The French verdict is in from DxOMark: iPhone X scores 97.
Compared to the Huawei Mate 10, which scored the same overall, the iPhone X has much better “zoom” (switching from the wide to the normal perspective camera?) and much worse autofocus (not great for parents of the young and restless).
The Google Pixel 2 scores only slightly higher overall, mostly because the iPhone X’s second camera/lens does way better in the “zoom” department than cropping from a single (wide) camera/lens as would be required for the Pixel 2. I wonder if this is true in low light. Certainly on the 7 Plus when capturing indoor scenes, cropping from the wide camera usually results in better image quality than switching to “2x”. It looks like the main camera on the Pixel 2 is much better for autofocus (98 versus 78). The Pixel 2 scores significantly better for video, but it simply won’t do 60 frames-per-second at 4K resolution so if the goal is capturing motion it is unclear that the two phones are truly comparable.
My take-away is surprise that the competition is so close. Apple has a vast advantage in money and engineering resources, yet they cannot beat Huawei or HTC and LG (the builders of the Pixel 2 and 2 XL, respectively). There is no getting around the physics when the case is that slim and therefore it is impossible to use a real sensor and real lens? Stuffing four more cameras in there and using them in parallel (see the Light L16) won’t help?
[I’m still sad that I can’t buy a phone that is 2-3X thicker than what is on the market today. It would still be thinner than an iPhone in a case and yet have room for a much better camera and days of battery life. Why wouldn’t Huawei do this in order to crush Apple, Samsung, Google, et al., in the photo quality department? They shouldn’t need new software. Just put in a larger sensor and corresponding lens and then feed the pixels to the same software as in a current Android device. Even if the “photo/battery nerd” phone gathered only 1 percent market share, that’s still more than 10 million devices (1.5 billion smartphones were sold in 2016). That’s roughly comparable to the entire market for DSLRs and mirrorless (source). Canon, Nikon, and Sony invest engineering and marketing resources to bring out $800 DSLRs. Why wouldn’t it be worth Huawei’s engineering and marketing resources to bring out a $1,200 “killer cameraphone”? It is so profitable to make regular phones that there is no reason to bother? (but Sony makes smartphones and they think it is also worth investing in the camera market)]
- iPhone X and 7 Plus cameras compared (links to full-res images from both)