondhand. But those are still over $800. Amazon has some decent deals, but a lot of times those are just coming from 3rd party sellers who churn and burn. Plus I'm still seeing $50-$100 more for those 15 Pro's.

Anyways, point being, yes - you can get a 15 Pro for only a little more than a 16e, and it's likely a better device all the way around (besides battery). But you lose a lot in doing so as well. To each their own on whether that's worth the risk or not.

 

[racerhomie]

And why exactly is that…?

Indian express is not exactly a great source of real technology journalism only comparing data points from companies, without doing any real life testing. I wouldn't trust them as well

 

[RRC]

Indian express is not exactly a great source of real technology journalism only comparing data points from companies, without doing any real life testing. I wouldn't trust them as well

There’s no telling OP… he won’t accept any view but his own.

Just to throw this out there, there’s not been one negative post regarding the 16e from anyone who’s actually bought one on here, or on Reddit. That speaks volumes in my opinion!

 

[baconcat_8964]

Well, a new s24 plus which is flagship grade is same price as 16e over here

Then buy that one. Problem solved.

 

[ThomasJL]

Parts bin phone

Tim Cook special

Refurb 15 Pro (or new on a carrier deal) is a far better use of a similar amount of money

Correct. Furthermore, if someone is concerned about shooting photos in the highest resolution any given iPhone is capable of, those photo files will be large, and thus doing a wired transfer of those files to a Mac or PC will be 20 times faster with an iPhone 15 Pro due to it having USB 3. USB 3 is still slow, but it is 20 times faster than the extremely slow USB 2 on the iPhone 16e. If Tim Crook weren't so greedy and mediocre, iPhones would've had USB 3 in 2012 (which is the same year Macs had USB 3) and USB 4 in 2020 (which is the same year Macs had USB 4). For anyone interested in this topic, see the thread in the link below:

Will iPhone 14 be USB 2.0? Probably, since Cook is mediocre.

Apple computers have had USB 3.0 since mid-2012. That is 10 years ago. Despite that, Tim Cook, being the mediocre beancounter MBA suit that he is, has still not done anything to upgrade the connectivity on the latest iPhones. The latest iPhones use the same USB 2.0 connectivity that shipped with...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[James6s]

Correct. Furthermore, if someone is concerned about shooting photos in the highest resolution any given iPhone is capable of, those photo files will be large, and thus doing a wired transfer of those files to a Mac or PC will be 20 times faster with an iPhone 15 Pro due to it having USB 3. USB 3 is still slow, but it is 20 times faster than the extremely slow USB 2 on the iPhone 16e. If Tim Crook weren't so greedy and mediocre, iPhones would've had USB 3 in 2012 (which is the same year Macs had USB 3) and USB 4 in 2020 (which is the same year Macs had USB 4). For anyone interested in this topic, see the thread in the link below:

Will iPhone 14 be USB 2.0? Probably, since Cook is mediocre.

Apple computers have had USB 3.0 since mid-2012. That is 10 years ago. Despite that, Tim Cook, being the mediocre beancounter MBA suit that he is, has still not done anything to upgrade the connectivity on the latest iPhones. The latest iPhones use the same USB 2.0 connectivity that shipped with...

forums.macrumors.com

Why would Apple add USB 3 speeds to the iPhone 16e when the iPhone 16 & 16 Plus are still using USB 2?

 

[RRC]

Correct. Furthermore, if someone is concerned about shooting photos in the highest resolution any given iPhone is capable of, those photo files will be large, and thus doing a wired transfer of those files to a Mac or PC will be 20 times faster with an iPhone 15 Pro due to it having USB 3. USB 3 is still slow, but it is 20 times faster than the extremely slow USB 2 on the iPhone 16e. If Tim Crook weren't so greedy and mediocre, iPhones would've had USB 3 in 2012 (which is the same year Macs had USB 3) and USB 4 in 2020 (which is the same year Macs had USB 4). For anyone interested in this topic, see the thread in the link below:

Will iPhone 14 be USB 2.0? Probably, since Cook is mediocre.

Apple computers have had USB 3.0 since mid-2012. That is 10 years ago. Despite that, Tim Cook, being the mediocre beancounter MBA suit that he is, has still not done anything to upgrade the connectivity on the latest iPhones. The latest iPhones use the same USB 2.0 connectivity that shipped with...

forums.macrumors.com

But how many people are realistically transferring photos via USB?!

Most are using the cloud and they’re on the Mac instantly.

Not every person does what you might.

 

[Ctrlos]

Pixel peeping on a phone aimed at grandparents and teenagers who won't do more than print a 6x4" or make them into postage stamps for Instagram is kind of hilarious.