Xperia 5ii vs Pixel 5 Camera Comparison | Surprising Results! By Hari Talks Tech

Hi guys, I'm harry, welcome back to channel time for another camera comparison, this time between the latest flagships from Sony and google. So in the Sony corner we have the Xperia 5 mark ii, 799 pounds here in the UK 950 dollars. I think in the US, in Google's corner we have its latest pixel phone, the pixel 5. So here in the UK, it's 599 pounds in the US 699. Now these phones have slightly different imaging hardware, so the pixel has a standard wide and an ultra-wide lens. First time, pixels had an ultrawide but sadly ditches a telephoto from last year's pixel, four, the widest 12 megapixels.

It's the same sensor they've been using pretty much for the last three years and the new ultrawide is a 16 megapixel sensor. The Sony preserves most of the imaging setup of the one mark ii. I. E has three 12 megapixel rear shooters the standard wide which is 24, millimeter, equivalent and ultra-wide, which is, I think, 16 millimeters and a three times telephoto, which is around 70 millimeters focal length equivalent. So clearly, the Sony has more versatility in terms of the telephoto and what I haven't done in this comparison is compared the digital zoom of the pixel with the telephoto of the Sony.

Maybe I should have done it, but I just hadn't, so I've just compared the performance of the wide and the ultra-wide lenses on both also taken just a couple of selfies, because in the past I've trashed the Xperia one mark ii and five mark ii, selfie cam, now you'll notice. When we get into the comparison that all the photos are taken in daylight now, I must confess that I did take quite a few nighttime shots on both phones and there were some interesting differences there. But unfortunately, when I uploaded the Sony's pictures, I thought I'd got them all nicely uploaded, but it turns out I hadn't, sadly, I'd already traded in the five mark ii before I realized that I hadn't preserved the pictures from it. So I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for it when I say that on the whole, although the Sony's capable of some really nice nighttime shots, you do need a tripod as it lacks the computational night mode that the pixel has. So today's comparison, I'm afraid just focuses on daylight photography, but I hope you'll still find it interesting and useful.

There certainly are some differences between the phones as you'll see. Okay, let's take a look at some pictures, then, and just for consistency's sake, be aware that the Sony's picture is always on the left and the pixel is always on the right and this first picture of some hydrangeas outside my front gardens fascinating, and you can see the two phones of clearly had a very different take on the color, and in this case there is absolutely no doubt that the pixel has nailed what it actually looked like the Sony's picture looks too purple if you like it looked far bluer in real life, as the pixel is captured. Also note the shallower depth of field of the Sony shot due to the larger sensor. You might like this, I think it looks quite artistic with the both, both great pictures, but the pixel is more true to life, another hydrangea shot and once again the pixels photo captures the true life color. Here we have some autumn leaves on the driveway, and this is a fascinating one, so it actually looked very much like the pixel shot on the right on the left.

You can see the Sony has somewhat desaturated the scene, which is a little odd. Really it's not just a case of the color temperature being a little towards the colder side, which it is, but it also looks a bit more desaturated and the details aren't as good. Now, we've moved into hockey the trendiest bit of Nottingham city center generally, full of hipsters, secondhand, clothing, shops and, of course, the excellent rough trade record shop. Where I spend far too much time and money, I think both these are really excellent pictures I slightly prefer the Sony's take on it. I think the red looked more true to life.

Another shot this time of an old school telephone booth in hockey and again both phones have done really well here, there's just a suggestion of slightly more dynamic range, particularly in the leaves of the trees in the top of the frame on the pixel 5 shot. Both of these phones are capable of wide angle shooting, although, as you can see, the Sony is slightly wider angle than the pixel overall, again, two perfect pictures. The autumn colors in the tree come out nicely in both. I slightly prefer the pixels contrast look here. I just think it adds a nice tone to the overall composition.

Sony's picture is not at all bad. It just looks slightly washed out in comparison here. I undoubtedly prefer the pixels image, even though it's a narrower wide angle than the Sony's picture. I just much prefer the way the tree looks and in fact it looks very much true to life. The Sony's image again.

Has this tendency to wash strong colors out a little moving indoors now, and we've got a picture of a rather splendid cup of caf?, Nero coffee and again both phones have done a great job. Um details sharp on both dynamic range is excellent. If you look at the windows and the lights in the background, I slightly prefer the Sony's take on it. I think it was a bit more true to life, but the pixel's image is superb as well. This is an interesting shot, though so we're still in the same caf? Nero and on the surface of it.

The pictures look extremely similar taken with the main lens, but if you look towards the right side of the frame to the window at the front of the shop, you can see that the dynamic range in the pixel shot is a lot better than in the Sony's shot. You can see the details of what's outside the window, whereas you lose that it's blown out in the Sony's picture. Now I won't lie I've trashed the Sony 5 mark ii, selfie cam, but here I think actually the Sony's not done such a bad job. The only criticism I would level at it is that the coat is wearing is very much black rather than navy, blue, as it appears in the Sony's shot and there's definitely more detail in the fur of my hood, and the skin tone is more accurate on the pixel. Sony makes me look a little darker, so in good light I think the selfie cam is capable of some reasonable shots.

It's just in tricky lighting conditions as we'll see later, where it struggles. I should have put this photo of the plant in earlier when we were doing flowers, but it's such a good photo. I just wanted to slip it in at this point, and again you can see the difference in the depth of field between the larger Sony sensor on the left and the smaller pixel sensor on the right. You lose some detail in the background, which is absolutely fine. It looks awfully blurred once again, the Sony tends towards the bluer color balance.

The pixel has nailed what it looks like in real life with plenty of detail again both excellent pictures. I prefer the pixels one just because it looks more true to life here, we're back indoors in a slightly dimly lit hallway. Now and again, both phones have done an excellent job. I prefer the Sony's picture here. The larger sensor has given a really nice depth of field effect, with a hockey stick in the background being more blurred than in the pixel.

But again both phones have nailed the colors here really well. This picture highlights again the difference in the HDR capabilities, so both were taken with an auto HDR mode on um. The Sony, however, has lost the highlights and also the tree detail looks a bit fuzzy, particularly if you look at the leaves on the tree on the right of the frame. The pixel has done an absolutely stunning job. You can just about make out the different gray clouds in the sky and the trees are just so well exposed.

The grass also looks a lot more realistic on the pixel image, so I think, for me the clear winner is the pixel in this situation. Here's another part of Williston park taken with a wide-angle lens and actually both have done quite a good job here. But once again, I think the pixel's preservation of the dynamic range is superb, it doesn't look overcooked or artificial, as auto. HDR can sometimes make photos, look and I much prefer the pixels take on it. This is the same view, but just with the standard wide-angle lens and once again the pixel's picture is much more like the actual scene.

The Sony really does seem to struggle with these greens, particularly in overcast bright conditions. You lose so much detail. Here's a rather more tricky selfie shot um using the selfie cam on both phones and once again you can see the complete lack of dynamic range in the Sony's picture. It's blown out the sky totally and there's quite a lot of purple fringing around those leaves in the top center of the frame. Pixels also struggled a bit.

It really is a tricky shot to nail, but it's got my skin tone absolutely spot on, and it's preserved slightly more of the detail in the sky, and although there is some purple fringing, it's a lot less marked again look at the grass on the left of the frame. In the background, you can see a lot more detail on the pixels image. I dropped this one in just to show you how similar the shots can sometimes be, though- and in this case the Sony has actually preserved a little more of the detail in the trees and overall I prefer the Sony's take on this scene. Another wide-angle shot here and both phones have actually done a pretty good job. Here I couldn't say that I prefer one image to the other again.

You can see that Sony offers a slightly wider field of view, but other than that they're, both okay, no major complaints. This is inside a slightly dimly, lit shopping center and actually here the Sony has done a much better job at reproducing the actual scene. The neon lighting around the dummies looked far more blue, as it does in the Sony's picture, rather than whitish blue, which it does in the pixels image. So the Sony is the clear winner in this situation. So those are all the photos and I think you'll agree that there are some clear differences there.

First, both phones are capable of some fantastic photography, stills photography, and I think that you'll be happy with both of them and if you're, a pro photographer, who enjoys fiddling with manual settings, there's no doubt that you will prefer the control and flexibility that the Sony gives you. I think the pixel's great strength is consistency. You don't have to be a phenomenally experienced photographer, you point and shoot, and you get consistent, really well exposed pictures with a fantastic dynamic range, and this time more than ever, the pixel seems to have more natural colors than previous generations of pixels. I've used, interestingly, in many cases, particularly in tricky lighting situations, I found pixels colors to be much more true to life and consistent than the Sony's. As I said at the beginning, I didn't show photos from the Sony's telephoto lens, and these are generally very good, although slightly less saturated than the pictures from the wide and the ultrawide.

Now we come to the really difficult question about which one of these two phones, I would pick if I could just choose one for a holiday or something like that, and rather surprisingly, I found myself edging towards the pixel 5. On this occasion, I think google really have done a fabulous job, incorporating the wide-angle lens and the processing this year is just out of this world. There's no doubt that taking pictures of the Sony is great fun, but I found overall the consistency. The dynamic range, the color accuracy with the pixel using minimal effort, is really excellent. This year, so- and rather surprisingly, my pick out of these two for the phone, with the best imaging capabilities for most people are the pixel 5.

I think google have done a great job. I hope you found that interesting, don't forget to hit the like and the subscription buttons, and I'll see you in the next video loads of great stuff. Coming up until then stay safe, you.

Source : Hari Talks Tech