This is a very common misunderstanding. To whatever extent the camera "looks like" it's using a 35mm-format f/1.5 lens from an exposure standpoint, it's only because the sensor gain is turned way up to compensate. As a result, SNR is worse, so it's like you took a darker exposure on a better camera and then cranked it up in post.
All of this nonsense started with digital photography. There was close to a century of shooting with different formats and lenses without ever trying to twist what an f-stop meant. Open up an ASC handbook and you'll find DOF charts for different formats and lenses but no talk of equivalent anything.
I want to know the actual specs of a lens, that is how you can compare with similar systems. I wish Apple would drop the now irrelevant references to 35mm. I also wish people would stop confusing a physical measurement with a quality target. To reiterate, I find the concept of equivalent f-stops to be nonsensical and think they only confuse the issue.
Which tells you precisely nothing at all without having other specs to multiply it out. It's a useless spec, in the format presented by Apple.
> gauge some arbitrary level of performance
The fact that it's arbitrary is irrelevant; the important part is that it is a consistent reference point across cameras.
> I wish Apple would drop the now irrelevant references to 35mm.
Yes, that would be ideal, but they're not going to do that, so at the very least they should just be consistent with the specs they provide.
Like I said before, trying to normalize different aspects of images and the resultant quality by trying to make f-stops something they aren't only confuses and obscures what is actually happening and prevents sensible discussions of camera systems.
The 35mm equivalent focal length is used just to give an idea about FOV. I wish they would just give us the angle of view in degrees instead. Then maybe people would stop trying to mangle what fstops means in regards to DOF, the amount of light the sensor sees, SNR etc. Compare similar sensor systems, stop trying to cram one into the other.
This number in isolation is completely useless for telling anything about how the resultant image is going to look. As opposed to, say, equivalent focal length, which tells you valuable information (about FoV) independently of any other spec.
> I wish they would just give us the angle of view in degrees instead
I agree, it would be nice if they just used invariant specs for everything. FoV angle and linear aperture diameter would be sufficient for most use cases.
For exposure purposes, f1.5 is the accurate and most important spec for that lens. All mirrorless camera lenses are specced accurately with focal length and fstop. Perhaps some of the marketing is done with 35mm “equivalent” specs but I’ve never seen a lens that had anything but the actual measurements on them. I’m not sure why people are still referring to 35mm focal lengths when talking about FOV in any case. Nobody is comparing the lens on an iPhone with one on a camera with a 35mm sized sensor. Certainly nobody will use the iPhone lens on another camera.
The main sensor on an iPhone is larger than most phone cameras but still close enough that touting the f1.5 fstop does indeed mean that it lets in more light, has a larger aperture, and has a narrower DOF than many other phone cameras. The vast majority of iPhone users have never shot with 35mm cameras and so wouldn’t have any idea what you’re talking about when it comes to 35mm DOF. I wish companies would ditch the 35mm normalized specs altogether.