iPhone 17 Pro iPhone 17 Pro Camera vs iPhone Air Camera - My only concern

[Konvictz]

Hi guys,

I'm really wanting the air and I've always been a pro user since they released the pro. I like thin and sleek devices and it's great the air has a lot of the same features as the pro (very similar cpu, ram etc). I can live without some of the features like dual speakers and lidar and great battery life.

I'm a light-medium user. Whatsapp, Youtube, onedrive, work stuff, outlook, banking etc.

My only concern now is the camera.

Pro on apples website:

48MP Pro Fusion camera system
48MP Fusion Main 48MP Fusion
Ultra Wide 48MP Fusion Telephoto

Air:

48MP Fusion camera system
48MP Fusion Main

I can live without the ultra wide - I'll miss it but I can live without it as I don't really use it much. My concern is how much better is the pro camera than the air? i.e. what is the difference between Fusion (on the air) and Pro Fusion (on the pro)?

I'm not a professional photographer or anything but I'll take pictures when I go out, on holiday etc and my pictures from all my pro models always look very good. Will I still get this level of image quality?

What about low light performance? I think the pro camera is lens is bigger - how much of a difference will this take?

The preorders begin in a few hours and I need to order one so this is the last thing I want to make sure. There doesn't seem to be any official reviews yet (just the hands on footage from the Apple event) - so not much to go on.

 

[gomakoto]

We can only speculate until reviews. Pro has a bigger sensor and LiDAR helps for low light. But just the fusion cameras should be very close in good light conditions.

The air will have a very good camera.

 

[Konvictz]

We can only speculate until reviews. Pro has a bigger sensor and LiDAR helps for low light. But just the fusion cameras should be very close in good light conditions.

The air will have a very good camera.

I think I'm just going to take the risk and pre order the air. I could always cancel but then I risk getting the phone late.

Going to be strange going from a pro to a non pro, but this is the most excited I've been for an iPhone in years.

 

[wonderings]

You are not a pro photorgrapher and would say all the modern cameras in phones are great these days. It really is just the marketing telling you, convincing you, that you need whatever the new product they come out with. Your app needs would run fine on an iPhone 13 or even older still. It does seem like the marketing has gotten a hold of you though "I need to order one" and "risk getting the phone late". What is the urgency? If you have questions wait till reviews are out that have answered your question. Your current pro phone will not stop working and will not stop taking good pictures. And it is safe to say that this is all hype and once you have a new phone that hype will dissipate quickly and you will just have your phone that takes nice pictures, like the one you had before.

 

[Steve121178]

I think I'm just going to take the risk and pre order the air. I could always cancel but then I risk getting the phone late.

Going to be strange going from a pro to a non pro, but this is the most excited I've been for an iPhone in years.

Get the phone late? Late for what?

 

[MacDevil7334]

Review embargos usually drop Monday or Tuesday of the release week so you’ll have to wait until then for any real camera quality tests. But the Air seems to share the same 1x sensor as the 17 regular, which appears to be unchanged from the 1x on last year’s 16. That camera was perfectly fine. Was it quite as good as the one on the Pro? No. As you already recognize, the sensor on the Pro is larger so it lets in more light and has a bit more natural bokeh (though, we are still talking tiny phone sensors here so the differences are not huge). In good light, I think you would be hard pressed to tell the two apart other than the slightly different fields of view (Air is 26mm equivalent while the Pro is a slightly wider 24mm equivalent). In low light, the Pro will do better, but not dramatically so.

You mentioned being able to live without the ultra wide. What about the telephoto? To me that would be the biggest loss. And that’s what’s keeping me with the Pro again this year even though I definitely lust after the slim profile of the Air.

 

[Rivanov]

Get the phone late? Late for what?

To say you have the iPhone on releaseday. 😉

 

[Konvictz]

Thanks guys.

 

[Steve121178]

To say you have the iPhone on releaseday. 😉

Is that still a thing for some people? Pathetic…

 

[Rivanov]

Wrong thread

 

[MacDevil7334]

Is that still a thing for some people? Pathetic…

That’s awfully judgmental of you.

 

[Steve121178]

That’s awfully judgmental of you.

Indeed.

 

[Moreplease]

But the Air seems to share the same 1x sensor as the 17 regular, which appears to be unchanged from the 1x on last year’s 16. That camera was perfectly fine. Was it quite as good as the one on the Pro? No. As you already recognize, the sensor on the Pro is larger so it lets in more light and has a bit more natural bokeh (though, we are still talking tiny phone sensors here so the differences are not huge). In good light, I think you would be hard pressed to tell the two apart other than the slightly different fields of view (Air is 26mm equivalent while the Pro is a slightly wider 24mm equivalent). In low light, the Pro will do better, but not dramatically so.

Right.

Couple of extra points:

Although the Pro does indeed have a slightly larger sensor (on the main camera; the ultrawides are identical), the non-Pro has a slightly faster lens (lets more light in). This almost evens things out. The Pro has only the tinniest of improvements in image quality – usually unnoticeable or irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the non-Pro has a closer minimum focus distance and fewer aberrations near the corner of the image in the close-up range. Since these are big problems for many people, Apple automatically switches from the main camera to a cropped ultrawide in the close-up range (when you’re taking a photo of a receipt, say). At this point the image quality falls off a cliff to a far lower level than the non-Pro still using its main camera.

I also prefer 26 mm-e to 24 mm-e for most snapshot situations (I’d like 28 mm-e even more).

All these things considered, I personally outright prefer the non-Pro camera.

There are two camera areas where the Pro retains a big advantage:

• the readout speed of the main sensor is about double that of the non-Pro. This allows full-width, fully sampled 120p video. If you don’t know what high readout speed means, it probably doesn’t matter to you, but of course I’ll tell you: top-quality slow motion for cinematic purposes and fewer rolling-shutter artefacts in scenes with substantial motion, e.g. pointing the camera out the window of a train
• the tele lens. But even the improved tele lens in the 17 uses a tiny sensor (now the same size as the ultrawide at least), and the lens is slow at f/2.8. Unless there’s been an improvement, close focus is also … not close. So while useful, the tele camera may not be as useful as you hope.