6 ms·

Apple iPhone 18 Pro Camera test

198 points by luu 14d ago

sharktheone 14d ago
Interesting to see what they got out of basically the same camera sensor. It seems largely just like way better denoising capabilities. Maybe that is why they needed the extra NPU in the A20 chip. But even with that they are still behind Android phones, while they dominated some years ago
- iririririr 14d ago
  until the "denoiser" starts to hallucinate
  - LoganDark 14d ago
    At least it doesn't detect moon shaped objects and impose a static image of the moon on top of it
- matwood 14d ago
  > But even with that they are still behind Android phones, while they dominated some years ago Flagship Android and iOS device cameras have been 1a/1b for awhile. It's video where Apple dominated. Did Android make some huge strides in video lately?
  - torben-friis 14d ago
    Anecdotically, my current OPPO find x9 mops the floor with my previous iphone 16 pro in photography in practice. The 1-1 with apple only seems to be there for Google and Samsung, but the Chinese flagships are a step up. For video I think the iphone hasn't been dethroned yet.
    - eightysixfour 13d ago
      Wouldn’t that comparison be quite a bit closer vs the 17 Pro? I thought that was a decent camera upgrade year but I can’t keep track.
      - torben-friis 13d ago
        Generationally yes, the oppo is more recent, but (AFAIR, I'm speaking from memory) the 17 improved just on the selfie and accesory lenses, the main camera remained mostly untouched.
    - Melatonic 13d ago
      ProRes is great but my many years old LG V60 will shoot real 8K video
      - SirMaster 13d ago
        And how will consumers watch back 8K video?
- microtonal 14d ago
  It seems that in their ranking currently only the Huawei Pura 80 Ultra is ahead? https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera
  - makeitdouble 13d ago
    The criteria can be pretty weird. For instance th Xiaomi Ultra 17's main camera is faulted for having shallow depth of field or "autofocus decision errors", which I assume just means the auto selected subject wasn't the person straight in front of the camera ? [0] These tests seem to be about versatility and predictability more than sheer performance. [0] https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/
  - kemayo 13d ago
    Wow, with a lens that big on a smartphone I'd certainly hope it was fantastic: https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Huawei/Pura-80-Ultra https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Huawei/Pura-80-Ultra
    - killingtime74 13d ago
      The lens is big but the phone is still the same size.
    - no-name-here 13d ago
      Even more extreme looking: * https://www.urbanmag-online.com/marques-brownlee-the-worlds-largest-smartphone-camera/ https://www.urbanmag-online.com/marques-brownlee-the-worlds-... * https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2024/07/18/vivo-x100-pro-review-great-performance-and-photos-not-great-software/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2024/07/18/vivo-x1...
    - Defolter 13d ago
      Indeed, Huawei has very aggressive "AI" post-processing
- toephu2 13d ago
  Which sensor would that be? I think Sony's?
sharktheone 14d ago
it tells something that the word "aperture" is only mentioned 3 times in the test
- mathgeek 14d ago
  What are you inferring from that? Interested to hear.
  - brzz 14d ago
    I assume they're implying the new variable aperture on the 18 Pro is more of a marketing/spec sheet thing than an actual meaningful feature
    - Danox 13d ago
      Most users will never use it, or I should say adjust the aperture, most people appear to be more interested in the video performance, and the video performance depends upon having very good software and hardware combined as one which is where Apple is able to outdo the competition, with Apple Silicon/video software, Apple appears to only care about still pictures up to a certain point, over the last five or six years. In short video is king in today’s YouTube age.
      - llm_nerd 13d ago
        > Most users will never use it, or I should say adjust the aperture This is like saying most users will never adjust the shutter speed. Of course they won't, because the software automatically adjusts it, just like it does on any traditional camera. For the aperture capable lens, the software adjusts the aperture automatically depending upon light and/or depth of field requirements of a scene. And yes, photographs are still spectacularly important. But...I don't get it regardless. You know that video also uses apertures on every such equipped device, right? Better depth of field if the environment allows it is a good thing. > Apple appears to only care about still pictures up to a certain point I feel like people are just saying silly bullshit now. Apple has made video a core part of their product reveals for years now. And current iPhones take outrageously good videos.
azatom 14d ago
Where is a comparing site where the exact same subject and lightening used? Why https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3 https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3 stopped it? I can only find these "trust me" reviews.
- huflungdung 13d ago
  [dead]
- kenferry 13d ago
  This article is doing comparisons with the same subjects and lighting…
  - azatom 13d ago
    No. The site IS the one calculated score and calming marketing. I am not sure what you are referring: - the studio photos are not provided - those seemingly same images have slightly different angle what is actually a huge difference, AND only for 2-3 phones, not for all PS: e.g. different clouds on the portrait example: huge dynamic difference
- xuhu 13d ago
  James Hetfield used to do a lot of portraits with lightning, what with the band logo and all: https://fineartamerica.com/featured/james-hetfield-ride-the-lightning-steampunk-mal-bray.html?product=poster https://fineartamerica.com/featured/james-hetfield-ride-the-... But recently he seems to prefer fire or stadium audiences in the background.
ThePhysicist 14d ago
The Huawei model just uses AI based upscaling and filtering which is why the images look so sharp when zoomed in, that's not depicting reality though... You can also zoom into the moon on the night sky with these cameras and easily "resolve" details that are optically impossible to resolve with the camera lens as they are beyond the Abbe limit. At the very least they should compare RAW data in these posts, not the AI scaled slop most of these cameras produce nowadays.
- kamranjon 14d ago
  Is that true though? It seems like the iphones are doing some type of skin smoothing algorithm but the Huawei is the only one that actually seems to produce actual skin texture and blemishes. My initial read was that the Huawei was the least processed of the bunch.
  - Danox 13d ago
    They Huawei currently are the best when it comes to still pictures, it is the one area/feature they can win, nothing wrong with that. Where Apple wins is in the total hardware and software package, which is why they are better at the video end of the picture in comparison to their competition. Samsung in the past has also held that distinction, being able to take very good still pictures, but they too fell down when it came to hardware and software, particularly when you start adding in video performance, which requires better software/hardware chops. Nothing is gonna beat Apple chip hardware right now.
- throwaway893257 14d ago
  The Huawei phone has five rear cameras.
- esperent 13d ago
  > You can also zoom into the moon on the night sky with these cameras iPhone, Samsung, Chinese phones, they all do fake moons now.
  - Gigachad 13d ago
matja 14d ago
I'm surprised that in no reviews of the iPhone 18 camera there is mention of the bad quality bokeh, it has heavy ring shapes that looks like what you'd get from a cheap catadioptric lens. Edit: e.g. the tree in one of the images in the page: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_Deep_AppleiPhone18Pro_DxOMark_05-00.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_D...
- robotmay 14d ago
  Ooh that's fun bokeh, it's like the doughnut bokeh from a mirror lens. Combined with the various computational tweaks made to the images that's a pretty bizarre effect, looks like micro motion blur at a distance and properly weird when zoomed in.
- dofm 13d ago
  That is from the normal (24mm) camera slightly stopped down (f/1.8), judging by the EXIF. Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. I would hope that the telephoto lens does not show this so severely (because it has a fixed round aperture) but all mobile phone lenses in my experience have had a tendency towards a sort of concentric-ringed, quasi-soap-bubble bokeh; it's a common part of the challenge of really tiny optics (that you either like or dislike). (The iPhone X was really distinctive in this regard). So it's not too surprising to see the aperture do this on top of that. As a general rule you don't see it in average images, but I guess sensors are now high-enough resolution that it's becoming more obvious, and the blades of a mechanical aperture might make it quite noticeable in some situations.
  - gyomu 13d ago
    > Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. Why? Where can I read/learn more about this?
    - robotmay 13d ago
Sharlin 14d ago
> https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DuoTable_HDR_AppleiPhone18Pro_DxOMark_05-00-copie.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DuoTable_... Oh god that plasticization of the faces is absolutely horrifying. Like a bad image gen AI from 2022. Or reptilians wearing cheap rubber masks. Edit: what's with the downvotes?
- kccqzy 13d ago
  Some people’s faces just naturally look like that. Probably depends on the cosmetics applied.
  - BugsJustFindMe 13d ago
    Compare against the comparison photos. They're there for a reason.
  - FireBeyond 13d ago
    The girl in the front, sure. The girl behind? No. It's not even skin smoothing, there's not a single clearly defined feature to her face, while the hair at the same depth is markedly more detailed.
    - foldr 13d ago
      The woman in the background is slightly out of focus. It's a great look for most of us.
- dpark 13d ago
  > what's with the downvotes? Presumably because others disagree. I also do not see it here. Zooming in there are clear pores and skin texture. Is it somewhat smoothed? Yeah, it has that feel. Does it look like a cheap rubber mask? No. And that phrasing is frankly very insulting to the pictured subjects.
  - orbital-decay 13d ago
    What's insulting about overprocessed photos? You can clearly see that the arbitrary part of the face of the girl in front is literally blurred, which happens neither to the other parts of her face nor to the photo taken with 17 Pro where details are visible over the entire face. It's smartphone cameras, squeezing blood from a stone is pretty hard.
sgt 14d ago
How does it compare to the Samsung flagship phone cameras? I have to say I was impressed by the Samsung cameras, although being Android based it's not really an option for me. It'd be like trading a Porsche 911 for a Pontiac Aztec.
- loloquwowndueo 14d ago
  That’s harsh - the Aztek was not that bad …
  - onionisafruit 13d ago
    Like trading something flashy, fast and impractical for something ugly and practical (idk if Azteks were fast but I suspect not notably so). I don’t know if it works for the camera phone comparison.
    - loloquwowndueo 13d ago
      I drove an Aztek once and it felt fast enough for regular city driving. Why anyone would _need_ a faster car is beyond me.
- heaney-555 13d ago
  https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera
- mikae1 13d ago
  > although being Android based it's not really an option for me. It'd be like trading a Porsche 911 for a Pontiac Aztec. I use GrapheneOS for my own phone and have always been forced into iPhones at work. iOS, after 12 years of use, is still so terrible that I can't just get over it. I open my MacBook and will do whatever needs to be done from there. I should probably get an iPhone for private use too though. It would surely stop me from being on my phone more than I'd like to.
  - 13d ago
miladyincontrol 14d ago
Is it just me or in their initial photo the focus point is in a wildly different point. On the iphone it's prioritizing the foreground model, on the Huawei the background. Definitely noticeable based on hair, although the Huawei seems to oversharpen the face with iPhone doing a bit of the opposite.
ricardobeat 13d ago
A little hard to interpret as the Huawei pictures are not cropped to the same frame. When zooming in the difference is less striking.
gyomu 13d ago
> "DXOMARK’s objective measurements and perceptual analyses" Where are the measurements? All I see are vague generalities like "well-rendered images with improved contrast and natural-looking skin tones". I guess those are the "perceptual analyses"? Is there a "See full measurements" button I'm missing? How do they come up with numbers like "157 Portrait", "172 Outdoors"?
- opello 13d ago
  I was wondering about that too, it seems like it's partly in this test report: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AppleiPhone16ProMax-DxOMark-_-DXOMARK.pdf https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AppleiPho... and then more context, especially for the less objective categories, in this test protocol description: https://www.dxomark.com/smartphone-camera-image-quality-test-protocol-a-closer-look/ https://www.dxomark.com/smartphone-camera-image-quality-test... It was a little annoying to find (About Us > How We Test) but not awful I suppose.
  - deleted 13d ago
    [deleted]
- Melatonic 13d ago
  For mobile devices they unfortunately do a much less technical analysis compared to "real" cameras and lenses. Or they just don't publish those parts. It's really unfortunate
  - j16sdiz 13d ago
    DXOMARK sells test equipment, technical report and consulting service. I am quite sure they have those analysis behind a paywall.
velcrovan 13d ago
Someone should assemble a chain of iPhone camera review comparison images published over the years, 18 → 17, 17 → 16, 16 → 15 etc. showing how each year's new phone being so much better than the previous year's somehow becomes perceivably bad next to the next year's phone.
- Krasnol 13d ago
  Could you provide at least one review to support that claim?
  - eviks 13d ago
    > someone should assemble
  - classified 13d ago
    Did you miss your parent comment's sarcasm?
- Doohickey-d 13d ago
  Youtuber Marques Brownlee did this (as a short). It's actually not so noticeable, it's only once you get to the very oldest phones that it's visibly worse. the difference will be in things like low-light, telephoto lenses, video capability, HDR, and lots of other things that don't show up in most photos (including that one) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jru9Gsz3kJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jru9Gsz3kJY
  - rrr_oh_man 13d ago
    Only iPhone 4 sticks out, 1 through 17 are all fine.
  - josephg 13d ago
    It'd be much better if this test was done in low light. The tiny sensors in iphones work fine when there's plenty of light around. The real test is how well they do when the you aren't sitting in the sun.
urbandw311er 13d ago
I’m not convinced that this is a particularly scientific or rigorous test of the cameras! Seems rather lacking in control variables, documented processes, actual measurements etc.
- j16sdiz 13d ago
  They have lots more data in their paid report. Dxomark sells test tools and reports
mula64 13d ago
Ok so let's hack it
brcmthrowaway 13d ago
Vibe-reviewed.
qmr 13d ago
My gripe with iPhone is hunting white balance. Always happening when I'm shooting video. I wonder if newer phones / camera apps are better.
- mamp 13d ago
  The 18 Pro enables 'pro' features in the default camera app that finally allows you to set the white balance, shutter speed, aperture, but not the ISO.
  - qmr 13d ago
    It's about goddamn time. Excited to use this feature in 2-5 years when I can get one cheap.
trvz 13d ago
I’ll pass on the opinion of a website that has not only a cookie banner, but a stupid modal.
- Drupon 13d ago
  Ad hominem. Very low effort and maturity of thought.
  - incognition 13d ago
    a website is not a person. low effort comment and poor correctness
    - petersellers 13d ago
      > a website is not a person. That is not relevant. The conclusion of the review on the website is being dismissed because of some other qualities of the website that have no bearing on the quality of the review being performed.
      - trvz 13d ago
        Yes, it does. To judge the quality of their findings properly you'd have to perform the same research yourself. Judging some factors surrounding the content is quickly done, and generally a good approximation for the quality of the content itself. How obnoxious is the website, how tasteful is the design? Is the copyright year in the footer up-to-date (terrible signal if the year is wrong)? A crass analogy, but I'll not take health advice from someone with brown stains on their pants either.
        petersellers 13d ago
        > Judging some factors surrounding the content is quickly done, and generally a good approximation for the quality of the content itself. How obnoxious is the website, how tasteful is the design? Is the copyright year in the footer up-to-date (terrible signal if the year is wrong)? > A crass analogy, but I'll not take health advice from someone with brown stains on their pants either. These are literally ad hominems.
FanaHOVA 13d ago
Zooming in on a clock 4-500yds away and expecting a fully crisp image seems somewhat of a useless benchmark.
- tomcam 13d ago
  I'm a sniper so this feature is mission-critical to me
  - sib 13d ago
    Do you take out a lot of clocks? ;)
- deleted 13d ago
  [deleted]
lofaszvanitt 13d ago
Wait for cined's test. Here is the predecessor: https://www.cined.com/lab-test-of-the-iphone-17-pro-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-trials-and-exposure-challenges/ https://www.cined.com/lab-test-of-the-iphone-17-pro-rolling-...
Cadwhisker 13d ago
The site is currently down (for me, at least): https://web.archive.org/web/20260920202324/https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-18-pro-camera-test/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260920202324/https://www.dxoma...
perfsakuya 13d ago
I’m not a big fan of the bokeh on smartphone cameras. The depth of field isn’t shallow enough to really isolate the subject, yet it’s shallow enough to make background details slightly blurry. As someone who uses a DSLR, I don’t find the nisen bokeh particularly pleasing either. If I were using an iPhone 18 Pro, I’d probably keep it at around f4 for a deeper dof most of the time rather than shooting wide open.
- nomel 13d ago
  I'm completely blown away at what they can do within about 10mm.
up2isomorphism 13d ago
The really problem of iPhone camera is not these benchmark things. The problem is that the photo captured by the “Modern iPhone” simply does not look nice , let say, compared to iPhone 4S.
- Jskewel 13d ago
  I think we're fighting against the modern world here. My 4S did and still does take the last great iPhone photos, before the processing pipeline ruined it for me, with over-sharpening, smeared noise-reduction and color flattening. Thankfully we have access to raw DNGs in phones after the 4S, so we can create our own image processing pipeline. But for "out of the camera" JPGs, the 4S is still supreme.
qsbuilder 13d ago
So google got beat at its own game, I believe Pixel 11 was really a disappointment.
bartvk 13d ago
This is a question for the sake of curiousness; the article writer shot a couple of pictures of young black kids. I can't find any mention in the article, but is this just coincidence or is this commonly done becauses the darker skin is hard to shoot correctly?
- reegs 13d ago
  It's relatively common and mostly a problem of exposure, especially in group photos. In general you want higher exposure for darker skin tones so that the camera resolves more detail, but at the same time you don't want the background overexposed.
Jaxan 13d ago
The caption on the close up says: “Details preserved on both face, face in the back in focus”. But it seems to me that a lot of detail is actually missing! On the later pictures you see a lot of skin “imperfections”, which looks much better. The 18 pro picture is way too smooth!
rickdeckard 13d ago
Always worth to note: DXOMARK sells test equipment and consulting services for (among others) camera tuning. Naturally, they won't attack the image quality of a customer who purchased their test equipment and/or consulting service (usually not publicly known who did that), so they often tone down some of their statements when they review a device (and shift the attention to other areas). Always interesting to check out the scores of DXOMARK competitors in parallel, e.g. VCX[0] which strives for an objective scoring scheme (but didn't test the device yet, indicating that they at least didn't have an early sample) [0] https://vcx-forum.org/score/phonecam-2025 https://vcx-forum.org/score/phonecam-2025
- akd 12d ago
  I don't know about smartphone sensors, but the DXOMARK sensor ratings for full-frame digital cameras largely mirror my own experience with them, so at least there they seem to be a fair judge.
crate_88 13d ago
[dead]
Havoc 13d ago
Comparing that 17 vs 18 photo id say it’s less a case of detail preserved and more heavy AI post processing. That closeup zoom 18 eye shot has that classic AI smooth skin look AI influencers all have.
rpgbr 13d ago
All the Apple marketing sure does a heavy lifting, because even comparing with a 5+ years old iPhone camera, the new one isn't noticeably better. Take any 1" sensor proper camera and it's so, so much better than the iPhone's…
- thewebguyd 12d ago
  Of course. At a certain point, it's just physics. There is only going to be so much you can get out of such a tiny sensor and lens. Software can only do so much without turning it into an AI photo. Even just carrying around a small Micro 4/3 camera gets you 3x the sensor surface area of a smartphone. An APS-C Fujifilm like an x100V gets you 5.2x the sensor surface and is still mostly "pocketable" (in a bag). What the iPhone has effectively replaced though are the old point and shoot digicams, which now have smaller sensors than the iPhone.
WhyNotHugo 12d ago
These photos are terrible. They have incredible quality, but they're still terrible. The amount of post-processing in them makes them look fake, like somebody took a photo of the background, and then photoshopped the subject on top of it.

198 points by luu 14d ago

Interesting to see what they got out of basically the same camera sensor. It seems largely just like way better denoising capabilities. Maybe that is why they needed the extra NPU in the A20 chip. But even with that they are still behind Android phones, while they dominated some years ago

iririririr 14d ago
until the "denoiser" starts to hallucinate
- LoganDark 14d ago
  At least it doesn't detect moon shaped objects and impose a static image of the moon on top of it
matwood 14d ago
> But even with that they are still behind Android phones, while they dominated some years ago Flagship Android and iOS device cameras have been 1a/1b for awhile. It's video where Apple dominated. Did Android make some huge strides in video lately?
- torben-friis 14d ago
  Anecdotically, my current OPPO find x9 mops the floor with my previous iphone 16 pro in photography in practice. The 1-1 with apple only seems to be there for Google and Samsung, but the Chinese flagships are a step up. For video I think the iphone hasn't been dethroned yet.
  - eightysixfour 13d ago
    Wouldn’t that comparison be quite a bit closer vs the 17 Pro? I thought that was a decent camera upgrade year but I can’t keep track.
    - torben-friis 13d ago
      Generationally yes, the oppo is more recent, but (AFAIR, I'm speaking from memory) the 17 improved just on the selfie and accesory lenses, the main camera remained mostly untouched.
  - Melatonic 13d ago
    ProRes is great but my many years old LG V60 will shoot real 8K video
    - SirMaster 13d ago
      And how will consumers watch back 8K video?
microtonal 14d ago
It seems that in their ranking currently only the Huawei Pura 80 Ultra is ahead? https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera
- makeitdouble 13d ago
  The criteria can be pretty weird. For instance th Xiaomi Ultra 17's main camera is faulted for having shallow depth of field or "autofocus decision errors", which I assume just means the auto selected subject wasn't the person straight in front of the camera ? [0] These tests seem to be about versatility and predictability more than sheer performance. [0] https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/
- kemayo 13d ago
  Wow, with a lens that big on a smartphone I'd certainly hope it was fantastic: https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Huawei/Pura-80-Ultra https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Huawei/Pura-80-Ultra
  - killingtime74 13d ago
    The lens is big but the phone is still the same size.
  - no-name-here 13d ago
    Even more extreme looking: * https://www.urbanmag-online.com/marques-brownlee-the-worlds-largest-smartphone-camera/ https://www.urbanmag-online.com/marques-brownlee-the-worlds-... * https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2024/07/18/vivo-x100-pro-review-great-performance-and-photos-not-great-software/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2024/07/18/vivo-x1...
  - Defolter 13d ago
    Indeed, Huawei has very aggressive "AI" post-processing
toephu2 13d ago
Which sensor would that be? I think Sony's?

sharktheone 14d ago

it tells something that the word "aperture" is only mentioned 3 times in the test

mathgeek 14d ago
What are you inferring from that? Interested to hear.
- brzz 14d ago
  I assume they're implying the new variable aperture on the 18 Pro is more of a marketing/spec sheet thing than an actual meaningful feature
  - Danox 13d ago
    Most users will never use it, or I should say adjust the aperture, most people appear to be more interested in the video performance, and the video performance depends upon having very good software and hardware combined as one which is where Apple is able to outdo the competition, with Apple Silicon/video software, Apple appears to only care about still pictures up to a certain point, over the last five or six years. In short video is king in today’s YouTube age.
    - llm_nerd 13d ago
      > Most users will never use it, or I should say adjust the aperture This is like saying most users will never adjust the shutter speed. Of course they won't, because the software automatically adjusts it, just like it does on any traditional camera. For the aperture capable lens, the software adjusts the aperture automatically depending upon light and/or depth of field requirements of a scene. And yes, photographs are still spectacularly important. But...I don't get it regardless. You know that video also uses apertures on every such equipped device, right? Better depth of field if the environment allows it is a good thing. > Apple appears to only care about still pictures up to a certain point I feel like people are just saying silly bullshit now. Apple has made video a core part of their product reveals for years now. And current iPhones take outrageously good videos.

azatom 14d ago

Where is a comparing site where the exact same subject and lightening used? Why https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3 https://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3 stopped it? I can only find these "trust me" reviews.

huflungdung 13d ago
[dead]
kenferry 13d ago
This article is doing comparisons with the same subjects and lighting…
- azatom 13d ago
  No. The site IS the one calculated score and calming marketing. I am not sure what you are referring: - the studio photos are not provided - those seemingly same images have slightly different angle what is actually a huge difference, AND only for 2-3 phones, not for all PS: e.g. different clouds on the portrait example: huge dynamic difference
xuhu 13d ago
James Hetfield used to do a lot of portraits with lightning, what with the band logo and all: https://fineartamerica.com/featured/james-hetfield-ride-the-lightning-steampunk-mal-bray.html?product=poster https://fineartamerica.com/featured/james-hetfield-ride-the-... But recently he seems to prefer fire or stadium audiences in the background.

ThePhysicist 14d ago

The Huawei model just uses AI based upscaling and filtering which is why the images look so sharp when zoomed in, that's not depicting reality though... You can also zoom into the moon on the night sky with these cameras and easily "resolve" details that are optically impossible to resolve with the camera lens as they are beyond the Abbe limit. At the very least they should compare RAW data in these posts, not the AI scaled slop most of these cameras produce nowadays.

kamranjon 14d ago
Is that true though? It seems like the iphones are doing some type of skin smoothing algorithm but the Huawei is the only one that actually seems to produce actual skin texture and blemishes. My initial read was that the Huawei was the least processed of the bunch.
- Danox 13d ago
  They Huawei currently are the best when it comes to still pictures, it is the one area/feature they can win, nothing wrong with that. Where Apple wins is in the total hardware and software package, which is why they are better at the video end of the picture in comparison to their competition. Samsung in the past has also held that distinction, being able to take very good still pictures, but they too fell down when it came to hardware and software, particularly when you start adding in video performance, which requires better software/hardware chops. Nothing is gonna beat Apple chip hardware right now.
throwaway893257 14d ago
The Huawei phone has five rear cameras.
esperent 13d ago
> You can also zoom into the moon on the night sky with these cameras iPhone, Samsung, Chinese phones, they all do fake moons now.
- Gigachad 13d ago

matja 14d ago

I'm surprised that in no reviews of the iPhone 18 camera there is mention of the bad quality bokeh, it has heavy ring shapes that looks like what you'd get from a cheap catadioptric lens. Edit: e.g. the tree in one of the images in the page: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_Deep_AppleiPhone18Pro_DxOMark_05-00.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PoleHDR_D...

robotmay 14d ago
Ooh that's fun bokeh, it's like the doughnut bokeh from a mirror lens. Combined with the various computational tweaks made to the images that's a pretty bizarre effect, looks like micro motion blur at a distance and properly weird when zoomed in.
dofm 13d ago
That is from the normal (24mm) camera slightly stopped down (f/1.8), judging by the EXIF. Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. I would hope that the telephoto lens does not show this so severely (because it has a fixed round aperture) but all mobile phone lenses in my experience have had a tendency towards a sort of concentric-ringed, quasi-soap-bubble bokeh; it's a common part of the challenge of really tiny optics (that you either like or dislike). (The iPhone X was really distinctive in this regard). So it's not too surprising to see the aperture do this on top of that. As a general rule you don't see it in average images, but I guess sensors are now high-enough resolution that it's becoming more obvious, and the blades of a mechanical aperture might make it quite noticeable in some situations.
- gyomu 13d ago
  > Odd bokeh was one of the risks of adding a mechanical aperture, and bokeh is very often weirdest at the first or second down from open. Why? Where can I read/learn more about this?
  - robotmay 13d ago

Sharlin 14d ago

> https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DuoTable_HDR_AppleiPhone18Pro_DxOMark_05-00-copie.jpeg https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DuoTable_... Oh god that plasticization of the faces is absolutely horrifying. Like a bad image gen AI from 2022. Or reptilians wearing cheap rubber masks. Edit: what's with the downvotes?

kccqzy 13d ago
Some people’s faces just naturally look like that. Probably depends on the cosmetics applied.
- BugsJustFindMe 13d ago
  Compare against the comparison photos. They're there for a reason.
- FireBeyond 13d ago
  The girl in the front, sure. The girl behind? No. It's not even skin smoothing, there's not a single clearly defined feature to her face, while the hair at the same depth is markedly more detailed.
  - foldr 13d ago
    The woman in the background is slightly out of focus. It's a great look for most of us.
dpark 13d ago
> what's with the downvotes? Presumably because others disagree. I also do not see it here. Zooming in there are clear pores and skin texture. Is it somewhat smoothed? Yeah, it has that feel. Does it look like a cheap rubber mask? No. And that phrasing is frankly very insulting to the pictured subjects.
- orbital-decay 13d ago
  What's insulting about overprocessed photos? You can clearly see that the arbitrary part of the face of the girl in front is literally blurred, which happens neither to the other parts of her face nor to the photo taken with 17 Pro where details are visible over the entire face. It's smartphone cameras, squeezing blood from a stone is pretty hard.

sgt 14d ago

How does it compare to the Samsung flagship phone cameras? I have to say I was impressed by the Samsung cameras, although being Android based it's not really an option for me. It'd be like trading a Porsche 911 for a Pontiac Aztec.

loloquwowndueo 14d ago
That’s harsh - the Aztek was not that bad …
- onionisafruit 13d ago
  Like trading something flashy, fast and impractical for something ugly and practical (idk if Azteks were fast but I suspect not notably so). I don’t know if it works for the camera phone comparison.
  - loloquwowndueo 13d ago
    I drove an Aztek once and it felt fast enough for regular city driving. Why anyone would _need_ a faster car is beyond me.
heaney-555 13d ago
https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/#sort-camera
mikae1 13d ago
> although being Android based it's not really an option for me. It'd be like trading a Porsche 911 for a Pontiac Aztec. I use GrapheneOS for my own phone and have always been forced into iPhones at work. iOS, after 12 years of use, is still so terrible that I can't just get over it. I open my MacBook and will do whatever needs to be done from there. I should probably get an iPhone for private use too though. It would surely stop me from being on my phone more than I'd like to.
- 13d ago

miladyincontrol 14d ago

Is it just me or in their initial photo the focus point is in a wildly different point. On the iphone it's prioritizing the foreground model, on the Huawei the background. Definitely noticeable based on hair, although the Huawei seems to oversharpen the face with iPhone doing a bit of the opposite.

ricardobeat 13d ago

A little hard to interpret as the Huawei pictures are not cropped to the same frame. When zooming in the difference is less striking.

gyomu 13d ago

> "DXOMARK’s objective measurements and perceptual analyses" Where are the measurements? All I see are vague generalities like "well-rendered images with improved contrast and natural-looking skin tones". I guess those are the "perceptual analyses"? Is there a "See full measurements" button I'm missing? How do they come up with numbers like "157 Portrait", "172 Outdoors"?

opello 13d ago
I was wondering about that too, it seems like it's partly in this test report: https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AppleiPhone16ProMax-DxOMark-_-DXOMARK.pdf https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AppleiPho... and then more context, especially for the less objective categories, in this test protocol description: https://www.dxomark.com/smartphone-camera-image-quality-test-protocol-a-closer-look/ https://www.dxomark.com/smartphone-camera-image-quality-test... It was a little annoying to find (About Us > How We Test) but not awful I suppose.
- deleted 13d ago
  [deleted]
Melatonic 13d ago
For mobile devices they unfortunately do a much less technical analysis compared to "real" cameras and lenses. Or they just don't publish those parts. It's really unfortunate
- j16sdiz 13d ago
  DXOMARK sells test equipment, technical report and consulting service. I am quite sure they have those analysis behind a paywall.

velcrovan 13d ago

Someone should assemble a chain of iPhone camera review comparison images published over the years, 18 → 17, 17 → 16, 16 → 15 etc. showing how each year's new phone being so much better than the previous year's somehow becomes perceivably bad next to the next year's phone.

Krasnol 13d ago
Could you provide at least one review to support that claim?
- eviks 13d ago
  > someone should assemble
- classified 13d ago
  Did you miss your parent comment's sarcasm?
Doohickey-d 13d ago
Youtuber Marques Brownlee did this (as a short). It's actually not so noticeable, it's only once you get to the very oldest phones that it's visibly worse. the difference will be in things like low-light, telephoto lenses, video capability, HDR, and lots of other things that don't show up in most photos (including that one) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jru9Gsz3kJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jru9Gsz3kJY
- rrr_oh_man 13d ago
  Only iPhone 4 sticks out, 1 through 17 are all fine.
- josephg 13d ago
  It'd be much better if this test was done in low light. The tiny sensors in iphones work fine when there's plenty of light around. The real test is how well they do when the you aren't sitting in the sun.

urbandw311er 13d ago

I’m not convinced that this is a particularly scientific or rigorous test of the cameras! Seems rather lacking in control variables, documented processes, actual measurements etc.

j16sdiz 13d ago
They have lots more data in their paid report. Dxomark sells test tools and reports

mula64 13d ago

Ok so let's hack it

brcmthrowaway 13d ago

Vibe-reviewed.

qmr 13d ago

My gripe with iPhone is hunting white balance. Always happening when I'm shooting video. I wonder if newer phones / camera apps are better.

mamp 13d ago
The 18 Pro enables 'pro' features in the default camera app that finally allows you to set the white balance, shutter speed, aperture, but not the ISO.
- qmr 13d ago
  It's about goddamn time. Excited to use this feature in 2-5 years when I can get one cheap.

trvz 13d ago

I’ll pass on the opinion of a website that has not only a cookie banner, but a stupid modal.

Drupon 13d ago
Ad hominem. Very low effort and maturity of thought.
- incognition 13d ago
  a website is not a person. low effort comment and poor correctness
  - petersellers 13d ago
    > a website is not a person. That is not relevant. The conclusion of the review on the website is being dismissed because of some other qualities of the website that have no bearing on the quality of the review being performed.
    - trvz 13d ago
      Yes, it does. To judge the quality of their findings properly you'd have to perform the same research yourself. Judging some factors surrounding the content is quickly done, and generally a good approximation for the quality of the content itself. How obnoxious is the website, how tasteful is the design? Is the copyright year in the footer up-to-date (terrible signal if the year is wrong)? A crass analogy, but I'll not take health advice from someone with brown stains on their pants either.
      - petersellers 13d ago
        > Judging some factors surrounding the content is quickly done, and generally a good approximation for the quality of the content itself. How obnoxious is the website, how tasteful is the design? Is the copyright year in the footer up-to-date (terrible signal if the year is wrong)? > A crass analogy, but I'll not take health advice from someone with brown stains on their pants either. These are literally ad hominems.

FanaHOVA 13d ago

Zooming in on a clock 4-500yds away and expecting a fully crisp image seems somewhat of a useless benchmark.

tomcam 13d ago
I'm a sniper so this feature is mission-critical to me
- sib 13d ago
  Do you take out a lot of clocks? ;)
deleted 13d ago
[deleted]

lofaszvanitt 13d ago

Wait for cined's test. Here is the predecessor: https://www.cined.com/lab-test-of-the-iphone-17-pro-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-trials-and-exposure-challenges/ https://www.cined.com/lab-test-of-the-iphone-17-pro-rolling-...

Cadwhisker 13d ago

The site is currently down (for me, at least): https://web.archive.org/web/20260920202324/https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-18-pro-camera-test/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260920202324/https://www.dxoma...

perfsakuya 13d ago

I’m not a big fan of the bokeh on smartphone cameras. The depth of field isn’t shallow enough to really isolate the subject, yet it’s shallow enough to make background details slightly blurry. As someone who uses a DSLR, I don’t find the nisen bokeh particularly pleasing either. If I were using an iPhone 18 Pro, I’d probably keep it at around f4 for a deeper dof most of the time rather than shooting wide open.

nomel 13d ago
I'm completely blown away at what they can do within about 10mm.

up2isomorphism 13d ago

The really problem of iPhone camera is not these benchmark things. The problem is that the photo captured by the “Modern iPhone” simply does not look nice , let say, compared to iPhone 4S.

Jskewel 13d ago
I think we're fighting against the modern world here. My 4S did and still does take the last great iPhone photos, before the processing pipeline ruined it for me, with over-sharpening, smeared noise-reduction and color flattening. Thankfully we have access to raw DNGs in phones after the 4S, so we can create our own image processing pipeline. But for "out of the camera" JPGs, the 4S is still supreme.

qsbuilder 13d ago

So google got beat at its own game, I believe Pixel 11 was really a disappointment.

bartvk 13d ago

This is a question for the sake of curiousness; the article writer shot a couple of pictures of young black kids. I can't find any mention in the article, but is this just coincidence or is this commonly done becauses the darker skin is hard to shoot correctly?

reegs 13d ago
It's relatively common and mostly a problem of exposure, especially in group photos. In general you want higher exposure for darker skin tones so that the camera resolves more detail, but at the same time you don't want the background overexposed.

Jaxan 13d ago

The caption on the close up says: “Details preserved on both face, face in the back in focus”. But it seems to me that a lot of detail is actually missing! On the later pictures you see a lot of skin “imperfections”, which looks much better. The 18 pro picture is way too smooth!

rickdeckard 13d ago

Always worth to note: DXOMARK sells test equipment and consulting services for (among others) camera tuning. Naturally, they won't attack the image quality of a customer who purchased their test equipment and/or consulting service (usually not publicly known who did that), so they often tone down some of their statements when they review a device (and shift the attention to other areas). Always interesting to check out the scores of DXOMARK competitors in parallel, e.g. VCX[0] which strives for an objective scoring scheme (but didn't test the device yet, indicating that they at least didn't have an early sample) [0] https://vcx-forum.org/score/phonecam-2025 https://vcx-forum.org/score/phonecam-2025

akd 12d ago
I don't know about smartphone sensors, but the DXOMARK sensor ratings for full-frame digital cameras largely mirror my own experience with them, so at least there they seem to be a fair judge.

crate_88 13d ago

[dead]

Havoc 13d ago

Comparing that 17 vs 18 photo id say it’s less a case of detail preserved and more heavy AI post processing. That closeup zoom 18 eye shot has that classic AI smooth skin look AI influencers all have.

rpgbr 13d ago

All the Apple marketing sure does a heavy lifting, because even comparing with a 5+ years old iPhone camera, the new one isn't noticeably better. Take any 1" sensor proper camera and it's so, so much better than the iPhone's…

thewebguyd 12d ago
Of course. At a certain point, it's just physics. There is only going to be so much you can get out of such a tiny sensor and lens. Software can only do so much without turning it into an AI photo. Even just carrying around a small Micro 4/3 camera gets you 3x the sensor surface area of a smartphone. An APS-C Fujifilm like an x100V gets you 5.2x the sensor surface and is still mostly "pocketable" (in a bag). What the iPhone has effectively replaced though are the old point and shoot digicams, which now have smaller sensors than the iPhone.

WhyNotHugo 12d ago

These photos are terrible. They have incredible quality, but they're still terrible. The amount of post-processing in them makes them look fake, like somebody took a photo of the background, and then photoshopped the subject on top of it.