Note8 user, 02 Apr 2018So, in the conclusion it states that Xperia XZ2 is better than Galagxy S9 in low-light photogr... moreMind you, because with a tripod (or really stable hands) you can force low ISO but... you can do the same in every other phone! You also can lower the ISO e increase the exposure time on the S9 easier than you can on the Xperia, and also use a lot other of manual controls.
Good for the Xperia but it's just catching up.
S9 is doing too much with its noise reduction, but I wouldn't say that the strong sharpening on XZ2 looks great either. This part depends on personal preference, really.
Now, XZ2 produces really good looking night-time photo when you mount it on a tripod. That's true. And it's vastly superior to what we have seen on past Sony phones. But I still prefer S9's camera for 2 main reasons - more extensive manual mode with longer maximum shutter speed, and the most importantly, RAW support. None of Sony flagship smartphones which came out so far offered an option to shoot in RAW, and that's a bit of deal breaker to me. My Mate 10 Pro does wonderful job in Auto mode, and even in a darkest environment Night Mode performs admirably, but there are times when I want my photos to look in the way exactly I want, and that's when shooting in RAW format comes in very handy. Also lack of OIS in 11.1mm thick body is quite disappointing. I have to give this one to S9, though it was pretty close, at least much closer than I expected.
I just can't accept Sony processing.
Even at the lowest possible ISO the photos look "dirty". It's really hard to like all that dithering and aliasing. And you can't get around that because is anything changed Sony doesn't support RAW.
So, of the box the S9 is better, and you have better pro controls to make the photos even better, and if you desire so you can config the phone to save a RAW of every photo and work them in you computer when you feel that the photo could look better with less noise reduction.
It's good, very good that this generation is better than the last ones, but still, not enough. It's a waste of the hardware.
Note8 user, 02 Apr 2018So, in the conclusion it states that Xperia XZ2 is better than Galagxy S9 in low-light photogr... moreYes, so it is a good thing that the XZ2 costs on average £50 less than the S9. That way potential buyers of the Xperia can put that money towards a decent tripod.....which they can then lug around with them every time they venture out after dark.
IÂ’m sorry but I really do not care how good the XZ2 is with a tripod. The primary purpose of a smartphone camera is convenient point and shoot capability in impromptu situations. ThatÂ’s hardly the case If I have to tell everyone to wait around for 5 mins, while I get out and start faffing around with my tripod, then fiddling around with settings just so I can get the best result out of my smartphone camera!?!?
Yeah Sony have improved the photography aspect on the XZ2, no surprises there. But they are still along way off from offering the most convenient solution on the market.
Hmmm....maybe Sony should a start including a tripod with the XZ2 range, it would seem to be an essential part of the experience
The conclusion ..lol
Looks like GSM know that samsung fans and sony fans always fighting
Nzi97, 02 Apr 2018There's where you are wrong kids, sony always has quality in their phone, even long ago back i... moreI guess you never tried Sony cassettes (see I'm not a kid), Sony stereos, Sony headphones and plastic Sony phones that make squeaking noises when you press them too hard. As for Sony displays, their viewing angles were bad until just recently.
Anonymous, 02 Apr 2018Nice balanced review. Pretty much said what I said earlier regarding low-light photos: S9 is b... moreVery true, thats just how it is. S9 is better when handheld, XZ2 is better on tripod.
If your prepared to carry a tripod with you all the time. But different tripods are needed for different scenarios.
MdN8, 02 Apr 2018It's more expensive to make, and more complicated, it means more mechanical parts, and Sony ha... moreThere's where you are wrong kids, sony always has quality in their phone, even long ago back in the day where samsung use cheapo plastic that turns yellow while sony already in glass sandwiches build, then they move on with the metal build and back to glass, even the screen is not your typical lcd, it's Quantum dot ips lcd, albeit sony call it trilumonous, basically means, calling the screen a bad panel also the same with calling samsung own tv had cheap panel
I don't find any cheap side on sony, nor the samsung both had great components in their own respect
In 2025 the flagship Xperia will match S9's photo quality, and finally GSMA will be able to say yes, this result is as good as five year old Samsung flagship, because believe me we all wanna see that now.
Shanti Dope, 02 Apr 2018Don't let Samsung's oversharpening fool you. It's only rendering the textures nicely, but no, ... moreI see oversharpening artifacts in the daylight photos of both S9 and XZ2. You do know that oversharpening increases noise right?
Sony's engineer finally do it right! Photographers know this, detail pics with a bit of noise (XZ2) is better than soften denoise image (S9). Hats off to Sony. Now if only they implement OIS for low lights pics, its gonna be a tremendous handheld quality pictures! Sony EIS for video is excellent already, imagine if they using OIS+EIS? Boom!
Nice balanced review. Pretty much said what I said earlier regarding low-light photos: S9 is better when handheld, XZ2 is better on tripod. Some Xperia diehards refused to believe that. Each phone performs better than the other in certain areas. I won't claim that one is superior over the other in ALL aspects. Only blind fans do that.
Shanti Dope, 02 Apr 2018So the last thing for Sony to do is, add proper optical stabilization!
OIS can't be implement... moreactually all fans are not the same. each of them has different way of thinking. it's ok to be a fan of a brand ,but dont worship it too much because all brands are not perfect.
and never accuse "troll !" to everybody wich have different opinions.
(i know there is a very stubborn fanboy who always do that.... accusing "troll" to everybody")
Erm i dont get it. Conclusion admires Sony but all image quality pictures Samsung S9 has more depth and doesnt have too crisp or artifacted look. Overall more natural and better colors.
Sony has good camera no doubt but cant match S9 for sure.
Low-light stills and 4K with tripod or with blurr, high mp with more noisy details than 2013 phone. Not even tele lens(in some + ver.), truer color QHD+ screen with deep blacks, worthy selfie,...its really bad. Poor those who buy it. They even cannot zoom in closely enough to see that because of zoom limit in phone. Wish gsma tested also audio recording capabilities, as if that does not matter.
Anonymous, 02 Apr 2018Both have same stuff. Turn on HDR, ISO, shutter speed, WB and manual focus. HDR goes ... moreHonest question: why would you want to record 5 minutes of the same scene? You don't see 5-minute long scenes in movies. And who wants to watch the same thing for 5 minutes or more?
Pretty close to what I expected with toned down processing on the xperia. Bokeh is an unexpected jump.
Xz2 pro or whatever is expected to have OIS, if they improve their hdr algorithm they can try for the top spot.
Note8 user, 02 Apr 2018So, in the conclusion it states that Xperia XZ2 is better than Galagxy S9 in low-light photogr... moreI think you need to go back and read it properly. Sony is better when a tripod is used, handheld galaxy S9 wins.
A few people said overall Sony wins... IÂ’m I reading the same article as them? Or fanboys always chose their brand?
Here are the results from reading the article.
-Daylight pics is a draw,
-Night shots the galaxy wins in terms of brightness, noise reduction, speed to take the pic and hand held shots. Sony can win with a tripod, but seriously how many people bring a tripod with them?
-Portraits (bokeh) Sony wins
-selfie Samsung wins
-Super slow mo, Samsung wins
-4K video and HDR vids (Sony), 1080p video (Samsung)
And those results are from the article, not from me.