You don’t need 300mm of space to have a 300mm periscope. There are 200mm lenses that are longer than many 300mm lenses. The mm in a lens is not the physical length of the lens.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 16 Pro Max Rumored to Feature Super Telephoto Camera
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Physics, funny old stuff…
A lot depends on the size of the light collecting aperture of the camera. Yes, the aperture number is sometimes useful, but here we talk about the actual light capturing area, e.g. “a circle whose diameter is 3 mm”.
This area defines the light collecting capability of the lens (low-light performance). It defines the diffraction limit (resolution limit), and it defines the useful depth-of-field. As the area will be very small in a mobile phone camera, the lens will not be comparable to any “real camera” 300-mm equivalent lens.
Just as an example, Samsung Galaxy 23 Ultra telephoto lens real focal length is approximately 230 mm / 8.5 ≈ 27 mm (crop factor of a 1/3.52” sensor is 8.5). As the aperture number is 4.9, the physical aperture diameter is 27 mm / 4.9 ≈ 5.6 mm.
So, the lens behaves as a full-frame 230 mm lens with f-number 4.9 x 8.5 ≈ 41. In practice, it is useless to go that small, as the diffraction limit would make the image very blurry. (Typically, even the cheap zooms for full frame cameras offer 300 mm focal length with f-number 6.3, which gives approximately 47 mm diameter light collecting area. Almost tenfold resolution and hundredfold performance in low light.)
I am not saying the periscope lens would be useless. It can see more detail than the human eye, and it can see more detail than the main camera. The difference in the latter case, however, is more likely 2–3x, not 10x.
A lot depends on the size of the light collecting aperture of the camera. Yes, the aperture number is sometimes useful, but here we talk about the actual light capturing area, e.g. “a circle whose diameter is 3 mm”.
This area defines the light collecting capability of the lens (low-light performance). It defines the diffraction limit (resolution limit), and it defines the useful depth-of-field. As the area will be very small in a mobile phone camera, the lens will not be comparable to any “real camera” 300-mm equivalent lens.
Just as an example, Samsung Galaxy 23 Ultra telephoto lens real focal length is approximately 230 mm / 8.5 ≈ 27 mm (crop factor of a 1/3.52” sensor is 8.5). As the aperture number is 4.9, the physical aperture diameter is 27 mm / 4.9 ≈ 5.6 mm.
So, the lens behaves as a full-frame 230 mm lens with f-number 4.9 x 8.5 ≈ 41. In practice, it is useless to go that small, as the diffraction limit would make the image very blurry. (Typically, even the cheap zooms for full frame cameras offer 300 mm focal length with f-number 6.3, which gives approximately 47 mm diameter light collecting area. Almost tenfold resolution and hundredfold performance in low light.)
I am not saying the periscope lens would be useless. It can see more detail than the human eye, and it can see more detail than the main camera. The difference in the latter case, however, is more likely 2–3x, not 10x.
Damn, I was planning to buy 15Pro Max…. Waiting for 16 now lol
Maybe add a dedicated button for the camera… in “international orange”
And I didn't say it was. The lens itself doesn't need to be 300mm long, but the light needs to travel at least that far inside the lens. And that's roughly twice the length of an iPhone.
The focal length is the optical length of the lens. That's the distance that light has to travel between two points: the point where light rays converge inside the lens when it is focused on a subject at infinity, and the sensor or piece of film, a.k.a. the focal plane.
Different lenses achieve this different ways. I own a 24mm lens that is much physically longer than a 50mm lens. It's because they use such different optical designs. I have a 70-200mm lens that is just barely shorter than my 400mm lens. Again, that's because of different optical designs. Both are much, much larger than an iPhone, though.
Some telephoto lenses use a catadioptric or mirror system, which uses refraction and reflection to squeeze a long focal length into a comparatively short lens, by bouncing light back and forth through the barrel of the lens:
The path of light is shown as the red line in the illustration above, with the focal plane at right.
Aside from bending and bouncing light, you can't fit 300mm of optical travel into a phone that is roughly half that length, as an iPhone is. Which is why, again, I said that the rumored lens would be a "300mm equivalent."
At some point, iPhone is going to change name to iCamera. It's already happening - gradually - and I am all for it.
Does anyone recall the concept (in use for a few years) of liquid lenses?
Off course there's many limitation to mass production of this tech but it would appear that smartphones could benefit the most. Almost forgot all about it, so posting here and now before almost turns to completely.
For those interested, here is one of the articles from two years ago:
www.techradar.com
Off course there's many limitation to mass production of this tech but it would appear that smartphones could benefit the most. Almost forgot all about it, so posting here and now before almost turns to completely.
For those interested, here is one of the articles from two years ago:
What is a liquid lens? The tech that could revolutionize phone cameras explained
Find out how liquid lenses use fluid to focus faster
Key words "could be" Yes, there's always something better coming out "next year." 
The 300mm is for 35mm full-frame equivalent focal length. The actual device focal length is going to be much smaller, depending on the size of the sensor used. Maybe 30mm? dunno.
Just let me arrange my home screen however I want!!!!!
Just let me MOVE photos to a new album I create!!!!
Just let me MOVE photos to a new album I create!!!!
Some of us (me) look forward to every possible camera improvement and accept camera bumps or whatever.i can't wait to see the camera bump
phones take good enough photos. get rid of the stupid camera bump for goodness sake.
Phones do not contain interchangeable lens cameras, so actually IMO the combo is a camera. Certainly the tiny tele lens would not reasonably function without the attendant computational photography of the iPhone.
Old thinking really. But the likes of CaNikOny have always been too self-centered to partner with the likes of Apple.
Looks like some very good improvements to the camera are coming.
At this point, it will rather be "the phone bump".i can't wait to see the camera bump
phones take good enough photos. get rid of the stupid camera bump for goodness sake.
The point of a periscope camera module is that the lens does not need to protrude further because that extra distance is parallel to the back of the phone, instead of perpendicular with a regular camera module.i can't wait to see the camera bump
Only in good light.
I'm fine with the bump, but want them to do a better job designing it as part of the phone.
So there are independent sensors, viewfinder displays, shutter controls, and image processors for every piece of optical input on the outside of an iPhone? Nonsense.
If each optical input were considered a separate camera, you’d be able to have an iOS app that conducted video interviews by simultaneously recording both the subject in front of the phone and the interviewer behind it.
When I was more or less forced for health reasons (extreme sensitivity to the display) to go from my much loved iPhone 14 Pro Max back to a refurbished 12 Pro Max, I have to say I thought of you and how you’ve gotten a lot of good use out of your iPhone X and I thought of all the great photos you’ve shared from that phone. That gave me a measure of comfort in case I have to stay on the 12 Pro Max for a few years.
I hope when you do make the move to a new model, that you get many years of enjoyment out of it as you’ve done with your iPhone X. If that’s what you want to do.
I went backwards from 14 Pro max to 12 Pro Max. Starting with the 13 Pro and unfortunately continuing the trend into iPhone 14 Pro/Max, Apple gave a very aggressive processing software to the camera and it can enhance details so much that it produces fake “details” that the naked eye doesn’t actually see. Sometimes my photos of my cats look etched in, because the contrast and sharpness is so overdone. Clouds and landscapes can also suffer from this over processing and look almost CGI levels of fake.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciated how my 14 Pro Max let me get most shots I was going for even in challenging lighting or with moving subjects. I wasn’t displeased with the camera.
But for most situations, the 12 Pro Max produces more natural looking results that more closely match what my eyes actually see. So you and I aren’t really missing out on a lot with the cameras. And I hope Apple uses the best of 12 Pro Max images as goals for tuning the algorithms on its next generation of camera software.
I do miss the Dynamic Island and I miss the Always on Display. I guess I even miss the smoother scrolling even though back when I had it, I thought I couldn’t detect it! I think my 14 Pro Max also has better connectivity overall.
But all in all, I’m pleasantly surprised that I don’t feel like I lost a whole lot of progress going back a couple of generations. I actually feel like a regained something that got lost with the last two generations.