The Google Pixel 3 Review: The Ultimate Camera Test
by Andrei Frumusanu on November 2, 2018 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- camera
- Mobile
- Pixel
- Snapdragon 845
- Pixel 3
Camera - Low Light Evaluation - Night Sight
Of course one of the new exciting features about the new Pixel 3 is the promise of its Night Sight mode. As mentioned a few pages back, in order to enable this facility we’re using a modified camera application in order to get the mode working for this review, as otherwise it would have made for a pretty boring low-light comparison.
I’m also showcasing the camera differences on the original Pixel as well as Pixel 2, so that users can see what kind of improvements they can expect on their existing devices. Both of these devices also have the Night Sight enabled option for the software.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ]
[ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]
In the first construction scene, the difference between the auto shot and the Night shot are, pardon the pun, night and day. Here the differences in processing are quite astounding and make for a major improvement in the Pixel’s low-light capture ability.
The resulting image is significantly brighter than what how the scene looked in reality. I’d even go as far that the Pixel is so aggressive with the exposure here that it even goes a bit too far, as the Mate 20 Pro’s auto mode and Mate 20’s night mode seem a lot more realistic. It’s to be noted that the Mate 20 Pro’s result is achieved with no software tricks – just relying on the ISO25600 mode of its sensor.
The Pixel 2, with the Night Sight enabled software, manages to get a near identical result to the Pixel 3, and even the original Pixel doesn’t seem too far off.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ]
[ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]
Night Sight doesn’t seem to need to be used in very dark scenes to show a benefit, as even with artificially lit objects such as the tree here we can see benefits to the scene. The result puts the Pixel phones far ahead of conventional shooters from Samsung and Apple, with only Huawei’s being able to keep up and battle Google’s new algorithm.
One characteristic of Night Sight is that it doesn’t seem to be able to actually bring down highlights – Huawei’s implementation on the other hand will do this, and that’s why the tree in Huawei’s mode is far less blown-out compared to Google’s camera.
Where Google does shine is in terms of detail retention – the Pixels are able to retain significantly more details than Huawei, and for that matter, the Pixels retain more details than all of the other phones.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20 ]
[ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ] - [ Note9 ]
[ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG V30 ] - [ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ]
The main benefits of Night Sight in scenarios where there is sufficient light is that it allows for better detail retention and less noise. Google competition here is again Huawei – however the Pixels are able to edge out the P20’s and Mate 20’s in terms of detail retention and less noise.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ]
[ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]
When going into lower light scenes, again, the Pixels are able to produce images that are much brighter than how the scene was originally.
Again, the only phones able to compete in terms of light capture are Huawei’s – but again, the Pixels are able to produce a better image thanks to better detail retention. Huawei’s phones here most likely are suffering from the lack of OIS on their main cameras.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ]
[ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]
Although this is meant to be a comparison between 18 phones, the real fight here is just between the Pixel 3 and Huawei’s devices. Again the Pixels here significantly win because of the vast advantages in terms of detail retention and sharpness – far ahead of any other phone.
Extreme low-light
Extreme low light scenarios is something as early as last year we wouldn’t have expected phones to be viable in. Again I started shooting such scenes earlier in the year when Huawei made its Night mode usable without a tripod – along with vendors like LG introducing pixel binning modes that quadruple the light capture of the sensors.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ]
[ P20 ] - [ Mate 10Pro ] - [ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ]
[ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ] - [ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ]
[ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]
This shot is very similar to the first one in that the Pixels are able to generate such bright pictures that I’d say they’re overexposed. Again, only Huawei’s phones and as well as the LG G7’s LLS mode are able to achieve similar light capture. The latter suffers from a stark lack of details, leaving only Huawei’s phones in the competition.
What is very interesting is to see just how much colour accuracy Google is able to achieve even with such low brightness levels.
[ Pixel 3 ] - [ Pixel 2 ] - [ Pixel XL ]
[ Mate 20Pro ] - [ Mate 20 ] - [ P20Pro ] - [ Mate 10Pro ]
[ iPhone XS ] - [ iPhone X ] - [ Note9 ] - [ S9+ ] - [ S8 ]
[ LG G7 ] - [ LG V30 ] - [ OnePlus 6 ] - [ OPPO FindX ] - [ MIX2S ]
The last shot I wanted to take the phones to their limits – the vast majority of phones here won’t be able to discern nearly anything and many will just produce a black picture. The scene was solely illuminated by moonlight of a full moon as well as some far as way industrial spotlights.
Even here, the Pixel’s Night Sight is able to deliver, producing a semi visible result of the object. Only the Mate 20 Pro’s ISO102400 shot was able to come near the exposure levels, but with significantly more noise.
Low-light conclusion
This conclusion of the Pixel 3 in low light would have sounded extremely differently if I had just used Google’s official camera application and not tested Night Sight. I’ve never really understood why people claimed the Pixel 2 camera to be good in low-light, because in my experience as well as visible in these sample shots, the Pixels were never really competitive and are outclassed by the better sensors from Samsung and Apple, when capturing in traditional modes.
Night Sight is very much a game-changer to this situation, and Google is able to showcase an outstanding example of computational photography that vastly beats even the wildest expectation of what a smartphone camera is able to achieve in low-light scenarios.
In a swoop, Google’s Pixels significantly climb up the ladder in terms of low-light photography ranking, even putting themselves at a comfortable distance ahead of the previous low-light champions, Huawei’s 40MP sensor phones as well as their own night mode.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
135 Comments
View All Comments
zanon - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
>"But we're not on version 1.0 of Bluetooth, we're on version 5.0 and it's still not great."It is great (or at least getting close) from some vendors, which shows that the technical foundation is there. Once that exists the only real way to have progress happen sustainable is to have a market for it so hundreds to thousands of attempts will be made, most of which will be mediocre, but some of which will be good and then get copied/followed in turn. To your own point:
>"Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists."
WiFi was introduced *20 years ago*. Yes, 1998. And it stunk. It was a long time before it even achieved the kind of technical spec it needed, 802.11n took 11 years, 802.11ac took 15 years. Both came after smartphones and notebooks overtaking desktops, demand drove innovation and pricing. Of course, even now in 2018 a lot of WiFi stuff on the market is still junk and will still give a bad experience, but at least there are good options.
I think a better example would be USB replacing PS2 & ADB ports. Wow were there a lot of howls over that. We're seeing some of the exact same thing now in fact with USB-C and TB3, and people raging about adapters and "everything was fine before" and the early pains of these standards (plenty of junk USB-C implementations). But the fact is USB-C is a nice connector that solves physical and speed problems.
>"I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone."
I absolutely agree it's not 100% there yet! There is clearly a ways to go. But I also don't think it'll ever go from 20% or even 50% to 100% in one leap either, no matter when they started the first few versions would have compromises. But I've seen more progress in the last year then the last decade, and once people know that something can be done well it tends to drag up the industry because customers are less willing to accept excuses of "oh nobody can do this."
mrvco - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
Agreed. I have a couple pairs of BT headpones and the convenience is nice... until the battery runs out when I'm boarding an international flight. I'm still using a Pixel XL as my daily driver and just ordered an LG v40. I also have an iPhone 8plus for app testing / demos and keeping track of the dongle is annoying.I still haven't heard a compelling reason for removing the headphone jack beyond pedantic and otherwise pointless spec sheet glossing. I'll take a slightly thicker phone all day and everyday if it means a larger battery and the same goes for a phone with a headphone jack.
Arbie - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
What a rant! But what could you do except blather about "forcing the future" and "a few generations will have to deal with compromises"? That malarkey lost all meaning long ago; maybe you missed the memo.I have a BT headset for when I want to listen and be mobile - only. Compared to my wired earbuds it's bulky, heavy, expensive, complex, requires setup, creates rub noise, *and* needs daily charging. Now - add a dongle with similar issues! In all those aspects, wireless is a regression even it if works flawessly. If we had only that, and someone invented wired phones, it would be hailed as a miracle because, where they are convenient, those have no equal.
So removing even the option of wired is stupid *unless* there is some major compensation for doing so. I don't see any, and you don't either.
nonig - Wednesday, November 14, 2018 - link
Rarely has a post resonated with me like this one has. I wholeheartedly agree.Back when Apple announced, that they'd be dropping the minijack I thought "damit!" as I almost just had gotten a decent headset for my phone. I like to listen to music and the thought of having to accept wireless only irked me.
On the other hand, I am a tech enthusiast and had two years prior gotten my first tenure and therefore a decent salary - so I thought to myself; why not splurge and get a 'real' high end headset? I got myself the Beoplay H8 (around $350 I think) and haven't looked back.
My only alternatives was the Airpods or a headset similar to the B&O (Denon, Bose, Sennheiser, B&W and so on).
To me, it marked my final maturity into the form of 'good enough'-adulthood. I don't need 'wannabe pro'-performance or other pseudo/placebo. It just has to work, be good enough and reliable. Never really being able to put it into words until I read your post - and I totally agree.
I too used to claim, that only wired was good enough, until I got used to the comforts of WiFi.
I too used to claim, that FireWire400/800 was infinitely superior to USB2.0/3.0, until I tried a newer USB3.0 external hard drive.
I too used to claim, that only the golden terminals on my SoundBlaster Audigy was good enough for my MP3's until I realized it just doesn't matter.
I too used to claim, that CDs was superior to AAC or whatever, until discovered the joy streaming music.
I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy movies was on bluray, until I realized I just wanna watch movies and not bother with stupid intros, trailers, copyright/piracy splashes - Netflix, HBO, Youtube (still ads, but 5 seconds is manageable).
I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy audio was on the B&W speakers via our NAD amp, until I realized bitrate doesn't determine how much I (or my kids) like a song or not.
So on and so forth.
Today, I just don't bother anymore.
Music is best enjoyed when I don't have to untangle stupid wires first. I just put on my headset, turn them on, and instant music or Airplay to our wireless speakers around the house - provided the kids hasn't hidden them somewhere.
I guess people don't like change (I'm not claiming that they're stuck up or something, just that sometimes change doesn't seem rational when 'the old stuff seems to work just fine') and I like your point.
Let's get back to serial and parallel ports, so much easier, when different things use different ports. Today, everything is USB and it can be soooo confusing.
Let's get back to when phones only used to be phones.
Let's get back to when cameras was cameras.
Let's get back to when portable music devices used cassette tapes.
Let's get back to when cars was jump started by hand.
Let's get back to using horses. Less pollution! (I honestly don't know, if replacing combustion based motor transportation with live stock would decrease pollution - XKCD/Randall are you reading this?)
Anywho.
All I wanted to say was; I agree.
erple2 - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
I'm not that averse to new tech, provided it eventually (fairly quickly) surpasses what it is replacing. In the case of bluetooth (version 5 no less), we're still not there yet. My cheap (~$20) bluetooth headphones don't always work, have issues with: mediocre sound, noticeable audio lag, and have to be charged, and don't really last that long on a charge. By contrast, my cheap (~$8) wired headphones always work, have mediocre sound, no audio lag, don't need to be charged, and don't cause a small (but noticeable) drain on my phone's battery life.Each of the other things you mentioned saddened me with the race to acceptance of mediocrity, though :( While I appreciate the conveniences of WiFi, I still plug my laptop in to wired connections when reasonably possible - it's just faster in all cases, and more reliable. That's kind of a problem with most new technology - I'm just not sure if the improved convenience of new technology always makes up for its shortcomings (hint: it only sometimes does).
amosbatto - Friday, November 30, 2018 - link
These kind of comments really annoy me. First of all, you are needlessly promoting planned obsolescence for no tangible benefit. Millions of headphones and speakers all over the planet will be thrown away for no good reason, except that Apple figured out a way to make more profits selling us dongles and Beats wireless headset. I have a hi-fi system that I bought in high school which will never work with Bluetooth. You are telling me to throw out a $1000 system, just because it doesn´t work with Bluetooth and replace it with Bluetooth speakers of lesser quality.Bluetooth´s quality still isn´t as good as a wired audio. I have had very bad experience with Bluetooth ear buds. First, I bought some Apple-style ear buds, that don´t have a wire. Two days later, I was washing dishes and it slipped out of my ear and fell in the sink and the water destroyed it. Next, I bought a Bluetooth set with wires connected to a magnetic clip. I´m guessing that the clip wasn´t strong enough, because I lost it when walking. These experiences have convinced me to return to wired ear buds.
imaheadcase - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
What are you having problems with wireless? Every smartphone i've had i've used the bluetooth all the time and never had a issue with it.Wireless is just plain silly to have now-a-days, wireless is better for working, running, pretty much all aspects.
ummduh - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Literally every bluetooth connection I have is problematic. I only have 2 left due to having so many issues with it. I HATE BT. I don't know who's fault it is, the accessory devices' implementation, or differences in phone manufacturers' implementation, but it doesn't really matter. I consistently have problems with it. It never just works for me.cfenton - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
I have connection issues. When I turn my headphones on, sometimes they only grab the call audio output, but not the media audio output. I have to go into my bluetooth settings to fix it and that's a hassle, especially when I'm out in the winter with gloves on.Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
I'm not gonna defend dropping the jack, but these instances where people swear they have to fiddle with settings each and every time they pair BT stuff can only be due to two things... Bad software (some phones/devices do have a shitty BT stack, and Google is often on the latest which doesn't always play nice with older stuff) AND/OR an incredibly noisy RF environment. I don't often encounter the latter, but I don't live in an apartment or the middle of NYC.