If what you say is true then in all seriousness you should consider a Pixel 2.
[doublepost=1521294121][/doublepost]
Exactly. And it is very disappointing.
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.
iPhone X vs. Galaxy S9+: Which Smartphone Has a Better Camera?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If what you say is true then in all seriousness you should consider a Pixel 2.
[doublepost=1521294121][/doublepost]
Exactly. And it is very disappointing.
That’s composition. But one is not getting away from the laws of physics. Sensor size, lens opening, focal length, etc. as another poster said, reality strikes on large format printer or 4K tv.
Over the course of this week, we've been taking a look at Samsung's new flagship smartphones, the Galaxy S9 and the Galaxy S9+, as these two devices are the iPhone X's biggest competition.
In our latest video, available on the MacRumors YouTube channel, we compared the Samsung Galaxy S9+'s dual-lens camera with variable aperture to the vertical dual-lens camera in the iPhone X.
Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
Samsung decided to focus heavily on image quality in its latest devices, and the S9+ has a 12-megapixel f/1.5 to f/2.4 variable aperture lens as its main camera, which is paired with a 12-megapixel f/2.4 telephoto lens, similar to what's available in the iPhone X.
A variable aperture is unique to Samsung's new devices, and it offers some benefits that are going to improve image quality. With a variable aperture, it's easier to find a balance between light and image quality.
At the wider f/1.5 aperture, the Galaxy S9+ camera can let in more light in low light situations, but a wider aperture tends to compromise image sharpness at the edges of the photo. In conditions where the lighting is better, the narrower f/2.4 aperture will provide a crisper higher-quality image. The Galaxy S9+ can automatically select the proper aperture for the best image.
Click to enlarge
The iPhone X has two lenses like the Galaxy S9+, but no adjustable aperture, and that gives the S9+ a bit of an edge. As you'll see in the images below, though, both the iPhone X and the Galaxy S9+ have fantastic cameras that are capable of taking some amazing images.
In these photos, we used an automatic mode to capture the images, and no editing was done. This image of a sunset demonstrates some key differences between the two cameras. The S9+ offers a crisper image with more definition, but the colors in the iPhone X image are warmer and more true to life.
The Galaxy S9+ has a "Live Focus" mode that's similar to Portrait Mode on the iPhone X, and the photo below compares Live Focus with Portrait Mode. Both of these modes have some issues, but making adjustments to blur is easier on the Galaxy S9+, which gives it the win over the iPhone X. In general, the Galaxy S9 also has more built-in image editing tools with its Pro Mode for taking manual photos.
Click to enlarge
In addition to images, we also took a look at video modes. Samsung's Galaxy S9 can record in slow motion at 960 FPS, a unique feature because the iPhone X's slo-mo maxes out at 240 FPS. Both devices can also record in 4K video with optical image stabilization, but the Galaxy S9+'s video was less jittery. The iPhone X did win out when it came to suppressing outdoor wind sound, though.
Click to enlarge
Both of these cameras, as mentioned before, are great and can capture images that are on par with DSLRs in some situations, but there are definitely some features that make the Galaxy S9+ ever so slightly better than iPhone X when it comes to image and video quality.
Of course, Apple is going to be introducing the successor to the iPhone X in about six months, and with the camera improvements that come with every new upgrade, it's likely iPhones coming in 2018 will outshine the Galaxy S9+.
Click to enlarge
Which images do you prefer? iPhone X or Galaxy S9+? Let us know in the comments.
Make sure to check out our other videos, which have compared the Galaxy S9 to the iPhone X and pitted Animoji against Samsung's new AR Emoji.
Article Link: iPhone X vs. Galaxy S9+: Which Smartphone Has a Better Camera?
Personally prefer the Galaxy photos as they are more neutral across the colour range. The iPhone X photos are a bit too contrasty and so loose too much pixel information when it comes to Photoshopping. Makes all the difference when you come to tweaking your photos - you can't do much with black or white.
That's mice nuts for the most part. An good photographer understands and works with the limitations of his/her gear.
The power released in a photograph (what stirs a viewer's imagination), comes from the photographer and his/her life experiences, imagination, eye, skill, understanding the dynamics of environments, ability to connect with subjects empathically, ability to read and understand light, the ability to compose, understanding what information/elements to withhold when necessary to create mystery and released narrative, understanding how narrative (real or imagined, conjured in a viewer's mind) works, and much much more.
This is like comparing Canon and Nikon. They're both excellent products which take great pictures. The days of comparing smart phone cameras and declaring a winner are long past us. Both phones, as well as others not included in this comparison, take great shots for the majority of their users. These days it all boils down to preference.
While I do like to see improvements in technology smartphone camera technology has reached a point where it is no longer a differentiating factor.
While I do like to see improvements in technology smartphone camera technology has reached a point where it is no longer a differentiating factor.
One has to be a little careful when doing some comparisons because in many cases you're not actually comparing the sensor but the image processor. In other words, for the comparison to really mean anything on a sensor level one should be comparing RAW image files as this will give the better, or best, results when editing an image as that sets your latitude in areas like dynamic range.
If only the other hand one only cares to compare the way images come "out of the box" then that's something else. Sort of an par of comparing the driving experience of cars without adjusting the seat, steering wheel, rear view and side mirrors etc and at 80km/h in cruise control in a flat and straight road.
Take the first comparison pair… the Samsung S9+ has clearly captured the detail in the clouds. It is unclear whether the iPhone X has or not. Its possible the iPhone X has but through bumping up the brightness and contrast that detail was lost. Thing is, if I can't edit the iPhone X image such that I can recover that detail then the Samsung S9+ is definitely superior. But I would have to work harder on the iPhone X image than the Samsung S9+ image given detail recover is a different process to merely upping brightness and/or contrast which is all that the S9+ requires.
If only the other hand one only cares to compare the way images come "out of the box" then that's something else. Sort of an par of comparing the driving experience of cars without adjusting the seat, steering wheel, rear view and side mirrors etc and at 80km/h in cruise control in a flat and straight road.
Take the first comparison pair… the Samsung S9+ has clearly captured the detail in the clouds. It is unclear whether the iPhone X has or not. Its possible the iPhone X has but through bumping up the brightness and contrast that detail was lost. Thing is, if I can't edit the iPhone X image such that I can recover that detail then the Samsung S9+ is definitely superior. But I would have to work harder on the iPhone X image than the Samsung S9+ image given detail recover is a different process to merely upping brightness and/or contrast which is all that the S9+ requires.
Last edited:
mice nuts? Lol, I liked that.
Your last paragraph is about composition and the art of photography not the science of photography, which I was not referring to. I/we am not debating an artist can’t capture a pleasing snap on a phone camera that shows well on Facebook, but that’s where it end. reAl depth of field vs computational photography, less noise due to bigger sensor elements. The bulky disadvantages of a dslr are offset by their advantages of hardware.
Really, it's about making strong photographs. I've yet to view a photograph and care two trucks what camera was used. Some of the best photography was made with cameras and lenses that gear-heads would today pan.
Indeed, on photography forums I've found a strong negative correlation between people who can only talk about gear, and the strength of their photographs. Seems most are on a quest to search for and always have "the best." Yet they still produce weak photographs. I suspect for the most part they don't care about that. As long as they "have the best."
As I say, I'm sure it depends on the shot.
You could go out with both phones for the day, and select ones which show either phone gave the best picture.
Lighting, glare, night time etc etc.
Apple will win some and lose others, likewise with the Samsung.
I'd still like to have seen the Pixel 2 side by side.
Apple seems to perform worse in the dark against other flagships it always seems. Not sure why.
Yes and no, its about making strong photographs as well as the best tool for the job. If your ultimate goal is an online digital album viewable on your iphone than a good eye and an iphone are good enough. But if you want to capture the excitement of Lemans (an taking a picture of a car going past you at 100mph), or go birding, or produce a photo for a fashion magazine, chances are you might need more hardware than an iphone (or galaxy) has to offer. Even if you want to product a high quality 8x10 print, photoshopping a camera phone may not cut it.
Photography forums, such as POTN, do debate the minutiae of pixels, but that doesn't mean there isn't a good point behind the debates.
A great photographer is only as good as his/her worst tool. A camera is the means to translate the minds eye into a photo, the hardware is how successfully that happens.
Seeing as the GS9 has both options I am not sure why you act like having advanced ultra slow mo as an option is somehow a compromise.
"A great photographer is only as good as his/her worst tool."
Nope. A great photographer is a great photographer, one who posses the attributes and abilities I outlined in my previous post.
Those who obsess over gear, or state the obvious about what's needed, rarely are.
Last edited:
Yes I am because this isn’t 2011 anymore and Android phones (especially stock) have gotten a whole lot better and offer more. The Pixel 2’s camera is better because of better software and the software itself I find to run better too. I’m willing to bet you haven’t even tried an Android phone, at least not a recent one like the Pixel 2.
I disagree as the tool is just as important as the eye. Those who obsess needlessly(sic) over gear rarely are (great photographers).
I like to use the analogy a great carpenter can build a house with a saw, hammer, shovel and some nails.
Thanks, captain obvious. That's if you remembered to grab the 3 lb hulk that can only shoot photos and take probably 720p maybe if high end 1080p videos. Oh yeah, you'll probably still want your smart phone too since the Canon is useless for anything else.
The iPhone photos are just brighter, which can easily be adjusted in the settings. The Android is more sharp and detailed.
I have a Pixel 2 - an almost undisputed champion of the phone camera. I bought an iPhone X because I don't like giving my opinion unless I know what I'm talking about. There are things about cameras which are not always apparent from tests such as these. When I took pictures side-by-side on my Pixel 2 and my iPhone X in a dimly-lit restaurant the big difference was only apparent when I examined the EXIF data. The iPhone regularly uses a slow shutter speed (1/4 sec in this instance) in dim light, the Pixel used 1/24 sec. Even with OIS you stand a good chance of camera shake and a definite chance of subject movement at 1/4 sec. The Pixel 2's choice of 1/24 is very much better. For me, the choice of shutter speed and the tendency to overblow highlights ruled out the iPhone X camera for me.