Pixel 2 Camera - is it really that good

[dswatson83]

So obviously Google really but a ton of emphasis on the camera with the DXO score and portrait mode. But to me I still think they missed the boat by not including a dual camera. I understand they don't need it for imitation bokeh now but having the zoom/focal length difference is huge. Any photographer knows that the compression and field of view is completely different in a longer lens and much better for portraits/products. There is an article on Huffpost and I completely agree: What Google Got Wrong With the Pixel 2 Camera | HuffPost

Not having dual focal lengths is very limiting.

 

[ottscay]

First of all, no one really knows how good the camera is until reviewers spend some quality time with the finished product, though the DXO score is certainly promising. Second, the dual camera thing is a trade-off, and you have to decide what is more important to you. It takes a lot more space to use OIS with dual cameras (and a lot more development $$), and while Apple and Samsung figured out how to do it in their $1000 flagships it's not at all clear that Google could have afforded to do so with the lower sales volume Pixel 2s (e.g. LG only has OIS on one lens). Given this, Google engineers were choosing between the best single camera performance (with OIS) and greatly improved video stabilization, vs using a dual camera setup without OIS that allowed zooming (and probably a slightly better bokeh effect).

I'm not sure there's a "right" answer here, but I'd personally prefer the improved low light performance and video stability, but that's going to be dependent on how you use your camera.

 

[Googlepixelxl2]

So obviously Google really but a ton of emphasis on the camera with the DXO score and portrait mode. But to me I still think they missed the boat by not including a dual camera. I understand they don't need it for imitation bokeh now but having the zoom/focal length difference is huge. Any photographer knows that the compression and field of view is completely different in a longer lens and much better for portraits/products. There is an article on Huffpost and I completely agree: What Google Got Wrong With the Pixel 2 Camera | HuffPost

Not having dual focal lengths is very limiting.

The HTC EVO 3D and HTC M8 both had dual cameras in 2011/2014. Been there, done that. Yawn... don't bore me.

 

[dswatson83]

Keep in mind that a 128GB Pixel 2 XL is $950 which is the exact same price as a Note 8 & a 64GB card. At that price, it's hard to make excuses for Google on this one. The iPhone X and Note 8 have OIS on both lenses in that same price range and arguably more premium devices. I disagree that we would be giving up low light performance and video stability by ADDING another lens/camera. You would still have the identical camera for wide shots. You would still have the identical fluid OIS and wide aperture on the wide camera so you would have the option of switching telephoto camera IF you were willing to give up the wider aperture and potentially OIS if Google couldn't figure out how to get OIS in both.

Results I have seen thus far in camera tests (very limited obviously) showed much better dynamic range but low contrast, saturation, and the overall image didn't look as great unfortunately.

 

[maxburn]

They added OIS, as long as they didn't mess anything else up that's all I needed to know.

 

[Jeremy8000]

Remember last year, when the masses bemoaned Google's decision to not include OIS when 'everyone who is anyone' was including it, citing that it wouldn't be able to remotely compete in terms of video stability or low-light performance with phones that did have it?

Based on the actual performance then due to serious software innovation, I suggest we hold off on lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks just yet...

 

[Jtshurtleff]

Remember last year, when the masses bemoaned Google's decision to not include OIS when 'everyone who is anyone' was including it, citing that it wouldn't be able to remotely compete in terms of video stability or low-light performance with phones that did have it?

Based on the actual performance then due to serious software innovation, I suggest we hold off on lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks just yet...

This^^

I doubted the Pixel camera last year until I used it and wow was I impressed. It took great shots and great videos. Can't wait to get the 2.

 

[anon(596177)]

People will always find something to complain about. While DXOmark shouldnt be the end all about a smartphone camera, i think it's safe to say with their track record of scoring the cameras vs our real world usage its probably a good bet the camera is going to be wonderful. So there isnt a second lens. So we are missing out on a super wide angle image or a slightly telephoto image. Not a big deal guys. Take a look at the portrait photos on DXO mark where they compare the pixel 2 to the iPhone 8 plus. the difference is so minor that unless you were using the camera for professional photos (hint, its a smartphone camera so you shouldnt) it will make no difference in real world use.

 

[dsignori]

Meh. There will be 1000 comparison articles/videos out from reliable sources over the next few weeks that compare the Pixel 2 camera with the others side by side. We'll see just how good or bad it is in short order ...

p.s. I don't care what DxO says ..

 

[Zendroid1]

My guess is, it will be very good, just like last year. It will win in some areas against the competition and lose in other areas. People here will be thrilled. People here will also complain.

 

[Mike Dee]

So obviously Google really but a ton of emphasis on the camera with the DXO score and portrait mode. But to me I still think they missed the boat by not including a dual camera. I understand they don't need it for imitation bokeh now but having the zoom/focal length difference is huge. Any photographer knows that the compression and field of view is completely different in a longer lens and much better for portraits/products. There is an article on Huffpost and I completely agree: What Google Got Wrong With the Pixel 2 Camera | HuffPost

Not having dual focal lengths is very limiting.

What longer lens?

 

[sulla1965]

The days of flagship phones with poor cameras are over. Nexus phones were notorious for average at best camera performance. Same with Motorola. Not any more.
Yeah the 5x, 6P and the pixel's had excellent camera's. I don't see why the pixel 2 will be any different.

 

[ottscay]

Keep in mind that a 128GB Pixel 2 XL is $950 which is the exact same price as a Note 8 & a 64GB card. At that price, it's hard to make excuses for Google on this one. The iPhone X and Note 8 have OIS on both lenses in that same price range and arguably more premium devices. I disagree that we would be giving up low light performance and video stability by ADDING another lens/camera.

First, remember that Google is maintaining camera parity across the Pixel line, so you are talking about the Pixel 2 pricing, not just the 2 XL, which drops the average sale price dramatically. Beyond that, I'd also point out how economies of scale factor into these business decisions. Samsung and Apple sell orders of magnitude more devices than Google, which means a lot more sales revenue to spread those engineering costs over. Apple also maintains the highest profit margins in the business, which further provides cover for investing in product development. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are the only two manufacturers to have dual OIS, nor that they only have it in their most expensive devices.

Again, I don't know if those tradeoffs are worth it or not (and that will vary from person to person anyhow), but I feel reasonably confident that Google's much smaller selling and less expensive devices requires more tradeoffs in order to maintain a reasonable price point. Heck - we haven't even considered what the added costs would be of applying their computational photography magic to a second rear camera.