
Camera comparison: Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II vs. Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max
Application-dependent.
Lots of smartphone manufacturers promise DSLR quality with their products. But is there any truth to this claim? As a representative of the mobile all-rounders, we put the iPhone 16 Pro Max up against a Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II. Our test will reveal just how big the differences really are.Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Daisy Dickson) Published 🇩🇪 🇫🇷 ...
Verdict - A smartphone can't compete with a DSLM, but is more flexible
Even the Max version of the iPhone is lighter and more compact than the Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II, allows higher frame rates and can process and share the images you have taken directly. In terms of quality, however, the DSLM is in a different league. This applies to both photo and video properties.
What the data sheet already indicates also leads to significant differences in photography performance in practice. However, this advantage may be less important for social media in particular, as photos are only displayed at a much smaller size anyway. When it comes to video, on the other hand, the situation may be different.
A lot simply depends on your own requirements: If you want the highest possible quality, there will be no getting around a fully-fledged camera in 2025. They will continue to be indispensable, especially in the semi-professional and professional sectors. However, anyone who was already happy with a compact camera will be thrilled by the possibilities of modern smartphones.
Price and availability
Table of Contents
- Verdict - A smartphone can't compete with a DSLM, but is more flexible
- Specifications
- Case and operation - The Alpha ZV-E10 II is not weatherproof
- Panorama in daylight - detail and dynamic advantages for Sony
- More specific situations - The iPhone's software is powerful
- Low-light - The large sensor of the Sony ZV-E10 II is the key feature
- Video comparison - bit rate versus options
The Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II is aimed primarily at vloggers and content creators and features an APS-C sensor (1.5x crop) with a 26-MPix resolution. In contrast to the more expensive Alpha 6700, it doesn't have built-in mechanical image stabilization, but regulates this via electronic stabilization or stabilization in the lens. We used the PZ 16-50 mm F/3.5-5.6 OSS II kit lens on our test device. To date, the E10 Mark II is Sony's first camera that can also produce video content directly in portrait mode.
The Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max is the benchmark for the smartphone industry. It is certainly not the best in all areas, but it offers a good camera trio on the back and is considered the video reference in the smartphone sector.
It is certainly not possible to compare the full spectrum of the two products in this comparison, which is why we are taking a closer look at the results using the respective automatic modes.
Specifications
Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max | |
---|---|---|
Resolution | 26 MPix | 48 MPix |
Sensor size | 23.3 x 15.5 mm (APS-C) | 1/1.14 inches |
ISO | Photo: up to 102400 Video: up to 32000 | Photo: up to 12800 Video: up to 6400 |
Integrated image stabilization | electronic | mechanical and electronic |
Weather-resistant | no | yes (IP68) |
Connections | USB-C 3.2 (Gen 1) Headphone and microphone jackMicro HDMI | USB-C 3.2 (Gen 2) |
Weight | 292 g (case only)495 g (with kit lens) | 227 g |
Case and operation - The Alpha ZV-E10 II is not weatherproof
In direct comparison, the iPhone 16 Pro Max is lighter and slimmer than the Sony camera with a lens, but also wider and longer. In general, we find the ZV-E10 II surprisingly compact.
As the Sony Alpha camera now also uses the more powerful NP-FZ100 batteries compared to its predecessor, the grip is slightly larger, which makes the camera easier to hold. The iPhone has had a dedicated camera button since this generation, but it is a little too stiff for our taste, and zooming is also rather cumbersome using its swipe gestures, so we prefer to use the touchscreen.
The shutter release button on the Sony camera is located on the top, is easy to reach, has quite a lot of play, but also a clear pressure point. The ring around it can also be used to control the zoom if necessary, which makes operation very convenient.
One drawback of the Sony Alpha is its lack of weather resistance. This means that you can't even use it in the rain. The iPhone, on the other hand, is both dustproof and waterproof.
Both devices use the touchscreen as a viewfinder. The iPhone is clearly ahead in this field. Its larger display simply offers a better overview and can get much brighter than its counterpart in the ZV-E10 II. The touchscreen as such is also more responsive and precise.
In sunlight, we definitely have to set the brightness to "Sunny", otherwise it is almost impossible to see anything on the Sony camera's display.
Panorama in daylight - detail and dynamic advantages for Sony
The Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II is nominally a vlogging camera that can also take photos. Nevertheless, in this discipline, it is already clear that the camera doesn't have to make any compromises compared to the smartphone and simply takes better photos.
The differences are particularly noticeable when it comes to dynamic range and details. The Sony camera took both photos at 16 mm, which corresponds to a 35 mm equivalent of 24 mm due to the crop factor, which is also the standard focal length of the iPhone.
There are clearly visible differences, particularly in the towers of the castle and the coat of arms above the gate. But the ZV-E10 II also captured the tall grass in greater detail in the second motif.


Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II: f/8.0, ISO 100, 16 mm, 1/160 sec (left) | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: f/1.8, ISO 80, 24 mm, 1/5714 sec (right)


Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II: f/6.3, ISO 100, 16 mm, 1/100 sec (left) | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: f/1.8, ISO 80, 24 mm, 1/1949 sec (right)
More specific situations - The iPhone's software is powerful
If the light becomes dimmer or it is crucial where the autofocus should focus, the iPhone is less complicated and relieves users of many decisions.
In these situations, too, we gave the ZV-E10 II's automatic program a free hand, which is particularly evident when taking a look at the falling water motif. While the iPhone opted for a particularly short exposure time to practically freeze the water, Sony prioritized keeping the ISO values low and the shutter speeds fast enough to ensure the smoothest and least noisy shot possible. However, both devices can also achieve different results with the appropriate settings.
In the case of the tree trunk, the iPhone focused on the entire subject, but this resulted in clearly blurred details, as the lighting conditions were also more difficult here. The latter is also noticeable with the Sony camera, which tried to capture more light with longer exposure times. Although its shutter speed of 1/50 second is still suitable for freehand use, small movements can lead to blurring and camera shake. Although the ZV-E10 II potentially achieved the more appealing results, the iPhone was again less complicated and the image material it created is really good, especially for use on social media.


Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II: f/5.0, ISO 320, 32 mm, 1/50 sec (left) | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: f/1.8, ISO 125, 48 mm, 1/175 sec (right)


Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II: f/5.0, ISO 200, 32 mm, 1/50 sec (left) | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: f/1.8, ISO 100, 48 mm, 1/236 sec (right)


Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II: f/4.5, ISO 100, 16 mm, 1/40 sec (left) | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: f/1.8, ISO 100, 24 mm, 1/244 sec (right)
Low-light - The large sensor of the Sony ZV-E10 II is the key feature
The differences between the two are even more noticeable in low-light conditions. The test shot was taken in low ambient light (1 lux). While the Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II could still take the photo handheld, the iPhone switched to night mode, exposed the scene for two seconds and then combined the resulting images into one. Nevertheless, the Sony camera's photos are less noisy and more detailed.


Sony Alpha ZV-E10 II: f/3.5, ISO 6400, 16 mm, 1/5 sec (left) | Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max: ISO 8000, 24 mm, Nightmode 2 sec (right)
Video comparison - bit rate versus options
First of all: Both devices also allow you to record lossless RAW data for video. In our test, however, both used H.265 encoding and were not further post-processed. While the Sony camera can record Ultra HD at up to 60 frames per second, the iPhone can even record at 120fps. This high frame rate is only available to the ZV-E10 II in Full HD, but the frame rates are still considerably higher. However, the iPhone offers a much wider range of applications in terms of slow motion.
The difference in quality can be seen very clearly in the comparison shots. The iPhone brightened colors to achieve a higher dynamic range, while the shots from the Alpha camera simply look more dynamic and boast better color reproduction.
The advantage that the smartphone has in this aspect is that practically the entire post-production can take place directly on the same device.
In terms of battery life, the two devices are on par and drain at almost the same speed.
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.