The 12MP rear camera of the Pixel 2 is pure magic. Thanks to Google’s HDR+ algorithm, the phone is able to capture some amazing photos that would not have been possible a year or two ago. And then, there’s the Galaxy S9. After not making any noticeable improvements to the Galaxy S8’s camera,  Samsung is back in the game this year with the dual-aperture camera of the Galaxy S9.

Between the two handsets, which one has a better camera though? The Galaxy S9 does have an edge as it comes with a wider angle f/1.5 aperture. It is also the first major smartphone in the market to come with a variable aperture lens which should give it an advantage. Then, the sensor also features its own dedicated DRAM which allows Samsung to stack up to 12 photos together for multi-frame noise reduction.

The Google Pixel 2, in comparison, comes with an f/1.8 aperture 12MP shooter with OIS and 1.4um large pixels. On paper, that might not look impressive but it is backed by Google’s impressive HDR+ algorithm which can do wonders. So, is the Galaxy S9’s camera good enough to dethrone the Pixel 2? While DxOMark ranking does seem to suggest that, one must not forget that it takes into consideration a lot of factors apart from just pure image quality.

Galaxy S9 on the left, Pixel 2 on the right

Vlad over at The Verge has done a comparison between the Galaxy S9’s and Pixel 2’s 12MP shooter. The comparison is purely from the viewpoint of image quality and does not take into account the other goodies offered by both phones.

Galaxy S9 on the left, Pixel 2 on the right

In a nutshell, both phones take excellent photos. While the likes of the iPhone X, Galaxy Note 8, and LG V30 can also take great photos, the Pixel 2 and Galaxy S9 are in a league of their own. Both phones, however, have a very different approach to their image processing. The Pixel 2 favors details over noise, while Samsung tends to keep the noise down which can lead to some detail being washed out. Despite the noise though, Pixel photos also tend to retain more colors while the S9 photos in low-light come out desaturated. The Galaxy S9 also has a tendency to overexpose photos, especially in low-light which can lead to highlights being blown out. On the other hand, the dynamic range on the Pixel 2 is simply astounding for a smartphone camera.

Samsung’s optical image stabilization in the Galaxy S9, paired with a greater willingness to apply post-processing sharpening, resulted in a lot of my images looking crisper coming out of that camera. That’s an undeniable advantage and becomes particularly relevant at the lower shutter speeds used in low-light photography.

Galaxy S9 on the left, Pixel 2 on the right

Despite the improvements made by Samsung this time around though, the Galaxy S9’s camera falls just a bit short of beating the Pixel 2.

But is the Galaxy S9 better than the Pixel 2? Sometimes, it is. I’m more certain that the first shot I take with the S9 will be the best possible shot with that camera. Samsung’s optical image stabilization really comes in handy for people like me who aren’t perfectly steady when shooting with their phone.

…

Nonetheless, the Pixel 2 still feels like the phone capable of getting me the best possible photo. In simple terms, the Galaxy S9 Plus has a lower image quality ceiling that you can hit more regularly, while the Pixel 2 — thanks to its untouchable dynamic range and gorgeous color reproduction — offers greater potential but lower consistency.

The Pixel 2 manages to capture in more details and its dynamic range gives it a noticeable lead over the S9. And unlike Samsung’s latest flagship, it does not tend to overexpose low-light photos as well. Nonetheless, remember that this comparison was solely about the image quality of both phones. There are a lot of other factors that you need to consider here as well, including the ability to capture super slow-mo videos on the S9, a better camera app, and more. When you add in those things, the Galaxy S9 does seem like a more attractive package.

Do make sure to head over to The Verge for the complete comparison.