iPhone 17 Rumored to Feature Mechanical Aperture

[bassjunky]

"With a mechanical system, users could manually set a smaller larger aperture. This would allow photos to be shot with a shallow depth-of-field effect, where the subject stays in focus while the background is blurred."

A larger aperture, but smaller f number (e.g., f/5.6 is a smaller aperture than f/2.8).

That's usually the confusion. The lower the F-stops, the higher the aperture. I think this sounds kinda cool.

 

[yyzguy]

I’m surprised Apple doesn’t release a real camera that pairs with the iPhone. Let the phone do all the magic processing and storage.

 

[xbjllb]

Um, its the larger apertures that achieve bokeh.... although designated by the smaller number.

Pinhole cameras (with the smallest aperture) have practically infinite depth of field.

That's why NDF (neutral density filters) work to achieve bokeh by lowering the amount of light into a camera and alllowing (or in some cases auto-forcing) a larger aperture.

 

[svish]

Looks like the 17 models will have substantial difference. Non Pro gets 120Hz and Pro models will have good camera improvements.

Expecting only slightly larger screens for 16 Pro/Pro Max along with Apple Intelligence which 15 Pro/Pro Max will be getting.

 

[jamesnajera]

I like the current solution on my 13 Pro Max that utilizes LiDAR and lets me configure the aperture and focus point after the picture is taken.

 

[aknabi]

That would be a serious reason to consider getting a 17 to replace my 15.

Or wait for the 18 to work out the issues that would come from the jump made by the 17 (or wait to see if there are any... like batt life from going ultra slim in the ultra... or camera issues).

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Something tells me the "regular pro" won't get it

 

[Mother Nature]

LOL..... NO.

The difference in quality between even your most precious iPhone doesn't come anywhere near even cheapest entry level camera of the last 10 years. Take a Micro Four Thirds camera, that gets mud thrown at it all the time for its 'small sensor' still performs leaps and bounds better than an iPhone; noise, dynamic range and resolution; all better. Compare a smart phone to a full frame and the difference is even more painful.

But the one differentiating factor are the lenses; take something like a Sigma 56mm f/1.4 lens... you're gonna be getting a ton of light coming through the lens and beautiful REAL bokeh that smartphones cannot and will never be able to do; the AI stuff and that fake 'portrait mode' always looks like ass, especially around hair so there's really no comparison.

If all you care about are flat looking snapshots with everything in focus from a camera that can fit in your pocket, then any smartphone from the last 4 years will be more than adequate.

What is the cost of that?
A phone is something anyone will carry on their pockets, would everyone be willing to carry a heavy brick with interchangeable lenses just because the quaility is superior? Considering most of the pictures will end up in social networks?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Considering most of the pictures will end up in social networks?

Baking in that assumption is probably where the difference lies

I'm back to shopping normal cameras again (of various sizes) simply because no iPhone photos (from any model) pass scrutiny of what I'd like quality wise for my 65" OLED where my wallpapers are cycling through all day.

 

[jlc1978]

Baking in that assumption is probably where the difference lies

I'm back to shopping normal cameras again (of various sizes) simply because no iPhone photos (from any model) pass scrutiny of what I'd like quality wise for my 65" OLED where my wallpapers are cycling through all day.

As always, use the tool fit for the task. Phone cameras aren’t really intended for blowing up to large sizes.

 

[Mousse]

I wonder if we'll be using number naming scheme forever?

Will there be an "iPhone 31"?

Yes there will. But there won't be an iPhone 30, just like there wasn't an iPhone 10. It will be called the iPhone XXX.

Stock camera already does various f stops using some magic: close ups have shallow dof and nature panos are all sharp.

There is no depth of field magic, it's all math. To keep it simple, the closer you get to a subject, the more shallow the depth of field. Macro, you're inches from the subject. Panoramic shots, you're shooting the horizon. There are trick with lense tilting you can do to increase/decrease DoF, but the average joe wouldn't be able to use tilt/shift lenses properly.

Edit: Something no one is talking about. The biggest benefit of a manual aperture is you can find the sweet spot of the lenses for the sharpest picture possible. While I do use my L glass wide open (largest aperture), I usually set them to the sweet spot, usually 2-3 stop lower. My 70-200 2.8, I set to f5.6 when there is good light. My 50 1.4, I set to f4 most of the time. I don't have to pixel peep to see the difference in sharpness stopping down good glass. With consumer grade lenses, I usually have to set 3-5 f-stop lower for sharp photos.

 

[terpsbball2002]

Ugh, I was due for an upgrade this year with my iPhone 13 Pro Max. An adjustable shutter is a BIG deal, landscape shots will look so much better with F8 or above, or really anything above F1.8. Current iPhone photos don't look great for landscape shots.