Every year I compare a new iPhone to my professional camera, a Canon R5. After last year’s iPhone 15 Pro had lackluster results, I can confidently say that this year’s iPhone 16 Pro has a lot to say, including a “secret” update that completely surprised me.
When Apple added the ability to shoot 48-megapixel RAW images to the iPhone 14 Pro, it was a huge leap forward from last year’s iPhone 13 Pro. This year, they added the same sensor to their ultra-wide camera. And we plan to test it in both landscape and macro scenarios. The results tell us quite a bit about the new camera’s strengths. We also plan to test the main camera’s sensor in both sunset and blue hour light. Most importantly, test the new JPEG XL compression. This gives you absolutely incredible results.
Throughout these tests, I shot in RAW with a Canon R5, iPhone 16 Pro, and iPhone 15 Pro Max. I only used my iPhone’s built-in camera app. This is actually the most practical and is built directly into iOS. We perform two comparison tests using the iPhone’s ultra-wide 13mm lens and the Canon RF 14-35 f/4L set to 14mm. I used a tripod for all shots, but different tests required different handholding methods. The extremely wide width of the ultrawide meant that previous methods were no longer viable and each smartphone had to be placed on top of the Canon R5 with minimal shaking.
All images were edited using Lightroom Classic, except for the first ultra-wide test where Photoshop was used to remove objects. The most authentic way to make this comparison was to first edit the Canon R5 images as if they were in my own portfolio. I then edited the iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro images to match to the best of my ability. This is difficult because the distortion between cameras is significantly different, and the iPhone 16 Pro color profile was not present at the time of the comparison. Considering that the iPhone 15 Pro image is only a 12 MP sensor, you will see twice as much image at 100% zoom. This article presents images from “Camera A”, “Camera B”, and sometimes “Camera C”. These will be mixed up throughout the test, but look at the images and see if you can guess which images were taken from each camera. The answer is at the end of the article.
Ultra wide-angle landscape test
This was the first time we did a super extensive test, especially since it was much more difficult than usual to match all the images. Such large distortions make it difficult to even compose landscape images at this focal length without using focus stacks or foreground subjects. The dynamic range of my scene was large enough that I clipped some highlights of the Canon R5 images, but nothing that these cameras couldn’t handle. We intentionally included a lot of elements in these images to test things like distortion, edge sharpness, and detail recovery. As an additional test for this image, the original image had some cars and people that I had to remove in Photoshop using generative (or content-aware) fills.
Before zooming in, the results are very impressive. These images match up very well after editing and represent the scene well. Distortion is well handled in all three images, and the trees appear relatively straight (with the exception of a few that are not straight) without the need for any corrections beyond the profile.
The story really unfolds when you zoom in, and I think most people can tell which camera took each image. Keep in mind that with the Quad Bayer 48 MP sensor, the phone always renders details in the brightest parts of the image more accurately. This may be one reason why things change when you go to the edge of the frame.
The comparison becomes more subtle when looking at the edges of the frame. You’ll probably know which camera is the Canon R5, but you won’t necessarily know which phone took which image. In my testing, I found that the biggest influence on ultrawide image quality isn’t necessarily the sensor that captures the image, but the lens and its ability to render detail at the edges of the frame.
main camera test
I don’t think the main sensor or its technology has changed much (if at all) from the iPhone 14 Pro, so I won’t go into too much detail about these tests. But those results are still incredible, and at least you can see some of them in sunset tests.
These images are actually quite close, even after zooming to 100%, with a slight edge to the Canon R5, but as I’ve tested in the past, you can print these iPhone images larger without any problems. Masu.
Low-light tests are where iPhones tend to break down, but this year’s results were much worse than tests I’ve run in the past. I suspect my focus wasn’t as sharp in this test, or there wasn’t nearly as much light in the scene as in years past, even though the settings matched closely. You should be able to get this easily!
JPEG XL compression test
Perhaps the biggest change for photographers this year was quietly released by Apple. I can’t find anything about the implementation of JPEG XL on the iPhone 16 Pro product page, and it wasn’t talked about in the keynote. This is a surprise to me because as long as the new compression method is able to preserve detail, it’s a very important change for people who take photos with their phones.
JPEG XL is a new format standard that is open source and a long-awaited update to the “JPEG” we have been using for decades. JPEG XL supports 10-bit images, better compressed sizes, and HDR tone mapping. There’s a lot more than what you can read, but know that this test is essentially an updated compression to get more detailed images at a smaller size. Apple implemented this in the DNG RAW container on the iPhone 16 Pro. These are the results.
All of these were taken using the iPhone 16 Pro’s main camera sensor, and as much as I’d like to trick everyone into guessing which images have which compression levels, I can’t. To convey. Here’s the image enlarged to 600%:
These results are very impressive to me. On my screen, even the JPEG XL lossy version, which is a quarter the file size, produces better results than the less compressed JPEG version. These results mean you can confidently shoot high-quality RAW images at a fraction of the size, no longer have to worry about filling up your phone’s storage, and can capture the images you want. Masu. Why isn’t Apple talking about this more? I really don’t know. If you want to download these images yourself, be sure to check out the video in the article.
Ultrawide macro test
The last test I wanted to run was a macro test, but I couldn’t put it together in an equivalent way. The problem is that the iPhone’s “macro mode” doesn’t turn on until you’re very close to the object. The minimum focusing distance on my Canon RF 14-35 f/4L is approximately 200mm, regardless of the focal length set on the lens. Macro is usually done using a telephoto lens of 100 mm or more.
The implementation of this on the iPhone allows you to get very close to your subject and essentially touch it. Because of these limitations, we created a more detailed comparison by comparing the ultra-wide cameras using log leaves. It’s not exactly a macro image, but it’s a worthwhile test because it gives different results than the first ultra-wide test.
Before zooming in, you can see that the results are close. I was able to match these images very well. This shot is by no means portfolio worthy, but it’s a great shot to test how much detail each camera renders within a scene. What’s notable about this particular test is that each camera was shot handheld rather than on a tripod. Since the scene was so small, there was no way to attach a cell phone to the camera and take similar shots. Therefore, I took the shots in succession and did my best to produce similar lighting results and match them frame-wise.
If you zoom in on the center of the image, you can tell which image is the iPhone 15 Pro by a very sharp look, but it’s hard to tell which is the Canon and which is the iPhone 16 Pro. It was as easy as the first test.
What makes this story even more interesting is that the edges of the frame are rendered in a very different way than in the first test. I suspect this is because all the subjects are closer this time and the lighting in the image is much flatter rather than dynamic.
Results and conclusions
The new ultra-wide sensor improves the results in some cases, but they weren’t as impressive as the results we got when we released the 48 MP sensor for the main camera two years ago. Furthermore, it is very important to understand how images are rendered depending on the light. From my quick testing, the biggest limitations are due to the lens, not the sensor.
The biggest update this year for me is the new JPEG XL compression for RAW images. This means you can shoot far more RAW images than before without worrying about filling up your phone or cloud storage too quickly. All the data in a JPEG XL image is there, even if you increase or decrease the image with multiple apertures of light, even by 25% of the file size. Very impressive.
This year we’ve added more features than just these image results, including camera control buttons. My overall thoughts on this button are that I’m reserving judgment. My shooting style for these tests didn’t really take advantage of the new buttons, so I didn’t have much time to drive the iPhone 16 Pro daily. My quick thought is that there aren’t too many use cases for the current implementation, but it will come in handy over time, especially if you can create more film recipes and similar things using different image profiles. This means that there is a possibility that it will become.
All in all, this year certainly has more to say than last year, but that’s not saying much. Honestly, my thoughts on ultra-wide photography are that the focal length is so niche that I rarely use it for professional purposes. I’d like to test whether I can focus stack iPhone images to capture even more ultra-wide-angle scenes. The biggest update for me is the new RAW file format. This is likely to have a real impact on most people who use their phones as their main camera.
answer:
- Ultra-wide landscape test: A – iPhone 16 Pro, B – iPhone 15 Pro, C – Canon R5
- Sunset test: A – Canon R5, B – iPhone 16 Pro
- Blue hour test: A – Canon R5, B – iPhone 16 Pro
- Super extensive “macro” testing: A – iPhone 15 Pro, B – Canon R5, C – iPhone 16 Pro
