iPhone 17 Pro Max Rumored to Have Major Telephoto Camera Upgrade

[Octavius8]

Is this the best innovation that Apple can bring to iPhone?.
Has this been in the iPhone roadmap sinice 5 years ago?. “Year 1: slightly different lenses, year 3: poor close up capabilities…… competitive with 5 years ago zoom”

 

[Moreplease]

I’ve been trying to make sense of these camera rumours and they’re just a mess.

A lens that moves?

The cameras already have moving parts for focus and image stabilisation.

Conceivable moving things not yet present: ND filter, aperture adjustment, zoom, shutter.

A built-in ND filter (like pro video cameras) would be incredibly useful but maybe too hard to explain? On the other hand, Apple or app developers could automate its use and legitimately (for once) boast about cinematic results from a phone. Would be a wild hit with YouTubers.

Aperture adjustment is of limited value with small sensors (stopping down brings only downsides), but the sensors are getting big enough where it would sometimes be useful for depth-of-field control.

Zoom lenses are much bigger and heavier than fixed focal length lenses – worse still if the light path is in a tetraprism – while having higher f-numbers (they allow less light in … than not enough to begin with, remember). Seems crazy to volunteer for those downsides in a phone.

A classical focal plane shutter serves little purpose at 16 Pro readout speeds. The value of that is in the past.

A shutter to stop sunlight destroying the camera might have value. I’ve often wondered how my iPhone doesn’t burn its sensor when facing the sky on a table, say.

But the ND filter is the only one that makes sense to me, and there’s been zero suggestions of that.

Meanwhile, what the tele camera really needs is a lower × rating, like 3.5×, so that the jump from main camera to tele is less jarring, plus a much bigger sensor (and lens) to (a) blur the background, (b) allow cropping to 5× (and higher) with at least as good quality as the 16 Pro.

If any camera needs a zoom it’s the main camera to cover the useful but missing 24–50 mm-e range.

 

[Saturn1217]

We shall see if it’s a true zoom lens or if the earlier rumors are true that it’s a 3.5X native / 7X crop setup (or 4X native / 8X crop) without a moving zoom lens.

I’d rather have this. Much higher chance of actually good telephoto photos with this implementation that we know Apple knows how to do.

 

[JonneyGee]

I had a thought. If the Pro had all the features of the Pro Max, would you be willing to pay the additional $200 (Pro Max base price of $1,199) for it?

I would. I just want the best camera possible in the smallest phone possible.

 

[Jdhommert]

I remember a time when Steve Jobs would deliberately only release the minimum necessary iterations of a product at a time. He'd cut out what he perceived to be redundancies in their product lines. For instance, he'd release the new (singular) iPhone, not 4 different iPhones and 5 different Macs with blurred distinctions. Steve Jobs benefited shareholders and customers. Cook (i.e., Tim Apple), however, is solely a shareholder's dream.

Steve was a product guy and our stuff was great. Tim is not, but I do enjoy having more options...which also means he needs to give us the option to have the best camera in the base Pro phone lol

I had a thought. If the Pro had all the features of the Pro Max, would you be willing to pay the additional $200 (Pro Max base price of $1,199) for it?

If thats what it took. I had the new bigger phone literally every year it was available. Especially because it had the better camera and battery. I decided to try the Pro last year with the same camera to save some money since I got the 1tb option.

Absolutely instantly fell in love with the size. I'm a large man and it's SO much better to use and hold the Pro size phone. Later I went to do something on my 15PM and was shocked at how big it was already. It already made me feel like I was holding a brick that quick. Makes using my iPad MiniI really really don't want to go back to the bigger phone for the better camera....

I would. I just want the best camera possible in the smallest phone possible.

yes.

 

[CATiNTHESTORE]

It really would be nice if everything in the Pro series was equivalent in terms of technologies. Very disappointing.

Apple's biggest enemy might actually be their own marketing team.

 

[Turbonow]

If there's any differentiation of camera specs between Pro and Pro Max, then I'll skip this one and go Android. Sorry...

I've been waiting for a pocketable quality phone that can achieve good results with telephoto as well. 16 Pro was not the answer with its mediocre 12 mpx 5X. An iPhone 17 Pro with 48 mpx 4x (or a new successful design of any figure between 3.5x to 5x) will be a winner.

4x seems to be the sweet spot for image quality vs magnification.

 

[JohnRckr]

You don't have to cause it's not Apple providing this "info", it's a "leaker"

You are absolutely right, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[svish]

A variable optical zoom of 5x to 8x will be fantastic. Initially there were some rumors of zoom reducing to 3.5x. Hope that won't be the case. I want the optical zoom to be at least 5x.

 

[Turbonow]

I’ve been trying to make sense of these camera rumours and they’re just a mess.

A lens that moves?

The cameras already have moving parts for focus and image stabilisation.

Conceivable moving things not yet present: ND filter, aperture adjustment, zoom, shutter.

A built-in ND filter (like pro video cameras) would be incredibly useful but maybe too hard to explain? On the other hand, Apple or app developers could automate its use and legitimately (for once) boast about cinematic results from a phone. Would be a wild hit with YouTubers.

Aperture adjustment is of limited value with small sensors (stopping down brings only downsides), but the sensors are getting big enough where it would sometimes be useful for depth-of-field control.

Zoom lenses are much bigger and heavier than fixed focal length lenses – worse still if the light path is in a tetraprism – while having higher f-numbers (they allow less light in … than not enough to begin with, remember). Seems crazy to volunteer for those downsides in a phone.

A classical focal plane shutter serves little purpose at 16 Pro readout speeds. The value of that is in the past.

A shutter to stop sunlight destroying the camera might have value. I’ve often wondered how my iPhone doesn’t burn its sensor when facing the sky on a table, say.

But the ND filter is the only one that makes sense to me, and there’s been zero suggestions of that.

Meanwhile, what the tele camera really needs is a lower × rating, like 3.5×, so that the jump from main camera to tele is less jarring, plus a much bigger sensor (and lens) to (a) blur the background, (b) allow cropping to 5× (and higher) with at least as good quality as the 16 Pro.

If any camera needs a zoom it’s the main camera to cover the useful but missing 24–50 mm-e range.

A graduated ND filter for landscape photography would be nice. Or at least by software if not truly physical.

But plain ND won't mean anything other than restricting incoming light. It may be useful for daylight long exposure, like waterfalls and seascapes (if you have a tripod). This is already simulated well by Spectre app, you can handhold up to 10 seconds while software creates a nice long exposure simulation almost like exposed by a dSLR.

 

[Turbonow]

I've got the impression from very recent rumours, as 48 mpx 5-8x continuous (or step) zoom may be exclusive to Pro Max models, and Pro will get a 48mpx fixed telephoto having 3.5x or 5x magnification.

With this scenario, iPhone 17 Pro will be something good enough to invest in, yet PM can achieve 16x (close to 400mm eqv.) by cropping to 12 mpx which is in the realm of wildlife photography!

 

[Moreplease]

But plain ND won't mean anything other than restricting incoming light. It may be useful for daylight long exposure, like waterfalls and seascapes (if you have a tripod).

The plain ND filter would be for video, to allow a shutter speed of 1/48 seconds (at 24p) regardless of light conditions.

This is known as the 180-degree shutter rule and is standard for high quality video, from YouTube to Hollywood.

For now, with an iPhone, you need a bulky case that allows screw-on ND filters. Then you may as well be carrying a dedicated camera. A built-in ND filter would do for video what the iPhone has already done for stills: made dedicated cameras obsolete in many applications.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Given Apple’s reputation for overpromising and underdelivering, I’ll only believe it when I see it.

They haven’t promised anything, this is a rumor.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

I was really hoping that I wouldn’t have to get a larger phone just to get the best camera

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Given Apple’s reputation for overpromising and underdelivering, I’ll only believe it when I see it.

Considering Apple isn't "promising" anything here, this is all rumors, there's nothing for Apple to underdeliver. Just people's expectations.

Personally, I'm tired of Apple bringing features only to the biggest phone (or biggest phone a year or two before the regular size phone.) I don't want a phablet. Even the non-Max phone is a little bigger than I really want, but I want the better camera!

 

[ruthless685]

It doesn't really zoom OPTICALLY. It's just a telephoto prime lens. It would be nice to add just two lenses: Ultra wide and wide. With wide lens, Apple could use 100mp or 200mp sensor just like Samsung did.

More megapixels does more harm than good at this scale. The more pixels you fit on the sensor, the smaller the pixels must be, the less light they can gather, and the poorer low light performance will be. This is why Apple stayed with 12MP for so long. You will lose dynamic range. This is why Apple's 12MP images looked so great even while others were upgrading to higher megapixel counts. This is also why professional photographers choose iPhone more than any other smartphone.

 

[Turbonow]

More megapixels does more harm than good at this scale. The more pixels you fit on the sensor, the smaller the pixels must be, the less light they can gather, and the poorer low light performance will be. This is why Apple stayed with 12MP for so long. You will lose dynamic range. This is why Apple's 12MP images looked so great even while others were upgrading to higher megapixel counts. This is also why professional photographers choose iPhone more than any other smartphone.

This may be true if they were only Bayer sensors, but the megapixel jump comes from quad-Bayer tech, which enables pixel binning. Any small sensor with high counts like 36, 48, 50, 64, 100 or 200 mpx is of that group. It's the new golden standard.

With good optics and in bright light, a 48 mpx sensor will provide about 20-24 mpx equivalent which is better than 12 mpx. Under dim light, things will change; called night mode in some occasions, pixel binning, multiple exposure and selective noise reduction will try its best to provide a usable image, being still better than it were a plain 12 mpx sensor.

 

[BNBMS]

More megapixels does more harm than good at this scale. The more pixels you fit on the sensor, the smaller the pixels must be, the less light they can gather, and the poorer low light performance will be. This is why Apple stayed with 12MP for so long. You will lose dynamic range. This is why Apple's 12MP images looked so great even while others were upgrading to higher megapixel counts. This is also why professional photographers choose iPhone more than any other smartphone.

Never heard of pixel binning and Tetra Pixel? I guess you never used Samsung and Chinese smartphones.

 

[Apleeseed84]

😭😭 just when I wanted to downgrade back to the pro they do this 🤣

 

[Moreplease]

You don’t even need pixel binning. Image sensors use microlenses to collect practically all light that falls on the sensor area. After that the pixel count doesn’t really matter. Smaller pixels collect less light individually, sure, but there are accordingly more of them. The result is the same amount of noise at a whole-image level no matter the pixel size.

There is one remaining benefit of fewer pixels, and it is a big one: faster readout. Not because the pixels are bigger but because there are fewer of them to read out.

A shorter readout time reduces rolling-shutter artefacts but also produces better subject recognition, better autofocus performance, and of course more effective computational photography features like combining multiple exposures – you know, the technique on which smartphones with their small sensors manage to compete with dedicated cameras in many applications.

 

[Turbonow]

I've got the impression from very recent rumours, as 48 mpx 5-8x continuous (or step) zoom may be exclusive to Pro Max models, and Pro will get a 48mpx fixed telephoto having 3.5x or 5x magnification.

With this scenario, iPhone 17 Pro will be something good enough to invest in, yet PM can achieve 16x (close to 400mm eqv.) by cropping to 12 mpx which is in the realm of wildlife photography!

Any idea about 17 Pro telephoto? Yes, we understand that Pro Max will be such a showstopper, yet nobody talks much about the smaller sibling. I don't wish to carry a brick in my pocket, but have the best possible with some reasonable size.

I don't think after one year, Apple will simply stick same 16 Pro telephoto, for the sake of model separation. We all saw the mockups with integrated camera bump covering all width, an obvious sign for a different unit. Along with the long-while 48 mpx sensor rumours, it's near certain 17 Pro will have faster new telephoto optics.

The question is what the focal length will be?

a) 3.5x - rumour from Majin Bu
b) 4x - the logical number plus a sweet spot between image quality & reach
c) 5x - another possibility, already existing on 16 Pro & Pro Max
d) Something different...

Being both 48 mpx, what sounds best for segmentation from the rumoured 5-8x zoom for PM?

 

[EugW]

Any idea about 17 Pro telephoto? Yes, we understand that Pro Max will be such a showstopper, yet nobody talks much about the smaller sibling. I don't wish to carry a brick in my pocket, but have the best possible with some reasonable size.

I don't think after one year, Apple will simply stick same 16 Pro telephoto, for the sake of model separation. We all saw the mockups with integrated camera bump covering all width, an obvious sign for a different unit. Along with the long-while 48 mpx sensor rumours, it's near certain 17 Pro will have faster new telephoto optics.

The question is what the focal length will be?

a) 3.5x - rumour from Majin Bu
b) 4x - the logical number plus a sweet spot between image quality & reach
c) 5x - another possibility, already existing on 16 Pro & Pro Max
d) Something different...

Being both 48 mpx, what sounds best for segmentation from the rumoured 5-8x zoom for PM?

From a photography point of view, 3.5X is more common than 4X. 3.5X would correspond to ~85 mm, a common portrait focal length. 4X would correspond to ~95 mm.