In 2019, I still prefer pixel 2 among my iPhone x. Literally the camera quality is far better than other competitors with huge price brackets. If you're required a high-end camera smartphone in low budget you definitely need to go for it.

I bought a Pixel 2 to replace my Sony Experia Z3V. After a couple of weeks, let me summarize the ways in which this is a game changer for me:
- I no longer think of my DSLR (a very capable Sony a77ii) as my go-to camera for family candids and exploratory walk-around shooting.
- As a result, I'm not packing my DSLR with me as a daily shooter anymore. The Pixel 2's quality is more than good enough, and even allows confident shooting where the DSLR would be too slow or too conspicuous.
- I'll no longer be shooting my DSLR (in RAW) for family candids, casual events or family history record shots; I'm done adding to my backlog of RAW pics waiting for PP. The Pixel 2 is the reason why. My DSLR is now just for dedicated photo outings and landscape or formal portrait shooting where substantial post-processing is planned and considered before the shot. And when I upgrade the Sony, its replacement will be focused on those more formal duties only, extending its life and avoiding unnecessary risk.

Very nice, I like these photos better then taken from my iphone X.
Amazing bokeh on some of the portraits, stunning sharpness and clarity.
I can see this replacing my DSLR.
Color, IQ ..great!

The "look" of computational photographs is certainly different from that of normal digital photos - especially regarding depth of field, bokeh and lens artefacts such as aperture polygons.

But this "look" of conventional photographs is NOT reality, it is merely what we accept because that is what we expect a photograph to look like. The same applies to computational photography.

Whether we like it or not, it is the way photography is developing, and after a time everyone will accept it as the new normal, at which time the "look" of conventional photographs will seem as weird as sepia prints do to today's photographers.

GULP! Being a lifelong SLR and DSLR user, I loathe the smartphone form factor and feel infinitely more comfortable using a "proper" camera, but I'm seriously impressed by this review.

Horrible Bluetooth and app crashing issues! Do not buy. Here is just one post regarding all the Bluetooth issues:

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/phone-by-google/-lpPfDGvkNw;context-place=forum/phone-by-google

Google will not refund my money after I purchased it directly from them a little over a month ago (with insurance). There are clearly hardware issues, but yet all you see online are glowing reviews. There should be a recall. It is not right google with all of it's power selling a crap product and probably blocking, squashing, and otherwise covering up a bad product.

I really haven't seen the need to upgrade my OnePlus 3; the pictures are really great. Believe me, if there were a significantly better camera out there I'd get it as I'm looking for excuses to buy new gear hehe.

Apparently the Pixel 2 uses a different lens than the Pixel 2 XL... The sample images have different exif focal lengths. 4.44mm and 4.46mm.

Preferred the sample gallery over the xh1 sample gallery.

"Until third-party Raw apps can take advantage of HDR+, we'd suggest you stick to the default camera app."
That possibility was added with the February update, i.e. last week.
Though presumably the apps have to choose to use the feature as well, so it might be a little longer until your favourite third party app does actually use this.

I like the portrait shots, but when viewed at 100% the crop is obvious. As such, the image files are needlessly large, and they would probably benefit from being down-sampled a bit.

Serious photographers will never use their phones for important shots because of the Low Image Quality. Pixel 2 is probably good for a smartphone but will never come close to a DSLR due to the Sensor Size. It does not matter how good your upscaling or other post processing method is: missing details can not be processed. An APS-C sensor has more than 21x larger sensor than a phone. Even a point and shoot camera is more than 3x larger. Smartphones are good if image quality doesn't matter or in case of emergency when a great subject appears and you don't have your DSLR with you.

DPR just rendered the brick wall test obsolete with their image of the tile wall. It's a great time to be alive.

The portraits are completely smeared and look cartoonish. Even worse than the iPhone presented recently.

well that's not really true...i've a panasonic CM1 and it's on another planet

Is it true that Google won't replace battery?
If so, a junk after at most 2 years
not for me

anyone know?

For years, an overriding clamor for larger sensors directed and propelled the evolution of digital imaging technology...

But all most people seem to want is a modern-day Kodak Instamatic.

Will you guys do a review of the LG V30 camera?

FWIW, I shoot Nikon FF, (right now, my very nice D610), and it has excellent image quality and when I have it with me, that is what I shoot with. I use a Lifepixel modded D5300 for Astrophotography, and it does well enough.

That said, my Pixel2 has a very good camera and I leave it in HDR mode all the time. It gets the job done and it is always with me, unlike my Nikons. Just consider how you use it rather than thinking it is going to replace a dedicated camera.

Finally, I find my Pixel2 somewhat buggy in some of the applications, especially the Messages app. It hangs a lot when I have the phone in Landscape mode, the voice to text stops working entirely until I back out and come back into the app. Hopefully Google will fix that soon. I bought mine through the Google store.

What's the minimum ISO that the sensor can be taken to when capturing raw?
ISO50 is pretty high and shows significant chroma shadow noise.

Agreed with micsmics. Article is lying, this is not the best camera-phone.
6 yo Nokia PureView808 is STILL a best camera for daylight.

Check tests 2 and 3 to see messy over-sharpened and over-saturated output of GP.

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/21787_PureView_vs_the_Pixel_the_808_.php

See? That's the difference between real optics and cheap picture computing.

More to read:
http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/22562_camera_head_to_head_lumia_950_.php

Periodically using N808 for stock photography.

Best phone for photographers is a bit like the best bicycle for motorists.

So its a good smart phone with a good camera.

Pretty soon even cameras will become obsolete. We will just speak into our smart phone or computer, ask it to create an image for us, and post it to our social media.

Its the final image that counts right?

"oversaturated inaccurate colors are not what a photographer wants" Haha proof that DPR doesn't read its comment sections

"Computational Photography." A perfect description. This is where photography is going.
Is everyone ok with this?

A lot of the criticism posted here is, I think, misplaced. Quality is relative, and the key point with the Pixel 2 (and its peers) is that it represents a pretty big jump relative to what we previously thought was possible with phones.

I used to carry around an RX100 to take candids of my kids, but even that was too cumbersome and slow. Plus, I'd always need to do post-processing, then upload the processed photos to Flickr. And yes, the final product was obviously better than what I'm getting with my Pixel 2, but was the modest increase in quality worth the time involved, let alone the number of shots missed because I didn't carry my RX100 with me at literally all times or was too slow to get it out of my jeans and wait for the lens to extend? Definitely no. We are always trading off quality for convenience, but the phones like the Pixel 2 have seriously closed that gap.

Two comments - First, many photographers end up using a smartphone as a DISPLAY device for images taken with a real camera, as well as for images received from others (images received are largely from phones, but the camera that matters in that situation is the sending phone's camera). I would say that "using the phone's camera" is a comparatively uncommon use case for serious photographers. In either of the other cases, the iPhone's display is a huge advantage...

Second, Android (of any sort) is a huge disadvantage for a high-end phone (there's no choice in cheap phones). Android is what Windows was 10 years ago, a security nightmare (between hacks, malware and malicious ads)... Add Google's tracking to that, and the major reason for many people to pay big bucks for a phone is to AVOID Android's flaws. If you prefer Android (likely due to customizability), you know who you are, and this doesn't apply - but for most people, an iPhone is a better choice because it's less of a hassle.

Nice photos, but a cell phone to me is still a communications device and a camera is icing on the cake, whose main value is being always present. I am happy with my iPhone 8+.

Once again I ask, why not include the EXIF data with the sample photos? Since I live in a Seattle suburb, I really would enjoy where the photos were taken. All in all, an informative and pleasant review.

It's very good that the review compared the iPhone X and the Pixel 2 in auto mode, but tried to get the same shutter speed in auto mode. This way it's much more comparable. The iPhome X is much worse with 1/30s and would be probably even worse if one would compare the blown out highlights/dynamic range.