Google Pixel 2 sample gallery

Not even having a camera on my phone, I am thinking of upgrading (lol), I'm wondering why I would need all of my shots to be taken at f/1.8 coupled with the need to use 1/10000 sec for some landscapes. Does seem to go against all of the rules. Am I missing something? Teach me something here.
Pics are OK but some dull weather shots would have been useful. Days like those here are rare for much of the year in the UK. High contrast HDR not always the way to go though.

That's why you have to carefully separate being a gear/tech-nerd and being an actual photographer (the one who judges an image with his/her **eyes**).

I'm pretty sure tech guys will say this is amazing tech, the awesome "march of progress", it scores fr#aking high on A, B and C charts, it can beat much larger sensors using algorithms, etc etc etc.

We can chat here all day long.

Nothing changes a simple fact: you only need to open a couple of files to realize an ancient old D200 beats the best cellphone with merciless fists.

Maybe kudos for taking reasonable pictures while being a phone.

But don't distort reality too much: it's still just a phone.

For decent camera you look just about anywhere else.

Are programmers sure that they will replace physics? )
After 1020 (2013), it's funny to look at these photos )

It's a damn camera phone, so of-course it can't compare to canon and nikon or grey poupon sensibilities. But for what it does, it does well, even with it's shortcomings. Target consumers will be happy.

I just can't like the fake blur. I guess when you rely on auto masking it's subject to errors but this is pretty bad. The very first pic of the woman in the coat, some of her hair is cut off and blurred, in some parts you can see between hairs where the BG was sharp bc the blur mask missed it. The blur transition is rigid as well, very unrealistic.

In the pics with her and the child you can see a lot of noise in the faces and hair, while the BG is noise free due to the blurring. I guess if you are only viewing on your phone its all too small to see but this would drive me crazy as i rarely use my phone to view photos. Im not convinced this fake blur will ever look normal.

When I'm browsing the gallery, image data appear to the right of each image for a split second, and then get immediately *replaced* with Nikon ad ("I AM THE D7500").

I already thought this Nikon campaign you're currently running (site background replaced with "I AM CHASING MOMENTS" with some imagery) was a bit too aggressive -- very in-your-face, irritating... Using ad as a background is one thing. Showing old background and then, after few seconds replacing it with another is a different animal -- that's akin to the infamous blinking text.

And now this...

The Nikon D750 publicity on the right side of the pics, now makes it impossible to read the exif data and even to download the files, as everthing is now masked by the Nikon advert. I'm using an ipad 4. Bad.

image 43 ISO 3675

very impressive for a small sensor

Can't they implement a portrait mode that shoots two photos, first is in correct focus while the other is focused to infinity? This might help in producing more reliable and believable Bokeh effect

First let me state: GREAT IMAGE QUALITY, FOR A PHONE. PERIOD.

Now being normal DPR reader: HDR+ is trying to preserve so much highlight detail that it's incredibly hurting the shadows. The shadows go almost b&w in key areas, not to mention noise. I would rather keep more shadow information/tonality and midtones rather than show off no clipping.

Sharpening algorithm is not good. And same with the local unsharp mask, not good. Too fake. Many colours are over saturated by TONS and show no gradients at all. Nothing like say a Canon or a Nikon Jpeg colour Engines, or apple's for that matter.

Detail seems a bit off on most photos, strangely it looks like very minor kind of motion blur not lens/sensor resolving issue. Don't know. Maybe my monitor.

Bokeh: "Good enough" for the target audience. On Instagram in FB. It looks real enough on a small screen without peeping edges, nobody does that viewing a girl's picture (or do they?)

Ouf, 3 or 4 years ago, we wouldn’t even be having the discussion. Now, quite obviously, we are having the discussion. Not everyone agrees, but that is par for the course. But both sides are right. Yes, a small pocketable camera can do better. But this is worthy of a discussion, when one takes into consideration the images come from a smartphone.

Great photos, low light photos as well. The portrait mode worked generally well, except it got confused with the bicycle in photo 14.

Pretty astounding DR for a mobile- multiple exposure merging on the fly? Better DR than iPhone 8, also with colours which seem true in hue if a little over saturated.

Oh, btw dpr images are pretty compromised on detail. But when will an image taken on one of these ever be viewed 2000 px wide from two inches away from thw screen? They'rw going to FB, snap and Insta' people !

The image quality and style from each photo varies widely. There are some photos that are atrocious when it comes to post processing. It has the tendency to lift all the dark areas showing the chroma noise reduced shadows. Bokeh simulation should also be left disabled.

Looking the Pixel XL gallery, I prefer the photos produced by this device over the Pixel 2. There is no wild or little PP involved and the larger sensor somehow helps.

I recently have the S8+ and the performance is not far from the Pixel 2, only varying in post processing. I just wish we can have control over the sharpening and noise reduction.

how long will take camera makers to make the depth map available in RAW files? that will be a great creative tool when editing portraits/products

I think they all look pretty good - except for the ones with portrait mode - which are awful. Granted, the instant masking process that goes on in the phone to accomplish this is very clever and fast.
But the end result is dreadful - to anyone who is familiar with a picture actually shot with a wide aperture lens.
The average punter will not notice or care.

Question for Samsung/Android users, do their products save the better camera features for their "plus" models only? I'm an Apple user and would like the camera features of the plus model but I don't want a phablet in my pocket.

Capable phone in one pocket, m43 or apsc camera in the other. We are photographers after all.

So does this smartphone camera not shoot raw? Hint.

While HDR does the image look more "impactful", I would love to see some samples with HDR turned off, because in the iPhone 8 pictures, I preferred the ones with no HDR for most scenes - calmer on the eyes

Not trying to be picky - but setting the record straight - subtle colour tones, like subtle differences in variant green and blue hues are not exhibited like they would be with a high end lens and camera combination. This includes especially monotonous colour tone in shadow recovered detail. Granted, the greatest distinction of colour is provided with higher end lenses (e.g. Leica) and system cameras.

Google Pixel 2 background blur processing is so good, even an experienced artist may find it difficult to do better having 20 minutes to work on a single image.

However, the reproduction is still not like the dimensional look with gradual blur in most portrait lenses, providing a momentous "look" to the image.

So system cameras and lenses cannot become extinct with current tech.

Lol how some people love the colors some hate them. Many people have no taste or critical capability, no Leica or D850 will help these poor sods.