I don't know what's going on in that picture. I just took a selfie with my own 13 Pro and it's far too accurate, I can see every line and hair on my face.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Camera Comparison: iPhone 13 Pro Max vs. Pixel 6 Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"If you want keeper photos, buy a good camera without a phone attached to it."
I have "good cameras," including an Arca-Swiss 4x5, a couple of dSLRs, a couple mirrorless cameras, and various iPhones. And loads of "keeper photos."
I believe the strength of a photograph has very little to do with the camera that was used to capture the image. I've been making photographs with iPhones over the last ten years, the last five exclusively, like the one I made below 4-5 years ago.
Strong photos that stir a viewer's mind and release potential narratives come from the photographer behind the lens; and are about his/her life experiences, imagination, creativity, ability to assess light, ability to compose and determine what should be/not be in the frame, ability to hide information when appropriate, gesture, etc, etc.
I've yet to own a camera that *made* a good photograph.
How did they forgot to talk about macro? I love macro photography, yes it's a niche but a lot of people love that. And the iPhone has a dedicated macro mode, the Pixel doesn't. The iPhone is much better in macro.
Both are incredibly good devices no doubt. I think Pixel 6 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro represent the best for a person who has to chose between Android vs iOS.
Both are incredibly good devices no doubt. I think Pixel 6 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro represent the best for a person who has to chose between Android vs iOS.
I think I've used phone macro fewer times than I can count on one hand. Zoom, on the other hand, I rely on since that's my periscope to read labels from across the room without getting out of chair, look for people/things from a distance in a crowd, etc.
The Pixel 6 image results are excellent--but then, they BETTER be given so much of the Tensor SoC is given over to image processing.
Hah, same here. Like reading labels on products high on racks in big box stores.
Otherwise, I have absolutely no use for a zoom lens in my photography.
I've taken hummingbirds midair at 30x that would've been nearly naked to the human eyes. 15x on the iPhone is unusable so I understand why not too many use it compared to 30x on Galaxy S21 Ultra and 20x on Pixel 6.
Negativity is the fuel that drives tech blog comment forums. Without the consistently negative comments tech blogs wouldn’t have any users. People who are happy and satisfied with a product rarely post their positive opinions. Those with an axe to grind are guaranteed to vent their spleens.
A zoom for bird photos makes a lot of sense. I mostly make photographs of people and like being closer rather than further away. A 30mm (full-frame equivalent) is my favorite focal length. A 50 or 85mm feels like a telephoto to me. A 20mm is nice for getting close, but it's too easy to end up with perspective distortion.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
The picture you are editing on the Pixel at the 9 minute mark is the picture labelled iPhone 13 at the 5 minute mark.
Oops!
Oops!
Let me be super critical here because I’ve brought this up in the past. These sort of reviews aren’t doing Macrumors any good.
“HERE’S THE IPHONE 13 PRO VS PIXEL 6 PRO CAMERA SHOOTOUT BONANZA”
Macrumors posts 4 compressed, puny little thumbnails.
You couldn’t tellthe difference between a potato cam and a Hasslblad when you only give us these little thumbnails to look at. Also, that night shot you guys posted, the Pixel is way way better, half the image from the iPhone is pure black zero info from the shadows.
“HERE’S THE IPHONE 13 PRO VS PIXEL 6 PRO CAMERA SHOOTOUT BONANZA”
Macrumors posts 4 compressed, puny little thumbnails.
You couldn’t tellthe difference between a potato cam and a Hasslblad when you only give us these little thumbnails to look at. Also, that night shot you guys posted, the Pixel is way way better, half the image from the iPhone is pure black zero info from the shadows.
Can you do a video review of Sony's flagship $1800 phone with a 1 inch image sensor off their $1300 point and shoot camera?
As a photographer I can say the Pixel is winning out in these photos. Even in night mode…
The problem with having taken this great concept photo on an iPhone is that it remains a concept photo. There's not much you can do with it in terms of printing or really enjoying it at large side.
I'm on an iPhone Pro Max 11 (don't think the improvements since then are significant) and I have to admit the convenience is fabulous. Pushing myself to shoot more with real cameras. It helps to have one small and light enough with a small lens to carry around one's neck. Always wear a camera as Overgaard insists.
Yep. The problem every other phone manufacturer put there has is that they don’t have the massive loyal hardware user base. They come out with these many times one trick pony phones or phones that push the limits of tech and design, again many times with compromises, to try to earn their own customer base. The trick in my opinion with the iPhone is it is really good at everything it does. It’s not just an exceptional camera.
I haven't ever used a Pixel phone but I just shot some video of a boxing match in Cinematic mode over the weekend on my iPhone 13 Pro.
I haven't had the time to do much other photography with it yet ... but from the video I shot, I can say the 13 Pro did a really good job. I had the XS Max before this and it definitely wouldn't have produced as good a result.
Cinematic mode was struggling to track the people in this scenario. Kept wanting to lock on the boxing referee in the center of the ring since he tended to move a lot less than the two boxers. But it was regularly drawing the proper squares around their heads too, to show it was focusing in on them. When I played back the result on an iMac Pro's display - it came out with the action in pretty good focus without needing to manually adjust anything. (Probably helped that the referee tended to be standing pretty close to the boxers so focusing on him was at least roughly the right focal range for them too.)
I think from these sample comparison photos shown here? It tells me that the iPhone is probably doing a little bit more color and contrast correction to approximate what people find visually pleasing for a given scene. (For example, that tendency to draw skies in a brighter blue.) Pro photographers don't like that much, since they want a more accurate and raw photo to start with. (Dreary sky? Then it should look pretty drab and bleak in the original photo, even if some editing would make it look a lot more pleasing.) Casual photographers will probably prefer this, though -- since it makes "ready to share" pictures that look good to people, regardless of how accurate they really are to the original scene.
Bottom line? Some people approach photography as an art. They want to try to take command of every aspect of the picture so the result matches whatever they've got in their head that it needs to portray. Far more people just want pictures that can be taken quickly to capture moments and have results that please the people looking at them. It's pretty cool that technology has advanced to where we're reduced to bickering over how well a camera lets you do one of these vs the other! Not *that* long ago, many cameras just produced relatively poor results under a number of lighting conditions!
I haven't had the time to do much other photography with it yet ... but from the video I shot, I can say the 13 Pro did a really good job. I had the XS Max before this and it definitely wouldn't have produced as good a result.
Cinematic mode was struggling to track the people in this scenario. Kept wanting to lock on the boxing referee in the center of the ring since he tended to move a lot less than the two boxers. But it was regularly drawing the proper squares around their heads too, to show it was focusing in on them. When I played back the result on an iMac Pro's display - it came out with the action in pretty good focus without needing to manually adjust anything. (Probably helped that the referee tended to be standing pretty close to the boxers so focusing on him was at least roughly the right focal range for them too.)
I think from these sample comparison photos shown here? It tells me that the iPhone is probably doing a little bit more color and contrast correction to approximate what people find visually pleasing for a given scene. (For example, that tendency to draw skies in a brighter blue.) Pro photographers don't like that much, since they want a more accurate and raw photo to start with. (Dreary sky? Then it should look pretty drab and bleak in the original photo, even if some editing would make it look a lot more pleasing.) Casual photographers will probably prefer this, though -- since it makes "ready to share" pictures that look good to people, regardless of how accurate they really are to the original scene.
Bottom line? Some people approach photography as an art. They want to try to take command of every aspect of the picture so the result matches whatever they've got in their head that it needs to portray. Far more people just want pictures that can be taken quickly to capture moments and have results that please the people looking at them. It's pretty cool that technology has advanced to where we're reduced to bickering over how well a camera lets you do one of these vs the other! Not *that* long ago, many cameras just produced relatively poor results under a number of lighting conditions!