![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's long been a moment of truth in tech: You bought a product a few months ago. Today a new product comes out from the same maker or a close rival. Do you regret what you bought? Do you wish you'd held out a few months longer to buy the shiny, new thing?
That moment of truth happened for me in the past 24 hours, when Apple announced the new iPhone 16e. It's a new, low-cost model in the iPhone 16 range that fills the slot formerly occupied by the iPhone SE series. That hits home for me because prior to buying an iPhone 16 Pro four months ago I happily owned an SE 3 for a few years. If an "SE 4", as many people thought the 16e might be called, were available 4 months ago, would I have bought it? Do I wish I'd waited 4 months?
The answers are "Maybe yes" and "Definitely no". But let me elaborate on that.
The two phones, the 16 Pro and 16e, are similar in many respects. They've got the same A18 processor chipset, though the 16e has a total of 10 processor cores compared to the 16 Pro's 12 cores. They've got the same storage options. They've got almost the same screen size; the 16e is just a fraction of an inch smaller.
Just two things are really different. The obvious one is the price. The 16e is $400 cheaper. The other difference is the camera. The 16 Pro has a 3-lens setup; the 16e has just one.
If I'd looked at these cameras side by side 4 months ago I would've asked myself— rightly so— "Is it worth $400 for a fancy camera?" My answer probably would've been No. So I'm glad I didn't get to frame the question that way!
Four months ago I would've said "No", probably, because I've already got a fancy camera. I own an interchangeable lens camera with a few nice lenses. It's several years old but still takes great pictures. But it's big. It's bulky*. It's one more thing to lug around.
Still, could the tiny lens(es) on an iPhone camera replace it? Four months ago I would've said No. But there was a steal of a deal on the 16 Pro— basically it was free!— so I bought it. And in the 4 months since then I've found that the little cameras and lenses are way better than I expected.
First I tried learving home my big* camera on short hikes in the area, like the walk at Byxbee Park where we spotted a red-tail hawk. I was impressed with what the 16 Pro could do. Then I left my big camera home this past weekend for hiking in red rocks areas in Nevada. Yeah, the big camera would've shot many of the pictures a bit more nicely... but the iPhone punched well above its weight. I'm glad I took the plunge on the fancy, improved iPhone cameras.
_____
[*] "Big" and "bulky" are relative terms. My Fujifilm X-T3 mirrorless ILC is downright svelte compared to even the modestly sized 35mm film SLR I used years ago. But it's way bigger and heavier than the iPhone that's always in my pocket wherever I go.
That moment of truth happened for me in the past 24 hours, when Apple announced the new iPhone 16e. It's a new, low-cost model in the iPhone 16 range that fills the slot formerly occupied by the iPhone SE series. That hits home for me because prior to buying an iPhone 16 Pro four months ago I happily owned an SE 3 for a few years. If an "SE 4", as many people thought the 16e might be called, were available 4 months ago, would I have bought it? Do I wish I'd waited 4 months?
The answers are "Maybe yes" and "Definitely no". But let me elaborate on that.
The two phones, the 16 Pro and 16e, are similar in many respects. They've got the same A18 processor chipset, though the 16e has a total of 10 processor cores compared to the 16 Pro's 12 cores. They've got the same storage options. They've got almost the same screen size; the 16e is just a fraction of an inch smaller.
Just two things are really different. The obvious one is the price. The 16e is $400 cheaper. The other difference is the camera. The 16 Pro has a 3-lens setup; the 16e has just one.
If I'd looked at these cameras side by side 4 months ago I would've asked myself— rightly so— "Is it worth $400 for a fancy camera?" My answer probably would've been No. So I'm glad I didn't get to frame the question that way!
Four months ago I would've said "No", probably, because I've already got a fancy camera. I own an interchangeable lens camera with a few nice lenses. It's several years old but still takes great pictures. But it's big. It's bulky*. It's one more thing to lug around.
Still, could the tiny lens(es) on an iPhone camera replace it? Four months ago I would've said No. But there was a steal of a deal on the 16 Pro— basically it was free!— so I bought it. And in the 4 months since then I've found that the little cameras and lenses are way better than I expected.
First I tried learving home my big* camera on short hikes in the area, like the walk at Byxbee Park where we spotted a red-tail hawk. I was impressed with what the 16 Pro could do. Then I left my big camera home this past weekend for hiking in red rocks areas in Nevada. Yeah, the big camera would've shot many of the pictures a bit more nicely... but the iPhone punched well above its weight. I'm glad I took the plunge on the fancy, improved iPhone cameras.
_____
[*] "Big" and "bulky" are relative terms. My Fujifilm X-T3 mirrorless ILC is downright svelte compared to even the modestly sized 35mm film SLR I used years ago. But it's way bigger and heavier than the iPhone that's always in my pocket wherever I go.
