charlesn

tlinn said:

5. Optical quality is a meaningless term. When the author says the main camera can take "2x optical-quality" images, what they should be saying is that the camera can be configured to crop in-phone to simulate a 2x (48mm) focal length. In other words, Apple is taking 12 MP from the center of the sensor and throwing away the rest of them. Anyone can do this from any image taken by any camera using their camera app's crop tool or post-processing software. The same thing is happening when users set the primary camera to 28mm or 35mm. This is a crop setting.

6. As a photographer, the above illustrates my main grip with phone cameras in general: On the iPhone 15 Pro Max—and presumably both of the 16 Pros—the full frame equivalent focal lengths of the three cameras are 13mm, 24mm, and 120mm. The most commonly used focal lengths for non-phone photography, between 24 and 70mm, are totally missing. The 3X telephoto lens is 77mm, close to 70mm. The 5X lens moves farther away from this range. The iPhone is great for taking selfies. It's not bad for close up work either. But for traditional photography, it is regrettably limited. (To be clear, I'm not arguing that Apple is making the wrong choices based on consumer demand.) 

Thank you for this. I'm really happy to see someone other than myself posting "the reality" of iPhone's three lenses. There is no optical zooming. These are three fixed focal length lenses and any "zooming" is achieved through sensor cropping and computational photography tricks. I also agree 100% that the move to a 120mm telephoto lens is a move further away from quality in the range most used for general photography. The 24mm "main" lens will now handle everything from 24mm to 119mm, and when a 5X zoom range is handled by sensor cropping, it's inevitable that quality will suffer--as has been demonstrated in 15 Pro vs 15 Pro Max comparison shots in the 77mm to 119mm range. The 15 Pro shots are clearly and demonstrably better. I have read--but cannot find confirmation from Apple--that Apple uses information from multiple lenses, in addition to sensor cropping, to determine the image it produces for non-native focal lengths. For example, if shooting a 60mm shot on the 15 Pro, it is both cropping the sensor of the main, 24mm lens while also considering how the shot actually appears through the 77mm telephoto lens to arrive at the best rendition of a 60mm photo. This seems plausible and possible, but could also be entirely incorrect--I do wish Apple provided more transparency in how it achieves non-native focal lengths. Instead, we're being fed this "more is better" nonsense, where 120mm is "better" than the 77mm lens it's replacing, and that is only true if you're shooting at 120mm or more. For general photography, it's a step backwards. 

lewchenko said:

3. A diet. Yep , the pro phones are true porkers these days. Just go pick up an iPhone 6/7 series phone and feel that difference. Ah wait, next years 17 air / slim might give you that. 

Amusing, just not true.

The iPhone 7 Plus, the closest possible comparison to the 15 Pro, only had a 5.5 inch display, dual lens camera and weighed 188 grams. The 15 Pro has a 6.1 inch display, a tri-lens camera system, a bigger battery and weighs... wait for it... 187 grams. 

If we look at the standard iPhone 7, it only had 4.7 inch screen size plus dual cameras and weighed 138 grams. The closest comparison to that would be the iPhone 13 Mini, which had a 5.4" display (15% larger than the 7) and a bigger battery and weighed... wait for it... 140 grams. 

Turns out that the old iPhones of yore were the real porkers, weighing as much as their modern iPhone counterparts, but with smaller displays and batteries, plus inferior cameras. 

dewme said:

charlesn said:

apple4thewin said:

 but in all seriousness if the Ultra had some sort of a better feature like better sensors and/or a pro chip inside then I would get it. I am right there at the tipping point where it sounds like a great option but missing that one thing (I don’t have a Apple Watch rn i am waiting on this next gen)

It does have better features vs. other models of Apple Watch: the all-titanium case, a display that's 10% larger (makes a difference on a small screen) and 50% brighter with a very cool and automatic Night Mode, more accurate dual-frequency GPS, true full-featured dive watch/computer capability up to 100 meter depth, the Action Button, a siren, an improved Compass app and exclusive Wayfinder watchface. Also, while appearance is a subjective thing, it looks like no other Apple Watch and (in my opinion) is the best looking model, by far. Oh, and all of the above is only $50 more than Apple Watch 9 in stainless steel, which makes it a rare bargain in the Apple product lineup. It also goes on sale more frequently than Apple Watch stainless steel, so the Ultra price is often the same and sometimes less. 

All of the additional or improved features you've mentioned are exactly why I thought the Ultra would surpass the $1000 USD mark when Apple first showed it off. It's rare for me to be surprised that a new Apple product hits the market at a lower price than I expected after seeing it demo'd. Having previously bought stainless+sapphire Apple Watches I was like "damn... how'd they pull that off?" Usually it's the other way around on the high end, e.g., Vision Pro price shock and awe. That said, the Series 9 stainless+sapphire models are more fashionable and elegant than the Ultra. Plus, nobody asks you whether you forget your propeller hat at home when they see it on your wrist. I also love the look of the Ultra (when not paired with an Ocean band) and the extra screen real estate makes a big difference for me. 

While the stainless steel model vs the aluminum has a slightly more elegant appearance thanks to its (literally) more polished look, I've always felt the $200 upcharge vs the aluminum model (wtih GPS & cellular) is just nuts. The watches are identical in all other ways other than SS vs aluminum (and, honestly, how much SS is in a Watch case?) plus the sapphire glass... THAT justifies a whopping 40% upcharge? Plus, the SS models don't hold a huge edge over aluminum when it comes to resale or trade-in--certainly nowhere near 40%! As for the Ultra and propeller hats--the whole "adventure" watch category is filled with thick, clunky-looking watches, so the Ultra hardly stands out as nerdy in that group. And if you want elegant, the Ultra paired with Nomad's titanium link band looks incredible. 

"The iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max are expected to continue using titanium as the body material, as the iPhone 15 Pro lineup did."

Except the iPhone 15 Pro lineup doesn't have a titanium body. What it has is a piece of titanium trim -- the band that wraps around the phone -- which replaced the stainless steel trim that Apple previously used. That is it. But you'd be forgiven for thinking it was an all Ti body thanks to Apple's ubiquitous "TITANIUM" marketing campaign. They sure do know how to promote a piece of metal trim. 

As John McEnroe might yell, "You CANNOT be serious!!!" I've seen more attractive browns in a baby's diaper. Is Apple really planning to unleash this "Diarrhea Bronze" on an unsuspecting public? I refuse to believe this is real unless Cook and everyone at Cupertino collectively lost their minds.