[beholder3]

Those pictures don't look as good as my pixel 2 XL from 2017! They look overprocessed and HDRy! I am underwhelmed by the Pixel 6 camera atm.

+1

The Pixel 6 phone seems to have severe issues with colors and exposure. Not important for throw-away documentary snapshots, but then somewhat 2002 level.


Overall any cheap current $100 phone can shoot images which are not different from a $7000 Sony A1 if it is bright daylight, static and big DoF subjects.
So there simply isn't any difference to be expected in these scenarios.

Shoot indoor sports or show 36 MPx resolution details on slowly moving subjects or colorchecker proof colors and that is where they suck.

[ThorSanchez]

Here are two more sets. SOOC jpegs from the Pixel's ultrawide angle camera, RAW processed in RT from the K-3 Mark III and the 15mm LTD.

---------- Post added 11-11-21 at 08:54 AM ----------

+1

The Pixel 6 phone seems to have severe issues with colors and exposure. Not important for throw-away documentary snapshots, but then somewhat 2002 level.


Overall any cheap current $100 phone can shoot images which are not different from a $7000 Sony A1 if it is bright daylight, static and big DoF subjects.
So there simply isn't any difference to be expected in these scenarios.

Shoot indoor sports or show 36 MPx resolution details on slowly moving subjects or colorchecker proof colors and that is where they suck.

Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, we should look at more than one set of pictures before declaring that the Pixel 6 is not only worse than a 2 Mp point and shoot from 2002, but also the Pixel from 2017.

I don't know that I'd take a Ricoh GR or a medium format Hassleblad to shoot indoor sports, either. But I've heard that they have their uses, too.

[ThorSanchez]

Two more.

[ThorSanchez]

Portraits. Kind of.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[LeeRunge]

All I’m seeing with the color difference is the RAW processing. Is there a profile yet for the pixel 6? The iphone RAWs are under saturated without the profiles.

I see very little difference other than some saturation between the pixel 6 and the k3iii in these shots.

As for 36 mp and sports, well, the K-1 would be a terrible choice amongst what’s available now for that purpose especially with the K3 iii available. Plus nobody views shots at 36 mp. 8mp max on 4k screens and very very few are viewed as large prints. So the pixel 6 has you covered for the vast majority of day to day shots. Obviously sports is still a strength of ILC.

But the smartphones are now better in handheld low light conditions than ILC cameras where you need to crank the ISO sky high to get enough shutter speed to not motion blur the image. Then destroying any advantage they had. They’re excellent in low light.

ILC is being turned into a niche purpose system for photography in general at this point. The smartphones don’t have image quality issues much anymore, rather, the photographer has creativity issues if they can’t capture compelling images with one in 2021.

There’s numerous photographers using only smartphones capturing stunning images these days. To say they’re only snapshots capable is saying you aren’t capable of the level of creativity they clearly are.

Smartphones are a totally viable photography tool in 2021. I have no qualms using my iphone in place of my Z5 or K3 in a lot of situations. The image quality difference isn’t the issue if the photo sucks. It was me.

[surfar]

Lack of a comfortable grip
Lack of dedicated function/control buttons, sliders, and dials (which can be used without looking)
Lack of control of the tilt of the display relative to the camera axis
Lack of an eyepiece viewer
Lack of supplementary status/control-setting displays (e.g., a top-panel display)
Lack of removable storage slots (ProRes video consumes 6GB/minute!)
Lack of interchangeable lenses
Lack of dedicated connections for microphones, field monitors, headphones, etc.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[ThorSanchez]

All I’m seeing with the color difference is the RAW processing. Is there a profile yet for the pixel 6? The iphone RAWs are under saturated without the profiles.

If there is a Pixel 6 DCP file or equivalent I don't have it, so that could well be some of the differences in the set of photos developed from RAW in RawTherapee. The last three sets of photos were all SOOC jpegs from the Pixel 6, RAWs from the K-3 III.

[LeeRunge]

If there is a Pixel 6 DCP file or equivalent I don't have it, so that could well be some of the differences in the set of photos developed from RAW in RawTherapee. The last three sets of photos were all SOOC jpegs from the Pixel 6, RAWs from the K-3 III.

The SOOC looked better than the RAW, probably it needs the profile due to all the tone mapping in the smart HDR. The apple proRAW files look very washed out in lightroom unless you apply the profile information that has all that for the RAW. Being how new the Pixel 6 is that may be only available for a few editors at this point.

The saturation is just a slider adjustment away from looking super close to the K-3 render. IMO the Pixel 6 and it are tough to tell apart.

I like that I can grab the phone now and not worry about image quality. It makes heading out with one lens to keep things light not a concern knowing I'll just use the iphone for the other focal lengths. It's one of the tools now instead of a severe compromise. At night I'm probably more likely to use it handheld now actually depending on how dark it is. This was never the case with traditional point and shoots. They were only "ok" during daylight, in low light total garbage.

Plus I can edit everything extremely efficiently on lightroom with that same iphone on the spot if I want to share images quickly or just edit on a tablet in bed or whatever. Love it.

[beholder3]

For many applications any current $100 smartphone can deliver results which are no different from what a R3, A1, Z9 can deliver yes.

The Pixel 6 is a pretty high priced item with comparatively low (to nonexistent) advantages versus much cheaper phones or old point and shoots.
The crappy sample images above could have been done 10 years ago with a dirt cheap point and shoot and nobody would be able to tell the differences.


But all this in no way means that outside clearly defined applications no other requirements exist, where a phone is sheer and utter crap.

To suggest so is like stating that since you can do great photos with a DA18-55 a DFA600/4 lens "is not needed".

[LeeRunge]

For many applications any current $100 smartphone can deliver results which are no different from what a R3, A1, Z9 can deliver yes.

The Pixel 6 is a pretty high priced item with comparatively low (to nonexistent) advantages versus much cheaper phones or old point and shoots.
The crappy sample images above could have been done 10 years ago with a dirt cheap point and shoot and nobody would be able to tell the differences.


But all this in no way means that outside clearly defined applications no other requirements exist, where a phone is sheer and utter crap.

To suggest so is like stating that since you can do great photos with a DA18-55 a DFA600/4 lens "is not needed".

You are completely ignoring what these phones are doing in low light. 100 dollar smartphones and any previous point and shoot simply don't and never did what these flagship phones are pulling off in software.

Never mind the HDR capabilities are vastly more advanced than any ILC on the market and deliver results in high contrast situations that require post-processing to accomplish on an ILC. This was not a capability nor is it on 100 dollar smartphones or point and shoots

[ThorSanchez]

For many applications any current $100 smartphone can deliver results which are no different from what a R3, A1, Z9 can deliver yes.

The Pixel 6 is a pretty high priced item with comparatively low (to nonexistent) advantages versus much cheaper phones or old point and shoots.
The crappy sample images above could have been done 10 years ago with a dirt cheap point and shoot and nobody would be able to tell the differences.


But all this in no way means that outside clearly defined applications no other requirements exist, where a phone is sheer and utter crap.

To suggest so is like stating that since you can do great photos with a DA18-55 a DFA600/4 lens "is not needed".

You seem really upset to the point of making incorrect statements about all of this. If you really think a 2021 high end smartphone camera can't produce any better images than an old point and shoot camera I think you need to see some actual side-by-side comparisons. I 100% guarantee you the Pixel 6 is leaps and bounds better than the Canon Powershot SD 700 IS I own and used for everything 15 years ago. And you are wrong if you think any old $100 phone will take photos as good as the lastest Pixels or iPhones. Lee's right that the low light capabilities are the clear differentiator, and also the fact that the Pixel has optical zoom and three different lenses to choose from.

I'd really like to see a crappy point and shoot from 2010 take any of the photos I posted besides the one RAW file without a corresponding DCP file. It simply couldn't take the one of the angel, the trees in the background would be in focus because of the depth of field of its small sensor. That SD700 has about the same sensor size as the Pixel 6, but it's a 15+ year old sensor with almost no processing. The idea that it's just as good is frankly nonsense.

[gatorguy]

For many applications any current $100 smartphone can deliver results which are no different from what a R3, A1, Z9 can deliver yes.

The Pixel 6 is a pretty high priced item with comparatively low (to nonexistent) advantages versus much cheaper phones or old point and shoots.
The crappy sample images above could have been done 10 years ago with a dirt cheap point and shoot and nobody would be able to tell the differences.


But all this in no way means that outside clearly defined applications no other requirements exist, where a phone is sheer and utter crap.

To suggest so is like stating that since you can do great photos with a DA18-55 a DFA600/4 lens "is not needed".

$600 for a Pixel 6 is hardly what I'd consider "expensive" for a premium smartphone. If you aren't familiar with the advantages of one over an old point and shoot lacking additional updatable and expandable onboard software for photo processing, immediate upload for sharing, with the added benefits of GPS tracking, phone and messaging service, payments systems... I'm sure you know all about that.

Advantages over your budget $100 smartphone camera? I suspect you've not seen comparison articles, and certainly not read them? PetaPixel for example (?) praised the Pixel 6 low-light capabilities in an article just a few days ago. Apple iPhone 13 reviews come to pretty much the same conclusions. The newest smartphone camera's and software are massive improvements over those available 5 years ago.

Your old cheap smartphone is not the photographic equal of the most recent ones.
https://petapixel.com/2021/11/04/google-pixel-6-pro-astrophotography-review-stellar-results/
https://www.dxomark.com/google-pixel-6-pro-camera-review-a-big-leap-in-image-quality/

I love my Pentax gear, investing a few thousand more in it just in the past 12 months. I recognize the personal value.

My always with me Pixel6Pro and my also very good Pixel 4XL and iPhone 11 are the first smartphone cameras I'm comfortable with carrying in place of one of my camera/lens combos for more casual outings where photos will almost certainly play a part. In fact I've been exceptionally impressed with the results in restaurants and clubs, in my living room and outside in the evenings. My Pixels deliver very acceptable results for most of those scenarios, and so much faster and easier and convenient to deploy.

Your $100 smartphone camera they are not, and yeah I bought more than a few of those for my son, the great smartphone destroyer, probably at least a dozen over the past three years from LG, and Moto, Samsung, and one Asus, . I know the photo quality from them intimately.

[ThorSanchez]

So I was pretty impressed by the night sight mode of the Pixel 6. The soccer team went to a restaurant in Richmond over the weekend, and it overlooked the Richmond skyline. We were there at 6pm, well after dark. Lighting was very poor, but the parents were all like "kids, line up on the deck and we'll take a cool photo with the skyline in the background!" Using night sight it exposed for five seconds or more while a dozen kids moved, goofed around, laughed and talked. A normal phone camera would have produced a blurry mess. With an ILC you would have had to take a very high ISO or very underexposed shot and worked on it in post. Or used a flash, and of course no one takes an ILC, much less a flash, to dinner.

With the Pixel's processing magic you can clearly see each face, it's pretty sharp, the lights of the skyline in the background are well-exposed, and there's minimal motion blur - just a bit from one of the 11 kids who was clearly moving around a lot.

No, no one is going to pixel peep this or blow it up to print 3' on a side. But I'm reasonably impressed by a five second exposure of moving kids at night that turned out that clearly.

Note: I used an online tool to blur everyone's faces besides my own kids.

[LeeRunge]

So I was pretty impressed by the night sight mode of the Pixel 6. The soccer team went to a restaurant in Richmond over the weekend, and it overlooked the Richmond skyline. We were there at 6pm, well after dark. Lighting was very poor, but the parents were all like "kids, line up on the deck and we'll take a cool photo with the skyline in the background!" Using night sight it exposed for five seconds or more while a dozen kids moved, goofed around, laughed and talked. A normal phone camera would have produced a blurry mess. With an ILC you would have had to take a very high ISO or very underexposed shot and worked on it in post. Or used a flash, and of course no one takes an ILC, much less a flash, to dinner.

With the Pixel's processing magic you can clearly see each face, it's pretty sharp, the lights of the skyline in the background are well-exposed, and there's minimal motion blur - just a bit from one of the 11 kids who was clearly moving around a lot.

No, no one is going to pixel peep this or blow it up to print 3' on a side. But I'm reasonably impressed by a five second exposure of moving kids at night that turned out that clearly.

Note: I used an online tool to blur everyone's faces besides my own kids.

It's quite impressive what they can do hand held. With ILC you'll need 1/30, 1/20th or lower and ISO 51200 and higher to try and get what these smartphones can do handheld, which often causes so much noise that the ILC doesn't look any better or worse.

I pulled off the side of the road and tried the iPhone 12 under just moonlight, pitch black with just the faint outline of the mountains. Something my ILC's can't focus in. You would need to manual focus and be at an extreme high iso, like 100,000 to have a chance, in which case results would look like garbage. Not a great high detailed photo by any means, but the fact it can do this hand held is still impressive to me. None of my ILC's can do this without putting them on a tripod, which of course will get better results, but I don't bring tripods everywhere.

[LeeRunge]

A few shots from different point and shoots (Nikon W300, Olympus tg-6 and Panasonic TS-2) and iPhone 12 Pro Max hand held, each using “night modes”

Panasonic is 10 years old now.

Lighting is led cube set to 1% which is pretty low light.