Ever since the iPhone 5S, Apple has claimed to have Sapphire Crystal as their iPhone camera
lens.
This includes the iPhone 6, and 6s, and even the iPhone SE.
Sapphire crystal is a man made material that is EXTREMELY hard and almost impossible to
scratch with every day objects, since it ranks about a 9 on Mohs Scale of Hardness, right
next to diamonds.
So its a pretty big selling point when a company brags about using it.
Tissot, is another company that brags about the sapphire crystal on their watches.
It's even written right here on the back.
Lets compare Tissots Sapphire hardness to Apples Sapphire hardness.
These picks let me know where an object fall on Moh Scale of Hardness.
Glass, even tempered glass or Gorilla Glass will always fall at a 5 or 6.
Plastic will be a 2 or 3, and sapphire will be an 8 or a 9.
As you can see from my picks on this watch face, there is absolutely no mark until a
Mohs 8 pick leaves the first visible groove.
If you remember from my iPhone 7 durability test a few days ago, when I scratched the
camera lens of the iPhone 7 with my pics, it left visible mark at a Mohs 6 which lead
me to assume that the lens is just regular tempered glass.
Since it has the same hardness level.
It was only after I made the durability video that I notice Apple still bragging about sapphire
on the iPhone 7.
So...
I figured it was time to test all of the 'Sapphire' iPhone lenses.
Now, full disclosure, this hurts me.
Even more so than snapping a phone in half.
I'm a camera guy, so deliberately scratching a camera len, even for science, is extremely
painful.
I retested the iPhone 7, and got the same result.
A 6, a 7, and an 8 pick all leave their mark.
Scratching much sooner than Sapphire crystal should scratch.
The 'Sapphire' lens on the iPhone SE also scratched with a 6 and 7.
The iPhone 5S showed marks at a 6 and 7.
And even the iPhone 6 scratched at a 6 and 7.
So we can easily conclude that Each of the iPhone sapphire lenses are much softer than
the Tissot watch face...
At this point, I thought the case was closed.
I got ready to post a video saying Apple just isn't using Sapphire Crystal.
But...
I grabbed a diamond tester that I have laying around, and I tested the outer glass surface,
and bewilderingly enough it tested positive for sapphire.
Which is strange because as we've clearly seen, the hardness level does not match what
sapphire should be.
When I test the underside of the lens, the sapphire reading is much lower...
also interesting, but Ill explain that in just a second.
As you can see when I test my Tissot watch face It is off the charts in sapphire readings,
but that is only because it is a larger surface area and easier for the machine to identify.
Just for reference, this is a real sapphire.
It's pretty small stone, but is still a level 9 on Mohs Scale of Hardness.
This is just showing the mineral picks in action, as well as a control for the tester
tool.
Both companies claim to have sapphire, so why is there a difference in hardness?
I looked at both my Tissot watch and iPhone camera lens under a microscope and found some
interesting things.
First of all, remember that this scratch on the watch happened at a level 8.
We can see the damage pretty clearly under the microscope.
The thin groove and the little chippings that permanently disfigure the crystal.
But if we check the sapphire iPhone 5S Camera lens under the microscope we see something
entirely different.
Remember that this is the Mohs 6 line, and this is the Mohs 7 line.
The crack here happened as I was lifting the lens out of the iPhone frame...
The level 6 and 7 picks definitely did permanent damage, But under a microscope they look like
fractures instead of scratches.
Sill very permanent, and still permanently disfiguring the lens.
So its pretty clear that we are working with 2 different quality's of crystal here.
Now that we've seen the damage...
lets figure out why the Apple lens start to fracture at a Mohs 6, when it should be resilient
to at least an 8, like on the Tissot watch, or 9 like we saw on the actual sapphire stone.
So I checked Apples patent for their sapphire information, and I found a few strange things.
I will link this form down in the video description if you are interested in looking at it yourself.
One of the very first things it says is that Apples patent is related to thin Sapphire
Laminates.
And then down here it talks about laminating regular glass with a sapphire coating, instead
of having the whole thing be sapphire.
Interestingly enough because 'glass may provide cost savings over sapphire.'
It also specifically references camera lenses.
So is that why the lens is fracturing?
Maybe its not solid sapphire... it could be just a thin laminate on top of regular glass
because it would be more cost effective...?
I realized that in order to really analyze the lens before posting a video...
I need some bigger toys.
I headed over to a university, where they have an XRF machine.
X-Ray Fluorescence is a non destructive analytical technique used to determine the composition
of materials.
Remember that this particular machine is only Qualitative, not quantitative.
So it wont tell us the percentage of each element, just if that element exists in the
specimen.
When I test the outside of the lens, we get a huge reading of Aluminum oxide., which means
that the lens is most definitely sapphire on the exterior.
But when I test the inside of the lens, I get no reading for Aluminum Oxide, but I do
get a reading for silicon which is an ingredient of glass.
This means that the underside of the lens is made of; or coated with, glass...
BUT The XRF machine does not tell how thick each side is.
So, in order to find the thickness of each layer of the lens, I need an even bigger toy.
Now, this machine is an Electron Microscope.
Costing close to a million dollars, I wish I had one in my basement... but Santa keeps
on ignoring my letters.
Either way, in this test, I have broken the actual iPhone 7 lens out of the phone, and
here we are looking at the cross section of the broken lens.
This here is the total lens thickness.
And this Electron microscope is showing us the actual elemental make up of the lens.
Thumbs up for science.
The lens was cleaned before analyzing.
And this is what we see during the scan.
The different colors represent where the different elements are found in the lens.
Carbon and Silicon are not ingredients of sapphire.
Only Aluminum Oxide.
So from this image, we can pretty safely assume that the sapphire we are looking at is not
pure.
There are a pretty hefty amount of contaminants.
Like the carbon and silicon.
Remember how my diamond detector tool had a lower reading on the inside of the lens?
That's because there is a silicon layer, that you can see here, but it is incredibly small
in proportion to the rest of the lens, so its pretty much a non issue.
I bet that inner layer is more to minimize reflection or something minor because structurally
it doesn't seem like it would add any value.
The vast portion of the lens is Aluminum Oxide.
The graph here is quantitative, so it is giving us an accurate percentage of elements.
Aluminum Oxide, Carbon, and silicon in this particular reading.
Lets look at another segment.
Remember this is the Exterior, and this is the interior.
And this is the profile of the crack.
It has that incredibly thin coating of something on the inside.
Niobium and Silicon.
Niobium improves the refractive index of optical glass, allowing for thinner and lighter
lenses, So it looks like that particular element is intentional.
The majority is aluminum oxide, which is what we call sapphire, but then we still have quite
a bit of carbon.
The main impurity.
Here is the quantitative graph again.
The carbon is still a decent sized chunk.
The niobium and silicon are just on that tiny inner layer.
Now, lets take a look at the elemental analysis of the Sapphire crystal on my Tissot watch.
The only two elements found on the surface in the scan are Aluminum And the Oxide.
No carbon impurity, also ratios of the Tissot Saphire are also very different than Apples
Sapphire.
Apple only has a 2 or 3 percent difference between the aluminum and oxide.
And Tissot has almost a 10% difference.
Now, I am not a chemist, geologist or an engineer, I personally graduated in business.
But these numbers sure are interesting between a lens that fractures and a lens at does fracture
and a lens that doesn't.
After filming and editing this video, I noticed that one of MKBHD's most popular videos, which
I will link in the video description, is about the prototype sapphire screen of the iPhone
6.
He came to the independent conclusion that it scratched at a 7 on Mohs Scale.
Which, if that prototype was indeed a real piece of Apple Sapphire, it does match the
same recipe that they are currently using for their camera lens.
Makes me wonder: if the 'Sapphire' screen prototype, and the current 'sapphire' camera
lens, both scratch early... is the 'Sapphire' Apple watch made with the same weak recipe?
And the bigger question: How impure can your sapphire be and still call it 'sapphire'?
In conclusion.
Just because my results show that the lens scratches earlier than sapphire, doesn't mean
its a bad lens.
Its still scratch resistant, just like glass is, and the pictures are still great.
Its just not as scratch resistant as we all thought it was.
If you like seeing technology reviewed from the inside, Hit that subscribe button.
My behind the scenes stuff can always be found on Instagram and Twitter.
@ZacksJerryRig
Thanks a ton for watching!
Hope to see you around.