I hate my OOC Samsung jpegs, I always have to fix the WB after the fact. That Raws IMO hit the spot for skin tones. Obviously HDR+ I'm not sure how it is implemented...if the input data is a burst of RAW data, or a burst of OOC jpeg data. HDR+ I believe is *only* for Google hardware though and not other Android devices...in fact strangely Google Camera *stopped* being offered via Google Play marketplace when I used to have it installed on my Samsung. Right now OpenCamera is my app of choice. I would love expansion/collaboration with Hugin and perhaps even RawTherapee for a truly capable end to end RAW + photo stacking app but that is a pipe dream most likely.

I don't really like the direction Android camera apps are going in which it seems like the hardware manufacturer makes a camera app fit for the hardware device. Now even Google is playing that same game it appears with Google Camera and its features being only available for certain hardware. I think the best alternative would be Open Source collaboration between various existing code bases (i.e. Open Camera, Hugin, Rawtherapee).

No, probably because there is only HDR+ Jpg and not HDR+ Raw.

Really, 16-bit native, that's a big surprise! I was hoping for 12-bit. :D Thanks!

Can it really be the native bit-depth? It's like medium format territory.

There is no need to. Even my 4 year old point-and-shoot Canon Elph 500 HS with the same size sensor will outperform any cellphone camera because of its more versatile 24-100mm lens and its many exposure options. Prints up to 8x12 may look the same.

@MyReality

A smartphone camera with the same size sensor will dramatically outperform the Canon P&S 4x zoom at wide angle because the fixed focal length lens is ~2 stops brighter. You pay dearly in IQ to get the telephoto reach.

One can make some decent extrapolations using the Old studio scene which contained many older P&S cameras including the Olympus XZ-1 or XZ-2 (which for a time were cream of the crop P&S cameras). They have since been succeeded by Sony RX100 series. If someone wants cliff notes here they are - Smartphones + RAW are IMO actually *better* than small sensor P&S cameras of old particular since IMO the RAW shot to shot and buffer performance of something like the XZ-1 and overall burst operation was *abysmal* and both have noise at base ISO. The Sony RX100s elevates the performance of premium P&S to be very safely above what any smartphone can reach with 1" sensors. And no your 4 year old Canon P&S is nowhere *near* a Sony RX100. That said the difference between sensors in certain android phones such as the Samsung S6/7, Google Pixel, Huawei P9, etc vs the *smaller* sensor of the iPhones easily makes itself apparent just like there is a difference between MFT and APS-C.

I wouldn't even put the Canon ELPH P&S as competitive with some of the previous top P&S's like the Olympus XZ-1. But I think now my Samsung S6 is every bit as good as my XZ-1 ever was except with *faster* operation overall. However the tele performance of the XZ-1 optics (which has been copied and copied over and over) was phenomenal for the time. But I think the Sony RX100 variants have now superseded what the XZ-1 can do by a distant margin.

Double blows out of the water?

Richard, nice spin, but having full rights is basically the same thing as owning the content.

Raw files tells you about the camera quality so it's a good comparison parameter.

look at the pencil drawing of the guy with the beard and tell me what is better jpg or raw? I like the jpg better. was this taken with HDR+ and combining multiple exposures? possibly, but the jpg looks better to me.

@Arneb Right - different data points.

@yellowdog Raw files should mean unaffected by software.

HDR+ can create better results than editing the raw file as HDR+ captures more light through multiple exposures.

The problem comparing raw is that not everyone uses the same raw decoder and may do a poor job of correcting in post. Many users of phone use JPEG and if one phone's JPEG algorithm is better than another, that is essentially part of the camera system and is an important test for the vast majority of phone camera users.

@Lars V The "quality" of the camera in mobile phones is in most cases irrelevant since software can boost the IQ to a level that is way above what the hardware can produce, for example through HDR+ and clever algorithms.

@simpleshot DPreview messed up when testing the 950XL - the lower right corner that you showed in your attached image is blurry while the other three corners are not. Possibly the camera was not in plane with the subject, rendering parts of the image out of focus.

Here is the upper left corner - 950XL actually looks sharper than Pixel.
http://i64.tinypic.com/2pt8dur.png

If you look at the other three corners and the center you will see that the pixel has higher microcontrast but does not really resolve more information.

@Yellodog I disagree - and I think you will find that so do most photographers here. Software cannot boost quantifiable IQ just preserve it and adjust it. HDR, as you mention, is not an improvement of image quality, but rather an interpretation of an image, or perhaps a combination of images.

A better camera/lens is always a better starting point. This is why it is so important to look at RAW as well as JPEG to understand a camera system.

@Lars V Of course schemes like HDR can improve IQ. By combining several exposures you can greatly increase the dynamic range and reduce noise, rendering an image better than what can be squeezed from a single raw file.

@yellodog sure you can stretch the definition of "improve IQ" to combining several images, but the camera is still a limiting factor which means a better camera means better output.

You wrote "The 'quality' of the camera in mobile phones is in most cases irrelevant since software can boost the IQ to a level that is way above what the hardware can produce" - that's just not true: the camera itself is vital for image quality. If you are a photographer you know this.

yea good optics or no AA filter, but I prefer the image at the right:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr20_0=google_pixelxl&attr20_1=apple_iphone7&attr21_0=50&attr21_1=1173&attr22_0=daylight&attr22_1=daylight&attr26_0=raw&attr26_1=raw&attr293_1=wide&normalization=full&widget=423&x=0.14180152890444006&y=-0.9974350831815152

@Eric Calabros

From the same comparison:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr20_0=google_pixelxl&attr20_1=apple_iphone7&attr21_0=50&attr21_1=1173&attr22_0=daylight&attr22_1=daylight&attr26_0=raw&attr26_1=raw&attr293_1=wide&normalization=full&widget=423&x=-0.6028950410164042&y=0.25916869040339036

Do you still prefer what's on the right?

I don't know. The reviews at arstechnica and Anandtech have the conclusion that the iPhone 7/7+ Still cameras and video is noticeably better than any Android versions.

iPhone are not only average as cameras, but also completely lacking any camera setting options.

@arhmatic
You do realize that you don't really have to use the builtin App. right?
You can use Adobe Lightroom for example (free).

I did a "manual" comparison to the D3400. It gets exposure of 1/40s at ISO 12.800 and 5,6 aperture. That is the closest exposure to 1/30s that Pixel XL has on the low light shot. You can see the comparison here with Pixel XL on the right https://www.evernote.com/shard/s52/sh/bbd090bb-9e1f-43bb-946b-628d05a778e3/9c54faf239bf77b5

Results are impressive! The only thing I can think of is that maybe the Pixel gets a maybe unfair advantage because it is obviously 100% still on a rig for the photo and HDR works by taking multiple shots and combining them. The fact that there is absolutely no movement may help HDR in a way that will not happen in real life where there is shake from hand etc.

Why do you need to compare excrements with chocolate?

" especially for those who insist that the phones "are just as good as cameras are.""
Right Marty...care to show us all those posts?