Please post some full resolution images from your phone, with intact EXIF data.
Assertions and questionable comparisons do not adequately support your case.
The photos below were taken with default settings on the phone, and iAuto on the EM10ii. None have been edited. These were all hand-held.
In the picture with the white door. the Pixel protected from blowout of the door hinge area, with default metering, better than the Oly. And the Pixel provides more shadow detail in the dark corner of the room, without editing, than the Oly.
In the very dim light picture, this is an upstairs landing. There was but one dim LED bulb about 4 meters behind, but pointing down rather than toward the landing. It was very dim.
The Oly WB is horrible while the Pixel's WB is pretty good.
The Olympus is in 'creative mode' and matrix metering at ISO 1600 etc, etc, etc ...
It's in iAuto. That's the closest equivalent to the Pixel default mode.
There is nothing that's equivalent to the Pixel default mode. They are two completely different tools that happen to take photographs.
Obvously the Oly gives me higher resolution and lens flexibility. But the phone does better in other ways.
Not really. You have done everything possible to make the Pixel look its best, and could hardly have used the E-M10II in a worse way, relatively speaking.
Auto on both, how did I try to make the Oly look worse?
I did not say that you tried to make the Olympus look worse. Re-read what I said.
I was comparing automatic processing for both cameras.
That is not a valid comparison due to them being two very different tools. The results are utterly different from one another. Let alone if using the ILC to take 12 bit RAW files and PP them reasonably well.
Even the OoC JPEGs can be automatically PP using a Photoshop action I wrote. Here is an example of an OoC JPEG with minimal PP:
Rosa at ISO 6400, using the 12-50 macro kit lens in macro mode
The Olympus is also set to one of the lower JPEG qualities, not LSF JPEG.
You know that wouldn't affect the WB or exposure/blowout. It's iAuto.
No, but it does have a marked effect on the overall IQ obtained.
The point that I'm making is that while the MILC has a bunch of advantages over the phone, the actual phone processing is much more sophisticated than the MILC.
FYI I also used the same phone to take a very high DR shot with my other MILC, a Sony A6000, of an interior with a window in the picture where it was sunny outdoors. The Pixel protected the outdoor scene from blowout much better than my Sony did, and no combination of in-camera DRO or HDR could equal it. So I'm not picking on M43 or Oly here, I'm pointing out how good the phone's processing is. That's an advantage that people who disdain phones don't really like to accept. I could edit a RAW (times how many pictures taken?) and get better results from the MILC, but sometimes just shooting and knowing you're going to get a good shot right away is a great thing.
Oly EM10ii, iAuto
Pixel 2XL
Creative mode, for goodness sake! What did you expect? I cannot be bothered wading through the EXIF data to discover what else you had set, or let the camera do its own thing.
It's iAuto. No settings were changed between the two Oly shots.
I don't think that iAuto can select a creative mode, but could be wrong about that. Creative modes will (by definition) give non-representational results ...
If it wanted to choose something poor, then the i in Auto isn't very intelligent.
Once again, I didn't say you wanted to choose something poor. I cannot comment on iAuto, I've never used it on any of my bodies that have this kind of setting.
Do you hold a driver's license? If you drive a car in this way, I'm glad that you are in another country ... :-D
I drive an auto transmission although I've driven manual most of my life. But actually dissing people usually happens when somebody doesn't have an argument - put them down, instead.
I was trying to be funny. You have used the tool in a way that only a complete neophyte would use it, and then wondered why it performed in a sub-standard way. Your phone is already at its maximum performance (and amazing for what it is doing!). However, the ILC camera is basically performing at its worst setting. The tool is designed to be used as a photographic tool, not as a record keeping device. Those are very different uses, IMHO.
You challenged me to show you pictures, probably not thinking I had any evidence.
And I thanked you for that ... AND I didn't for a moment think that you had no supporting photos.
Once the evidence supported my assertions, you insult me instead. Nice.
There was no intention on my part to insult you. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote (in my post, not in this one. I edited my post while you were composing your reply ... ).
Pixel 2XL
Sorry, but this is not a meaningful comparison.
Yes, I am impressed with what modern phones can achieve, but the images fall apart at full resolution.
Congrats to you on taking photos with a phone at that shutter speed, I cannot achieve that. However, it does not even exemplify your point, let alone prove anything.
If I meant to insult you, why would I compliment you?
PS: I also avoid using Faecesbook because of the commonality of this kind of behaviour.
A word of advice, if I may, the Internet is a bad form of interpersonal communication, as it does not readily allow for the subtleties of communication that face to face does. Don't be too quick to assume that someone disagreeing with you is being insulting. Give them the benefit of the doubt. If I wanted to be insulting, I'm really quite good at it (bad and mean, that is ... ;-) ).
--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here:
https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery:
https://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/
