iPhone 14 - rumored 48MP wide camera

[Cmaier]

Updated based on various other rumors and theories:

	iPhone	iPhone Pro
2022	Notch 12MP wide camera A15 (maybe variant) 6GB RAM	Pill/hole cutouts 48MP wide camera A16 ProMotion display 6GB RAM
2023	Pill/hole cutouts A16 48MP wide camera? 8GB RAM	Under-screen face ID A17 Periscope lens/no camera bump ProMotion display Titanium frame 8GB RAM

 

[Andropov]

Sounds like iPhone 15 will be the big jump, with periscope lenses to eliminate the camera bump, and under screen faceID to eliminate the notch.

I'm not sure that the bump can be removed by using periscope lens. Slightly less thick, maybe.

Many traditional telephoto lens designs have a (huge) gap between the frontal optical group and the back optical group. Take for example Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro:

On that particular design the frontal optical group is fixed in place, and the back optical group moves to focus. The idea of smartphone periscope lens is to put two reflecting elements 45º apart so that gap between optical elements can be stuffed parallel to the phone plane instead of sticking out of it. That works great for telephoto lens, since the gap is a big portion of the total lens length. But most wide and ultrawide lens have next to no gap. See Canon's 14mm f/4.0L, for example:

There's no gap that can be turned into a periscope system. I think that is common for wide and ultrawide lenses, although I don't know the physics behind. My knowledge doesn't go much further than knowing that for telephoto lens, long = good, and for ultrawide lens close flange distance (distance between the back of the last optical system and the sensor) = good.

Of course this is only an issue if the wide and ultrawide lenses are longer than the thickness of the phone. Maybe the telephoto is the only lens that protrudes. But I don't think it is. One-lens iPhones still have a (minor) camera bump (like the SE iPhone). And Apple's patents for periscope lens designs appear to only be for telephoto lenses.

Another thing that comes to mind: the IS on most lenses is typically in the middle of the barrel. For the first diagram, Canon's 100mm f/2.8, I deliberately chose the non L version, because the L version is stabilized and has a IS group in the middle, so the gap was less apparent. This would be a problem for periscope lenses too. Interestingly, they've switched to sensor stabilization instead of lens stabilization on the latest iPhone. That clears a roadblock on the way to periscope lens for the telephoto. I know they sold it as an "upgrade" over the OIS previous iPhones had, but I believe that for telephotos OIS should perform better than sensor stabilization (ideally, you'd have both).

Hard to say. But I think they are bifurcating the Pro from the regular phones going forward. So this year’s pro may have pill and A16, while the regular iPhone 14 sticks with A15 (and maybe notch?). Then iPhone 15 Pro gets under-screen faceid and iPhone 15 gets the pill?

Why do you think they'd keep the iPhone 14 on the A15? I know the rumours say they will, but do you have any theory on what could have influenced that? Seems like a very different strategy than what they're doing now, where every new device gets the latest SoC.

I think there's got to be some serious voodoo going on to make that reliable and work well. Looking at the back of my three sensor iPhone 12, I'm guessing each sensor would be sampled multiple times, and then an algorithm would align, weight, and average them onto a final image map determined by the desired focal length. Or something like that (with heavy emphasis on "something")

Don't they do that with Deep Fusion already?

 

[Cmaier]

I don’t know why they’d keep the 14 on A15 other than a new strategy of bigger product differentiation. Or maybe they are changing the differentiation - maybe they are adding something to the base model that previously only the pros had (3 cameras?)

Most likely the former.

As for the periscope lens and bump thickness, keep in mind the rumors (and trend!) of phone thickness again increasing. If they can shrink the bump a little and increase phone thickness a little, no more bump.

 

[Andropov]

I don’t know why they’d keep the 14 on A15 other than a new strategy of bigger product differentiation. Or maybe they are changing the differentiation - maybe they are adding something to the base model that previously only the pros had (3 cameras?)

Most likely the former.

I was wondering if there could be a technical reason. Differentiation is what everyone is betting on, but I don't buy it. Seems like too big of a course change.

As for the periscope lens and bump thickness, keep in mind the rumors (and trend!) of phone thickness again increasing. If they can shrink the bump a little and increase phone thickness a little, no more bump.

True. But there's also a trend on bigger sensors, which requires bigger lenses, which need to be longer... If they do remove the bump, I wonder for how many generations are they going to be able to keep it that way. I think sooner or later they'd have to re-introduce the bump. That is, unless they have something truly revolutionary down the line. Like getting very significant improvements by combining data from all cameras, to the point that they can keep every individual sensor (and lens) smaller.

 

[Cmaier]

I was wondering if there could be a technical reason. Differentiation is what everyone is betting on, but I don't buy it. Seems like too big of a course change.


True. But there's also a trend on bigger sensors, which requires bigger lenses, which need to be longer... If they do remove the bump, I wonder for how many generations are they going to be able to keep it that way. I think sooner or later they'd have to re-introduce the bump. That is, unless they have something truly revolutionary down the line. Like getting very significant improvements by combining data from all cameras, to the point that they can keep every individual sensor (and lens) smaller.

Only technical thing that comes to mind is that A15 is so damned fast that there really isn’t much more you most people need from a cpu yet. Of course some people keep their phone for a long time and future-proofing is good, but there is an argument to be made that most people who buy the non-pro phone will never need more than what a15 can give them for the life of their phone.

Or, maybe, you will need a pro phone to link with your VR goggles . Apple is mysterious

 

[Citysnaps]

Or, maybe, you will need a pro phone to link with your VR goggles . Apple is mysterious

I think that makes a ton of sense. Whether it's glasses or a goggle (I'm rooting for glasses - especially for AR), why make them bulky/heavy and more costly if you already have the processing (and needed larger battery) in the phone in your pocket. A proprietary UWB datalink would handle the video streams).

 

[Cmaier]

I think that makes a ton of sense. Whether it's glasses or a goggle (I'm rooting for glasses - especially for AR), why make them bulky/heavy and more costly if you already have the processing (and needed larger battery) in the phone in your pocket. A proprietary UWB datalink would handle the video streams).

I think the plan is goggles first, with glasses coming later as technology improves.

 

[Eric]

Just spotted this over at MR.

'High-End' iPhone 14 Front-Facing Camera to Cost Apple Three Times More

The iPhone 14 will feature a more expensive "high-end" front-facing camera with autofocus, partly made in South Korea for the first time, ET News reports. Apple reportedly ousted a Chinese candidate to choose LG Innotek, a South Korean company, to supply the iPhone 14's front-facing camera...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Citysnaps]

Just spotted this over at MR.

'High-End' iPhone 14 Front-Facing Camera to Cost Apple Three Times More

The iPhone 14 will feature a more expensive "high-end" front-facing camera with autofocus, partly made in South Korea for the first time, ET News reports. Apple reportedly ousted a Chinese candidate to choose LG Innotek, a South Korean company, to supply the iPhone 14's front-facing camera...

forums.macrumors.com

And someone is saying that will cause a +$300 change in price. Just gotta shake your head on the idiocy there.

 

[Eric]

And someone is saying that will cause a +$300 change in price. Just gotta shake your head on the idiocy there.

They must really see the benefits/profits in investing so heavily into their built-in camera systems, and I get it for the sake of innovation but at that price point it's pretty ridiculous. I say if you are that interested in photography go out and get a real camera.

 

[Roller]

They must really see the benefits/profits in investing so heavily into their built-in camera systems, and I get it for the sake of innovation but at that price point it's pretty ridiculous. I say if you are that interested in photography go out and get a real camera.

I think Apple focuses (pun intended) on their camera system in part because it's an area where the enhanced functionality is demonstrable and because other things about the phone are harder to improve upon. For example, better low-light performance and longer telephoto capabilities are something most people can easily see in ads. Brighter displays, thinner bezels, faster processors, not so much. And it's not as if the ability to make and receive calls is much better now than it was, for example, five years ago. A radical new battery that lasts for a few days, say, would make a difference, but I don't see that on the near horizon. When I went from an iPhone X to a 12 Pro, the most noticeable change to me was the camera.

I generally agree about DSLRs and other "real cameras," but the difference narrows every year. I still grab my Nikon when I need it, but the majority of iPhone users don't think that way. For them, the convenience and performance of the phone outweigh any advantages of a DSLR or even a point-and-shoot.

 

[Eric]

I think Apple focuses (pun intended) on their camera system in part because it's an area where the enhanced functionality is demonstrable and because other things about the phone are harder to improve upon. For example, better low-light performance and longer telephoto capabilities are something most people can easily see in ads. Brighter displays, thinner bezels, faster processors, not so much. And it's not as if the ability to make and receive calls is much better now than it was, for example, five years ago. A radical new battery that lasts for a few days, say, would make a difference, but I don't see that on the near horizon. When I went from an iPhone X to a 12 Pro, the most noticeable change to me was the camera.

I generally agree about DSLRs and other "real cameras," but the difference narrows every year. I still grab my Nikon when I need it, but the majority of iPhone users don't think that way. For them, the convenience and performance of the phone outweigh any advantages of a DSLR or even a point-and-shoot.

Anytime I want to differentiate myself from phone cameras I strap on a real lens. Sensors make a difference and at smaller sizes the lines are really blurred but when you put on a real zoom there is just no compensating for that.

 

[Citysnaps]

For them, the convenience and performance of the phone outweigh any advantages of a DSLR or even a point-and-shoot.

Spot on. It's been at least seven years (I haven't been keeping track) since I've used a "real camera." It's been 11 years since I shot exclusively with a real camera. iPhones, starting with the 5S (when I dabbled making photos with a phone), the 6+, the X, and now the 12 have met my needs.

Only gripe is lens flare - which should be super easy for Apple to fix.

 

[Nycturne]

I generally agree about DSLRs and other "real cameras," but the difference narrows every year. I still grab my Nikon when I need it, but the majority of iPhone users don't think that way. For them, the convenience and performance of the phone outweigh any advantages of a DSLR or even a point-and-shoot.

I'd argue that Smartphones are point-and-shoot cameras in all the ways that matter, and have the advantage of being with you in more places. They also have become a large enough market that I wouldn't be surprised if camera R&D on smartphones exceeds the entire stand alone P&S market combined.

When I was growing up and film was still everything, cheap cameras were far and away more popular than SLRs and the like. But good film was also cheap. You didn't need a Canon F-1 to get a good result from the photo developer down the street. But those early digital sensors were awful, and stayed awful for a while. If you wanted something that held up to film, the DSLR was pretty much the only way to get there. A quick skim didn't have enough historical camera sales data for me to back this up, but I do wonder if the DSLR rose and fell at least partly on folks getting upsold to be able to go digital, but never really wanted a DSLR, they wanted the convenience of digital photos. And modern smartphones do hit those notes quite well.

 

[DT]

I was just looking at some low light pics I took at the Universal Citywalk Mini Golf, and they're amazing (iP13PM), and they came from the same device I paid with, that I made reservations to eat with, and that I was keeping score with (they have a nice little app, were you can also answer the trivia questions for freebies).

When I went from an iPhone X to a 12 Pro, the most noticeable change to me was the camera.

Same [-ish]. Went from an iPhone X to a 13 Pro Max, mostly because of the camera. CPU/GPU speeds, storage, battery life, I wasn't really having any specific issues with any of those (the larger/better display was the second motivator).

 

[Eric]

I'd argue that Smartphones are point-and-shoot cameras in all the ways that matter, and have the advantage of being with you in more places. They also have become a large enough market that I wouldn't be surprised if camera R&D on smartphones exceeds the entire stand alone P&S market combined.

When I was growing up and film was still everything, cheap cameras were far and away more popular than DSLRs and the like. But good film was also cheap. You didn't need a Canon F-1 to get a good result from the photo developer down the street. But those early digital sensors were awful, and stayed awful for a while. If you wanted something that held up to film, the DSLR was pretty much the only way to get there. A quick skim didn't have enough historical camera sales data for me to back this up, but I do wonder if the DSLR rose and fell at least partly on folks getting upsold to be able to go digital, but never really wanted a DSLR, they wanted the convenience of digital photos. And modern smartphones do hit those notes quite well.

The best camera is the one you have available, I've always agreed with that statement. It's a great point and shoot and if serious professional photography isn't your goal then it fits that bill perfectly. I love my 13 Pro Max and have done a lot of experimenting with it, so far he results have been mixed in that there are things that are much easier but controlling it for precise manual bracketing, exposure and focus has been a challenge but that's not to say if I dug in or used third party tools I couldn't achieve it though.

However, and I know I sound like a broken record here, I don't see how they'll ever overcome the need for real lens glass needed for professional level shooting.

 

[Clix Pix]

There are some subjects which can be shot with either a smartphone camera or a dedicated "real" camera which can either have a fixed lens or interchangeable lenses. Closeups, for instance. I've done some with my iPhone from time to time. Now the iPhone 13 Pro has the macro feature, but I'm still on the 12 Pro at this point, so I don't really get true macro with my current iPhone. I still much prefer to use my "real" camera with a "real" macro lens.

When it comes to shooting wildlife, where there is usually some distance between photographer and subject, only a dedicated camera with a long zoom lens can get the shot. Earlier today I was out on my deck shooting a Wood Duck, and there is no way that the iPhone could've gotten anything remotely close to the range I was able to get with the 100-400mm plus 1.4x TC. (I have the even longer 200-600mm, too, which is the lens I should've grabbed but I was excited and in a hurry and just reflexively reached for the one I use more frequently.) Size of sensor, range of focal lengths, quality of lenses -- just no comparison between a dedicated camera and a cell phone camera.

 

[Roller]

The best camera is the one you have available, I've always agreed with that statement. It's a great point and shoot and if serious professional photography isn't your goal then it fits that bill perfectly. I love my 13 Pro Max and have done a lot of experimenting with it, so far he results have been mixed in that there are things that are much easier but controlling it for precise manual bracketing, exposure and focus has been a challenge but that's not to say if I dug in or used third party tools I couldn't achieve it though.

However, and I know I sound like a broken record here, I don't see how they'll ever overcome the need for real lens glass needed for professional level shooting.

Hey, you're dating yourself just by using that simile.

I tend to agree that there will be photographic needs for which DSLRs or their equivalent will be needed. (I hesitate to say "always" because that's a dangerous adverb when it comes to technology.) But those situations will continue to become fewer over time.

 

[Eric]

Hey, you're dating yourself just by using that simile.

I maintain that it still sounds warmer than digital, but I digress (by like 40 years)

I tend to agree that there will be photographic needs for which DSLRs or their equivalent will be needed. (I hesitate to say "always" because that's a dangerous adverb when it comes to technology.) But those situations will continue to become fewer over time.

Hey, if they can simulate a real 70-200 mm at f/2.8 I'll be happy to eat my words, as it is the amount of glass (elements and groups) some of these lenses have in them is insane. It's a physical limitation that I can't see them getting around without some sort of attachment.

 

[Nycturne]

However, and I know I sound like a broken record here, I don't see how they'll ever overcome the need for real lens glass needed for professional level shooting.

I don't disagree here, as someone who's done work where the physical size of the sensor's pixels matters a lot, and total exposure time is measured in hours. There's also (for me) a nicety of being able to unplug from the internet to do shooting, and get an experience closer to the F-1 I did spend time with in middle school when I did take photography classes.

It’s just more that I also don’t think the mass market wants or needs the sort of things I want, much like SLRs weren’t the tool of choice for most photography in the film era. And that’s okay.

I tend to agree that there will be photographic needs for which DSLRs or their equivalent will be needed. (I hesitate to say "always" because that's a dangerous adverb when it comes to technology.) But those situations will continue to become fewer over time.

Physics kinda gets in the way though. Things were simpler with film as everyone’s “sensor” was roughly the same size due to standardization on 35mm film. So it was the quality of the film, and the functionality of the camera that set things apart. Today’s simpler cameras come with real physical limitations that change things from the film days.

Any sensor improvements I make for phones can (and in the case of Sony, will) be applied to larger sensors as well, keeping them ahead. Certain sources of noise like shot noise, would still favor larger sensors with larger pixels even if the sensors could capture 100% of all photons that hit them. Electronic noise due to less heat dissipation is also a factor. In terms of glass, that 13mm equivalent lens on the iPhone is ~2mm in practice, and so relies on more cutting edge processes to build those lens assemblies, but again, there’s nothing saying those advances can’t help make more compact lenses for larger cameras, or improve some facet of them further. Depth of field is a function of focal length, so while those 2-5mm lenses are great for portability, it does mean you need addons to get thinner depth of field, and it starts looking more and more like a mirrorless camera as you start to add that on.

Flexibility is hard to completely replace, as those larger sensors give me more flexibility for cropping to get the right composition with their higher pixel counts, being able to go from extreme low light long exposure to deep depth of field landscape work.

I recently picked up an iPhone 13 Pro, and to be honest, while it is the best P&S I’ve ever used, I took a simple low light picture last night to send to a place I bought something from to show a defect in the product, and was immediately struck by how aggressive the NR still is. No cropping was done either. It’s improved a lot since the iPhone 4/5 days, but I still wouldn’t even trade in my A7R at this point.