DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com/ The leading source of independent audio, display, battery and image quality measurements and ratings for smartphone, camera, lens, wireless speaker and laptop since 2008. Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:43:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/logo-o-transparent-150x150.png DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com/ 32 32 Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Camera test https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-camera-test/#respond Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:35:47 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=191242&preview=true&preview_id=191242 We put the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of our testing with an extract of the captured data.

Overview

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 200MP 1/1.3″ sensor, 0.6µm pixels, 23mm equivalent f/1.4-aperture lens, multi-directional PDAF, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 50MP 1/2.5″ sensor, 0.7µm pixels, 120˚ field of view, f/1.9-aperture lens, dual pixel PDAF
  • Tele 1: 10MP 1/3.94″ sensor, 1.0µm pixels, 67mm equivalent f/2.4-aperture lens, PDAF, OIS
  • Tele 2: 50MP 1/2.52″ sensor, 0.7µm pixels, 111mm equivalent f/2.9-aperture lens, PDAF, OIS

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
157
camera
160
Photo
Main
167

184

Bokeh
165

180

Ultra-Wide
139

169

Tele
141

170

153
Video
Main
160

186

Ultra-Wide
144

151

Tele
124

140

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 169

Portrait

Portrait photos of either one person or a group of people

BEST 185

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 180

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 149

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 159

Zoom

Photos and videos captured using zoom (more than 1x)

Pros

  • Good white balance in most conditions
  • Wide dynamic range
  • Pretty effective video stabilization
  • High levels of detail in macro photos

Cons

  • Exposure and color instabilities in various conditions
  • Background noise in indoor and low light portraits
  • Loss of fine face detail in real-life scenes
  • Slight frame shifts during small panning shots in video

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra performs strongly in the DXOMARK Camera test, bringing meaningful and well-implemented improvements over the previous generation of Samsung flagship devices particularly in low light, where the larger aperture and refined image processing deliver better detail, lower noise, and more stable color performance. Across photo attributes, the device shows clear progress in color accuracy, texture and noise trade-off, and telephoto consistency.

However, despite these gains, the S26 Ultra still falls short of many competing flagships in several critical areas. Exposure can remain unstable, noise is still more pronounced than on several competitors, and autofocus reliability especially in low light and when shooting with the ultra-wide module continues to lag behind the best in class. These shortcomings are increasingly conspicuous in a market where rivals have pushed image quality forward at a rapid pace, raising the bar at the ultra-premium level.

On the video side, improvements in exposure, color, noise control, and stabilization contribute to a solid and versatile performance, even if the top performers continue to maintain a measurable edge in demanding conditions. Overall, the S26 Ultra does not yet challenge the segment leaders, but remains a substantial and coherent upgrade that strengthens Samsung’s position and brings it closer to the front of the pack without fully closing the gap.

BEST 149
Lowlight

One of the S26 Ultra’s standout improvements over its predecessors is its low-light performance. The new camera features a faster aperture alongside refined image processing across key attributes — including texture, noise, and color — resulting in significantly improved low-light scores for both photo and video, and a noticeable step forward from the previous generation.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Night shot: Bright rendering on HDR screen, nice colors
BEST 169
Portrait

A further benefit of the wider aperture is an improved signal-to-noise ratio in backlit, high-contrast scenes, resulting in cleaner portrait subjects with less noise, better texture, and more accurate colors. Overall, these upgrades allow the S26 Ultra to deliver more reliable performance and better image quality in challenging lighting conditions.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Nice bokeh effect
BEST 159
Zoom

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra offers a refined zoom experience, with the telephoto module delivering cleaner images thanks to improved noise control and more natural rendering — though fine detail capture has slightly decreased compared to the predecessor. Color reproduction has also improved, with more accurate tones and better white balance in natural scenes. Samsung has also addressed several of the sporadic telephoto issues seen on the S25 Ultra, resulting in a more reliable performance overall. The ultra-wide camera benefits from similar noise reduction improvements and produces clean, stable results outdoors, though low-light shooting still suffers from autofocus failures that reduce sharpness and impact wide-angle scores. Overall, the S26 Ultra’s zoom system brings meaningful refinements that enhance consistency and image quality across focal lengths.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Camera tests: DXOMARK’s camera evaluations take place in laboratories and real-world situations using a wide variety of use-cases. The scores rely on objective tests for which the results are calculated directly using measurement software in our laboratory setups, and on perceptual tests where a sophisticated set of metrics allow a panel of image experts to compare aspects of image quality that require human judgment. Testing a smartphone involves a team of engineers and technicians for about a week. Photo and Video quality are scored separately and then combined into an overall score for comparison among the cameras in different devices. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera protocol, click here. More details on smartphone camera scores are available here. The following section gathers key elements of DXOMARK’s exhaustive tests and analyses. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Please contact us  on how to receive a full report.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Camera Scores
This graph compares DXOMARK photo and video scores between the tested device and references. Average and maximum scores of the price segment are also indicated. Average and maximum scores for each price segment are computed based on the DXOMARK database of devices tested.

Photo

160

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

180

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i
About DXOMARK Camera Photo tests

For scoring and analysis, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 3,800 test images in controlled lab environments as well as outdoor, indoor and low-light natural scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The photo protocol is designed to take into account the main use cases and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as portraits, landscape and zoom photography. The evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images against a reference of natural scenes, and by running objective measurements on images of charts captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

167

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

184

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Photo scores
The photo Main tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise in various light conditions. Autofocus performances and the presence of artifacts on all images captured in controlled lab conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help to understand the camera's main strengths and weaknesses at 1x.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra delivers a noticeable step forward in several key photo attributes, thanks to a wider aperture on the primary camera module and an updated image processing pipeline. The most significant gains come in color, where white balance is generally more accurate and skin tones are nicely rendered, as well as in texture and noise trade-off, which shows clear progress across most lighting conditions.

However, some of the shortcomings observed on the previous model persist. The exposure score remains unchanged, due to instabilities between consecutive shots that make results somewhat unpredictable in challenging scenes. Contrast handling in high-contrast scenes also remains an area of concern, with backgrounds often appearing flat.

While the improvements in detail retention and noise reduction are welcome, the S26 Ultra still lags behind some high-end competitors in those categories. Noise remains noticeable, particularly when shooting indoors or in low light, and fine detail is not always rendered at the level expected from a flagship device. As a result, the S26 Ultra shows solid progress but stops short of fully closing the gap to the best-in-class devices.

Close-Up

The Galaxy S26 Ultra’s close-up performance meets top-end flagship expectations, delivering high levels of detail and accurate colors in both indoor and outdoor scenes. However, in dimmer conditions, image quality is affected by noticeable noise.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – High levels of detail, accurate white balance
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – High levels of detail, slightly cold cast
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Good detail, blue color cast
Exposure
125

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

134

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
i

Exposure is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The main attribute evaluated is the brightness level of the main subject through various use cases such as landscape, portrait, or still life. Other factors evaluated are the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Photo HDR format, the images are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the ISO-22028-5 standard. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera's ability to provide the same rendering when shooting several images of the same scene.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra delivers good exposure performance in lab testing, with solid target accuracy and wide dynamic range. The camera typically aims for a bright overall rendering, but remains well within acceptable limits, giving images a distinctive look. Dynamic range is a notable strength, with good highlight retention in both lab and real-life scenes.

That said, some limitations persist. Our experts observed exposure inconsistencies across several conditions, particularly in low-light and backlit scenes, where brightness can vary noticeably between consecutive shots. Contrast handling in very bright areas of the frame is also an issue, as highlight tone compression can produce flat, unrealistic-looking spots in the brightest parts of the image.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Accurate (and bright) exposure, nice colors
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Accurate exposure, nice colors
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Accurate exposure, nice colors
Samsung Galaxy  S26 Ultra – Accurate face exposure, unnatural contrast in brightest part of the image
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slightly darker face exposure, but more natural highlights
Color
130

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

133

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Color is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The image quality attributes analyzed are skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, and repeatability. For color and skin tone rendering, we penalize unnatural colors according to results gathered in various studies and consumer insights while respecting the manufacturer's choice of color signature.

Color is one of the areas where the Galaxy S26 Ultra shows the most significant improvement over its predecessor. The device offers a well-balanced white balance response across nearly all test scenes, resulting in a strong overall color score that places it close to the category leaders. White balance is a standout strength, remaining accurate across a wide range of conditions — from backlit outdoor scenes to artificial low-light environments. The S26 Ultra also delivers pleasing, natural skin tones in most situations.

Some limitations remain, however, particularly in scenes where the subject is positioned in the brightest parts of the frame. In these situations, highlight color compression can result in occasional skin tone inaccuracies. Additionally, skies are sometimes rendered with a slight tendency toward muted or greyish tones. That said, these issues occur primarily in demanding high-brightness scenarios and are common across most devices.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Nice colors and skin tones
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Nice colors and skin tones
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Nice colors and skin tones,  slightly darker exposure on background face
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Neutral white balance and pleasant skin tones
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Yellow-green white balance cast
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Warm white balance and pleasant skin tones
Sharpness & Timing
110

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

135

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus repeatability, shooting time delay, and depth of field. Shooting delay is the difference between the time the user presses the capture button and the time the image is actually taken. It includes focusing speed and the capability of the device to capture images at the right time, what is called 'zero shutter lag' capability. Even if a shallow depth of field can be pleasant for a single subject portrait or close-up shot, it can also be a problem in some specific conditions such as group portraits; Both situations are tested. Focus accuracy is also evaluated in all the real-life images taken, from infinity to close-up objects and in low light to outdoor conditions.

Autofocus irregularity and speed: 1000Lux Δ0EV Daylight Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability by showing the edge acutance versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken in one light condition and indicated illuminant, 500ms after the defocus. The edge acutance is measured on the four edges of the Dead Leaves chart, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Autofocus irregularity and speed: 5Lux Δ0EV Tungsten Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability by showing the edge acutance versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken in one light condition and indicated illuminant, 500ms after the defocus. The edge acutance is measured on the four edges of the Dead Leaves chart, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.

In laboratory testing, the Galaxy S26 Ultra demonstrates fast and reliable autofocus in bright light, achieving quick AF lock with good accuracy. In low-light conditions, however, there is a noticeable capture delay of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds between the shutter press and actual capture, which can result in missed shot opportunities. Despite the slowdown in dim conditions, autofocus precision remains generally solid, with only minor issues observed in real-life scenes.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Autofocus failure, low brightness on face and low level of detail preservation
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra
Sharp and bright portrait

One additional factor affecting the focus score is the shallow depth of field. In group shots, typically only the subject closest to the camera appears fully sharp, while people positioned further back — along with the background tend to look blurred. Unlike some rivals, the S26 Ultra employs no hardware or software mechanism to compensate for this, leaving its depth-of-field performance slightly behind that of some competitors.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Depth of field
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Shallow depth of field, second face slightly out of focus
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra - Depth of field
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra - Wide depth of field, both faces in focus
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL - Depth of field
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL - Wide depth of field, both faces in focus
Texture
124

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

132

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and the texture of subjects in the images taken in the lab as well as in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, particular attention is paid to the level of details in the bright and dark areas of the image. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken in various lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The charts used are the proprietary DXOMARK chart (DMC), and the Dead Leaves chart. We also have an AI based metric for the level of details on our realistic mannequins Eugene and Diana.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score vs lux levels for handheld conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with the level of lux, for two holding conditions. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra delivers improved detail over its predecessor, maintaining higher levels of fine detail, with better rendering of facial features across various lighting conditions in real-life scenes. Texture performance also benefits from more effective handling of high-contrast scenes, where details are now better retained across both highlight and shadow areas.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Texture
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Good detail, controlled noise
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra - Texture
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra - Good detail, noticeable noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Texture
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Good detail, controlled noise

However, detail rendering is not always consistent and very few times it even fails to match Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra details rendering. If compared to Apple iPhone 17 Pro, the lower image resolution in bright light conditions leads to poorer fine details reproduction than the Apple flagship.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Low face detail preservation
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra
Sharp face details
Noise
117

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

129

Oppo Find X8 Ultra
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure on real-life images as well as images of charts taken in the lab. For natural images, particular attention is paid to the noise on faces, landscapes, but also on dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Noise on moving objects is also evaluated on natural images. Objective measurements are performed on images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart and the standardized measurement such as Visual Noise derived from ISO 15739.

Visual noise evolution with illuminance levels in handheld condition
This graph shows the evolution of visual noise metric with the level of lux in handheld condition. The visual noise metric is the mean of visual noise measurement on all patches of the Dead Leaves chart in the AFHDR setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.

Noise management has also been clearly improved on the Galaxy S26 Ultra. While the S25 Ultra suffered from pronounced noise — particularly in backlit scenes Samsung has reworked its processing pipeline, resulting in a noise profile that is now much more acceptable for a flagship device. Progress is evident across most lighting conditions, with a notable reduction in noise levels and a noise score that approaches that of the Apple iPhone. In extreme lowlight conditions (below 10 lux), The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra goes for a different strategy to predecessor, by allowing more noise for more natural details rendition on the scene.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Weaker denoising for better details rendition
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra
Stronger denoising, fine details are locally lost

That said, a significant gap to the best-in-class devices remains, in both lab measurements and perceptual evaluation. In many real-life scenes, especially portraits, background noise remains distracting across various lighting conditions, and lab metrics continue to show higher noise levels than those of most top-end competitors.

When considering texture and noise together, the Galaxy S26 Ultra shows a clear improvement over the previous generation. Despite this progress, however, the combined performance still trails that of the leading competitors, who offer cleaner backgrounds and more consistent fine detail across all conditions.

Samsung S26 Ultra - Noise
Samsung S26 Ultra - Slight background noise
Samsung S25 Ultra - Noise
Samsung S25 Ultra - Quite noticeable background noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Slight background noise
Artifacts
75

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

81

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL
i

The artifacts evaluation looks at flare, lens shading, chromatic aberrations, geometrical distortion, edges ringing, halos, ghosting, quantization, unexpected color hue shifts, among others type of possible unnatural effects on photos. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction on the score. The main artifacts observed and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Overall, Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra is improved compared to previous version, but some artifacts like halo and fusion artifacts remains sometimes visible, which has become very rare on competition.

Main photo artifacts penalties

 

 

 

Bokeh

165

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

180

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Bokeh is tested in one dedicated mode, usually portrait or aperture mode, and analyzed by visually inspecting all the images captured in the lab and in natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce portrait photography comparable to one taken with a DLSR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes paid attention to are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and the shape of the bokeh blur spotlights. Portrait image quality attributes (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra offers a capable portrait mode with generally accurate subject segmentation that handles most outlines well, though small details such as fine hair or intricate edges still show occasional imprecision. The background blur is convincing and stable, though users may notice subtle shifts in color or exposure compared to the standard photo mode. While the overall rendering is pleasing, texture preservation does not match the very best smartphone cameras in this category, leaving some fine details slightly softened.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Bokeh mode
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Inaccurate segmentation of fine detail (hair), loss of face detail
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL - Bokeh mode
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL - Slightly inaccurate segmentation of fine detail (hair), loss of fine face detail, low noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Bokeh mode
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Accurate segmentation of fine detail (hair), loss of fine face detail, low noise

Tele

141

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

170

Vivo X300 Pro
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 40 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and detail. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life images.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Telephoto Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

The S26 Ultra’s telephoto score remains close to that of last year’s model, with only minor progression. While texture measurements show some decrease (graph below with lower DMC score on most zoom ratio tested), improved noise levels result in cleaner images overall. Although perceived sharpness is slightly lower, the overall rendering appears more natural. Color reproduction also shows progress, with more accurate tones and better white balance in real-life scenes. Additionally, several of the occasional telephoto failures observed during S25 Ultra testing are no longer present on the S26 Ultra, contributing to a more reliable experience overall.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Samsung S26 Ultra - Tele
Samsung S26 Ultra - Natural texture/noise rendering, pleasant colors
Samsung S25 Ultra - Tele
Samsung S25 Ultra - Unnatural texture/noise rendering, artifacts and greenish cast
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL - Tele
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL - Slightly unnatural texture/noise rendering

UltraWide

139

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

169

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

These tests analyze the performance of the ultra-wide camera at several focal lengths from 12 mm to 20 mm. All image quality attributes are evaluated, with particular attention paid to such artifacts as chromatic aberrations, lens softness, and distortion. Pictures below are an extract of tested scenes.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Ultra-Wide Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

Measurements from the S26 Ultra’s ultra-wide camera show improved noise levels compared to the previous generation, consistent with the progress observed on the primary and telephoto modules. In outdoor conditions, the ultra-wide delivers good overall quality, with clean images and stable rendering. In low light, however, autofocus failures significantly impact the texture score, leading to reduced sharpness and dragging down the overall wide-angle score compared to predecessor and other flagships.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Samsung Galaxy  S26 Ultra – Nice colors, brightest rendering, fine details on fabric are lost
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL – Nice colors, slight lack of brightness on face
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Nice colors, fine details very well recovered

Video

153

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

172

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i
About DXOMARK Camera Video tests

DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate almost 3 hours of video in controlled lab environments and in natural low-light, indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken in various conditions and running objective measurements on videos of charts recorded in the lab under different conditions from 0.1 to 10000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

 

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra’s video mode benefits from improved multi-frame processing, enhanced HDR video algorithms, and refined optical image stabilization hardware. The device supports up to 8K recording and offers 4K capture across multiple focal lengths, leveraging its advanced sensor-shift OIS and gyro-EIS fusion stabilization system. Testing was conducted at 4K resolution, 60fps, and with HDR10 activated, which yielded the best overall results.

Overall, the S26 Ultra represents a meaningful improvement over the S25 Ultra in video, offering reliable exposure, attractive color, solid noise control, and effective stabilization. While it does not quite redefine video quality in the ultra-premium segment, it remains a versatile performer that will satisfy most users — even if the very best video-focused devices still maintain a measurable edge, particularly in low-light conditions.

Main

160

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

186

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Video scores
Video Main tests analyze the same image quality attributes as for still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, in addition to temporal aspects such as speed, and smoothness and stability of exposure, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
Exposure
121

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

133

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Exposure tests evaluate the brightness level of the main subject, the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Video HDR format, the videos are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the metadata. Stability and temporal adaption of the exposure are also analyzed.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.

Video exposure is generally good across all conditions and scene types. The S26 Ultra maintains stable target exposure and wide dynamic range, particularly in bright scenes where highlight clipping is well contained — broadly on par with the S25 Ultra and iPhone 17 Pro. Occasionally, target exposure can run slightly low, for example in backlit portrait situations.

Auto-exposure works effectively, with correct adaptation to changes in illumination. In one test scene featuring a subject appearing in front of a window, adaptation was slow, though the eventual target exposure was correct.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Accurate and stable target expsoure

Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Accurate and stable target expsoure

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Accurate and stable target expsoure
Color
119

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

131

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Image-quality color analysis looks at color rendering, skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, stability of the white balance and its adaption when light is changing.

Video color rendering is generally pleasing, with natural tones and convincing skin tones across most daylight and indoor scenes. White balance can show noticeable oscillations during changes in illumination, especially under mixed or transitional lighting and at lower light levels, which affects consistency. In low light, skin tones can also appear slightly unnatural, particularly darker complexions.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Slightly inaccurate skin tones and color

Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Slightly inaccurate skin tones and color

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Acceptable skin tones and color
Sharpness & Timing
88

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

124

Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
i

For video, autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus stability and analysis of convergence regarding speed and smoothness.

Autofocus is one of the weaker aspects of the S26 Ultra’s video performance. While the laser-assisted phase-detection system is mostly accurate in simple scenes, it is slow to adapt to abrupt focus plane changes, particularly in low light. Subject tracking lacks smoothness and continuity when following moving subjects, and occasional focus breathing is noticeable, especially during reframing or when subjects move toward or away from the camera.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Slight loss of focus at the start of tracking

Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Good focus tracking

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Good focus tracking
Texture
106

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

118

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Noise
119

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

129

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and texture of the real-life videos as well as the videos of charts recorded in the lab. Natural videos recordings are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the level of details in the bright and areas as well as in the dark. Objective measurements are performed of images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The charts used are the DXOMARK chart (DMC) and Dead Leaves chart.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation video score vs lux levels
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation video score with the level of lux in video. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure, temporal aspects on real-life video recording as well as videos of charts taken in the lab. Natural videos are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the noise in the dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Objective measurements are performed on the videos of charts recorded in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The chart used is the DXOMARK visual noise chart.

Spatial visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Temporal visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup.

The S26 Ultra’s approach to video texture and noise tuning differs from that of the S25 Ultra, which is particularly noticeable in low light. Texture rendering is acceptable, with sufficient detail for most use cases, though in daylight recording, a loss of very fine detail and sharpness is noticeable compared to the best competitors in the segment and even the predecessor S25 Ultra.

Noise is well controlled in daylight and under typical indoor lighting — a clear differentiator from the S25 Ultra, enabled by the newer model’s wider aperture. In low light, Samsung appears to prioritize clean, noise-free images, particularly in portrait scenes, applying relatively aggressive denoising. While this results in visually cleaner footage, it comes at the expense of detail preservation in many situations, introducing artifacts such as areas of moving texture and background deformations.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Well controlled noise, loss of detail

Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Visible noise, lack of detail

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Well controlled noise, loss of fine detail
Stabilization
116

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

124

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Stabilization evaluation tests the ability of the device to stabilize footage thanks to software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS, or any others means. The evaluation looks at residual motion, smoothness, jello artifacts and residual motion blur on walk and run use cases in various lighting conditions. The video below is an extract from one of the tested scenes.

Video stabilization is another strong point of the S26 Ultra, even with the new horizon lock feature — designed to keep framing level — disabled. This feature is not covered by our test protocol, as it is disabled by default. The system performs well at keeping footage stable when walking, when recording handheld while stationary, and even during more dynamic camera motion. Footage is smooth and watchable, broadly comparable to that of the iPhone 17 Pro in most conditions.

On the downside, minor frame shifts are noticeable during small panning movements, likely due to interaction between the optical and electronic components of the stabilization system. While not dramatic, this artifact can be distracting in otherwise smooth sequences.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Effective stabilization

Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Effective stabilization

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Effective stabilization
Artifacts
88

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

89

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ringing measurements on the SFR chart in the lab as well as frame-rate measurements using the LED Universal Timer. Natural videos are visually evaluated by paying particular attention to artifacts such as aliasing, quantization, blocking, and hue shift, among others. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main video artifacts penalties

UltraWide

144

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

151

Motorola Signature
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 12 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and smoothness of the zooming effect. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life video recordings.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Tele

124

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

140

Vivo X200 Ultra
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Compared to the S25 Ultra, the S26 Ultra shows a significant decrease in texture measurements when zooming in video mode, indicating a clear loss of fine detail when recording across both the telephoto and ultra-wide camera modules. Despite this, the rendering appears more natural, with fewer artifacts, less noise, and reduced oversharpening. Samsung is likely to address the texture tuning in an upcoming firmware update, and may yet match or surpass the S25 Ultra’s texture measurements in the near future.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra – Slight field-of-view jumps between camera modules, relatively consistent image quality

Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra – Slight field-of-view jumps between camera modules, consistent image quality

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slight field-of-view jumps between camera modules, consistent image quality

The post Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-camera-test/feed/ 0 duo_seinenight (2)_ref solo_treegirl_PORTRAIT (4)_Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra FlowerMacro_SamsungGalaxyS26Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 FlowerMacro_SamsungGalaxyS25Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 FlowerMacro_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 HelloMotion_SamsungGalaxyS26Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 HelloMotion_SamsungGalaxyS25Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 HelloMotion_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 Backlit_Curtain_SamsungGalaxyS26Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 Backlit_Curtain_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 BoysBand_SamsungGalaxyS26Ultra_DxOMark_06-00 BoysBand_SamsungGalaxyS25Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 BoysBand_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 duo_nightseine (3)_Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra duo_nightseine (2)_Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra duo_nightseine (2)_iPhone 17 Pro Max solo_columnlean_ULTRAWIDE (2)_ref solo_columnlean_ULTRAWIDE (2)_Google Pixel 10 Pro XL solo_columnlean_ULTRAWIDE (2)_iPhone 17 Pro Max Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Comparing Performance in the Ultra-Premium Class https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-comparing-performance-in-the-ultra-premium-class/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-comparing-performance-in-the-ultra-premium-class/#respond Sat, 07 Mar 2026 11:31:32 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=191497 Before unveiling the full scores and complete review in the coming days, let’s take a closer look at how the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra performs in several key areas compared with other ultra-premium smartphones, including the iPhone 17 Pro and the Motorola Signature. Samsung has introduced a number of improvements over the previous generation, but [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Comparing Performance in the Ultra-Premium Class appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> Before unveiling the full scores and complete review in the coming days, let’s take a closer look at how the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra performs in several key areas compared with other ultra-premium smartphones, including the iPhone 17 Pro and the Motorola Signature. Samsung has introduced a number of improvements over the previous generation, but some gaps still remain when measured against the latest flagship competitors.

Low-Light Performance

The Galaxy S26 Ultra brings a few hardware updates, including a wider aperture on the main camera and a new 5× telephoto lens. These changes help the camera capture more light, which improves performance in difficult conditions such as low-light photography and video.

Together with Samsung’s Pro Scaler technology, the phone shows better noise control and a more balanced level of detail compared with the Galaxy S25 Ultra. Images taken in low light look cleaner overall, especially when slightly zooming in on the main camera.

Despite these improvements, the S26 Ultra still trails the iPhone 17 Pro in challenging low-light scenes. In our comparisons, Samsung’s device showed more visible luminance noise and slightly less detail in portraits captured in dim environments.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Apple iPhone 17 Pro

Portrait Photography: Building on the Previous Generation

Portrait performance has improved compared with the Galaxy S25 Ultra. The previous model often struggled with color accuracy in difficult lighting, sometimes producing unnatural skin tones. With the S26 Ultra, Samsung appears to have addressed this issue. Face brightness is also fairly similar between Samsung and Apple devices. In some lower-contrast scenes, the S26 Ultra even applies a slightly stronger brightness boost to faces, which may help portraits appear more flattering.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra

Areas for Improvement

Even with these improvements, the S26 Ultra still faces some challenges in portrait photography. Our tests revealed occasional autofocus inconsistencies, particularly in low light or complex lighting situations. When focus is slightly off, facial details can appear softer and exposure on the face may be less accurate.

Portrait mode (bokeh) is another area where the phone still struggles to match the best devices in the segment. Images sometimes show lower clarity and less effective noise reduction compared with competing flagship phones. Subject separation can also be inconsistent. In some scenes, small segmentation errors appear around the edges of the subject, creating visible gaps between the person and the blurred background.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs iPhone 17 Pro Comparison
(Left: Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra - Right: Apple iPhone 17 Pro) - Beyond portrait quality, there is also a noticeable gap in segmentation accuracy, with flagship devices overall failing to deliver consistently satisfying results in this mode.
Lack of image clarity and noise reduction with noticeable gap in subject segmentation on the S26 Ultra

Zoom Remains a Key Strength

One area where the Galaxy S26 Ultra continues to perform very well is zoom. Thanks to its dual telephoto system, the phone delivers strong results across many zoom levels in both photo and video.

In many situations, the S26 Ultra still preserves slightly more detail than the iPhone 17 Pro. However, competitors are quickly closing the gap. Motorola’s Signature flagship, for example, performs particularly well in medium-range telephoto portraits around 3× zoom, where it preserves more facial texture and detail than the Samsung device.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Motorola Signature

Initial Assessment

In this quick review comparing its performance with other major flagship smartphones, we’ve seen that the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra brings noticeable improvements over the previous generation, particularly in low-light capture, noise control, and skin-tone rendering. These refinements make it a more capable device for portrait photography, although some limitations remain. Competing flagship smartphones still deliver cleaner low-light portraits, more consistent subject separation, and stronger detail in certain zoom scenarios.

Overall, the Galaxy S26 Ultra remains a strong contender especially for zoom photography but it now faces increasingly strong competition in portrait and low-light imaging within the ultra-premium segment.

A full evaluation, including detailed scores and a complete analysis of the camera performance, will be published soon so stay tuned for the full review.

The post Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Comparing Performance in the Ultra-Premium Class appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-ultra-comparing-performance-in-the-ultra-premium-class/feed/ 0 duo_seinenight (2)_Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra duo_seinenight (4)_iPhone 17 Pro Max duo_nightseine (4)Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra duo_nightseine (2)_Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra samsung_s26_comparison (6) solo_profileguy_CLOSE (5)Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra solo_profileguy_CLOSE (3)_Motorola Signature Google Pixel 10a Camera test https://www.dxomark.com/google-pixel-10a-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/google-pixel-10a-camera-test/#respond Thu, 05 Mar 2026 13:00:57 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=191172&preview=true&preview_id=191172 We put the Google Pixel 10a through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of [...]

The post Google Pixel 10a Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Google Pixel 10a through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of our testing with an extract of the captured data.

Overview

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 48 MP, f/1.7, 25mm (wide), 1/2.0″, 0.8µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 13 MP, f/2.2, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.1″, 1.12µm

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Google Pixel 10a
134
camera
149
Photo
Main
167

184

Bokeh
150

180

Ultra-Wide
155

169

Tele
99

170

109
Video
Main
150

186

Ultra-Wide
134

151

Tele
25

140

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 169

Portrait

Portrait photos of either one person or a group of people

BEST 185

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 180

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 149

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 159

Zoom

Photos and videos captured using zoom (more than 1x)

Pros

  • Exposure is generally accurate in most tested conditions, with a fairly wide dynamic range. (Photo Video)
  • Autofocus is fast and repeatable most of the time. (Photo & Video)
  • Fairly neutral white balance and good color rendering in most tested conditions. (Photo & Video)
  • Good rendering of fine detail in daylight and indoor conditions. (Photo & Video)
  • The ultrawide camera delivers images with accurate exposure, colors, and details. (Photo & Zoom)

Cons

  • Noise can be very visible in low-light conditions. (Photo & Video)
  • Exposure and white balance instabilities are sometimes visible in dimer light conditions (Photo)
  • Level of detail is limited in challenging lighting conditions. (Video)
  • Some focus instabilities are occasionally visible. (Video)
  • Limited zoom capabilities with no dedicated tele module. (Photo and Video Zoom)

The Google Pixel 10a delivers strong overall performance, particularly in still photography. In bright conditions, image quality is impressive and in line with the Pixel 10 Pro XL, with accurate exposure and pleasant, well-balanced colors. Faces are often rendered with a slightly brighter target exposure, which contributes to flattering portrait results. The camera achieves a good texture-to-noise trade-off in well-lit environments, preserving fine details while keeping noise levels under control. The ultra-wide camera is another highlight, producing images with accurate exposure, natural colors, and a solid level of detail, making it a meaningful advantage in its category. In addition, the wider depth of field in photo mode compared to the Pixel 10 Pro XL can be beneficial for landscape shots and group pictures, where maintaining sharpness across multiple subjects is important.

That said, some limitations remain. The absence of a dedicated telephoto module reduces zoom flexibility, with magnification relying primarily on cropping from the main sensor. As a result, zoom performance is more limited compared to devices such as the iPhone Air. In lower light conditions, visible noise increases and fine detail decreases and minor exposure instabilities may occasionally appear. In video mode, some focus instabilities can also be noticeable.

Google Pixel 10a – Bright face rendering and pleasant skin tones, sharp image with well controlled noise in bright conditions
BEST 149
Lowlight

In low light, the Pixel 10a shows a noticeable drop in performance compared to the Pixel 10 Pro XL. Noise becomes more visible, and target exposure can sometimes be slightly lower than expected. Colors remain generally pleasant, although occasional color casts may appear under artificial lighting.

While photo mode still retains a decent level of detail for the price segment, fine detail preservation is weaker in video, where texture loss becomes more apparent. Despite these limitations, low-light performance remains fairly competitive within its segment.

Google Pixel 10a – Slightly lower target exposure, pleasant colors and good level of details
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL – Accurate target exposure, pleasant colors and pretty good level of details
BEST 169
Portrait

Portrait mode on the Pixel 10a provides a reliable experience, with good exposure on faces and pleasant color rendering. In bright lighting, the camera maintains a good level of detail, resulting in sharp and natural-looking portraits. The wider depth of field is particularly beneficial for group shots, ensuring that multiple subjects remain in focus. Overall, the device performs well for portrait photography in its price range.

Google Pixel 10a – Pleasant portrait rendering with neutral white balance
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL – Pleasant portrait rendering with neutral white balance but slight darker face exposure
BEST 159
Zoom

The ultra-wide camera delivers good quality images in photo mode, with accurate exposure, pleasant colors, and a satisfactory level of detail. However, the lack of a dedicated telephoto module significantly limits zoom versatility. Zooming relies primarily on cropping from the main sensor, resulting in reduced detail at higher magnification levels. As a result, overall zoom performance falls short of devices such as the iPhone Air, particularly at longer focal lengths.

Google Pixel 10a
Low level of details
Google Pixel 10 Pro XL
Good level of details

Test summary

About DXOMARK Camera tests: DXOMARK’s camera evaluations take place in laboratories and real-world situations using a wide variety of use-cases. The scores rely on objective tests for which the results are calculated directly using measurement software in our laboratory setups, and on perceptual tests where a sophisticated set of metrics allow a panel of image experts to compare aspects of image quality that require human judgment. Testing a smartphone involves a team of engineers and technicians for about a week. Photo and Video quality are scored separately and then combined into an overall score for comparison among the cameras in different devices. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera protocol, click here. More details on smartphone camera scores are available here. The following section gathers key elements of DXOMARK’s exhaustive tests and analyses. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Please contact us  on how to receive a full report.

Google Pixel 10 A Camera Scores
This graph compares DXOMARK photo and video scores between the tested device and references. Average and maximum scores of the price segment are also indicated. Average and maximum scores for each price segment are computed based on the DXOMARK database of devices tested.

Photo

149

Google Pixel 10a

180

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i
About DXOMARK Camera Photo tests

For scoring and analysis, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 3,800 test images in controlled lab environments as well as outdoor, indoor and low-light natural scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The photo protocol is designed to take into account the main use cases and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as portraits, landscape and zoom photography. The evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images against a reference of natural scenes, and by running objective measurements on images of charts captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

167

Google Pixel 10a

184

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Google Pixel 10 A Photo scores
The photo Main tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise in various light conditions. Autofocus performances and the presence of artifacts on all images captured in controlled lab conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help to understand the camera's main strengths and weaknesses at 1x.
Exposure
132

Google Pixel 10a

134

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Color
128

Google Pixel 10a

133

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Exposure and color are the key attributes for technically good pictures. For exposure, the main attribute evaluated is the brightness level of the main subject through various use cases such as landscape, portrait, or still life. Other factors evaluated are the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Photo HDR format, the images are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the ISO-22028-5 standard. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera's ability to provide the same rendering when shooting several images of the same scene.
For color, the image quality attributes analyzed are skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, and repeatability. For color and skin tone rendering, we penalize unnatural colors according to results gathered in various studies and consumer insights while respecting the manufacturer's choice of color signature.

Sharpness & Timing
114

Google Pixel 10a

135

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus repeatability, shooting time delay, and depth of field. Shooting delay is the difference between the time the user presses the capture button and the time the image is actually taken. It includes focusing speed and the capability of the device to capture images at the right time, what is called 'zero shutter lag' capability. Even if a shallow depth of field can be pleasant for a single subject portrait or close-up shot, it can also be a problem in some specific conditions such as group portraits; Both situations are tested. Focus accuracy is also evaluated in all the real-life images taken, from infinity to close-up objects and in low light to outdoor conditions.

Edge acutance irregularity and average shooting delay along all tested conditions
This graph illustrates focus irregularity and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability, for different light conditions. Each point is the result of the aggregation of the measurements for a group of 30 pictures per conditions. The y-axis shows the average acutance difference with the best focus in percentage. The lower the better. On the x-axis, a negative delay means the photo is taken just before the user triggers the shutter, a positive delay means the photo is taken just after. The closer to 0 ms, the better. Acutance and delay are measured respectively using the Dead leaves chart and the LED Universal Timer, on the AF HDR Setup.
Autofocus irregularity and speed: 1000Lux Δ0EV Daylight Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability by showing the edge acutance versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken in one light condition and indicated illuminant, 500ms after the defocus. The edge acutance is measured on the four edges of the Dead Leaves chart, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Texture
122

Google Pixel 10a

132

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and the texture of subjects in the images taken in the lab as well as in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, particular attention is paid to the level of details in the bright and dark areas of the image. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken in various lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The charts used are the proprietary DXOMARK chart (DMC), and the Dead Leaves chart. We also have an AI based metric for the level of details on our realistic mannequins Eugene and Diana.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score vs lux levels for handheld conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with the level of lux, for two holding conditions. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
119

Google Pixel 10a

129

Oppo Find X8 Ultra
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure on real-life images as well as images of charts taken in the lab. For natural images, particular attention is paid to the noise on faces, landscapes, but also on dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Noise on moving objects is also evaluated on natural images. Objective measurements are performed on images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart and the standardized measurement such as Visual Noise derived from ISO 15739.

Visual noise evolution with illuminance levels in handheld condition
This graph shows the evolution of visual noise metric with the level of lux in handheld condition. The visual noise metric is the mean of visual noise measurement on all patches of the Dead Leaves chart in the AFHDR setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Artifacts
79

Google Pixel 10a

81

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL
i

The artifacts evaluation looks at flare, lens shading, chromatic aberrations, geometrical distortion, edges ringing, halos, ghosting, quantization, unexpected color hue shifts, among others type of possible unnatural effects on photos. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction on the score. The main artifacts observed and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main photo artifacts penalties

Bokeh

150

Google Pixel 10a

180

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Bokeh is tested in one dedicated mode, usually portrait or aperture mode, and analyzed by visually inspecting all the images captured in the lab and in natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce portrait photography comparable to one taken with a DLSR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes paid attention to are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and the shape of the bokeh blur spotlights. Portrait image quality attributes (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.

Tele

99

Google Pixel 10a

170

Vivo X300 Pro
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 40 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and detail. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life images.

Google Pixel 10 A Telephoto Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

UltraWide

155

Google Pixel 10a

169

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

These tests analyze the performance of the ultra-wide camera at several focal lengths from 12 mm to 20 mm. All image quality attributes are evaluated, with particular attention paid to such artifacts as chromatic aberrations, lens softness, and distortion. Pictures below are an extract of tested scenes.

Google Pixel 10 A Ultra-Wide Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Video

109

Google Pixel 10a

172

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i
About DXOMARK Camera Video tests

DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate almost 3 hours of video in controlled lab environments and in natural low-light, indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken in various conditions and running objective measurements on videos of charts recorded in the lab under different conditions from 0.1 to 10000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

150

Google Pixel 10a

186

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Google Pixel 10 A Video scores
Video Main tests analyze the same image quality attributes as for still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, in addition to temporal aspects such as speed, and smoothness and stability of exposure, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
Exposure
102

Google Pixel 10a

133

Vivo X300 Pro
Color
117

Google Pixel 10a

131

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Exposure tests evaluate the brightness level of the main subject, the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Video HDR format, the videos are analyzed with visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the metadata. Stability and temporal adaption of the exposure are also analyzed.
Image-quality color analysis looks at color rendering, skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, stability of the white balance and its adaption when light is changing.

Texture
96

Google Pixel 10a

118

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and texture of the real-life videos as well as the videos of charts recorded in the lab. Natural videos recordings are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the level of details in the bright and areas as well as in the dark. Objective measurements are performed of images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The charts used are the DXOMARK chart (DMC) and Dead Leaves chart.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation video score vs lux levels
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation video score with the level of lux in video. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
93

Google Pixel 10a

129

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure, temporal aspects on real-life video recording as well as videos of charts taken in the lab. Natural videos are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the noise in the dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Objective measurements are performed on the videos of charts recorded in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The chart used is the DXOMARK visual noise chart.

Spatial visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Temporal visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup.
Stabilization
113

Google Pixel 10a

124

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Stabilization evaluation tests the ability of the device to stabilize footage thanks to software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS, or any others means. The evaluation looks at residual motion, smoothness, jello artifacts and residual motion blur on walk and run use cases in various lighting conditions. The video below is an extract from one of the tested scenes.

Artifacts
80

Google Pixel 10a

89

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ringing measurements on the SFR chart in the lab as well as frame-rate measurements using the LED Universal Timer. Natural videos are visually evaluated by paying particular attention to artifacts such as aliasing, quantization, blocking, and hue shift, among others. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main video artifacts penalties

UltraWide

134

Google Pixel 10a

151

Motorola Signature
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Tele

25

Google Pixel 10a

140

Vivo X200 Ultra
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 12 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and smoothness of the zooming effect. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life video recordings.

The post Google Pixel 10a Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/google-pixel-10a-camera-test/feed/ 0 GreyBuilding_GooglePixel10A_DxOMark_05-00 GameRoom_GooglePixel10A_DxOMark_05-00 GameRoom_GooglePixel10ProXL_DxOMark_05-00 FaceToFace_GooglePixel10A_DxOMark_05-00 FaceToFace_GooglePixel10ProXL_DxOMark_05-00 Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Camera test https://www.dxomark.com/tecno-camon-50-ultra-5g-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/tecno-camon-50-ultra-5g-camera-test/#respond Tue, 03 Mar 2026 10:49:36 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=190908&preview=true&preview_id=190908 We put the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important [...]

The post Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of our testing with an extract of the captured data.

Overview

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 50 MP, f/1.8, 23mm (wide), 1/1.56″, 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 8 MP, f/2.2, 14mm, 112˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0″, 1.12µm
  • Tele: 50 MP, f/2.4, 70mm (telephoto), 1/2.88″, 0.61µm, PDAF, 3x optical zoom

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
146
camera
154
Photo
Main
166

184

Bokeh
155

180

Ultra-Wide
122

169

Tele
126

170

132
Video
Main
136

186

Ultra-Wide
98

151

Tele
121

140

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 169

Portrait

Portrait photos of either one person or a group of people

BEST 185

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 180

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 149

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 159

Zoom

Photos and videos captured using zoom (more than 1x)

Pros

  • Generally pleasant exposure and colors. Well-rendered skin tones for all skin types in photo
  • Autofocus is rather fast and accurate, with some extended depth for group pictures thanks to AI face detail enhancement
  • Especially considering the price range, level of details is high, with limited noise in most conditions (even in night/lowlight)
  • Tele photo performance is consistent with main camera (photo & video)
  • Generally good level of details and low noise in video
  • Decent Portrait mode

Cons

  • Exposure instabilities (overall lightness and contrast) and to a lesser extend white balance instabilities can be noticeable in most conditions (photo & video)
  • Some artifacts like fusion artifacts and face rendering artifacts can be noticeable in photos (main & tele)
  • Ultra wide camera quality lags a bit behind main and tele

The Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G’s main camera delivers consistently strong performance across a range of conditions. Exposure and color reproduction are generally pleasant, producing images that feel natural and well-balanced. Skin tones are accurately rendered across different skin types, and fine details are preserved, resulting in sharp, clear photos. Autofocus is fast and precise, allowing easy capture of both static and moving subjects. Group shots benefit from extended depth, enhanced by AI face detail optimization, which keeps faces well-defined even at the edges of the frame.

Noise is well controlled in most situations, including indoor and moderately low-light settings, while artifacts, such as occasional face rendering inconsistencies, sometimes impact overall image quality. The camera also handles dynamic range reasonably well, maintaining detail in highlights and shadows in most scenes. Overall, the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G delivers a pleasing photography experience for its price segment.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G – Bright face rendering and neutral skin tones even in complex environments, sharp image with well controlled noise
BEST 149
Lowlight

In low light, the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G maintains a good level of detail with limited noise. Faces are generally bright and well-rendered, although they can appear slightly brighter than the background in some situations. Exposure instabilities, particularly in overall lightness and contrast, as well as occasional white balance fluctuations, can be observed in challenging lighting conditions. Despite these limitations, the camera produces neutral skin tones and sharp images down to low-light environments, offering strong performance for its price segment.

BEST 169
Portrait

Portrait mode on the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G delivers a solid and reliable experience, producing natural skin tones even in challenging or complex environments. Depth rendering is generally accurate, providing a convincing separation between subject and background, though subtle depth artifacts can occasionally be noticed. Minor rendering instabilities may appear in certain scenes, but they rarely detract from the overall image quality. Overall, the mode produces consistently pleasing results, making it well-suited for everyday portrait shots.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G – Bright Portrait rendering with pleasant skin tone rendering
Google Pixel 9a – Cold cast, slight low brightness, neutral skin tone
Samsung Galaxy A56 – Slight green cast, and natural skin tones, no HDR format available
BEST 159
Zoom

The Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G telephoto lens performs consistently with the main camera in both photo and video capture, providing reliable detail and low noise. The ultra-wide camera quality is slightly lower, with images that can be less sharp and exhibit more noise compared to the main and telephoto lenses. Overall, the zoom performance is solid for mid-range photography needs.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Slight visible noise, fine details preserved
Google Pixel 9a
Slight noise visible, fine details are lost

Test summary

About DXOMARK Camera tests: DXOMARK’s camera evaluations take place in laboratories and real-world situations using a wide variety of use-cases. The scores rely on objective tests for which the results are calculated directly using measurement software in our laboratory setups, and on perceptual tests where a sophisticated set of metrics allow a panel of image experts to compare aspects of image quality that require human judgment. Testing a smartphone involves a team of engineers and technicians for about a week. Photo and Video quality are scored separately and then combined into an overall score for comparison among the cameras in different devices. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera protocol, click here. More details on smartphone camera scores are available here. The following section gathers key elements of DXOMARK’s exhaustive tests and analyses. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Please contact us  on how to receive a full report.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Camera Scores
This graph compares DXOMARK photo and video scores between the tested device and references. Average and maximum scores of the price segment are also indicated. Average and maximum scores for each price segment are computed based on the DXOMARK database of devices tested.

Photo

154

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

180

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i
About DXOMARK Camera Photo tests

For scoring and analysis, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 3,800 test images in controlled lab environments as well as outdoor, indoor and low-light natural scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The photo protocol is designed to take into account the main use cases and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as portraits, landscape and zoom photography. The evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images against a reference of natural scenes, and by running objective measurements on images of charts captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

166

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

184

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Photo scores
The photo Main tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise in various light conditions. Autofocus performances and the presence of artifacts on all images captured in controlled lab conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help to understand the camera's main strengths and weaknesses at 1x.
Autofocus irregularity and speed: 1000Lux Δ0EV Daylight Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability by showing the edge acutance versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken in one light condition and indicated illuminant, 500ms after the defocus. The edge acutance is measured on the four edges of the Dead Leaves chart, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Texture
122

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

132

Vivo X200 Ultra
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score vs lux levels for handheld conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with the level of lux, for two holding conditions. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Visual noise evolution with illuminance levels in handheld condition
This graph shows the evolution of visual noise metric with the level of lux in handheld condition. The visual noise metric is the mean of visual noise measurement on all patches of the Dead Leaves chart in the AFHDR setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.

Tele

126

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

170

Vivo X300 Pro
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 40 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and detail. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life images.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Telephoto Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

UltraWide

122

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

169

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

These tests analyze the performance of the ultra-wide camera at several focal lengths from 12 mm to 20 mm. All image quality attributes are evaluated, with particular attention paid to such artifacts as chromatic aberrations, lens softness, and distortion. Pictures below are an extract of tested scenes.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Ultra-Wide Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Video

132

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

172

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i
About DXOMARK Camera Video tests

DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate almost 3 hours of video in controlled lab environments and in natural low-light, indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken in various conditions and running objective measurements on videos of charts recorded in the lab under different conditions from 0.1 to 10000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

136

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G

186

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Video scores
Video Main tests analyze the same image quality attributes as for still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, in addition to temporal aspects such as speed, and smoothness and stability of exposure, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation video score vs lux levels
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation video score with the level of lux in video. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Spatial visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Temporal visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup.

The post Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/tecno-camon-50-ultra-5g-camera-test/feed/ 0 image (1) 105_025_TecnoCamon50Pro 105_025_GooglePixel9a 105_025_SamsungGalaxyA56 Understanding portrait preferences: DXOMARK Insights in Riyadh https://www.dxomark.com/understanding-portrait-preferences-dxomark-insights-in-riyadh/ https://www.dxomark.com/understanding-portrait-preferences-dxomark-insights-in-riyadh/#respond Tue, 03 Mar 2026 09:01:39 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=190921&preview=true&preview_id=190921 Since 2023, DXOMARK has been conducting Insights studies worldwide to better understand consumer preferences in portrait photography. Going beyond traditional performance metrics, these studies focus on how users actually perceive images: what satisfies them, what frustrates them, and what they truly expect from smartphone cameras, while also identifying the underlying technical challenges faced by the [...]

The post Understanding portrait preferences: DXOMARK Insights in Riyadh appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>

Since 2023, DXOMARK has been conducting Insights studies worldwide to better understand consumer preferences in portrait photography. Going beyond traditional performance metrics, these studies focus on how users actually perceive images: what satisfies them, what frustrates them, and what they truly expect from smartphone cameras, while also identifying the underlying technical challenges faced by the industry.

Built on a unique methodology, DXOMARK Insights combines expert analysis with structured feedback from real users. This approach enables a deep understanding of portrait rendering preferences across different user profiles, skin tones and shooting conditions.

After conducting studies in Europe, China, and India, DXOMARK has now expanded its research into a new geographic area: the Middle East. Riyadh was selected as the study location due to its position at the crossroads of continents and cultures, offering a broad diversity of skin tones. This made it an ideal environment for exploring inclusive portrait performance under a wide range of real-world conditions.

The framework of the Study

The DXOMARK Insights study was conducted in Riyadh, with a panel of 75 participants aged 18 to 45, representing a wide range of user profiles.

The evaluation covered:

    • 90 portrait scenes, spanning outdoor, indoor, and low-light conditions
    • A broad diversity of skin tones, including fair, medium, and dark
    • Realistic use cases designed to reflect everyday photography scenarios

The study took a unique approach to previous studies by exploring the performance of mid-range priced smartphones, including a higher price device as well as a reference.

The devices that were included in this study were:

    • Google Pixel 9a
    • Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
    • Samsung Galaxy A56
    • Apple iPhone 17 Pro

Key findings at a glance

According to Riyadh consumers, here are the 3 main takeaways from this study:

    • Google Pixel 9a and Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G emerged as the most compelling devices for portrait overall, largely due to their ability to deliver natural skin tone renderings for a wide range of skin types
    • Indoor and low-light portraits remain challenging use cases for most devices, particularly rendering darker skin tones, yet some devices demonstrate clear advantages in these conditions
    • Face brightness is a critical drive of user satisfaction but balance is key: images that are too bright or too dark are consistently rejected.
Overall preferences and device ranking

According to Middle Eastern consumers, the Google Pixel 9a is the most preferred device overall across all scenarios. It delivered generally bright images with well-balanced contrast and neutral white balance. Because it is the most balanced device, with consistent rendering across conditions and very few failure cases, the Google Pixel 9a ends up as the preferred device in this comparison.

In terms of colors, it provides neutral rendering that often outperforms the warm rendering of the iPhone 17 Pro from a user’s perspective. In addition to that, it did a very good job at rendering bright faces while preserving balanced contrast which is perceived as more pleasing than the weaker boost visible on the iPhone 17 Pro and the excess of brightness and contrast boost on the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G. The Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G ranked second globally but stood out in specific conditions.

It delivered bright images with a globally neutral white balance and a natural skin tone rendering. It also stood out in specific conditions. Notably, in indoor portrait scenes, the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G was the most preferred device, outperforming all others. However, the high brightness along with a strong global contrast sometimes led to rejection from some users.

The Samsung Galaxy A56 was the least preferred from the panel across lighting conditions. Lacking HDR support, it was perceived as producing significantly darker renderings compared to the other devices, resulting in lower overall preference.

The Apple iPhone 17 Pro, included as a reference device to compare the performance with the mid-range devices, was sometimes rated as delivering insufficient face brightness, despite maintaining a balanced contrast. In complex indoor environments, it was also perceived as producing a warmer color cast and warmer skin tones.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Samsung Galaxy A56
Google Pixel 9a
Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Google Pixel 9a
Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Google Pixel 9a
Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Samsung Galaxy A56
Google Pixel 9a
Satisfactions related to these scenes

Indoor and low-light portraits: still the biggest challenge

Indoor and low-light scenarios continue to be among the most difficult environments for portrait photography. As we can observe from the overall results of the study, the overall satisfaction index is the lowest under these lighting conditions.

Due to two main factors:

First, the scenes are characterized by low illumination levels and limited light diffusion, placing strong constraints on facial brightness rendering, contrast management, and mid-tone tone mapping. Under these conditions, several devices exhibit underexposure, particularly affecting facial regions. Our insights show that face brightness needs to be high enough or the impact where accurate luminance reproduction is critical for perceived quality.

Reason for rejection per device

Second, the lighting environments are complex, involving multiple light sources that create mixed illumination conditions. This complexity increases the difficulty of achieving consistent color rendering and tonal balance. As a result, some devices produce renderings that appear excessively warm, contributing to lower global user satisfaction preferences.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Google Pixel 9a
Apple iPhone 17 Pro

In this specific context, for Indoor scenes, we observe that the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G stood out, being the most preferred device from the consumer surveyed. In this study, it was preferred 63% of the time in indoor conditions, making it the preferred device among the tested ones.

Consumers highlighted its ability to deliver vivid yet faithful colors, while preserving luminous skin tones in complex indoor lighting, an area where many competing devices still struggle.

In lowlight, user ‘s are still used to higher image degradation, and it might affect their expectations. Overall devices show high variations of rendering between smartphones model and some failures with exposure strategy. With all the challenges of exposure, noise reduction, etc related to low light photography, smartphones are forced to do some trade-offs that limit the capacity to produce natural and saturated colors and skin rendering. A wide margin for improvements remains to shoot natural and pleasant portraits in low light conditions.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Samsung Galaxy A56
Google Pixel 9a
Satisfaction related to this scene
Rejection on all devices for this specific scene

The impact of brightness and contrast on user perception & preferences

Brightness level is one of the strongest drivers of user preference. Consumers consistently favored images that were neither too bright nor too dark, emphasizing the importance of balance.

Reason for rejection per device

This was particularly visible for the Samsung Galaxy A56, which suffered from a high number of rejections due to too low brightness on the face. For the iPhone 17 Pro, the most frequent rejection reason was that faces were sometimes appearing too dark.

On the other hand, in some cases, when the Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G device delivered a too high brightness, it was one of the top rejection reasons.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Google Pixel 9a
Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Picture Ligthness vs Subject Lightness per smartphone for scene above (SDR) 
(Blue : Tecno Camon 50 Ultra – Yellow : Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Green : Google Pixel 9a)
Satisfaction related to this scene
Reason for rejection per device

When the face and background are too bright, the result can be a loss of information and visible clipped area on face. This is even more impacting when it is related to strong global contrast of images and that bright part are facing deep shadowed area.  details and overall contrast perception. The bright areas can be too bright in some examples leading to some slight clipping on the face.

Tecno Camon 50 Ultra 5G
Google Pixel 9a
Samsung Galaxy A56
Picture Lightness per device for scene above (HDR)
Reason for rejection per device

Conclusion

This DXOMARK Insights study highlights the importance of portrait rendering, balanced brightness, and robust performance in challenging lighting conditions. It also reinforces the value of consumer-centric evaluation methods in understanding not just how cameras perform but how they are truly perceived.

As smartphone imaging continues to evolve, aligning technical choices with real user expectations will remain a key differentiator for manufacturers aiming to deliver meaningful and satisfying photography experiences

The post Understanding portrait preferences: DXOMARK Insights in Riyadh appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/understanding-portrait-preferences-dxomark-insights-in-riyadh/feed/ 0 photocollage_cover_1920_1080 003_011_TecnoCamon50Pro 003_011_SamsungGalaxyA56 003_011_GooglePixel9a 002_003_TecnoCamon50Pro 002_003_AppleiPhone17Pro 002_003_GooglePixel9a 105_025_TecnoCamon50Pro 105_025_AppleiPhone17Pro 105_025_GooglePixel9a 202_010_TecnoCamon50Pro 202_010_SamsungGalaxyA56 202_010_GooglePixel9a Asset 7 (1) Rejection Lowlight 102_006_TecnoCamon50Pro 102_006_GooglePixel9a 102_006_AppleiPhone17Pro 203_020_TecnoCamon50Pro 203_020_SamsungGalaxyA56 203_020_GooglePixel9a Asset 4 (1) 203_020_global_additional_question_rejection Asset 2 (1) 103_015_TecnoCamon50Pro 103_015_GooglePixel9a 103_015_AppleiPhone17Pro 7 1 6@4x 7@4x (1) 001_005_TecnoCamon50Pro 001_005_GooglePixel9a 001_005_SamsungGalaxyA56 8 (1) 9@4x Motorola Razr Fold Camera Test https://www.dxomark.com/motorola-razr-fold-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/motorola-razr-fold-camera-test/#respond Mon, 02 Mar 2026 04:51:59 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=190688&preview=true&preview_id=190688 We put the Motorola Razr Fold through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of [...]

The post Motorola Razr Fold Camera Test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Motorola Razr Fold through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of our testing with an extract of the captured data.

Overview

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 50MP 1/1.28″ sensor, 1.22 µm pixels, 23mm equivalent f/1.6-aperture lens, PDAF, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 50MP 1/2.76″ sensor, 0.64 µm pixels, 12mm equivalent f/2.0-aperture lens, PDAF
  • Tele: 50MP 1/1.95″ sensor, 0.8 µm pixels, 71mm equivalent lens, dual-pixel PDAF, OIS
  • Video: 8K at 30fps with Dolby Vision, 4K at 30/60/120fps with Dolby Vision, 1080p up to 240fps, gyro-EIS

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Motorola Razr Fold
164
camera
169
Photo
Main
175

184

Bokeh
165

180

Ultra-Wide
161

169

Tele
153

170

154
Video
Main
168

186

Ultra-Wide
148

151

Tele
103

140

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 169

Portrait

Portrait photos of either one person or a group of people

BEST 185

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 180

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 149

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 159

Zoom

Photos and videos captured using zoom (more than 1x)

Pros

  • Good exposure and wide dynamic range in most conditions
  • Accurate white balance and nice color in most conditions
  • Generally good detail and limited noise in photo mode
  • Fast and accurate autofocus, wide depth of field allows for good sharpness in group shots
  • Good ultra-wide and tele shots, with nice colors and a good texture/noise trade-off
  • Nice portrait shots, with good subject isolation and a natural blur effect

Cons

  • Occasional noise even in daylight, especially in backlit video scenes
  • Video autofocus sometimes slow to adapt, especially in low light
  • Exposure stepping during transitions
  • Color quantization, ringing and color fringing can be noticeable in photos, slight ghosting on moving subjects in video
  • Some white balance stepping when zooming in video mode

The Motorola Razr Fold delivered a well-rounded performance for a foldable device in the DXOMARK Camera tests. The optically stabilized 50MP primary camera and the 50MP ultra-wide both offer reliable exposure, nice colors and good detail in everyday use, outperforming folding competitors, such as the Honor Magic V5 and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7, in the camera department. Zoom quality and performance are very good for a foldable device, too, and the fast autofocus and natural portrait rendering allow for a wide range of photographic styles and applications. On the downside, occasional artifacts, such as color fringing or motion blur, are a reminder that the Razr Fold is not quite on the same level as the best slab phones.

Motorola Razr Fold – Pleasant portrait rendering with accurate exposure and color (85mm equivalent)
BEST 149
Lowlight

In low light, the Razr Fold is capable of maintaining solid exposure and color accuracy, but image noise becomes more intrusive, especially in backlit scenes. The primary camera’s optical image stabilization helps avoid camera shake but the autofocus can slow down noticeably in low light, occasionally resulting in delayed captures. Still, the Razr Fold is a good option for casual night shots, even though it cannot match the best-in-class in terms of low light performance.

Motorola Razr Fold – Pleasant exposure and natural skintone rendering, with good detail rendering and limited noise
Honor Magic V5 – Pleasant exposure with slight cast, with good detail rendering and limited noise
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 – Slightly low target exposure and pleasant skintone rendering, with visible noise
BEST 169
Portrait

The Razr Fold camera is a great option for portraiture. Portrait mode delivers a natural-looking bokeh effect, with good subject isolation and reliable edge detection. Colors and skin tones remain consistent as well. Overall, the camera provides a reliable and consistent portrait experience.

BEST 159
Zoom

Tele zoom performance is impressive for a foldable device. The dedicated 3x tele camera with periscope design captures good detail and nice colors. The texture/noise trade-off is solid and transitions between the primary, ultra-wide, and tele camera modules are smooth in photo mode, allowing for easy framing across a range of focal lengths. Overall, zoom is one of the Razr Fold’s standout photo features.

Motorola Razr Fold - equivalent tele (3×)
Good level of detail
Honor Magic V5 - equivalent tele (3×)
Good detail but loss of very fine detail
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 - equivalent tele (3×)
Loss of detail

Test summary

About DXOMARK Camera tests: DXOMARK’s camera evaluations take place in laboratories and real-world situations using a wide variety of use-cases. The scores rely on objective tests for which the results are calculated directly using measurement software in our laboratory setups, and on perceptual tests where a sophisticated set of metrics allow a panel of image experts to compare aspects of image quality that require human judgment. Testing a smartphone involves a team of engineers and technicians for about a week. Photo and Video quality are scored separately and then combined into an overall score for comparison among the cameras in different devices. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera protocol, click here. More details on smartphone camera scores are available here. The following section gathers key elements of DXOMARK’s exhaustive tests and analyses. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Please contact us  on how to receive a full report.

Motorola Razr Fold Camera Scores
This graph compares DXOMARK photo and video scores between the tested device and references. Average and maximum scores of the price segment are also indicated. Average and maximum scores for each price segment are computed based on the DXOMARK database of devices tested.

Photo

169

Motorola Razr Fold

180

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i
About DXOMARK Camera Photo tests

For scoring and analysis, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 3,800 test images in controlled lab environments as well as outdoor, indoor and low-light natural scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The photo protocol is designed to take into account the main use cases and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as portraits, landscape and zoom photography. The evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images against a reference of natural scenes, and by running objective measurements on images of charts captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

175

Motorola Razr Fold

184

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Motorola Razr Fold Photo scores
The photo Main tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise in various light conditions. Autofocus performances and the presence of artifacts on all images captured in controlled lab conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help to understand the camera's main strengths and weaknesses at 1x.

The Razr Fold delivers good exposure and a wide dynamic range in most conditions. White balance is accurate and colors are nice. Detail levels are generally high and image noise is well under control, but some artifacts, for example color fringing or ringing, can be noticeable in difficult scenes. The autofocus system works swiftly and accurately, and the wide depth of field helps keeping all subjects sharp in group shots. Overall, the Razr Fold camera is capable, especially when considering the foldable form factor, but not without its occasional quirks.

Exposure
132

Motorola Razr Fold

134

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Exposure is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The main attribute evaluated is the brightness level of the main subject through various use cases such as landscape, portrait, or still life. Other factors evaluated are the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Photo HDR format, the images are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the ISO-22028-5 standard. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera's ability to provide the same rendering when shooting several images of the same scene.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.

Exposure is reliable across light conditions, without over- or underexposure in most scenes. HDR processing is managed effectively, maintaining good highlight and shadow detail alike. However, in high-contrast or backlit scenes, noise and minor artifacts can creep in.

Motorola Razr Fold – Accurate exposure and pleasant contrast
Honor Magic V5 – Accurate exposure and pleasant contrast
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 – Slightly low exposure and limited contrast
Color
132

Motorola Razr Fold

133

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Color is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The image quality attributes analyzed are skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, and repeatability. For color and skin tone rendering, we penalize unnatural colors according to results gathered in various studies and consumer insights while respecting the manufacturer's choice of color signature.

Motorola Razr Fold – Accurate white balance and nice skin tones, with slightly low contrast
Honor Magic V5 – Very slight cast and nice skin tones
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 – Slight green cast affecting skin tones rendering
Sharpness & Timing
122

Motorola Razr Fold

135

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Sharpness & Timing tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus repeatability, shooting time delay, and depth of field. Shooting delay is the difference between the time the user presses the capture button and the time the image is actually taken. It includes focusing speed and the capability of the device to capture images at the right time, what is called 'zero shutter lag' capability. Even if a shallow depth of field can be pleasant for a single subject portrait or close-up shot, it can also be a problem in some specific conditions such as group portraits; Both situations are tested. Focus accuracy is also evaluated in all the real-life images taken, from infinity to close-up objects and in low light to outdoor conditions.

Autofocus irregularity and speed on AFHDR Portrait Diana setup: 10000Lux Δ0EV D55 Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and zero shutter lag capability by showing the level of details on the face versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR Portrait setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken at 10000 Lux with D55 illuminant, 500 ms after the defocus. The level of details on the face is measured using DXOMARK Detail Preservation Metric on the Realistic Mannequin, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Autofocus irregularity and speed on AFHDR Portrait Eugene setup: 5Lux Δ9EV 2700K Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and zero shutter lag capability by showing the level of details on the face versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR Portrait setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken at 5 Lux with LED 2700K illuminant, 500 ms after the defocus. On this scenario, the backlit panels in the scene are set up to simulate a fairly high dynamic range: the luminance ratio between the brightest point and a 18% reflective gray patch is 9, which we denote by a Exposure Value difference of 9. The level of details on the face is measured using DXOMARK Detail Preservation Metric on the Realistic Mannequin, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Motorola Razr Fold
Extended depth of focus with very fine detail on both models

 

Honor Magic V5
Limited depth of focus with loss of detail on one model

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7
Extended depth of focus with good detail on both models and visible noise

 

Texture
126

Motorola Razr Fold

132

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and the texture of subjects in the images taken in the lab as well as in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, particular attention is paid to the level of details in the bright and dark areas of the image. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken in various lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The charts used are the proprietary DXOMARK chart (DMC), and the Dead Leaves chart. We also have an AI based metric for the level of details on our realistic mannequins Eugene and Diana.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score vs lux levels for handheld conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with the level of lux, for two holding conditions. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
128

Motorola Razr Fold

129

Oppo Find X8 Ultra
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure on real-life images as well as images of charts taken in the lab. For natural images, particular attention is paid to the noise on faces, landscapes, but also on dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Noise on moving objects is also evaluated on natural images. Objective measurements are performed on images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart and the standardized measurement such as Visual Noise derived from ISO 15739.

Visual noise evolution with illuminance levels in handheld condition
This graph shows the evolution of visual noise metric with the level of lux in handheld condition. The visual noise metric is the mean of visual noise measurement on all patches of the Dead Leaves chart in the AFHDR setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Artifacts
74

Motorola Razr Fold

81

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL
i

The artifacts evaluation looks at flare, lens shading, chromatic aberrations, geometrical distortion, edges ringing, halos, ghosting, quantization, unexpected color hue shifts, among others type of possible unnatural effects on photos. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction on the score. The main artifacts observed and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main photo artifacts penalties

Bokeh

165

Motorola Razr Fold

180

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Bokeh is tested in one dedicated mode, usually portrait or aperture mode, and analyzed by visually inspecting all the images captured in the lab and in natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce portrait photography comparable to one taken with a DLSR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes paid attention to are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and the shape of the bokeh blur spotlights. Portrait image quality attributes (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.

Tele

153

Motorola Razr Fold

170

Vivo X300 Pro
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 40 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and detail. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life images.

Motorola Razr Fold Telephoto Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

When shooting with the 3x periscope tele camera, the Razr Fold records good fine detail and keeps noise levels low. Exposure is good, with natural colors across the tele zoom range. Up to an approximate tele zoom factor of 3x the camera uses digital zoom with the 50MP primary camera, which can result in a slight loss of very fine detail. At 3x the periscope tele module engages and textures look crisper, with cleaner edges. White balance remains neutral through mid‑range tele. Overall, the Razr Fold offers a coherent tele shooting experience for a foldable device, making good use of its dedicated 50MP tele camera.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Motorola Razr Fold - 70mm equivalent tele (~ 3×)
Motorola Razr Fold - Very fine detail preserved

 

 

 

 

 

Honor Magic V5 - 70mm equivalent tele (~ 3×)
Honor Magic V5 - fine detail preserved

 

 

 

 

 

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 - 70mm equivalent tele (~ 3×)
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 - Loss of very fine detail

 

 

 

 

 

UltraWide

161

Motorola Razr Fold

169

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

These tests analyze the performance of the ultra-wide camera at several focal lengths from 12 mm to 20 mm. All image quality attributes are evaluated, with particular attention paid to such artifacts as chromatic aberrations, lens softness, and distortion. Pictures below are an extract of tested scenes.

Motorola Razr Fold Ultra-Wide Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Video

154

Motorola Razr Fold

172

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i
About DXOMARK Camera Video tests

DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate almost 3 hours of video in controlled lab environments and in natural low-light, indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken in various conditions and running objective measurements on videos of charts recorded in the lab under different conditions from 0.1 to 10000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

In video mode the Razr Fold offers 4K resolution at 60fps and 8K at 30fps. Our tests were conducted at 4K/60fps, which overall offers the best balance of image quality and stability. The camera does generally well in video mode, with accurate exposure, a wide dynamic range and pleasant color rendering in most situations. Noise is well under control in good light, but can become more intrusive in difficult outdoor scenes. The autofocus is responsive most of the time, but can lag in low light. Our testers also noticed some exposure stepping during quick lighting changes. Artifacts like ghosting on moving subjects and occasional color quantization are noticeable but not overly disruptive.

Main

168

Motorola Razr Fold

186

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Motorola Razr Fold Video scores
Video Main tests analyze the same image quality attributes as for still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, in addition to temporal aspects such as speed, and smoothness and stability of exposure, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
Exposure
115

Motorola Razr Fold

133

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Exposure tests evaluate the brightness level of the main subject, the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Video HDR format, the videos are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the metadata. Stability and temporal adaption of the exposure are also analyzed.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.

Motorola Razr Fold – Good exposure, dynamic range and contrast

Honor Magic V5 – Good exposure, dynamic range and contrast

Samgung Galaxy Z Fold7 – Good exposure, dynamic range and contrast
Color
129

Motorola Razr Fold

131

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Image-quality color analysis looks at color rendering, skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, stability of the white balance and its adaption when light is changing.

Motorola Razr Fold – Pleasant white balance and skin tone rendering

Honor Magic V5 – Slight cast and nice skin tone rendering

Samgung Galaxy Z Fold7 – Slight cast and nice skin tone rendering
Sharpness & Timing
106

Motorola Razr Fold

124

Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
i

For video, autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus stability and analysis of convergence regarding speed and smoothness.

Motorola Razr Fold – Good focus tracking

Motorola Signature – Good focus tracking

Oppo Find X8 Ultra – Good focus tracking
Texture
110

Motorola Razr Fold

118

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and texture of the real-life videos as well as the videos of charts recorded in the lab. Natural videos recordings are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the level of details in the bright and areas as well as in the dark. Objective measurements are performed of images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The charts used are the DXOMARK chart (DMC) and Dead Leaves chart.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation video score vs lux levels
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation video score with the level of lux in video. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
112

Motorola Razr Fold

129

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure, temporal aspects on real-life video recording as well as videos of charts taken in the lab. Natural videos are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the noise in the dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Objective measurements are performed on the videos of charts recorded in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The chart used is the DXOMARK visual noise chart.

Spatial visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Temporal visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup.
Stabilization
114

Motorola Razr Fold

124

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Stabilization evaluation tests the ability of the device to stabilize footage thanks to software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS, or any others means. The evaluation looks at residual motion, smoothness, jello artifacts and residual motion blur on walk and run use cases in various lighting conditions. The video below is an extract from one of the tested scenes.

Motorola Razr Fold – Camera shake

Motorola Signature – Camera shake

Oppo Find X8 Ultra – Slight camera shake
Artifacts
87

Motorola Razr Fold

89

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ringing measurements on the SFR chart in the lab as well as frame-rate measurements using the LED Universal Timer. Natural videos are visually evaluated by paying particular attention to artifacts such as aliasing, quantization, blocking, and hue shift, among others. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main video artifacts penalties

UltraWide

148

Motorola Razr Fold

151

Motorola Signature
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 12 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and smoothness of the zooming effect. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life video recordings.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Tele

103

Motorola Razr Fold

140

Vivo X200 Ultra
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Motorola Razr Fold – Good detail rendering with visible jump between camera modules

Motorola Signature – Good detail rendering with visible jump between camera modules

Oppo Find X8 Ultra – Good detail rendering with smooth transition and limited jump between camera modules

The post Motorola Razr Fold Camera Test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/motorola-razr-fold-camera-test/feed/ 0 solo_bridge_profile_PORTRAIT_Motorola Razr Fold solo_bar_lean_PORTRAIT_Motorola Razr Fold solo_bar_lean_PORTRAIT_Honor Magic V5 solo_bar_lean_PORTRAIT_Samsung Galaxy ZFold 7 duo_sunset_Motorola Razr Fold duo_sunset_Honor Magic V5 duo_sunset_Samsung Galaxy ZFold 7 solo_closeup_PORTRAIT_Motorola Razr Fold solo_closeup_PORTRAIT_Honor Magic V5 solo_closeup_PORTRAIT_Samsung Galaxy ZFold 7 Xiaomi 17 Ultra Camera Test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/#respond Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:53:29 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=190454&preview=true&preview_id=190454 We put the Xiaomi 17 Ultra through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of [...]

The post Xiaomi 17 Ultra Camera Test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 17 Ultra through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of our testing with an extract of the captured data.

Overview

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 50 MP, f/1.7, 23mm (wide)”, 1.6µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 50 MP, f/2.2, 14mm (ultrawide)”, 0.64µm
  • Tele: 200 MP, f/2.4-3.0, 75-100mm (telephoto)”, 0.56µm, PDAF, OIS, 3.2x-4.3x optical zoom

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Xiaomi 17 Ultra
166
camera
170
Photo
Main
171

184

Bokeh
175

180

Ultra-Wide
160

169

Tele
169

170

157
Video
Main
164

186

Ultra-Wide
144

151

Tele
132

140

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 169

Portrait

Portrait photos of either one person or a group of people

BEST 185

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 180

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 149

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 159

Zoom

Photos and videos captured using zoom (more than 1x)

Pros

  • Very good trade-off between texture and noise, with the exception of low light video
  • Excellent tele zoom
  • Nice color rendering and accurate white balance in photo and video
  • Natural looking bokeh mode with very good subject isolation

Cons

  • Autofocus lack of smoothness in video, and depth of field is  very limited for group pictures
  • Exposure and white balance instabilities are occasionally visible

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra delivers an excellent performance in the DXOMARK Camera tests. In many test areas it is a significant upgrade over its predecessor 15 Ultra and is getting close to the very best flagship devices on the market –  without quite matching them, however. Photo performance is particularly impressive. Overall photo results are strong but the camera really shines when using the tele zoom or capturing portrait images.

Video performance is not quite on the same high level. Results are good but the when capturing moving images the Xiaomi 17 Ultra lags slightly behind the best-in-class competitors, still showing some issues that have been eliminated on class-leading video devices.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Excellent portrait shots
BEST 149
Lowlight

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra is an excellent photo performer in low light and delivers outstanding night shots with high levels of detail in most situations. This is not quite true for the video mode, where the phone falls short of expectations and stands as one of the weakest performers among this year’s flagship phones.

BEST 169
Portrait

The new Xiaomi flagship does not quite surpass the best in class but is still an outstanding option for portraiture, with excellent subject exposure, remarkably high levels of detail, even with moving subjects, and a very good bokeh mode.

BEST 159
Zoom

Zoom is one of the Xiaomi 17 Ultra’s strongest areas, particularly when it comes to tele zoom. Thanks to the powerful telephoto configuration, it ranks within the top three devices for this category, coming very close to the Huawei Pura 80 Ultra and the Vivo X200 Ultra, which occupy the top spots of the ranking.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Camera tests: DXOMARK’s camera evaluations take place in laboratories and real-world situations using a wide variety of use-cases. The scores rely on objective tests for which the results are calculated directly using measurement software in our laboratory setups, and on perceptual tests where a sophisticated set of metrics allow a panel of image experts to compare aspects of image quality that require human judgment. Testing a smartphone involves a team of engineers and technicians for about a week. Photo and Video quality are scored separately and then combined into an overall score for comparison among the cameras in different devices. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera protocol, click here. More details on smartphone camera scores are available here. The following section gathers key elements of DXOMARK’s exhaustive tests and analyses. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Please contact us  on how to receive a full report.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Camera Scores
This graph compares DXOMARK photo and video scores between the tested device and references. Average and maximum scores of the price segment are also indicated. Average and maximum scores for each price segment are computed based on the DXOMARK database of devices tested.

Photo

170

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

180

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i
About DXOMARK Camera Photo tests

For scoring and analysis, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 3,800 test images in controlled lab environments as well as outdoor, indoor and low-light natural scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The photo protocol is designed to take into account the main use cases and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as portraits, landscape and zoom photography. The evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images against a reference of natural scenes, and by running objective measurements on images of charts captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra is an excellent smartphone for still imaging, thanks in part to the impressive camera specs, that include a large 1‑inch sensor in the primary module, a sliding 75‑100mm equivalent tele module with periscope design and a very large 200 MP sensor, as well as a 50MP ultra-wide camera. Additional components, such as PDAF, laser autofocus, ToF sensing, and a color spectrum sensor further support the capture pipeline.

Overall, the camera operates almost flawlessly in photo mode, with excellent performance across the entire focal range, from ultra-wide to long tele zoom. Our testers only noticed some focus‑related decision errors and the naturally limited depth of field.

The primary camera module excels in areas such as texture and noise. Night photography is a particular strength, but some small issues remain and prevent the Xiaomi from consistently reaching the very top of the category rankings. This includes occasional weaknesses at specific zoom settings, the handling of some artifacts, and some contrast inaccuracies in exposure rendering.

Main

171

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

184

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Photo scores
The photo Main tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise in various light conditions. Autofocus performances and the presence of artifacts on all images captured in controlled lab conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help to understand the camera's main strengths and weaknesses at 1x.

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra delivers a strong overall performance in the DXOMARK Camera tests, with particularly high scores in the color, texture, and noise categories. Still images tend to be very bright, sometimes approaching the upper limit of acceptable exposure, yet dynamic range remains wide with good highlight retention. White balance is generally accurate across lighting conditions, but color rendering can occasionally appear slightly muted when viewing images on an HDR display. Texture performance is among the best we have seen. High levels of detail even on moving subjects make the Xiaomi an excellent choice for sports, pet, and family photography. Noise is extremely well controlled, but the aggressive noise reduction can introduce texture artifacts and quantization in areas of plain color.

Autofocus is the camera’s main weakness. It is fast in the, lab with almost no shutter lag, but in real-life scenes it often locks onto the second-closest subject to the camera instead of the closest one. The shallow depth of field limits sharpness of background subjects in group shots. In addition, the Super Macro mode does not provide sufficient magnification to achieve true macro results.

Exposure
128

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

134

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Exposure is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The main attribute evaluated is the brightness level of the main subject through various use cases such as landscape, portrait, or still life. Other factors evaluated are the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Photo HDR format, the images are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the ISO-22028-5 standard. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera's ability to provide the same rendering when shooting several images of the same scene.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.

Still image exposure is solid but lags slightly behind the best in class. The camera achieves a wide dynamic range and good highlight retention, even when shooting in low light. Images in general and skin tones specifically are among the brightest in the ultra premium segment, with high contrast levels. The bright skin tone rendering is also applied to dark skin tones, sometimes approaching the upper limit of acceptable exposure in our lab.

Contrast handling leaves some room for improvement, with overly strong local contrast in some landscape scenes, as well as contrast issues in backlit scenes, in both test laboratory and real-life scenes. In such conditions our testers often observed compressed highlight contrast and flare artifacts reducing shadow contrast, making for a slightly unnatural look of the image.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Accurately exposed face, good highlight retention in background
Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Slight underexposure on face
Apple iPhone 17Pro – Good face exposure
Color
131

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

133

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Color is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The image quality attributes analyzed are skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, and repeatability. For color and skin tone rendering, we penalize unnatural colors according to results gathered in various studies and consumer insights while respecting the manufacturer's choice of color signature.

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra does well for color. White balance is generally accurate in daylight and under typical indoor lighting. In low light images a slightly warm, but pleasant cast can be noticeable. Overall, color rendering is reliable, but in some scenes color can appear a little muted, especially under daylight and in low light.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Neutral white balance, nice skin tones
Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Accurate white balance
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slight yellow color cast
Sharpness & Timing
112

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

135

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus repeatability, shooting time delay, and depth of field. Shooting delay is the difference between the time the user presses the capture button and the time the image is actually taken. It includes focusing speed and the capability of the device to capture images at the right time, what is called 'zero shutter lag' capability. Even if a shallow depth of field can be pleasant for a single subject portrait or close-up shot, it can also be a problem in some specific conditions such as group portraits; Both situations are tested. Focus accuracy is also evaluated in all the real-life images taken, from infinity to close-up objects and in low light to outdoor conditions.

Autofocus irregularity and speed: 100Lux Δ4EV TL84 Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability by showing the edge acutance versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken in one light condition and indicated illuminant, 500ms after the defocus. The edge acutance is measured on the four edges of the Dead Leaves chart, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Focus on background subject, limited depth of field for group shots
Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Focus on foreground subject, wider depth of field results in better detail on second subject
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slightly limited depth of field
Texture
130

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

132

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and the texture of subjects in the images taken in the lab as well as in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, particular attention is paid to the level of details in the bright and dark areas of the image. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken in various lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The charts used are the proprietary DXOMARK chart (DMC), and the Dead Leaves chart. We also have an AI based metric for the level of details on our realistic mannequins Eugene and Diana.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score vs lux levels for handheld conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with the level of lux, for two holding conditions. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra is one of the very best devices for texture we have tested to date. High levels of fine detail are maintained across most light conditions. The camera’s ability to preserve sharpness on moving subjects is particularly impressive. This is clearly visible on our motion charts in the lab, and confirmed by real-life results.

Combined with the fast and reactive autofocus system, this makes the Xiaomi 17 Ultra an excellent option for shooting scenes with subjects in motion, for example sports, pets, or family moments with children.

One minor drawback is worth mentioning, though. While in low light the level of captured detail is mostly good, textures can look a little unnatural. Particularly moving subjects can look smoothed by noise reduction.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Detail and texture
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Good detail
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Detail and texture
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Loss of detail
Noise
128

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

129

Oppo Find X8 Ultra
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure on real-life images as well as images of charts taken in the lab. For natural images, particular attention is paid to the noise on faces, landscapes, but also on dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Noise on moving objects is also evaluated on natural images. Objective measurements are performed on images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart and the standardized measurement such as Visual Noise derived from ISO 15739.

Visual noise evolution with illuminance levels in handheld condition
This graph shows the evolution of visual noise metric with the level of lux in handheld condition. The visual noise metric is the mean of visual noise measurement on all patches of the Dead Leaves chart in the AFHDR setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.

Noise is another one of the Xiaomi’s strong points. Like for texture, it is among the top two devices for this category. With only a few minor exceptions, noise is virtually absent in real-life scenes. However, the very aggressive noise reduction can have some subtle side effects. Slight texture artifacts can make an appearance, as well as some quantization in areas of plain color. Despite these minor issues, the overall noise performance remains excellent.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Noise
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Pretty much free of noise
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Noise
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Pretty much free of noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Some noise
Artifacts
75

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

81

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL
i

The artifacts evaluation looks at flare, lens shading, chromatic aberrations, geometrical distortion, edges ringing, halos, ghosting, quantization, unexpected color hue shifts, among others type of possible unnatural effects on photos. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction on the score. The main artifacts observed and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main photo artifacts penalties

Bokeh

175

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

180

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Bokeh is tested in one dedicated mode, usually portrait or aperture mode, and analyzed by visually inspecting all the images captured in the lab and in natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce portrait photography comparable to one taken with a DLSR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes paid attention to are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and the shape of the bokeh blur spotlights. Portrait image quality attributes (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra bokeh mode is among the very best we have seen to date. Subject segmentation in real-life scenes is particularly impressive, with highly accurate cutouts, even of very fine detail, such as hair. Background blur is strong and aesthetically pleasing, It is complemented by round, well-contrasted spotlight rendering that gives bokeh mode images a convincing optical depth-of-field effect.

Under controlled lab conditions segmentation is a little more inconsistent, with some failures in scenes with busy backgrounds. This is why the Xiaomi could not quite match the Vivo X300 Pro’s top score in this test category.

Default face beautification is worth mentioning as well. It is applied subtly and intelligently, preserving high levels of facial detail while smoothing blemishes. Unless you know the subject well, this is hardly noticeable, but in some situations, the processing can introduce minor color quantization. It appears in the form of small areas of plain color on the skin and makes skin texture look slightly unnatural in the affected areas.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Bokeh mode
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Good segmentation of fine detail (hair), skin smoothing
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Bokeh mode
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Good segmentation but some fine hair strands are blurred
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Bokeh mode
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Good segmentation, slight lack of detail

Tele

169

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

170

Vivo X300 Pro
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 40 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and detail. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life images.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Telephoto Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

When tele-zooming, the Xiaomi 17 Ultra provides excellent zoom continuity, with good detail from the main camera all the way to extra‑long tele settings. Compared to the competition, detail is especially good at short and mid-range tele, between 35 and 75mm equivalent focal length, before the camera switches to the dedicated tele module. Detail is still good at long tele up to 200mm equivalent. Where the 17 Ultra falls slightly short of the best devices in the ultra premium segment is mid-range tele, from 85-150mm equivalent focal length.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - 2x tele zoom
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Excellent detail
Huawei Pura 80 Ultra - 2x tele zoom
Huawei Pura 80 Ultra - Good detail
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - 2x tele zoom
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Loss of fine detail
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Medium range tele
Xiaomi 17 Ultra - Slight loss of detail
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Medium range tele
Xiaomi 15 Ultra - Loss of detail
Vivo X300 Pro - Medium range tele
Vivo X300 Pro - Good detail

UltraWide

160

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

169

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

These tests analyze the performance of the ultra-wide camera at several focal lengths from 12 mm to 20 mm. All image quality attributes are evaluated, with particular attention paid to such artifacts as chromatic aberrations, lens softness, and distortion. Pictures below are an extract of tested scenes.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Ultra-Wide Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

The wide camera module offers a shortest focal length close to 14mm equivalent. Performance is very solid, ranking the Xiaomi among the top five devices for this category. The texture/noise trade-off is excellent in real-life scenes. Good exposure and color contribute to the overall good image quality and are in line with the primary camera output. This said, when zooming in on the ultra-wide camera just to the point before the primary takes over (around 18mm equivalent), there is a slight drop in detail which we did not observe on the best performing devices for ultra-wide.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Xiaomi 17 Ultra – High levels of detail, nice colors
Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Loss of fine detail
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slight loss of detail

Video

157

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

172

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i
About DXOMARK Camera Video tests

DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate almost 3 hours of video in controlled lab environments and in natural low-light, indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken in various conditions and running objective measurements on videos of charts recorded in the lab under different conditions from 0.1 to 10000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra offers a wide range of video recording options, including up to 8K resolution and multiple frame‑rates at 4K. Dolby Vision HDR is available at 4K/60fps. Our tests were conducted at 4K/60fps with Dolby HDR, as these settings offered the best overall balance between exposure, color accuracy, and stabilization.

At these settings, video performance is solid and dependable. Target exposure is generally accurate, with a fairly wide dynamic range in most daylight and indoor scenes. Color rendering is usually stable and reliable, offering natural‑looking hues and consistent skin‑tones. The camera also delivers a strong texture/noise trade-off, with good texture preservation and well‑controlled noise.

The imaging hardware, in combination with the Leica‑tuned processing, provides clean results, but overall video performance still lags slightly behind the iPhone 17 Pro and the best Android devices. For example, stepping can be noticeable in autofocus transitions, face tracking is occasionally lost and exposure and white‑balance transitions can be slightly unstable, especially with sudden changes in lighting. Thanks to the 200MP periscope tele module, accurate color and good detail are maintained during zooming, but transitions between modules are noticeable.

Main

164

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

186

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Video scores
Video Main tests analyze the same image quality attributes as for still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, in addition to temporal aspects such as speed, and smoothness and stability of exposure, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
Exposure
123

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

133

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Exposure tests evaluate the brightness level of the main subject, the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Video HDR format, the videos are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the metadata. Stability and temporal adaption of the exposure are also analyzed.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.

Video exposure is generally reliable, with accurate target exposure in most scenes and a fairly wide dynamic range that preserves highlight and shadow detail alike. Occasional exposure instabilities with sudden changes in the scene or lighting can be noticeable. Overall brightness is well controlled, but temporal flicker can appear under challenging mixed lighting.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Good exposure and wide dynamic range.

Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Slight overexposure, highlight clipping

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Good exposure and wide dynamic range
Color
115

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

131

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Image-quality color analysis looks at color rendering, skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, stability of the white balance and its adaption when light is changing.

Color rendering in video mode is usually stable and dependable, with natural‑looking hues and consistent skin tones in outdoor and indoor conditions. White balance is mostly accurate but can drift when lighting changes abruptly, resulting in short‑lived color casts before correction. This said, in general use, color rendering remains pleasing and coherent.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Slight white balance transition issues, nice color rendering

Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Slight white balance transition issues, nice color rendering

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slight white balance transition issues, nice color rendering
Sharpness & Timing
104

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

124

Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
i

For video, autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus stability and analysis of convergence regarding speed and smoothness.

Autofocus accuracy is good, but stepping can be noticeable during transitions between subjects. Focus lock can be lost momentarily during face tracking, especially with moving subjects or sudden changes in focus distance. On the plus side, static scenes are rendered sharply.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Subject mostly in focus, slight loss of focus when getting closer

Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Subject in focus, slight loss of focus when getting closer

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Subject always in focus
Texture
111

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

118

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and texture of the real-life videos as well as the videos of charts recorded in the lab. Natural videos recordings are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the level of details in the bright and areas as well as in the dark. Objective measurements are performed of images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The charts used are the DXOMARK chart (DMC) and Dead Leaves chart.

Detail rendition in video is a strong point of the 17 Ultra. Fine textures are preserved well in both outdoor and indoor scenes. The camera avoids excessive sharpening halos, keeping edges natural while maintaining clarity. Low light detail is competitive, but slight softening can occur to prevent noise amplification.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation video score vs lux levels
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation video score with the level of lux in video. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
116

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

129

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure, temporal aspects on real-life video recording as well as videos of charts taken in the lab. Natural videos are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the noise in the dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Objective measurements are performed on the videos of charts recorded in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The chart used is the DXOMARK visual noise chart.

Noise is overall well controlled, remaining low at mid‑to‑bright light levels and only increasing modestly under typical indoor lighting. In low light, some luminance noise is noticeable in areas of plain color, but temporal noise filtering keeps it from becoming too intrusive. Chroma noise is rare and generally unobtrusive.

Spatial visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Temporal visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup.
Stabilization
108

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

124

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Stabilization evaluation tests the ability of the device to stabilize footage thanks to software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS, or any others means. The evaluation looks at residual motion, smoothness, jello artifacts and residual motion blur on walk and run use cases in various lighting conditions. The video below is an extract from one of the tested scenes.

Video stabilization is effective when walking and panning during recording. Framing is stable and camera shake within acceptable limits. This said, fast motion or abrupt stops can introduce micro‑jitter. Overall though, stabilization allows for confident handheld use without major artifacts.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Camera shake

Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Camera shake

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Very good stabilization
Artifacts
87

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

89

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ringing measurements on the SFR chart in the lab as well as frame-rate measurements using the LED Universal Timer. Natural videos are visually evaluated by paying particular attention to artifacts such as aliasing, quantization, blocking, and hue shift, among others. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main video artifacts penalties

UltraWide

144

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

151

Motorola Signature
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 12 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and smoothness of the zooming effect. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life video recordings.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Tele

132

Xiaomi 17 Ultra

140

Vivo X200 Ultra
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

The Xiaomi 17 Ultra does well when zooming in video mode. Color rendering remains accurate and detail holds up well as you move through the zoom range, helped by the dedicated tele module. This said, transition smoothness still lags behind the best in class. There are noticeable jumps when switching between camera modules and our testers observed occasional exposure or white‑balance stepping.

Medium‑range zoom settings deliver the overall most consistent results. At the long end of the tele stabilization and noise control remain competent but not class‑leading, and fine textures can show mild smoothing. Overall, zoom footage is very usable and coherent, but seamless ramps and cross‑module consistency have room for improvement.

Xiaomi 17 Ultra – Good detail with video zoom, slight jump between camera modules

Xiaomi 15 Ultra – Good detail with video zoom, slight jump between camera modules

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Good detail in video zoom , smooth transitions

The post Xiaomi 17 Ultra Camera Test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-ultra-camera-test/feed/ 0 Girls_SacreCoeur_Main (1)_Xiaomi17Ultra PortraitWellWestHDR_Xiaomi17Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 PortraitWellWestHDR_Xiaomi15Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 PortraitWellWestHDR_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 BushWindow_Xiaomi17Ultra_DxOMark_04-00 BushWindow_Xiaomi15ultra_DxOMark_05-00 BushWindow_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 BoysBand_Xiaomi17Ultra_DxOMark_05-00 BoysBand_Xiaomi15ultra_DxOMark_05-00 BoysBand_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 Girls_BlueDoor_Ultrawide (1)_Xiaomi17Ultra Girls_BlueDoor_Ultrawide (1) Girls_BlueDoor_Ultrawide (1)_AppleiPhone17ProMax Highlights from the DXOMARK Imaging Experts Committee Roundtable https://www.dxomark.com/highlights-from-the-dxomark-imaging-experts-committee-roundtable/ https://www.dxomark.com/highlights-from-the-dxomark-imaging-experts-committee-roundtable/#respond Wed, 28 Jan 2026 14:03:57 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=190334&preview=true&preview_id=190334 Based on the findings of the DXOMARK Global Insights 2025 research project conducted across Paris, Shanghai, and Jeddah, DXOMARK convened an official roundtable with members of the DXOMARK Imaging Expert Committee. Together with DXOMARK image engineers, the experts explored core topics such as user preferences, skin tone rendering, and real-world usage scenarios, offering critical analysis of today’s consumer [...]

The post Highlights from the DXOMARK Imaging Experts Committee Roundtable appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]>

Based on the findings of the DXOMARK Global Insights 2025 research project conducted across Paris, Shanghai, and Jeddah, DXOMARK convened an official roundtable with members of the DXOMARK Imaging Expert Committee. Together with DXOMARK image engineers, the experts explored core topics such as user preferences, skin tone rendering, and real-world usage scenarios, offering critical analysis of today’s consumer expectations.

The roundtable brought together imaging professionals from across the industry: 

    • Cem Kıvırcık – Senior Imaging Journalist and Photographer
    • Marko Risovic – Documentary Photographer
    • Renaud Labracherie – Senior Photojournalist
    • Juanmao Tong – Senior Professional in Mobile Photography
    • Gugugu – Digital Technology Content Creator
    • Madder – Editor-in-Chief, Content Department, iRentals
    • Hervé Macudzinski – Director of Image Science, DXOMARK
    • Coraline Hillairet – Senior Image Engineer, DXOMARK

The Committee brings together global imaging experts, academic institutions, and industry partners through open collaboration and content co-creation, driving the development of next-generation imaging test standards and advancing the industry as a whole. Learn more about the Expert Committee

DXOMARK Global Insights 2025 – Is Imaging really “too many tastes to satisfy”

Research methodology

In addition to applying our typical Insights methodology (Learn more), for this specific study, a cross validation was conducted: images were captured across three regions and independently annotated by user groups from each location. This methodology enabled DXOMARK to compare regional preferences and assess whether a unified image quality tuning strategy could satisfy users worldwide.

The study included flagships from major brands (vivo, Samsung, Huawei, Oppo, Xiaomi), one mid-range smartphone per region and a professional camera rendering

(Note that this study was conducted end of summer 2025, before the release of the most recent flagships).

Research findings

Research suggests that a single camera tuning scheme can satisfy consumers across different regions. In particular, the portrait performance of the vivo X200 series was widely appreciated by users in all three regions, demonstrating its ability to align with diverse aesthetic preferences.

Across all tested devices, the vivo series consistently ranked among the top performers in consumer evaluations across all three regions. Oppo Find X8 Ultra and Huawei Pura 80 Ultra secured second and third place respectively.

SI = Satisfaction Index [Blue background refers to the Paris panel, while the Orange background refers to the Shanghai panel] 

The DXOMARK Satisfaction Index is a numerical representation of user preferences. It is a combination of two distinct aspects that we measured in this study: One measures preference and the other measures rejection. By combining these two results, we were able to gather insights not only about user preferences but to quantify them as well.

In cross-evaluations between Shanghai and Paris, users in both locations showed a clear preference for portraits captured by vivo smartphones and photographer rendering, citing higher brightness and more pleasing skin tones.

SI = Satisfaction Index [Blue background refers to the Paris panel, while the Orange background refers to the Shanghai panel] 

For this example, both groups ranked vivo X200s and OPPO Find X8 Ultra among the top three for imaging quality. The Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra was excluded due to unnatural skin tones in low-light conditions.

If You Love It, Will Others Feel the Same?

DXOMARK Insights

While a unified tuning approach is broadly feasible, regional and individual differences remain significant. In some cases, users in China and France expressed completely opposite preferences when evaluating the same images.

Research Findings

SI = Satisfaction Index [Blue background refers to the Paris panel, while the Orange background refers to the Shanghai panel] 

In the Shanghai study, the results highlighted regional differences in preferred rendering styles. Shanghai users showed a strong preference for the vivo X200S and photographer rendering, while Paris users favored vivo’s rendering. Despite these differing preferences, both panels reported comparable satisfaction index, with only minor variations observed across the two regions.

SI = Satisfaction Index [Blue background refers to the Paris panel, while the Orange background refers to the Shanghai panel] 

In the indoor use case, user preferences showed partial overlap: Paris users favored warmer color rendering while Shanghai users preferred less warm more neutral color rendering.

Real-World Portrait Photography : What Truly Matters to Users?

DXOMARK Insights

Despite rapid advances in smartphone imaging, user evaluation criteria in real-world scenarios remain remarkably consistent.

Research Findings

Comparing Shanghai surveys from 2024 and 2025 revealed nearly identical rejection reasons: images that were too dark, unnatural skin tones, insufficient facial brightness, or lack of skin fairness.

It is noteworthy that the satisfaction index for vivo devices increased in 2025, driven by changes in rendering that delivered softer facial contrast, more controlled peak brightness and reduced facial shine.

Roundtable Open Discussion Among the Expert Committee Members

In addition to exploring the findings of our global Insights studies, we opened the discussion for a debate on various topics related to smartphone imaging and user preferences. Here are some thoughts from our experts on these topics.

Common Failure Modes in Skin Tone Rendering

    • Madder noted that strong backlighting can cause exposure flicker, while unsmooth zooming or camera switching in video often leads to white balance and sharpness issues that are especially noticeable to non-professional users.
    • Gugugu described skin tone as a “memory color,” stressing that cameras must reproduce how users remember colors, not just objective values. He recommended improving multispectral recognition to better handle complex lighting.
    • Marko Risovic pointed out that portrait prioritization can sometimes strip background environments of texture, urging manufacturers to better balance subject and surroundings.

Localization vs. Standardization

Cem Kıvırcık argued that while cultural expectations matter, manufacturers should always offer standard or natural modes:

“Excessive smoothing and brightening may satisfy some preferences, but they often undermine authenticity.”

The Role of Customization Tools

Customization tools were widely viewed as essential not to add filters, but to give users control over aggressive AI processing. As aesthetics evolve and self-expression becomes more important, such tools are expected to play an increasingly critical role in mobile imaging.

What Image Styles Do Users Want?

Experts agreed that users are increasingly drawn to authentic, true-to-life imagery. While vibrant, share-ready photos were once dominant, demand is growing for images that preserve natural textures especially in skin tones and environmental detail. Consistent color rendering across focal lengths and accurate reproduction of key colors remain top priorities.

Conclusion and Path Forward

This cross-regional research highlights strong common ground in consumer expectations, demonstrating that a unified camera tuning strategy can successfully address the needs of users across global markets. At the same time, regional preferences shaped by cultural context, aesthetic sensibilities, and individual taste continue to influence how imaging attributes are perceived.

Across all regions, accurate and pleasing face and skin-tone rendering consistently emerged as a universal priority, underscoring its central role in user satisfaction.

Building on these insights, DXOMARK will continue to convene regular roundtable discussions through the Imaging Experts Committee. Anchored in real consumer feedback, this global open-collaboration aims to meaningfully support the development of next-generation imaging evaluation standards and contribute to the ongoing evolution of the imaging industry.

The post Highlights from the DXOMARK Imaging Experts Committee Roundtable appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/highlights-from-the-dxomark-imaging-experts-committee-roundtable/feed/ 0 Roundtable_ArticleKV_small roundtablerecap_insightsflowchart Roundtable_InsightsComparison2 Roundtable_InsightsComparison4 CemQuote_Article_small Roundtable_InsightsComparison5 Roundtable_InsightsComparison1 HerveQuote_article_small shanghaigraphs_roundtablrecap Roundtable_InsightsComparison_small Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Camera test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-pro-max-camera-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-pro-max-camera-test/#respond Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:07:22 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=190165&preview=true&preview_id=190165 We put the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results [...]

The post Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max through our rigorous DXOMARK Camera test suite to measure its performance in photo, video, and zoom quality from an end-user perspective. This article breaks down how the device fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases and is intended to highlight the most important results of our testing with an extract of the captured data.

Overview

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 50MP 1/1.28″ sensor, 2.4µm pixels, 23mm equivalent f/1.67-aperture lens, dual pixel PDAF, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 50MP 1/2.88″ sensor, 0.61µm pixels, 17mm equivalent f/2.4-aperture lens
  • Tele: 50MP 1/1.95″ sensor, 0.8µm pixels, 115mm equivalent f/2.6-aperture lens, PDAF, OIS

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Xiaomi 17 Pro Max
159
camera
165
Photo
Main
176

184

Bokeh
160

180

Ultra-Wide
106

169

Tele
148

170

146
Video
Main
155

186

Ultra-Wide
111

151

Tele
115

140

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 169

Portrait

Portrait photos of either one person or a group of people

BEST 185

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 180

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 149

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 159

Zoom

Photos and videos captured using zoom (more than 1x)

Pros

  • Accurate white balance and nice colors
  • Good detail and texture/noise trade-off in still images
  • Generally fast and accurate autofocus

Cons

  • Video stabilization could be better, camera shake, even when standing still during recording
  • White balance and exposure instabilities, as well as transition issues in video mode
  • Noise in low light video
  • 17mm ultra-wide camera’s field of view more limited than on direct competitors

With the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max, Xiaomi makes its ambition to rival the iPhone 17 Pro Max clear not only in name, but also in imaging performance. This strategy largely succeeds in Photo, where the device scores just one point below Apple’s flagship. The slight deficit is mainly due to zoom limitations, stemming from the ultra-wide camera’s constrained 17mm focal length, which reduces flexibility at shorter zoom ranges.

That said, the Xiaomi’s primary camera slightly outperforms the iPhone’s, delivering consistently accurate exposure, pleasing color rendering, and an excellent texture/noise trade-off. Noise is particularly well controlled, often surpassing Apple’s performance in challenging scenes. While the ultra-wide’s field of view is somewhat limited, image quality remains good within its usable range, and the dedicated 5x tele camera provides solid, dependable results across all tested tele zoom settings.

Video is where the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max falls behind the iPhone and other top-tier flagships. White balance transitions can be abrupt or inconsistent, autofocus reliability is uneven, and visible noise appears in the shadow areas of the frame and when recording low-light scenes. In addition, video texture rendering is relatively low for a device positioned at the very top end of the market.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Pleasant overall rendering, with accurate target exposure and colors
BEST 149
Lowlight

When shooting photos in low light, the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max delivers a very good performance across a wide range of use cases, including portrait mode and tele zoom. Image detail is very good while noise levels are well under control, resulting in pleasing detail, even under difficult light conditions. Target exposure is generally good. While our testers observed slight underexposure in some portrait scenes, this rarely had a significant impact on overall image quality. The Xiaomi’s main issues in low light photography are exposure consistency and color. Some exposure instabilities can be noticeable across a series of consecutive shots, and under warm artificial light our experts sometimes noticed an orange cast in non-portrait scenes.

Low light video is more of a struggle for the 17 Pro Max. While footage is exposed well and texture levels are reasonable, noise can become very intrusive, especially in the shadow areas. In addition, color management issues are more evident in video, with unstable white balance and inaccurate skin tone rendering. These issues prevent the Xiaomi from matching the best-in-class flagship smartphone cameras in low light video scenes.

BEST 169
Portrait

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max portrait images are excellent. The camera is getting all the basics right, and skin tone rendering and face detail are outstanding. Autofocus is fast, but in some scenes our testers noticed a short delay after pressing the shutter button. Depth of field is slightly limited, which means that in group portraits, subjects towards the back of the scene can appear out of focus. The dedicated portrait mode maintains these image characteristics and applies a simulated bokeh effect. In bokeh mode, subject isolation is mostly good, but in some more complex scenes, with multiple objects at different distances from the camera, our experts noticed some depth estimation inaccuracies.

BEST 159
Zoom

Test summary

About DXOMARK Camera tests: DXOMARK’s camera evaluations take place in laboratories and real-world situations using a wide variety of use-cases. The scores rely on objective tests for which the results are calculated directly using measurement software in our laboratory setups, and on perceptual tests where a sophisticated set of metrics allow a panel of image experts to compare aspects of image quality that require human judgment. Testing a smartphone involves a team of engineers and technicians for about a week. Photo and Video quality are scored separately and then combined into an overall score for comparison among the cameras in different devices. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera protocol, click here. More details on smartphone camera scores are available here. The following section gathers key elements of DXOMARK’s exhaustive tests and analyses. Full performance evaluations are available upon request. Please contact us  on how to receive a full report.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Camera Scores
This graph compares DXOMARK photo and video scores between the tested device and references. Average and maximum scores of the price segment are also indicated. Average and maximum scores for each price segment are computed based on the DXOMARK database of devices tested.

Photo

165

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

180

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i
About DXOMARK Camera Photo tests

For scoring and analysis, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate more than 3,800 test images in controlled lab environments as well as outdoor, indoor and low-light natural scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The photo protocol is designed to take into account the main use cases and is based on typical shooting scenarios, such as portraits, landscape and zoom photography. The evaluation is performed by visually inspecting images against a reference of natural scenes, and by running objective measurements on images of charts captured in the lab under different lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

Main

176

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

184

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Photo scores
The photo Main tests analyze image quality attributes such as exposure, color, texture, and noise in various light conditions. Autofocus performances and the presence of artifacts on all images captured in controlled lab conditions and in real-life images are also evaluated. All these attributes have a significant impact on the final quality of the images captured with the tested device and can help to understand the camera's main strengths and weaknesses at 1x.

The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max’s primary camera is one of the best we have tested to date for photo capture and in our photo ranking, is only surpassed by the last two generations of Huawei Pura devices. Image quality is overall highly consistent and competitive, with particular strengths in color rendering and texture/noise management.

Color performance is a highlight among the photo tests, thanks to a consistently accurate and pleasant white balance in most shooting conditions and well-rendered skin tones across a wide range of complexions. Color remains well controlled in low light, with only rare deviations that are generally down to exposure behavior rather than color processing. The Xiaomi’s trade-off between texture preservation and noise reduction is among the best we have seen. Image detail is crisp, defined well and rendered very naturally, even in low light. There is barely any noise in most daylight and indoor scenes. It becomes only slightly more noticeable at lower light levels. This means fine textures are rendered nicely, without any aggressive noise reduction artifacts.

The autofocus system is fast and accurate in most situations, contributing to a high keeper rate. The somewhat limited depth of field can result in slight sharpness falloff on subjects positioned further back in group portraits, but this is true for many current flagship phones and does not significantly detract from the overall experience.

Where the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max lags slightly behind the very best competitors is exposure performance. While target exposure is mostly correct, we observed some instabilities across consecutive shots. As a result, multiple captures may be necessary to ensure the desired rendering. In addition, our testers noticed occasional issues with contrast, as well as slight underexposure, particularly in high-contrast scenes and with subjects with with darker skin tones.

Exposure
129

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

134

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Exposure is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The main attribute evaluated is the brightness level of the main subject through various use cases such as landscape, portrait, or still life. Other factors evaluated are the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Photo HDR format, the images are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the ISO-22028-5 standard. Repeatability is also important because it demonstrates the camera's ability to provide the same rendering when shooting several images of the same scene.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Eugene)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.

Target exposure is accurate in most scenes, but not always consistent, with some instabilities across series of consecutive shots. In addition, contrast and exposure tuning are not always optimal in difficult high-contrast scenes, particularly with darker skin tones in the frame. In low light, exposure can look slightly darker than on competing flagship phones, when images are viewed on an HDR display.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Accurate face exposure, wide dynamic range
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Accurate exposure and wide dynamic range, but slight highlight clipping
Honor Magic 8 Pro – Accurate exposure and wide dynamic range, some face areas and lights almost clipped
Color
133

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

Best

i

Color is one of the key attributes for technically good pictures. The image quality attributes analyzed are skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, and repeatability. For color and skin tone rendering, we penalize unnatural colors according to results gathered in various studies and consumer insights while respecting the manufacturer's choice of color signature.

Overall photo color performance is outstanding. White balance is generally accurate and pleasant, making for natural and appealing images. Excellent skin tone rendering provides good fidelity across a wide range of complexions. However, in some scenes without human subjects and under low artificial light, our testers occasionally noticed an orange cast. In addition, dark skin tones can sometimes appear slightly desaturated and unnatural, but this effect is more often linked to minor exposure inaccuracies rather than color processing alone.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Nice white balance and color rendering
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Nice white balance and color rendering
Honor Magic 8 Pro – Nice color rendering but slight white balance cast
Sharpness & Timing
117

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

135

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus repeatability, shooting time delay, and depth of field. Shooting delay is the difference between the time the user presses the capture button and the time the image is actually taken. It includes focusing speed and the capability of the device to capture images at the right time, what is called 'zero shutter lag' capability. Even if a shallow depth of field can be pleasant for a single subject portrait or close-up shot, it can also be a problem in some specific conditions such as group portraits; Both situations are tested. Focus accuracy is also evaluated in all the real-life images taken, from infinity to close-up objects and in low light to outdoor conditions.

Sharpness and Timing: irregularity and speed: 5Lux Δ0EV Tungsten Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and speed as well as zero shutter lag capability by showing the edge acutance versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken in one light condition and indicated illuminant, 500ms after the defocus. The edge acutance is measured on the four edges of the Dead Leaves chart, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Sharpness and Timing: irregularity and speed on AFHDR Portrait Diana setup: 10000Lux Δ0EV D55 Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and zero shutter lag capability by showing the level of details on the face versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR Portrait setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken at 10000 Lux with D55 illuminant, 500 ms after the defocus. The level of details on the face is measured using DXOMARK Detail Preservation Metric on the Realistic Mannequin, the higher the JOD is the more details are visible on the face. And the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Sharpness and Timing: irregularity and speed on AFHDR Portrait Eugene setup: 5Lux Δ0EV 2700K Handheld
This graph illustrates focus accuracy and zero shutter lag capability by showing the level of details on the face versus the shooting time measured on the AFHDR Portrait setup on a series of pictures. All pictures were taken at 5 Lux with LED 2700K illuminant, 500 ms after the defocus. The level of details on the face is measured using DXOMARK Detail Preservation Metric on the Realistic Mannequin, and the shooting time is measured on the LED Universal Timer.
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Depth of field
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Background subject slightly out of focus, with AI sharpening applied to the eyes
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Depth of field
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Background subject slightly out of focus
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Depth of field
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Background model slightly out of focus, with AI sharpening applied to the eyes and face
Texture
130

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

132

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and the texture of subjects in the images taken in the lab as well as in real-life scenarios. For natural shots, particular attention is paid to the level of details in the bright and dark areas of the image. Objective measurements are performed on chart images taken in various lighting conditions from 0.1 to 10,000+ lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The charts used are the proprietary DXOMARK chart (DMC), and the Dead Leaves chart. We also have an AI based metric for the level of details on our realistic mannequins Eugene and Diana.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score vs lux levels for handheld conditions
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with the level of lux, for two holding conditions. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
129

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

Best

i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure on real-life images as well as images of charts taken in the lab. For natural images, particular attention is paid to the noise on faces, landscapes, but also on dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Noise on moving objects is also evaluated on natural images. Objective measurements are performed on images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux and different kinds of dynamic range conditions. The chart used is the Dead Leaves chart and the standardized measurement such as Visual Noise derived from ISO 15739.

Visual noise evolution with illuminance levels in handheld condition
This graph shows the evolution of visual noise metric with the level of lux in handheld condition. The visual noise metric is the mean of visual noise measurement on all patches of the Dead Leaves chart in the AFHDR setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.

The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max is among the best devices in its class in terms of texture and noise. Noise levels are very low, matching those of the latest flagship devices with similarly strong light-collection capabilities, such as the Honor Magic 8 Pro, the Vivo X300 Pro or the Oppo Find X9 Pro. Noise only becomes noticeable in the shadow areas of high dynamic range scenes, or in extreme low light conditions. The camera’s ability to preserve fine textures while keeping noise levels low is truly outstanding. Detail remains crisp and natural, even in low light. If any AI-based detail reconstruction is applied, it is done so very carefully, enhancing detail without making it look artificial.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Texture and noise
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - High levels of detail, natural rendering, no noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Texture and noise
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - High levels of detail on textured areas, slight noise
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Texture and noise
Honor Magic 8 Pro - High levels of detail, slightly unnatural rendering, no noise
Artifacts
78

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

81

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL
i

The artifacts evaluation looks at flare, lens shading, chromatic aberrations, geometrical distortion, edges ringing, halos, ghosting, quantization, unexpected color hue shifts, among others type of possible unnatural effects on photos. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction on the score. The main artifacts observed and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main photo artifacts penalties

Bokeh

160

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

180

Vivo X300 Pro
i

Bokeh is tested in one dedicated mode, usually portrait or aperture mode, and analyzed by visually inspecting all the images captured in the lab and in natural conditions. The goal is to reproduce portrait photography comparable to one taken with a DLSR and a wide aperture. The main image quality attributes paid attention to are depth estimation, artifacts, blur gradient, and the shape of the bokeh blur spotlights. Portrait image quality attributes (exposure, color, texture) are also taken into account.

In bokeh mode the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max produces good portrait images, that come with generally accurate depth estimation and clean subject segmentation in real-life scenes. Edge detection is well handled in most situations, with only occasional minor errors around complex shapes. Depth estimation becomes less reliable in scenes with multiple subjects at different distances from the camera or with very busy backgrounds, such as our laboratory setups. Other bokeh attributes are managed well. Spotlights in the background are rendered with a nice shape and good contrast. Blur intensity is sufficiently strong to create a convincing background separation. Overall, bokeh performance is comparable to the iPhone 17 Pro, but trails slightly behind the best-in-class devices, such as the Vivo X300 Pro or the Honor Magic 8 Pro.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Bokeh mode
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Generally accurate segmentation, but artifacts on fine details, such as the hair
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Bokeh mode
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Generally accurate segmentation, but artifacts on fine detail such as the hair
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Bokeh mode
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Accurate segmentation

Tele

148

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

170

Vivo X300 Pro
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 40 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and detail. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life images.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Telephoto Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

With its 5x optical tele module, the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max offers the longest native focal length among current flagship devices, most of which are limited to 3x to 3.5x factors. Its longer tele lens allows the Xiaomi to stand out, particularly at longer zoom settings, where optical capture can provide clear benefits. This said, some limitations become apparent at medium tele zoom, where the camera relies on cropping the primary camera image. At these settings detail preservation is therefore lower than on competing devices that already use the dedicated tele camera at medium range. After the switch to the 5x tele, image quality improves noticeably, with sharper rendering and better textures, allowing the Xiaomi to catch up with its peers.

At longer zoom ranges, where cropping of the the tele camera image is necessary, the Xiaomi, like many of its rivals, relies on AI-powered processing to enhance fine detail. While this approach helps recover structure, its effectiveness is somewhat limited. Detail rendering can look unnatural, especially in portrait shots, where textures can appear uneven and slightly artificial.

Exposure and color rendering are generally well controlled and reliable across the zoom range, ensuring consistently pleasant results in most conditions. Overall, the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max delivers a competent and versatile tele zoom experience. While medium range detail and AI rendering at long tele settings leave some room for refinement, the Xiaomi is overall competitive in the tele zoom category and offers clear advantages to those who frequently shoot at longer focal lengths.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Long range tele
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max - Good overall quality, high levels of detail
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Long range tele
Apple iPhone 17 Pro - Slight loss of detail
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Long range tele
Honor Magic 8 Pro - Fairly good detail, slightly inaccurate color rendering

UltraWide

106

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

169

Vivo X200 Ultra
i

These tests analyze the performance of the ultra-wide camera at several focal lengths from 12 mm to 20 mm. All image quality attributes are evaluated, with particular attention paid to such artifacts as chromatic aberrations, lens softness, and distortion. Pictures below are an extract of tested scenes.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Ultra-Wide Scores
This graph illustrates the relative scores for the different zoom ranges evaluated. The abscissa is expressed in 35mm equivalent focal length.

Images captured with the Xiaomi’s ultra-wide camera are generally crisp and bright. Overall, the camera captures good levels of detail while noise levels are kept low. Color rendering is generally pleasant and target exposure is usually accurate. However, with an equivalent focal length of 17mm, the field of view is narrower than on the ultra-wide cameras of the competition.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Slightly more limited field of view than competitors, good overall image quality, slightly warm white balance
Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Wider field of view, good overall image quality
Honor Magic 8 Pro – Wider field of view, good overall image quality, slightly cold white balance

Video

146

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

172

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i
About DXOMARK Camera Video tests

DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate almost 3 hours of video in controlled lab environments and in natural low-light, indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. The evaluation consists of visually inspecting natural videos taken in various conditions and running objective measurements on videos of charts recorded in the lab under different conditions from 0.1 to 10000+ lux and color temperatures from 2,300K to 6,500K.

Learn more about how we test camera

While in photo mode the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max can fully live up to its flagship ambitions, its video capabilities lag somewhat behind the best-in-class devices, such as Apple’s iPhone 17 Pro Max. That said, the device delivers a solid and competitive video experience, particularly when recording in good light.

Video exposure is outstanding, with the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max sharing the top spot in this category with the Vivo X300 Pro. Target exposure is accurate, and the camera captures a wide dynamic range, preserving detail in both highlights and shadows. This means the Xiaomi is ideal for outdoor recording, where results are consistently pleasing. However, some limitations become noticeable in more difficult light conditions. In lower light and in mixed lighting scenes, noise becomes more intrusive and unstable white balance transitions can lead to inconsistent color rendering. These issues become more pronounced at the light gets dimmer. Noise levels increase further and skin tones can take on a less natural appearance.

Video autofocus usually works well when recording static scenes, but can struggle with tracking moving subjects, sometimes hesitating to lock onto the correct target. In addition, video stabilization falls slightly behind what is typically expected from a flagship device, with camera shake remaining noticeable, even when standing still during recording.

Overall, the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max delivers a good video performance with excellent exposure and dynamic range in bright conditions, but it still has some room for improvement in low light. Autofocus tracking, and stabilization also need some improvement to allow the Xiaomi to truly compete with the very best video-centric smartphones.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Overall accurate target exposure and color

Main

155

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

186

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Video scores
Video Main tests analyze the same image quality attributes as for still images, such as exposure, color, texture, or noise, in addition to temporal aspects such as speed, and smoothness and stability of exposure, white balance, and autofocus transitions.
Exposure
133

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

Best

i

Exposure tests evaluate the brightness level of the main subject, the global contrast and the ability to render the dynamic range of the scene (ability to render visible details in both bright and dark areas). When the camera provides Video HDR format, the videos are analyzed with a visualization on an HDR reference monitor, under reference conditions specified in the metadata. Stability and temporal adaption of the exposure are also analyzed.

Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Brightness on face with illuminance levels (Diana)
These graphs represent the output level on the face measured on the images captured by the device under test in multiple lighting conditions on the AFHDR Portrait setup. We show here the intensity measured on the forehead of the realistic mannequin, for a picture displayed on a HDR monitor in standard ISO/TS 22028-5 playback conditions. The multiple lighting conditions of the scene are characterized by the illumination level in lux and the relative brightness of the backlit panel simulating high dynamic range conditions. Delta EV specifies the difference of luminance in stops between the face and the light panel simulating HDR conditions. The intensity is measured in JND derived from the ICtCp color space.
Color
91

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

131

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Image-quality color analysis looks at color rendering, skin-tone rendering, white balance, color shading, stability of the white balance and its adaption when light is changing.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Accurate color, but slight white balance instabilities

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Accurate color, stable white balance

Honor Magic 8 Pro – Accurate colors, but slight white balance instabilities
Sharpness & Timing
102

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

124

Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
i

For video, autofocus tests concentrate on focus accuracy, focus stability and analysis of convergence regarding speed and smoothness.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Slight refocusing during tracking

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Accurate focus during tracking

Honor Magic 8 Pro – Accurate focus during tracking
Texture
111

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

118

Huawei Pura 80 Ultra
i

Texture tests analyze the level of details and texture of the real-life videos as well as the videos of charts recorded in the lab. Natural videos recordings are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the level of details in the bright and areas as well as in the dark. Objective measurements are performed of images of charts taken in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The charts used are the DXOMARK chart (DMC) and Dead Leaves chart.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation video score vs lux levels
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation video score with the level of lux in video. DMC detail preservation score is derived from an AI-based metric trained to evaluate texture and details rendering on a selection of crops of our DXOMARK chart.
Noise
103

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

129

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Noise tests analyze various attributes of noise such as intensity, chromaticity, grain, structure, temporal aspects on real-life video recording as well as videos of charts taken in the lab. Natural videos are visually evaluated, with particular attention paid to the noise in the dark areas and high dynamic range conditions. Objective measurements are performed on the videos of charts recorded in various conditions from 0.1 to 10000 lux. The chart used is the DXOMARK visual noise chart.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Slight loss of detail and noise

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Slight loss of detail, noise well under control

Honor Magic 8 Pro – Loss of detail, noise
Spatial visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of spatial visual noise with the level of lux. Spatial visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup. DXOMARK visual noise measurement is derived from ISO15739 standard.
Temporal visual noise evolution with the illuminance level
This graph shows the evolution of temporal visual noise with the level of lux. Temporal visual noise is measured on the visual noise chart in the video noise setup.
Stabilization
112

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

124

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Stabilization evaluation tests the ability of the device to stabilize footage thanks to software or hardware technologies such as OIS, EIS, or any others means. The evaluation looks at residual motion, smoothness, jello artifacts and residual motion blur on walk and run use cases in various lighting conditions. The video below is an extract from one of the tested scenes.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max – Camera shake, even when standing still during recording

Apple iPhone 17 Pro – Smooth footage

Honor Magic 8 Pro – Frame shift during panning
Artifacts
83

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

89

Apple iPhone 17 Pro
i

Artifacts are evaluated with MTF and ringing measurements on the SFR chart in the lab as well as frame-rate measurements using the LED Universal Timer. Natural videos are visually evaluated by paying particular attention to artifacts such as aliasing, quantization, blocking, and hue shift, among others. The more severe and the more frequent the artifact, the higher the point deduction from the score. The main artifacts and corresponding point loss are listed below.

Main video artifacts penalties

UltraWide

111

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

151

Motorola Signature
i

All image quality attributes are evaluated at focal lengths from approximately 12 mm to 300 mm, with particular attention paid to texture and smoothness of the zooming effect. The score is derived from a number of objective measurements in the lab and perceptual analysis of real-life video recordings.

DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Tele

115

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

140

Vivo X200 Ultra
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.
DXOMARK CHART (DMC) detail preservation score per focal length
This graph shows the evolution of the DMC detail preservation score with respect to the full-frame equivalent focal length for different light conditions. The x-axis represents the equivalent focal length measured for each corresponding shooting distance and the y-axis represents the maximum details preservation metric score: higher value means better quality. Large dots correspond to zoom ratio available in the user interface of the camera application.

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max

Apple iPhone 17 Pro

Honor Magic 8 Pro

The post Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Camera test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-17-pro-max-camera-test/feed/ 0 TrioPontNeuf_main_Xiaomi17ProMax ArtOnTablet_Xiaomi17ProMax_DxOMark_05-00 ArtOnTablet_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 ArtOnTablet_HonorMagic8Pro_DxOMark_05-00 Best DuoBridgeLocks_main_Xiaomi17ProMax DuoBridgeLocks_main_ApplePhone17Pro DuoBridgeLocks_main_HonorMagic8Pro Best WideDefault_WellWestPortrait_Xiaomi17ProMax_DxOMark_05-00 WideDefault_WellWestPortrait_AppleiPhone17Pro_DxOMark_05-00 WideDefault_WellWestPortrait_HonorMagic8Pro_DxOMark_05-00 Best