Probably not. The flash alignment isn’t the same so the cutout will probably be different
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 16e Has iPhone 16 Camera, But Lacks Some Features
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's the problem I have
One does not "create" optical zoom
It's a contradiction in terms
You do realize it’s the same thing on Pro models? Apple explained it in their launch very clearly when the 48MP sensor first came to the 14 Pro Max. Unless you’re taking a ProRes photo, both the regular version and zoomed in version of a photo will be 12MP anyways (on this phone or other models with the 48MP sensor). Yes you’re not taking a 48MP photo with 2x optical zoom, but with normal mode it’s a true 2x zoom, which is very different from the kind of 2x you get with digital zoom.
I didn't realize that (I don't have one) - and I have a problem with them marketing it that way there too (if they are)
You don't "create" optical zoom with software
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one
I find it to be disingenuous marketing
I feel like it’s semantics. The key difference between traditional optical and digital zoom is that optical zoom doesn’t loose out on quality while digital zoom just crops and tries to force details where there is none. In that sense I feel like the term “optical quality zoom” is more than fair because in this case in regular 12MP mode both regular and zoomed in photos are only using details gathered from the sensor. Functionally they are doing the same jobs as a dual 12 MP regular and telephoto lenses would.
But, if you’re shooting in HEIF Max or Raw Max in full 48MP, I would agree with your sentiment because you would effectively have a digital zoom.
Last edited:
You've basically explained it well
I maintain that an actual optical zoom lens is a different concept than digital zooming or doing sensor crops and software tweaks
I just think Apple should market it totally different than using the word Optical, which has an understood meaning in photography
Call it "liquid zoom" or "neural zoom" or something
I agree that they should have have a different name for it. But I don’t think Apple was ever deceptive about this practice. They were openly using the term “optical quality zoom” since they first introduced it people are only now getting angry because they think it was a way to save money on the 16e.
This was how they originally talked about it at the 14 Pro launch (timestamp 1:19:08):
I don't like it on the comparison page, where they are using Optical to represent both actual Optical and "other ways of artificially creating optical quality"
That's the part I don't like
They know the term is loaded with positive connotation and they are using it on purpose, rather than be specific and clear about not actually having additional Optical lenses on various devices
Only an analysis of the BOM would reveal that, I’d be interested in getting an idea of their profit margins.
I strongly disagree. Before MagSafe on iPhones I constantly had problems with pocket lint clogging the charging port. It was a total PITA. After MagSafe my iPhone sticks to a magnetic charger and becomes a night light at night while charging. The 15 Pro and the 16 Pro Max have literally never been plugged in.
Depends on your budget. Saving $100 per phone in a corporate environment is a no brainer in most cases.
We used to call it enlarging in the darkroom.
The whole concept of zoom and lens equivalence with smaller sensors has become distorted, IMHO. All you are doing is creating an equivalent FOV, but people somehow think they are getting the same detail as in a real telephoto.
As you point out, all they are doing is playing with the pixels to change the FOV.
Apple Intelligence Zoom
Edit: Typo
Thank you!
You've articulated this much better than I did in my frustrated ramblings about it last night
🙏
A lot of features are missing compared to the normal 16 lineup. I would recommend getting the normal iPhone 16 instead especially since the price is now much higher.
Or a $10 adapter for those who don’t want a case:That can be corrected for with a magsafe case.
Premium Clear MagSafe Case for iPhone 16e | ESR
Combine style and protection with our sleek, durable, and clear iPhone 16e case, featuring 1,200 g of magnetic strength compatible with various MagSafe accessorieswww.esrgear.com
Universal Ring (HaloLock) - Black/Silver-4 Pack - ESR
Universal Ring (HaloLock) - Black/Silver-4 Pack - ESR
www.esrgear.com
Ok I agree but I only use apple cases so either I don’t use an apple case or either I lose magsafeOr a $10 adapter for those who don’t want a case:
Universal Ring (HaloLock) - Black/Silver-4 Pack - ESR
Universal Ring (HaloLock) - Black/Silver-4 Pack - ESR
It should work through a case too. It’s actually intended to be attached to the inside of a non MagSafe case (if it’s smooth inside) to turn it into a MagSafe case (I probably should have mentioned this), but I would think it should be able to be attached directly to a phone and work through the case as well.
This is another magnet adapter from Pop Socket intended to attach directly to a phone. Not sure if this one is strong enough to work through a case though.
White — Magnetic Adapter Ring | Adapter Ring | PopSockets
Upgrade any device to MagSafe. Sticks to the back of your device and allows you to snap on and swap off any MagSafe accessory.
If it’s too weak to work through a case, you might also be able to attach it to the outside of a case and still be able to wireless charge.
Can’t say for sure because I don’t have experience with these particular adapters, but I used a Snap grip (grip with magnetic pass through charging) on my SE3 (no case) which allowed me to use my non MagSafe phone with MagSafe accessories, just at slower charging speeds.
