Review: Google Pixel 2 for Photography by DPReview

[Canon Rumors Guy]

DPReview has completed their review of the Google Pixel 2 smartphone from a photographers perspective. Just like I have found, DPReview has come away impressed with the quality of the Pixel 2 camera in most situations, and it seems it will only continue to get better as software improves its performance.</p>
<p><strong>From DPReview:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The Google Pixel 2 combines hardware with powerful software to produce incredibly detailed and vibrant still images in both daylight and low light. Class-leading dual pixel AF is fast and accurate even in low light, and 4K/30p is both beautiful and also smooth thanks to optical + electronic stabilization. The camera’s background blurring mode is among the best. And unlimited free photo storage via Google Photo is just the icing on the cake. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/google-pixel-2">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Whenever I tell people “it’s a great camera”, I always end the sentence with “for a smartphone”, and I don’t see that changing for the foreseeable future.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've considered getting one, but, I just seldom use my smart phone, and then mostly as a GPS.

 

[SkynetTX]

Serious photographers will never use their smartphones for important photos so it simply does not matter how much do one think Pixel 2 is good for them. Phones are good if Image Quality is not important or when you don't have your DSLR with you but suddenly a great subject appaers. In case of emergency. But for these images any cheaper phone will do with a relatively high resolution camera.

 

[Velo Steve]

I went back and looked at the recent DXOMark article, and now I'm seeing the comments here. I'm quite surprised that there's very little discussion of the potential of the processing technology being used in phones.

No, you can't cheat physics. No, I don't want the firmware in my 5D to start doing heavy processing. Discussing whether phones are going to take over professional photography isn't even interesting.

What I'm thinking of is the compact camera market. Maybe it's already doomed, but what if some of the same tricks used on phones could be used on small dedicated cameras? Without the size constraints of the phone format, what's to stop compact cameras from having 2 1" sensors, or several smaller ones (still larger than those in the Pixel 2)? For that matter, a single sensor with smarter processing could go a long way.

As a backup camera, or in special circumstances, such a camera could show that the compact camera is not dead, and provide a much bigger advantage over phone cameras than we see from most compacts today.

My personal use would be for underwater photography. I dove last summer with a guy using a 5DS R, and sure his photos were better than mine (partly equipment, partly he's a full-time pro), but he needed two huge pelican cases on the plane. My 1" sensor camera, housing, and external flash fit in a small carry-on. Give me great low-light autofocus, a moderate zoom range, and beautiful, detailed (not overprocessed) images, and Canon or anyone else can have my money.

 

[LDS]

I'm quite surprised that there's very little discussion of the potential of the processing technology being used in phones.

Do you want your phone process photos for you using pre-set parameters you can't control, or do you prefer to process images yourself?

What I'm thinking of is the compact camera market.

That's already dead, but where "compact" means "a small camera I can control fully".

what's to stop compact cameras from having 2 1" sensors, or several smaller ones

Parallax, especially for closer subject? There's a threshold where you can't correct it in software any longer. It's also easier to have multiple sensors when using very tiny lenses, when they need bigger ones, it starts to be far more difficult. And there are also the issue in coordinating several sensor, their lenses zooms and read exactly the same image from them. Otherwise you need to apply a lot of software corrections, that may not always return the desired result.

Most software processing "improve" images by destroying information but "deceiving" the eye and the brain, taking advantage of how they work and their limitations.

That's why, IMHO, it's better to obtain the full data and then process it as required non-destructively.

 

[9VIII]

Sorry to break it to you guys but every RAW file is getting baked, that has been the primary source of high ISO improvements for the last 5 years.
On chip ADC, BSI, and copper wire all certainly help, but every time a new processor comes out it’s advertised as producing better high ISO with the same sensor as before, that’s all software corrections being applied to your RAW files.