[ciarannolan]

I wish these reviews would post the full res images. I clicked "View Image" on a few of these to see just the photo but they're all cropped and compressed.

Almost any flagship phone can produce similar pics to the ones in this article. The devil is really in the details now.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Even without the full resolution images, some of the samples seem to exhibit serious sharpness problems. One example:

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50730c37e4b03a...

If that's the output I can expect, I don't know why I'd even bother taking the picture. The image is a mess. On the basis of this article, my conclusion is if you want to share or view the images on anything other than a mobile device, you might be disappointed with the output of this camera. Better to stick with your a7 III or what have you.

[billforsternz]

It looks like a perfectly nice photo to me.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

I'm glad for you, but it looks very poor to me. I would be unhappy if I got home and this were the only image I had of this scene. For any given image, you'll be able to find someone who likes it or thinks it looks good enough. If that's your standard, then this camera might be great for you. But if you have a higher standard, then you might not be satisfied.

I'd also ask what kind of screen you're looking at the image on. This image looks fine on my phone, but its screen is barely as large as a 3x5, which is essentially the lowest common denominator for printing -- the McDonald's hamburger of photo rendition. The image looks bad on my monitor, and would look awful if printed on 8x10.

[sbuk]

It's not the original. It's a 2048×935 @ 72ppi, at a guess about 1/4 the actual size shot and it's been compressed so it can be uploaded onto a website. It's hardly a real representation of the capabilities of the camera.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

My bad, then. I don't know why I expected that a review of a camera would contain representative images from that camera. :P

[moogleii]

Yeah, I expected a bit more of a hardcore review. Maybe we'll have to wait until a dedicated photography blog reviews it. For what it's worth, there's this review here that compares its video capabilities to a Sony a7S III, although the reviewer seems unfamiliar with HDR workflows: https://petapixel.com/2020/10/26/sony-a7s-iii-vs-the-iphone-...

[billforsternz]

I'm looking at it on my Xiaomi Redmi 8 (maybe?) generic mid level Android phone. I recognise that I'm not very discerning in these matters (and no doubt many others) but by way of compensation I suspect this makes it easier to be happy and content.

[beervirus]

I mean.. that file is only 2048x935. It's a little hard to tell without the full res version.

[berryjerry]

That photo is insta-delete in my book at any resolution. I think it's just a bad scene all together but also nothing is sharp at any distance from the camera and colors look washed.

[huangc10]

I think the whole point of these reviews are...how will the images look on Instagram not necessarily for pixel peepers.

I agree with you completely, that when it comes down to the full image, the results are usually grainy and pixelated. That's why I'm sticking with my Sony camera.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> not necessarily for pixel peepers.

TBH, I think some of these photos look a little muddy and noisy even at 4x6 dimensions. Even some of the ones taken in daylight. Maybe there was an issue with the post-processing, but I wouldn't characterize someone who wants to print a 4x6 as a pixel peeper..

[buryat]

that's not true, the night mode on 12 pro is way better than other phones like 11 pro that they showed in comparison

[jonplackett]

Only on the super wide though. Night mode on normal lens is the same and already very good on 11.

[bydo]

The 12 Pro does Night Mode on all three lenses. The 11 Pro only does it on the "regular" wide.

The 12 Pro's "regular" wide also has a larger aperture to improve low light capture, so Night Mode can stack fewer / shorter exposures for the final image.