Google Pixel vs iPhone 7 (vs Leica Q)

Google Pixel vs iPhone 7 (vs Leica Q)

In late October, Google began shipping their Pixel branded handset. Although Google had previously offered the Nexus phone (different models were manufactured by Huawei and LG), Pixel represents something more akin to the iPhone – that is, both the hardware and software designs are tightly controlled by Google, which eliminates much of the bloatware and incompatibility that has sometimes plagued the Android operating system in the past.

Without close inspection, the Pixel looks similar to the iPhone. The main physical difference is the placement of the fingerprint sensor on the back – an ergonomic decision that is surprisingly comfortable (except when the phone is on a tabletop) – and the elimination of the home button in favor of a virtual home button.

l1000975

As far as the camera is concerned, the Pixel features a 12.3MP sensor with a f/2.0 lens, while the iPhone 7 features the same resolution with a ⅓ stop faster f/1.8 lens. Both cameras have a field of view that roughly equivalent to a 28mm full-frame lens, which is the same as the Leica Q.

Before you spit up your milk at what seems like a silly comparison between $650 camera phones and a $4250 full frame camera, let me explain why it makes sense. Since the iPhone 6, I have contended that camera phones in good light produce nearly indistinguishable photos from dedicated cameras when viewing images on the web and apps (65% of digital media is consumed on mobile devices). So while the process of taking a photo might be dissimilar, the end user might not perceive any difference in the quality of an image taken on these devices. That is my starting premise. 

Let’s look at some photos (all images are straight out of camera).

Sun streaming through trees

Pixel. Photo by Allen Murabayashi

Pixel. ISO 51, f/2 at 1/1938s.

img_1729

iPhone 7. ISO 20, f/1.8 at 1/570s.

l1000028

Leica Q. ISO 100, f/5.6 at 1/125s.

Looking at this scene on the Pixel display was jaw dropping. Although I don’t have any specifics, the Pixel does not seem to be aiming for a neutral tone curve. The saturation and contrast are high, and there is a real boost of the midtone values. The sharpening is aggressive, and the overall output seems optimized for viewing on the device.

A 1:1 pixel peep starts to expose some flaws. The Pixel exhibits much more purple fringing than the iPhone, which is accentuated by the sharpening. The Leica’s out-of-camera JPG has the best detail, but again, when viewing on the web, the advantage is muted.

comparison

Paris skyline

Pixel. Photo by Allen Murabayashi

Pixel. ISO 50, f/2 at 1/1862s.

img_1737

iPhone 7. ISO 20, f/1.8 at 1/2740.

l1000054

Leica Q. ISO 100, f/5 at 1/800s.

The Pixel produced a warmer image, which makes the wisps of clouds seem slightly underexposed compared to the iPhone. The iPhone seems to capture a little more shadow detail in the darker street areas. Unsurprisingly, the Leica produced a relatively flat (and arguably the most natural) JPG. One would hope that most photographers carrying around a dedicated body shoot RAW and intend to apply their own changes in post.

Foodie shot

Pixel. Photo by Allen Murabayashi.

Pixel. ISO 738, f/2 at 1/50s.

 

img_1766

iPhone 7. ISO 100, f/1.8 at 1/17s.

Leica Q. ISO 1000, f/2.8 at 1/60s

Leica Q. ISO 1000, f/2.8 at 1/60s

The Pixel produced a more neutral white saucer, but selected a much higher ISO which introduced a lot of noise into the wall. The tiny sensor of phone camera phones is at a major disadvantage when looking at the depth-of-field of the Leica. In the future, I’d expect to see more cameras that use computational photography to simulate shallow DOF, but early examples (e.g. the iPhone 7 Plus) exhibit simplistic algorithms that don’t match the quality of a good lens.

Snowy Day

Pixel. Photo by Allen Murabayashi

Pixel. ISO 50, f/2 at 1/255s.

 

iPhone 7. Photo by Allen Murabayashi

iPhone 7. ISO 20, f/1.8 at 1/414s.

Pure white scenes often “fool” the camera sensor in underexposing since the traditional light meter is calibrated for 18% gray. The Pixel produced a much warmer and more underexposed image than the iPhone.

Shiny Building

img_20161109_155117

Pixel. ISO 50, f/2 at 1/201s.

iPhone 7. ISO 20, f/1.8 at 1/164s.

iPhone 7. ISO 20, f/1.8 at 1/164s.

The Pixel’s propensity for a warm white balance arguably hurts the sky in this image.

Low light

Pixel. ISO 3017, f/2 at 1/14s.

Pixel. ISO 3017, f/2 at 1/14s.

iPhone 7. ISO 250, f/1.8 at 1/4s.

iPhone 7. ISO 250, f/1.8 at 1/4s.

Leica Q. ISO 12500, f/4.5 at 1/40s

Leica Q. ISO 12500, f/4.5 at 1/40s

In low light, you can begin to see how some of the design decisions play out. The iPhone 7 has optical image stabilization (OIC), which explains why in low light, the phone seems biased towards lower shutter speeds and ISO to preserve image quality. Google justified their decision to do without OIC, but despite their claims, I think the iPhone has the edge in low light.

Of course, it’s an unfair comparison with the full-frame sensor of the Leica. The image has better dynamic range and better noise even at a high ISO.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both camera phones are pretty darn good, and they both employ distinct choices in both capture and post-processing that can yield a significantly different final image. To me, the Pixel images have more “pop” when viewed on the device. But when compared side-by-side with the iPhone images on the screen, they feel overly warm. I also think the OIC and accompanying algorithmic decisions yield a higher quality image from the iPhone.

But since the phone is a very powerful computer with networking capabilities, changing the way the images look is a software update away. And you can also imagine a future where the first thing you do when you first power up the phone is to run through a series of images to tweak the camera’s output to your taste rather than Apple’s or Google’s.

Insofar as the Leica is concerned, it’s just a better shooting experience for me. It’s easier to hold and configure. The quality when pixel peeping is obviously much higher, and with its built-in WiFi capabilities, you’re not too far removed from being able to instantly Instagram your favorite image. But the reality is that most people won’t carry a dedicated camera regardless of price or perceived benefit.

We are basically at the inflection point where phones can do things that dedicated cameras cannot. With the iPhone 7 Plus, for example, we’re already seeing computational photography (with simulated short depth-of-field) to the masses that isn’t there on conventional cameras. From here on out, it will be very interesting to see how even digital photography is redefined and how far the divergence will take us.

Both phones have stellar photo-taking abilities, and one can only imagine what the next generation will bring.

Next Post:
Previous Post:
This article was written by

Allen Murabayashi is the co-founder of PhotoShelter.

There is 1 comment for this article
  1. Per Karlsson, BKWine at 9:45 am

    Of course interesting as an exercise but the premise “when viewing images on the web and apps” and “in good light” makes it more or less a foregone conclusion. The “viewing device” is so small and of so dubious quality that most cameras or phones will be sufficient. Especially since the viewer experience will be just as biased by the qualities of the viewing device.

    This somewhat dubious comparison is then well illustrated by the last section “low light”. To me, on the device that I am viewing it on now, the Leica is by far (very far) the worst low-light image, and the Pixel one with a good margin the best.

    Is anyone at all really arguing that you need a quality camera (other than phone) to take pictures for the web? With zero post processing.

    Unless of course you take into consideration
    – low light
    – light colour and rendition
    – optical effects like DOF etc
    – etc etc

    So, for snapping, there is no significant difference, yes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *