Other The iPhone 15 2X telephoto scam

[parseckadet]

But whatever your definition of “optical” may be, if it doesn’t involve optical elements, it’s a lie.

You're twisting the definition of optical to fit a very narrow circumstance to suit your argument. Then when Apple doesn't meet this narrow definition you accuse them of lying. If I read 12MP of data off the sensor and produce a 12MP image there's no digital manipulation occurring. It's the equivalent of using a full-frame lens on an APS-C sensor. The lens was capable of producing a larger image, but I only processed the light from a portion of it. Is Canon lying when they sell a 50mm full-frame prime lens and say it's compatible with APS-C cameras? After all it doesn't produce the equivalent of a 50mm image on such a camera. It's the equivalent of an 80mm in that scenario.

Can we agree on that or do we accept all existing words to be twisted by marketing?

Ah, a false-choice. If I don't except your one narrow definition of a word, then my only option is to blindly accept the definitions of all words that you consider to be "twisted by marketing." Sorry, not falling for that one. I can disagree with you on the definition of this word just fine.

Can I sell you a glass ring and call it a diamond because it reflects light as much as a real diamond?

And finally the poor analogy. A ring is nothing like a cell phone camera. Does such a ring produce digital images? Does it somehow inform the quality of the images my phone will produce? No? Then such a ring, regardless of what the center stone is made of, is not relevant to this conversation.

 

[cicalinarrot]

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…

I meant (as stated in a dozen comments now) that the single camera for 2X solution is fine. Apple seems to agree that optical is needed to get more zoom.
About the rest of what you’ve said… Apple’s pseudo-optical solution allows half the light on 2X photos compared to 1X. Again, good photos, but you could get twice the light with a dedicated lens on that sensor. They’d never do that. But that would be an optical zoom. If they used optical zoom on a worse sensor, pics would be worse. But the “optical” part wouldn’t be to blame. It would be the sensor’s fault. Just like here there’s a great sensor but no optical zoom.
I have no more words to explain that how good the solution is has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that it’s not an optical zoom.

You're twisting the definition of optical to fit a very narrow circumstance to suit your argument. Then when Apple doesn't meet this narrow definition you accuse them of lying. If I read 12MP of data off the sensor and produce a 12MP image there's no digital manipulation occurring. It's the equivalent of using a full-frame lens on an APS-C sensor. The lens was capable of producing a larger image, but I only processed the light from a portion of it. Is Canon lying when they sell a 50mm full-frame prime lens and say it's compatible with APS-C cameras? After all it doesn't produce the equivalent of a 50mm image on such a camera. It's the equivalent of an 80mm in that scenario.

Ah, a false-choice. If I don't except your one narrow definition of a word, then my only option is to blindly accept the definitions of all words that you consider to be "twisted by marketing." Sorry, not falling for that one. I can disagree with you on the definition of this word just fine.

And finally the poor analogy. A ring is nothing like a cell phone camera. Does such a ring produce digital images? Does it somehow inform the quality of the images my phone will produce? No? Then such a ring, regardless of what the center stone is made of, is not relevant to this conversation.

I've lost you at the first line. I'm not the one twisting the definition, it's Apple, and you people seem to accept that brainwashing.
Find me a source anywhere that gives a definition of optical zoom that doesn't include an optical lens to be responsible for the zoom and I'll read the rest of your very long message.

 

[parseckadet]

I know many of you want to turn this into a fanboy war, it isn’t.

BTW, you're the one who titled the thread with incendiary language. Just thought I would remind you of that.

 

[waquzy]

For this Photo noob and millions like me, it's still a great phone to easily snap amazing photos, few users in the wider user base are going to be upset one way or another

Yep, same here

 

[cicalinarrot]

BTW, you're the one who titled the thread with incendiary language. Just thought I would remind you of that.

Calling the product a fraud seems reasonable to me.
Calling people who ignore most things I've written to mock me and defend Apple fanboys also seems adequate and I don't feel that incendiary.

 

[motrek]

...
Find me a source anywhere that gives a definition of optical zoom that doesn't include an optical lens to be responsible for the zoom and I'll read the rest of your very long message.

Well, as has been explained to you by several different people already, it's definitely not digital zoom. There's no upsampling.

I can get behind your idea that it's not optical zoom, because there are no elements of the camera lens that are moving ("zooming"?).

Although, in that case, only a small handful of phones have optical zoom, and certainly no iPhones.

Your proposal of another lens and sensor wouldn't be optical zoom either... again, no zooming. So you're not really helping anything here.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Well, as has been explained to you by several different people already, it's definitely not digital zoom. There's no upsampling.

I can get behind your idea that it's not optical zoom, because there are no elements of the camera lens that are moving ("zooming"?).

Although, in that case, only a small handful of phones have optical zoom, and certainly no iPhones.

Your proposal of another lens and sensor wouldn't be optical zoom either... again, no zooming. So you're not really helping anything here.

So let me get it straight, according to your definition digital zoom is all about the upsampling part. If I use a 100 megapixel camera to crop a 1MP photo and don't upsample it to 100MP but keep it 1MP, that' a 100X optical zoom to you. I'm just applying your definition of digital zoom here.

 

[motrek]

So let me get it straight, according to your definition digital zoom is all about the upsampling part. If I use a 100 megapixel camera to crop a 1MP photo and don't upsample it to 100MP but keep it 1MP, that' a 100X optical zoom to you. I'm just applying your definition of digital zoom here.

Where did I say that it would be optical zoom? Why are you asking me to defend something that I never said?

 

[cicalinarrot]

Where did I say that it would be optical zoom? Why are you asking me to defend something that I never said?

That's the whole point of this thread, that Apple wrote it's an optical zoom. Optical as opposed to digital. You said that their cropping is not digital (but optical, I feel forced to assume) because there's no upscaling. I say that, since it's a digital operation on a larger picture and no lens that allows that (either on the same or another camera) it's digital.

 

[motrek]

That's the whole point of this thread, that Apple wrote it's an optical zoom. Optical as opposed to digital. You said that their cropping is not digital (but optical, I feel forced to assume) because there's no upscaling. I say that, since it's a digital operation on a larger picture and no lens that allows that (either on the same or another camera) it's digital.

Like I said, it's not digital zoom, and I think there's a strong argument that it's not optical zoom either.*

It's a grey area.

* Note that, by the same argument, no iPhone has ever had optical zoom. So if you want to say that any iPhone has had optical zoom, you're going to have to redefine what people used to mean by "optical zoom." And I think that any redefinition is likely going to include whatever they're doing with their new sensor.

 

[StudioMacs]

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?

It’s called “field of view” which is exactly how photography has worked since lenses were invented.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Like I said, it's not digital zoom, and I think there's a strong argument that it's not optical zoom either.*

It's a grey area.

* Note that, by the same argument, no iPhone has ever had optical zoom. So if you want to say that any iPhone has had optical zoom, you're going to have to redefine what people used to mean by "optical zoom." And I think that any redefinition is likely going to include whatever they're doing with their new sensor.

A crop is digital. No matter if you upscale or not. Then you can have a big sensor that makes the crop look very good and doesn't need upscaling because the resolution is still very high after your crop. Cool. But that's still cropping. If it's the same light, lens and ultimately image that's just used in two different ways by the processor, it's a digital process. No grey area. Cropping is digital. Am I saying explaining some crazy new theory here?
Before this thing that Apple called optical, there was literally zero grey area with phones: optical meant that a lens allows the zooming. A different analog image reaches the digital sensor. It also features a different sensor on phones, unlike on all other digital cameras with a zoom, but the optical part is still there. The lack of ambiguity and the actual physical optical component as a cause of the zoom made them legit optical zooms, even if the mechanism was different from telescopic zooms.
I can't see how, with zero optical component involved to make the difference between 1X and 2X (not the difference with another sensor or phone!) and just digital elaboration, the zoom can be called anything but digital. But again, I'm mainly focused on the fact that "optical" is a marketing lie. And that's why they presented it as "optical-like", then "telephoto" in the descriptions and just decided to pretend it's fully optical in the specs (again again, I could accept the rest but this is the completely unacceptable part).

 

[droidgod]

if you think its a lie, OP should sue Apple.

But for the rest of us, the 2x is for all intents and purposes similar to a 2x optical zoom.

 

[cicalinarrot]

if you think its a lie, OP should sue Apple.

But for the rest of us, the 2x is for all intents and purposes similar to a 2x optical zoom.

Read carefully, I agreed many times it's a great feature and that it's similar or better, in terms of results, to most optical zooms. That wasn't the point though.
About legal actions... it's really hard to win against Apple and it's a pretty minor inconvenience to single consumers. But I believe it sets a horrible precedent and I'd be glad if some consumer association got them fined and forced them to remove the claim that it's optical from their site or even to just explain properly how it works.

 

[motrek]

A crop is digital. No matter if you upscale or not. Then you can have a big sensor that makes the crop look very good and doesn't need upscaling because the resolution is still very high after your crop. Cool. But that's still cropping. If it's the same light, lens and ultimately image that's just used in two different ways by the processor, it's a digital process. No grey area. Cropping is digital. Am I saying explaining some crazy new theory here?

Sure, cropping is digital. Did anybody ever say otherwise?

You understand that to "zoom in" you need to make something bigger, right? Hence the upsampling that's necessary for digital ZOOM. It's right there in the word. ZOOM. If you don't understand that upsampling is necessary for digital ZOOM, it makes me wonder about your grasp of the English language. You seem to be forgetting, ignoring, or belittling the importance of upsampling in the digital zoom process but that's kinda the key component of digital ZOOM. Do you even get that?

So if you're taking 12 megapixels from the sensor to make a 12 megapixel image (or whatever), you're not upsampling anything, and hence there's no digital zoom. So kindly stop pretending that you're making some kind of point about digital zoom here.

Before this thing that Apple called optical, there was literally zero grey area with phones: optical meant that a lens allows the zooming. A different analog image reaches the digital sensor. It also features a different sensor on phones, unlike on all other digital cameras with a zoom, but the optical part is still there. The lack of ambiguity and the actual physical optical component as a cause of the zoom made them legit optical zooms, even if the mechanism was different from telescopic zooms.

But that's not zoom. It's just multiple cameras. Nothing is zooming. It's only zoom from the user's perspective.

The only thing that makes it "optical zoom" is that it's not digital zoom. Nothing is being interpolated. You're getting a full-fidelity image from the OPTICS, and a sensor, without the need for digital interpolation.

And by that understanding, what Apple is doing with their 1x camera is just as much "optical zoom" as if they had a separate 2x camera.

 

[StudioMacs]

A crop is digital.

Cropping photographs started in the 1800s.

 

[maerz001]

If you go in your photo library and choose any picture, click edit > crop > and now you “zoom” to the inner half of the picture with the frame> done

That’s apples 2x “optical zoom” on the new 15 by giving you 1/4 resolution

 

[timshundo]

Arguing over semantics. A cropped 48MP photo looks just as good as 2x telephoto, it is not a scam.

Source: I shoot a lot of 48MP photos in ProRaw mode on my 14 pro max. The detail is unbelievable sometimes.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Arguing over semantics. A cropped 48MP photo looks just as good as 2x telephoto, it is not a scam.

Source: I shoot a lot of 48MP photos in ProRaw mode on my 14 pro max. The detail is unbelievable sometimes.

I agree
...if the article "a" means that "some" 48MP cropped photo is as good as "some other"2X telephoto (on other phones, or that they could have put in there).
We all know though that if that camera had a moving lens that allowed the 2X photo to cover the whole sensor, the pictures would be better. And to me, that's the only correct meaning of "the main camera has 1X or 2X optical zoom", which is their claim I'm against. They say it's optical, not only "optical-quality" or "as good as optical".

 

[motrek]

I agree
...if the article "a" means that "some" 48MP cropped photo is as good as "some other"2X telephoto (on other phones, or that they could have put in there).
We all know though that if that camera had a moving lens that allowed the 2X photo to cover the whole sensor, the pictures would be better. And to me, that's the only correct meaning of "the main camera has 1X or 2X optical zoom", which is their claim I'm against. They say it's optical, not only "optical-quality" or "as good as optical".

Jesus... "optical" is not some sort of promise of quality.

The images shot by the original iPhone camera were "optical" and the quality was laughable by modern standards.

If you're going to post that something isn't "optical zoom" because the image quality isn't as good as some other arbitrary thing, then just delete your post, because it's stupid.

 

[motrek]

If you go in your photo library and choose any picture, click edit > crop > and now you “zoom” to the inner half of the picture with the frame> done

That’s apples 2x “optical zoom” on the new 15 by giving you 1/4 resolution

Nonsense.

Images from the iPhone 15 are downsampled by default. The sensor is 48MP and the resulting images are 12MP or 24MP, I forget which, but they're downsampled. I'm sure they look good, but data is lost.

If you use the 2x optical zoom, then the resulting images are not downsampled. Or at least not downsampled as much. So you're seeing much more data, and much better image quality, than you would see if you took a 1x image and cropped it.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Cropping photographs started in the 1800s.

Oh, come on. We're in the context of digital pictures so, of course, I meant "the kind of cropping they're operating" and didn't say "digital cropping is digital" because it would sound redundant. Thank you for pointing out the fact they're not in fact using scissors.
But since you mentioned physical cropping of pictures... that can help prove my point better.
With analog photography, your camera can have a zoom, an optical device that exposes your film to a smaller portion of the world in front of you. That's the equivalent of the optical zoom in phones, even if they mostly just use another camera with another lens and another sensor (so optical zoom in phones can bring quality loss, and I agree with Apple on this).
Then you take the film and make pictures almost as big as you want. If the picture's quality is good enough, you can make them huge, or just develop a portion (a "zoomed" portion) to regular size paper. That's the equivalent of what Apple is doing, modification of the picture after the camera optics have done their job. Here's why it's not an optical zoom as they claim. Analog photos almost don't lose quality when you develop a scaled up portion of them. But this doesn't mean that your camera with no zoom can be defined as a camera with optical zoom. Same for the iPhone.

Jesus... "optical" is not some sort of promise of quality.

The images shot by the original iPhone camera were "optical" and the quality was laughable by modern standards.

If you're going to post that something isn't "optical zoom" because the image quality isn't as good as some other arbitrary thing, then just delete your post, because it's stupid.

Read again, please. I never said that "optical" means "good quality" or "better quality" in general. You're just making stuff up now.
My only point is exactly that I don't care about the quality of the pictures of this zoom, they cannot say it's optical. They must convey the idea, probably true, that this is the best solution for this device, without saying it's an "optical zoom" as they did. Because that's a lie, no matter how you put it.
It's just undeniable that their main sensor doesn't have an optical zoom and that if it did, the pictures would be better because they would use the whole sensor. I'm not saying they should do this (it should have a bigger bump to allow that big sensor, so, with the same thickness, it would need a smaller sensor and be counterproductive). I'm just saying that they have a cool digital zoom, not an optical zoom.

 

[motrek]

...

Read again, please. I never said that "optical" means "good quality" or "better quality" in general. You're just making stuff up now.
...

Oh come on. Here's what you posted:

"We all know though that if that camera had a moving lens that allowed the 2X photo to cover the whole sensor, the pictures would be better. And to me, that's the only correct meaning"

I guess when you said the pictures would be better, you weren't talking about quality? LOLOLOLOL

 

[cicalinarrot]

Oh come on. Here's what you posted:

"We all know though that if that camera had a moving lens that allowed the 2X photo to cover the whole sensor, the pictures would be better. And to me, that's the only correct meaning"

I guess when you said the pictures would be better, you weren't talking about quality? LOLOLOLOL

Read the whole sentence.
If that same sensor had a moving lens that allows 2X picture, using the whole frame, pictures would be better. Apples to apples, with one sensor, the whole sensor is better than cropping. More light, better picture.
If you change the sensor, as it happens with multicamera setups, pictures can be worse, even if the zoom is optical.
Never said that optical means "absolutely better". But I can say that, if all the other parameters are the same, an optical zoom is mathematically better than a digital zoom. It's exactly like saying that a bigger sensor is mathematically better because it takes more light.
If we can't even agree on this, we disagree about the very foundation of the physics of our universe...

 

[maerz001]

Nonsense.

Images from the iPhone 15 are downsampled by default. The sensor is 48MP and the resulting images are 12MP or 24MP, I forget which, but they're downsampled. I'm sure they look good, but data is lost.

If you use the 2x optical zoom, then the resulting images are not downsampled. Or at least not downsampled as much. So you're seeing much more data, and much better image quality, than you would see if you took a 1x image and cropped it.

The process is the same as a digital crop i just explained.
On the pre 14 phone you get from a 12MP sensor a 3MP „zoomed“ pic and on the new 48MP you’ll get 12MP.

Of course there are 4x more details than before in it but still its what we call a digital zoom. No optical zoom!
Thats what this thread is about.