Other The iPhone 15 2X telephoto scam

[cicalinarrot]

I was with you guys until I read motrek’s post above explaining that the sensor area after the zoom is the same size as the one that was producing 12MP photos in previous years. With this being the case, the part I bolded above doesn’t apply. Now, I’m not sure you can call it optical. But my memory from last year has them explaining what was going on quite clearly in the presentation and mention achieving the quality of an optical zoom, not having one. It was quite clear to me. Now, I don’t know if it was different this year and I’m not trying to condescend to anyone, but I wanted to layout that perhaps manipulation wasn’t the intention.

The definition is still "digital zoom on a two times bigger sensor", not "optical zoom". The main/zoom camera comparison is relative and not absolute, it has to be about the same device, not with other devices. It's literally not optical because optics do nothing to go from the main picture to the zoomed one, it's all digital (and it's a crop, no matter how big the pixels/sensor are, it's less than 1X).
I know that they were trying to say "there's the same light-catching surface and resolution than on some 2X cameras", I also think that's very cool, but "optical-like" is still ok (ambiguous but still technically ok), "optical" as they say in the specs is just not true. That's the part that really worries me, that goes way beyond their usual marketing manipulation.
And I think they agree with me because they sometimes use "optical-like" and not "optical". They admit there's a difference.

 

[NT1440]

The definition is still "digital zoom on a two times bigger sensor", not "optical zoom". The main/zoom camera comparison is relative and not absolute, it has to be about the same device, not with other devices. It's literally not optical because optics do nothing to go from the main picture to the zoomed one, it's all digital (and it's a crop, no matter how big the pixels/sensor are, it's less than 1X).
I know that they were trying to say "there's the same light-catching surface and resolution than on some 2X cameras", I also think that's very cool, but "optical-like" is still ok (ambiguous but still technically ok), "optical" as they say in the specs is just not true. That's the part that really worries me, that goes way beyond their usual marketing manipulation.

Cool, they stated “optical quality” about a dozen times.

It’s going to take great photos, and isn’t a giant dedicated camera. I don’t see the problem here.

Sooner rather than later, with the introduction of meta material lenses, the line of whether something is pure optics or not is going to be so blurry it’ll be meaningless.

 

[Phone Junky]

If the 2x photo on the 15 has better quality than a cropped photo on a 14, then it's a win in my book.

 

[maratus]

The question ultimately is whether the main 24mm equivalent lens can outresolve the 48mp sensor in the middle (i.e. 2x 12mp crop will be pixel sharp). TBH I don't see why not.

The real scam is that telephoto cameras on either iPhone or Android phones don't use big 1/1.2" or 1/1.3" sensors instead of the tiny ones like 1/2.55" or even 1/3.5". And unfortunately it's just physics since telephoto lenses for large sensors will be bulky.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Cool, they stated “optical quality” about a dozen times.

It’s going to take great photos, and isn’t a giant dedicated camera. I don’t see the problem here.

Sooner rather than later, with the introduction of meta material lenses, the line of whether something is pure optics or not is going to be so blurry it’ll be meaningless.

Read again.
They said "optical quality" while presenting it. But the site calls it "2X Telephoto" and says nothing more. If you're wondering if that's digital or optical (pretty ambiguous to me, since they used to call "Telephoto" their optical zooms and it clearly recalls zoom lenses), you go to "Specifications" and it calls it "Telephoto" again, before saying "2x optical zoom in, 2x optical zoom out; 4x optical zoom range".
This is the lie I'm complaining about. Nowhere it says it's digital, or optical-like. Nowhere it explains that it uses a portion of the sensor. Unless you watched the keynote.
Is it a coincidence or are they also actively trying to hide it? Since they explained it kinda clearly in the keynote, why their "in depth" slides about the camera, when talking about 2X, show the picture of a girl (ironically, holding a lens) instead of that cropped sensor that they showed in the keynote?

The question ultimately is whether the main 24mm equivalent lens can outresolve the 48mp sensor in the middle (i.e. 2x 12mp crop will be pixel sharp). TBH I don't see why not.

The real scam is that telephoto cameras on either iPhone or Android phones don't use big 1/1.2" or 1/1.3" sensors instead of the tiny ones like 1/2.55" or even 1/3.5". And unfortunately it's just physics since telephoto lenses for large sensors will be bulky.

If things change digitally, it's a digital zoom. If things change optically, it's an optical zoom. The use of a different sensor may vary the result but this is what those words still mean.

 

[NT1440]

Read again.
They said "optical quality" while presenting it. But the site calls it "2X Telephoto" and says nothing more. If you're wondering if that's digital or optical (pretty ambiguous to me, since they used to call "Telephoto" their optical zooms and it clearly recalls zoom lenses), you go to "Specifications" and it calls it "Telephoto" again, before saying "2x optical zoom in, 2x optical zoom out; 4x optical zoom range".
This is the lie I'm complaining about. Nowhere it says it's digital, or optical-like. Nowhere it explains that it uses a portion of the sensor. Unless you watched the keynote.
Is it a coincidence or are they also actively trying to hide it? Since they explained it kinda clearly in the keynote, why their "in depth" slides about the camera, when talking about 2X, show the picture of a girl (ironically, holding a lens) instead of that cropped sensor that they showed in the keynote?

If things change digitally, it's a digital zoom. If things change optically, it's an optical zoom. The use of a different sensor may vary the result but this is what those words still mean.

Take it up with whoever oversees “truth in advertising” in the US then? (That’s a joke, this country has no actual regulations until there’s a PR disaster for big companies).

I’d bet the 2x is better than 2x on previous models, that’s all actual users are going to care about at the end of the day 🤷‍♂️

 

[maerz001]

Cool, they stated “optical quality” about a dozen times.

It’s going to take great photos, and isn’t a giant dedicated camera. I don’t see the problem here.

Sooner rather than later, with the introduction of meta material lenses, the line of whether something is pure optics or not is going to be so blurry it’ll be meaningless.

Thats not true. Meta material lenses are an optical instrument.
Has nothing to do with digital zoom

 

[NT1440]

Thats not true. Meta material lenses are an optical instrument.
Has nothing to do with digital zoom

Who said anything about *digital* zoom? Lenses that can change shape by definition will change the optical zoom.

Maybe I’m using the wrong term?

 

[cicalinarrot]

If the 2x photo on the 15 has better quality than a cropped photo on a 14, then it's a win in my book.

Take it up with whoever oversees “truth in advertising” in the US then? (That’s a joke, this country has no actual regulations until there’s a PR disaster for big companies).

I’d bet the 2x is better than 2x on previous models, that’s all actual users are going to care about at the end of the day 🤷‍♂️

As I said in many other posts, I like the feature, I agree it's better than most 2X optical zooms, I don't like that they pretend it's an optical zoom.
Just like I prefer the Burger King's fake meat to the real one (I'm not kidding) but I'd be pissed if they felt allowed to say it's 100% bovine meat on the box. Tell me what it really is and let me judge.
I live in a place where Soy Milk cannot contain the word "milk" on the box, it's just called "Soy based beverage" or something like that, not to mislead consumers into thinking it can replace cow milk. That's a bit extreme to me but we have to demand that words are used with the meaning that all consumers understand (especially on specs lists) or we deleting the line between "brave" marketing claims and fraud.

 

[George Dawes]

I don’t understand this infatuation with multi mega pixel phone cameras when it’s going to be on screen and highly unlikely to ever be printed out

Isn’t there a law of diminishing returns you rapidly face with all this stuff ?

 

[dallegre]

My guess is that the quality of the 2x mode will be roughly the same as the 3x or 5x lens, so in that sense it's "optical quality". It does appear to be just a digital crop mode, which would commonly be referred to by photographers as digital zoom.

 

[StudioMacs]

cropping an image down to an area with the same aspect ratio as the original, and scaling the image up to the dimensions of the original.

The image is not being scaled up. The pixels are not being interpolated.

 

[cicalinarrot]

I don’t understand this infatuation with multi mega pixel phone cameras when it’s going to be on screen and highly unlikely to ever be printed out

Isn’t there a law of diminishing returns you rapidly face with all this stuff ?

Well, that's the part that I actually approve here: they kept cameras 12MP for years while rivals were having a useless megapenis... ahem... megapixel measuring contest. And they moved to 48MP but still use them for lower-res pictures. And a digital zoom that doesn't suck.

My guess is that the quality of the 2x mode will be roughly the same as the 3x or 5x lens, so in that sense it's "optical quality". It does appear to be just a digital crop mode, which would commonly be referred to by photographers as digital zoom.

The process is still using just a portion of the sensor. That's a crop. "Optical-like" is ok, "optical" is false

 

[dallegre]

I don’t understand this infatuation with multi mega pixel phone cameras when it’s going to be on screen and highly unlikely to ever be printed out

Isn’t there a law of diminishing returns you rapidly face with all this stuff ?

If you can tell the quality difference between the main camera and the telephoto camera, you'll be able to see the difference between 1x quality and 2x. To me, that's not hard to see on a screen in many cases.

 

[maratus]

If things change digitally, it's a digital zoom. If things change optically, it's an optical zoom. The use of a different sensor may vary the result but this is what those words still mean.

Well, one can argue that cropping from the sensor without upscaling isn't a normal "digital zoom". It's a crop. If you're expecting 12MP image, and you get it by cropping from a very large censor, you will get "optical quality" as long as the lens is adequate. Also calling these lenses "zoom" is wrong, these are fixed focal lenses.

So what they actually meant by optical quality is that they don't use digital interpolation / upscaling when offering 2x field of view by taking raw data from the 48Mp censor center. The quality would be nearly the same as a native 50mm equivalent lens with a 12MP sensor half the size.

The real problem I have with Apple calling it this way, is that the customer might expect that 2x will be the same overall quality as 1x. And that's not true, because 12MP image obtained from 4->1 is significantly better.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Well, one can argue that cropping from the sensor without upscaling isn't a normal "digital zoom". It's a crop. If you're expecting 12MP image, and you get it by cropping from a very large censor, you will get "optical quality" as long as the lens is adequate. Also calling these lenses "zoom" is wrong, these are fixed focal lenses.

So what they actually meant by optical quality is that they don't use digital interpolation / upscaling when offering 2x field of view by taking raw data from the 48Mp censor center. The quality would be nearly the same as a native 50mm equivalent lens with a 12MP sensor half the size.

The real problem I have with Apple calling it this way, is that the customer might expect that 2x will be the same overall quality as 1x. And that's not true, because 12MP image obtained from 4->1 is significantly better.

I can agree that:
- the meaning of "optical zoom" had already shifted a little since "real" cameras. Sure is that there is different optics on their other "optical zooms" and not here.
- that you could have a zoomed lens with a bad sensor (that's why I hate most multi-camera phones with those noisy cheap cameras and I like this solution)
- that all of this is very hard to explain to non-nerds (I think I'm decently knowledge about this but I still had to do a bit of research to double check all I said)

And I also completely agree with your conclusion. No matter how good this is, if it was what we have always called a 2X optical zoom, the light would hit the whole sensor and the picture would just be better. Is it already great and better than most 2X cameras? Yes, but it would be better if it was optical.

 

[maerz001]

Who said anything about *digital* zoom? Lenses that can change shape by definition will change the optical zoom.

Maybe I’m using the wrong term?

Well u said „the line of whether something is pure optics or not is going to be so blurry it’ll be meaningless.“
Since this debate here is between digital and optical zoom and your meta lense is optical it implied to me you mean it would be digital.

 

[motrek]

I'll quote wikipedia, since you don't seem to understand/trust me.
"Digital zoom is a method of decreasing the precise angle of view of a digital photograph or video image. It is accomplished by cropping an image down to an area with the same aspect ratio as the original, and scaling the image up to the dimensions of the original. The camera's optics are not adjusted."
...

If you use the middle 12MP of a sensor to take a picture, and the resulting picture is 12MP, then there's no "scaling the image up to the dimensions of the original." There's no scaling at all.

It's categorically not digital zoom. I don't have to ask my friends, it's right in the text you quoted.

 

[NickyValentine]

I don’t understand this infatuation with multi mega pixel phone cameras when it’s going to be on screen and highly unlikely to ever be printed out

Isn’t there a law of diminishing returns you rapidly face with all this stuff ?

I’ve printed out several pictures, blown them up a hung them on my walls

 

[motrek]

The question for me remains though... will it?!

The zoomed images will still have one sensor pixel for every pixel in the output image. That's how every iPhone camera as worked up until now. So that's good.

The sensor pixels are likely smaller than those of previous iPhone sensors, so that's not as good, but the resulting images will probably still be pretty good.

 

[NT1440]

Well u said „the line of whether something is pure optics or not is going to be so blurry it’ll be meaningless.“
Since this debate here is between digital and optical zoom and your meta lense is optical it implied to me you mean it would be digital.

I meant it will be a distinction without a difference (when it comes to phone cameras) soon enough.

This discussion will be relegated to the status of “audiophiles” arguing over whether they can truly make a distinction between formats/bitrates while everyone else is actually enjoying the music 🤷‍♂️

 

[parseckadet]

I feel like this whole argument is missing the forest for the trees. Should the iPhone 16 have a third camera? This camera would use the exact same lens as the main camera (so two of the lenses on the back are exactly the same), and the sensor would be exactly half the size. Three lenses, three sensors. It would meet OP's definition of an optical zoom that doesn't involve any kind of "digital zoom" or "crop" right? Every single pixel on the sensor is involved in the creation of the image after all. The results produced would be EXACTLY the same as what Apple is doing with the iPhone 15, but now the OP won't feel lied to. Huzzah! Never mind the additional size, weight, and expense such a camera would add to the device. OP won't mind when said device costs an extra $200 or whatever, because at least he'll be able to sleep better at night knowing he wasn't suckered into Apple's "scam."

 

[cicalinarrot]

I feel like this whole argument is missing the forest for the trees. Should the iPhone 16 have a third camera? This camera would use the exact same lens as the main camera (so two of the lenses on the back are exactly the same), and the sensor would be exactly half the size. Three lenses, three sensors. It would meet OP's definition of an optical zoom that doesn't involve any kind of "digital zoom" or "crop" right? Every single pixel on the sensor is involved in the creation of the image after all. The results produced would be EXACTLY the same as what Apple is doing with the iPhone 15, but now the OP won't feel lied to. Huzzah! Never mind the additional size, weight, and expense such a camera would add to the device. OP won't mind when said device costs an extra $200 or whatever, because at least he'll be able to sleep better at night knowing he wasn't suckered into Apple's "scam."

I’ve written in many other comments that this is the best solution for this kind of phone. I know many of you want to turn this into a fanboy war, it isn’t.
But whatever your definition of “optical” may be, if it doesn’t involve optical elements, it’s a lie. Can we agree on that or do we accept all existing words to be twisted by marketing? Can I sell you a glass ring and call it a diamond because it reflects light as much as a real diamond?

 

[NT1440]

I’ve written in many other comments that this is the best solution for this kind of phone. I know many of you want to turn this into a fanboy war, it isn’t.
But whatever your definition of “optical” may be, if it doesn’t involve optical elements, it’s a lie. Can we agree on that or do we accept all existing words to be twisted by marketing? Can I sell you a glass ring and call it a diamond because it reflects light as much as a real diamond?

Wait, you think a sensor per lens is a good idea?

You want less ability to gather light per camera? Or are you looking for the same performance and are okay with an iPhone that’s 6 inches wide? The goal is the biggest sensor you can fit, if each lens had a dedicated sensor that would be a dramatic step back in the amount of light that can be gathered…

 

[motrek]

I’ve written in many other comments that this is the best solution for this kind of phone. I know many of you want to turn this into a fanboy war, it isn’t.
But whatever your definition of “optical” may be, if it doesn’t involve optical elements, it’s a lie. Can we agree on that or do we accept all existing words to be twisted by marketing? Can I sell you a glass ring and call it a diamond because it reflects light as much as a real diamond?

You've completely missed the guy's point.

An optical 2x zoom camera would simply be a literal duplication of the existing 1x camera but with a smaller sensor.

What's the difference, in your mind, between 1) having a smaller sensor, and 2) using an equivalently-sized portion of a larger sensor?

Seriously, you seem to think that one is better than the other, but how are they any different at all?