Camera Shootouts
Xiaomi 14T Pro vs vivo V40 Pro: Camera Shootout
Camera fight between two Chinese smartphones plus two German camera specialists
We have reached this point in time where the best smartphone cameras are not limited to flagship models anymore. It’s also where tech brands add a “Pro” superlative even to midrange offerings.

The Xiaomi 14T Pro and vivo V40 Pro are just two among the many “Pro”-labeled midrangers launched this 2024. Their focus? None other than their Pro-like camera capabilities for less.
But which is the overall midrange marvel when it comes to smartphone-tography? Let’s check out in this head-to-head camera battle.
T, V, or B(oth)?
T and V are Xiaomi and vivo’s midrange series respectively. And as coincidental as it seems, these two Chinese phone brands have also partnered up with two German camera specialists — Leica and ZEISS, to be very precise.

Camera-wise, the 14T Pro and V40 Pro are quite similar but still different in some aspects.
| Xiaomi 14T Pro | vivo V40 Pro | |
| Wide | 50MP f/1.6 Light Fusion 900 1/1.31” sensor size OIS + PDAF |
50MP f/1.9 Sony IMX921 1/1.56” sensor size OIS + PDAF |
| Ultra-Wide | 12MP f/2.2 120º FoV (Field of View) |
50MP f/2.0 119º FoV (Field of View) |
| Telephoto | 50MP f/2.0 2.6x optical zoom (60mm) |
50MP f/1.85 2x optical zoom (50mm) |
| Selfie | 50MP f/2.0 92º FoV (Field of View) |
32MP f/2.0 80.8 FoV (Field of View) |

Although both phones have 50MP wide and telephoto shooters, the differentiating factors narrow down to the actual sensor used, aperture, and even the focal length — especially when zooming in optically.
Moreover, the biggest gaps can be seen among their ultra-wide lenses as well as their front-facing shooters.
Naturally Authentic?
Camera hardware is just a fraction of the actual shootout. I’m here to help you see how each phone produces images in various scenarios and shooting conditions.
Photo samples are distributed in sections based on one’s focal length, subject, or mode they were shot in.

For fairness’ sake, I have used the default color shooting profile of each phone — namely Xiaomi’s Leica Authentic and vivo’s ZEISS Natural.
Disclaimer: Photos were all taken using Auto Mode with AI scene detection turned on (otherwise stated). These images were collaged, resized, and labeled for faster loading and better preview. No color correction, zoomed-in cropping, nor any other type of photo manipulation were applied.
Wide (1x)
While both have 50MP cameras, the sensors equipped and their varying sizes, lens opening, and even optics are still all different.
Even the camera partnerships and camera profiles made for each brand differ. These snaps might just prove everything.
W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

W7

W8

W9

W10

Ultra-Wide (UWA)
The megapixel count of each phone’s ultra-wide cameras might be the biggest disparity we can ever find here. But does that make a big of a difference in the actual photo output?
U1

U2

U3

U4

U5

U6

U7

U8

Zoom (Telephoto)
For the most equal results possible, I’ve opted to use Xiaomi 14T Pro’s 2.6x magnification on the vivo V40 Pro as well.
Using 2x on the 14T Pro might just result into a digitally-cropped photo based on the phone’s wide (1x) sensor.
T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

Zoom (5x Digital)
While both phones lack a dedicated 5x periscope zoom lens, it doesn’t stop me from pushing the limits as both phones provide 5x zoom option upon firing up that camera app.
Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4

Z5

Food
Each phone’s shooting profiles either make or break the overall quality of the shot. Food is never an exception to that.
F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

Portrait Mode
Both smartphones also possess a dedicated Portrait Mode with several focal length options mimicking an actual camera lens.
Then again, for the fairest results, either 23/24mm or 35mm options were used. Xiaomi’s other lens choices are far off from vivo’s selection (50mm vs 60mm, 75mm vs 80mm, 100mm vs 125mm).
P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Low-Light
Now that night shots have been introduced in the previous section, it’s also the best time to feature the low-light prowess both phones possess.
*These were all taken using Auto Mode, NOT the dedicated Night Mode. Each phone’s AI auto-scene detection may or may not have activated the additional longer time exposure. The author had too much going on in his head during the time of this shooting.
LL1 | 1x Wide

LL2 | 1x Wide

LL3 | Ultra-Wide

LL4 | 1x Wide

LL5 | 1x Wide

LL6 | 1x Wide

LL7 | 1x Wide

LL8 | Telephoto Zoom

LL9 | 1x Wide

LL10 | Ultra-Wide

LL11 | 1x Wide

LL12 | 1x Wide

LL13 | Telephoto Zoom

LL14 | 1x Wide

LL15 | 1x Wide

Results
Familiar users might have already guessed it. The plethora of photographs above don’t lie.
A — vivo V40 Pro
B — Xiaomi 14T Pro
Conclusion
If you own (or have owned) any of Xiaomi’s flagships, there are already some giveaways for you to tell which phone is which.

Stating the obvious, Xiaomi 14T Pro adapts the Leica color science found on its higher-end cousins. That means less punchy colors and the subtle vignetting around the frame — pretty evident in a lot of photo sets such as W1, W2, W6, W8, U4, U5, U6, U7, T6, F2, F3, P5, and P8.
Additionally, 14T Pro’s photos lean more into the cooler side with overall toned-down highlights. Shadows and contrast though can be a little bit inconsistent. I just don’t know what Xiaomi’s AI algorithm favors and how it was taught to deal with certain scenes and subjects.

As for portraits, food, and zoomed shots, the vivo V40 Pro is just way ahead of the game.
The phone has delivered equal amounts of exposure, saturation, contrast, highlights, and shadows altogether. The Xiaomi 14T Pro just made some food snaps less appetizing (F2, F3, F4) and some zoomed photos equally underwhelming (T3, T4, T6, Z1, Z2, Z3).

Moreover, the V40 Pro delivered portraits with a cleaner separation between intricate subject details against that creamy background bokeh (which is modifiable post-shoot). Xiaomi’s 14T Pro is either less contrasty (P1, P6) or just too underexposed (P2, P5).
Not to mention, those ZEISS Style Portraits make portraits as stunning as those taken with actual ZEISS lenses.
Low-Light King

Lastly, both phones gave the opposite output contrary to what each has taken during the day. V40 Pro’s night time photos are more on the cooler side whereas the 14T Pro are warmer.
And by that, low-light shots are, then again, more favorable with the vivo V40 Pro. Pinching in to a lot of these shots, noise grain is very evident on the Xiaomi 14T Pro. But to be fair, there’s some over-sharpening going on between these two.

Still, despite some setbacks, sets LL6, LL7, LL8, LL9, LL11, LL12, LL13, and LL15 were looking more appealing on the Xiaomi 14T Pro.
On the other hand, vivo V40 Pro wins my eyes in photos LL1, LL3, and LL14.
Final Thoughts
I had rummaged through the 500+ shots I took on both phones during my Hong Kong slash Macau trip. Picking the best snaps to showcase in this camera duel was NOT and NEVER an easy task. I still wanted to please readers the best photos I’ve taken while still maintaining a distinction.
That being said, the more I look at the photos I’ve taken, the more I realize that, like us human beings, these smartphones have a specific “forte” wherein they excel a lot.

Xiaomi’s 14T Pro is your best pick if you are into photographs that bring more 🎵 drama-ma-ma-ma 🎶 as someone tries to convey ’em. It’s for those who want that subdued colors that are still eye-catching and pleasing most of the time.
If you’ve also been wanting to get a taste of what Leica offers without lavishing for an actual Leica camera set or a pricier Xiaomi flagship (like the recently-announced Xiaomi 15 Pro), the 14T Pro would more than suffice. That’s most especially if you’re going to highlight most of your shots just on social media — but still great for blogs and websites nonetheless.
SEE ALSO: Xiaomi 14T Pro: F1 SG GadgetSnaps, Vibe Check

For overall flexibility though, recommending the vivo V40 Pro is just a no-brainer.
You get vivid yet color-accurate shots (especially thanks to ZEISS’ Natural color profile). You also get the best portraits with actual ZEISS lens bokeh imitations, food shots that are mouthwatering, telephoto shots that are clear whether optically or digitally zoomed, and low-light shots that are truly post-worthy.
SEE ALSO: Taking the vivo V40 Pro to an ITZY concert, a getaway, more
Camera Shootouts
Camera Shootout: HONOR 400 Pro vs TECNO CAMON 40 Premier
Camera battle of two midranger wonders
In my previous camera smackdown, I clearly stated that we don’t have the HONOR 400 Pro to try out.
Months have passed, the odds were (finally) in my favor as I was able to test it against another midranger wonder, the TECNO CAMON 40 Premier.
Oh CAMON, your HONOR
I’ve decided to clash the HONOR 400 Pro and TECNO CAMON 40 Premier primarily because both phones offer the quintessential triple rear camera system.
HONOR 400 Pro |
TECNO CAMON 40 Premier |
|
Wide |
200MP f/1.9
|
50MP f/1.88
|
Ultra-Wide |
12MP f/2.2 |
50MP f/2.2 |
Telephoto / Periscope |
50MP f/2.4
|
50MP f/2.2
|
Selfie |
50MP f/2.0 |
50MP f/2.5 |
Hardware-wise, disparities are quite evident. The TECNO CAMON 40 Premier rocks quad 50MP cameras (including the selfie camera), whereas the HONOR 400 Pro has variations in its overall camera system.
It highlights its 200MP Samsung ISOCELL HP3 main camera while TECNO begs to differ as it packs a sensor made by the Korean giant’s Japanese rival — the newcomer Sony LYT-701C sensor that’s only used in two phones so far (2024’s realme 13 Pro+ being the other).
The opposite happens in HONOR 400 Pro’s ultra-wide lens as it features the smaller 12MP camera.
But, the biggest dealbreaker has got to be the existence of 3x zoom shooters that their base models lack.
Although both acquire the same megapixel count, the HONOR 400 Pro is equipped with a traditional telephoto lens structure while the TECNO CAMON 40 Premier boasts a periscope lens that utilizes a prism design / mirror system for capturing long-range subjects and objects.
Lastly, both phones have 50MP front-facing cameras with slight differences in aperture value.
Sticking with the Standard
Much like any other shootouts, I’ve opted to stick with the standard shooting profiles that both phones have right after setting ’em up: Standard for TECNO, Natural for HONOR.
Disclaimer: Photos were all taken using Auto Mode with AI scene detection turned on. These images were collaged, resized, and labeled for faster loading and better preview. No color correction, zoomed-in cropping, nor any other type of photo manipulation were applied.
Ultra-Wide Angle (UWA)
Similar lens diaphragm, totally different megapixel count.
Does that alone make a far cry?
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
Main (1x + 2x)
The massive 200-megapixel main camera of the HONOR 400 Pro is four times larger compared to TECNO CAMON 40 Premier’s already capable 50MP Sony sensor. Obviously, that comes in very handy when taking zoomed shots via in-sensor cropping.
However, can you even tell which sample belongs to which smartphone?
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
3x Optical Zoom
The crème de la crème of these two phones are their zoom shooters.
While lens structure are different (again, telephoto for HONOR while periscope for TECNO), which one gives THE better optically-zoomed shots?
ZO1
ZO2
ZO3
ZO4
ZO5
ZO6
ZO7
ZO8
ZO9
ZO10
ZO11
ZO12
ZO13
Beyond 5x Zoom
Given that both phones are capable of shooting optically up to 3x, how can each phone go beyond 5x zoom?
ZB1
ZB2
ZB3
ZB4
ZB5
ZB6
ZB7
ZB8
ZB9
ZB10
Food
Hardware is one. Software is for another.
Food shots are one of the best ways to know how good (or bad) a phone is when it comes to photo quality and color accuracy.
F1
F2A
F2B
F3A
F3B
F4
F5
Portrait Mode
Taking creamy~licious portraits shouldn’t be a rare feat among modern-day midrangers.
But can TECNO’s standard Portrait Mode compete with HONOR’s Harcourt prowess?
PM1
PM2
PM3
PM4
PM5
Low-Light
I said it before and I’ll say it again.
Taking shots in low-light is what makes or breaks a phone’s photography performance.
LL1
LL2
LL3
LL4
LL5
BONUS: Selfie
B1A | Ultra-Wide Portrait ON
B1B | 1x Wide Portrait ON
B2A | 1x Wide Portrait OFF
B2B | Ultra-Wide Portrait OFF
Results
Notice a pattern? Or lack thereof?
Well, the results are definitely consistent.
Conclusion
At first, it’s kind of hard to distinguish which phone is which.
For instance, the ultra-wide, 1x wide, and 2x photos of the TECNO CAMON 40 Premier leaned more onto the cooler side. However, the contrary happens in Sample Sets M5 / M8 / M9 where the shots are warmer than its HONOR counterpart.
If you zoom in further, HONOR 400 Pro’s 200MP main sensor doesn’t have a huge advantage — delivering somewhat the same amount of detail compared to the CAMON 40 Premier.
Except for Photos ZO6 / ZO8 / ZO9 / ZB7 / ZB8, consistency in warmness continues among photos taken in the CAMON 40 Premier’s 3x periscope zoom lens.
How natural is “Natural”?
Despite choosing the “Natural” Color Mode in the HONOR 400 Pro, Sets M4 / ZO12 / ZO13 / LL5 truly showed lack of saturation with its washed out photos. That same look is even evident in 5 out of 7 food shots.
It also struggles to capture a balanced dynamic range. Making Set M3 as an example, look at how blown-out the highlights of the night lights have turned out in HONOR versus TECNO.
There were times when HONOR takes brighter photos but at the expense of amping up shadows and losing contrast (M4 / M8 / ZB2 / ZB3). Inconsistently, the results turned out the other way around in Sets U1 / U2 / U4 with lower exposure and darker shadows.
Photos taken at night also looked dimmer versus TECNO’s post-ready low-light takes.
HONOR’s “Natural” color profile doesn’t look natural at all with its inaccuracy and inconsistencies compared to how I / we perceive the actual subjects in real life.
That’s not to say the HONOR 400 Pro produces bad photos. Honestly, there are times where I preferred the HONOR more — Samples ZO6 / ZB7 / ZB8 / ZB9 are living proof to that.
If there’s a category where I think HONOR has nailed, it’s definitely the Portrait Mode with better shots and depth segmentation, properly showcasing its Harcourt specialty. Additionally, selfies looked better no matter where and how you look at it
Higher price ≠ Higher performance
Reiterating what I’ve said in my HONOR 400 vs vivo V50 camera showdown, the HONOR 400 Pro and TECNO CAMON 40 Premier are also two midrangers positioned in different levels of the same sailing ship.
Price-wise, the HONOR 400 Pro costs more at PhP 32,999. Meanwhile, TECNO’s CAMON 40 Premier is heaps cheaper at just PhP 21,999. That makes it a very contending smartphone in the upper-midrange space.
For the same price, you’ll only get the HONOR 400 at PhP 22,999 along its absence of a dedicated telephoto lens.
While there are more factors to consider in this huge price gap such as a faster chipset, bigger battery capacity, larger internal storage, and several other hardware nuances, it’s safe to say that a higher price tag isn’t always synonymous to having the best cameras. This camera shootout alone is just one among many testaments to that.
READ: It’s the little things that make the HONOR 400 Pro 5G a daily wonder
At the end of the day, it’s your choice as a consumer which smartphone camera (both in image quality and overall look) dominates your priorities and overall purchasing power.
Now, if you’d ask me, the TECNO CAMON 40 Premier ultimately bags that “bang for the buck” title for offering the better camera flexibility despite its more affordable price tag.
It feels like just yesterday we were comparing three foldables in one big camera shootout. In reality, it’s been a full year — and a lot has changed. This time, it’s down to two powerhouses: the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 and the OPPO Find N5.
Both are book-style foldables launched globally in 2025 — Samsung in July, OPPO earlier in February. Both also come with major physical changes: they’re slimmer, taller, and in the Fold7’s case, slightly wider too. But the real battle lies inside: the cameras.
Samsung brought over the 200MP main shooter from the Galaxy S25 Ultra to the Fold7. The rest of the system, however, didn’t see major changes. Meanwhile, OPPO gave the Find N5 a full-on imaging overhaul.
On paper
| Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 | OPPO Find N5 | |
| Main Camera | 200 MP, f/1.7, 24 mm (wide), 1/1.3″, PDAF, OIS | 50 MP, f/1.89, 1/1.56″, OIS (HyperTone wide-angle) |
| Ultrawide | 12 MP, f/2.2, 120°, 1.4 µm, PDAF | (Not specified in source – likely none or under 50 MP) |
| Telephoto / Periscope | 10 MP, f/2.4, 67 mm, PDAF, OIS, 3× optical zoom | 50 MP periscope telephoto with macro (~10 cm macro) |
| Video Recording | 8K@30 fps, 4K@60 fps, 1080p@60/120/240 fps, 720p@960 fps, gyro-EIS, 10-bit HDR10+ | LivePhoto with enhanced EIS; video specs not detailed |
| Selfie Cameras | Dual 10 MP front cams (cover + inner display) | Not detailed in provided source |
Specs tell part of the story, but photos reveal the truth. As always, the only edits applied were for cropping and resizing to fit our format.
So how do they compare in real-world shooting?
W (1x)
w1
w2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
W11
W12
Zoom A (2x-3x)
ZA1
ZA2
ZA3
ZA4
ZA5
ZA6
ZA7
ZA8
ZA9
ZA10
ZA11
ZOOM B (6x and up)
ZB1
ZB2
ZB3
ZB4
ZB5
ZB6
Selfie (Outer Camera)
S1
S2
S3
S4
Low light
L1
L2
Blind test reveal & first impressions
Did you guess which was which?
A is the OPPO Find N5. B is the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7.
Now that you know, a few things stand out:
- The Find N5 consistently produced brighter images, especially in low light. OPPO’s post-processing really flexes here.
- The Galaxy Z Fold7 leaned toward a more natural, life-like output, a noticeable shift from Samsung’s traditionally saturated look.
That said, using the Fold7’s main camera at 1x felt… off. The focal length feels awkward — too wide for most shots but just right for taking main-camera selfies. I found myself constantly switching to 2x or 3x, which makes up a big chunk of the samples here.
Flat or flavorful?
One of the biggest differences is in how the two phones handle processing and depth.
Take the Brooklyn Bridge photo through cyclone wire (W8):
- The Find N5 nailed it with more pronounced depth and contrast.
- The Fold7 came off a little flat in comparison.
But this wasn’t always the case. In the shot of the yellow vehicle (w5) and in main-camera selfies (W12), the Fold7 delivered bokeh that looked more organic.
Overall, the Find N5 clearly does more processing after you hit the shutter, while the Fold7 gives you what it sees, almost instantly. Your preference between a more “finished” photo and a natural one will really show here.
Zoom zoom
Let’s be real — this wasn’t even close.
At 6x and beyond, the OPPO Find N5 easily outclassed the Fold7. Detail, sharpness, and clarity all went to OPPO’s corner. Samsung’s telephoto performance just didn’t keep up.
Final thoughts
If we’re talking eye-catching, the OPPO Find N5 wins out of the gate. Brighter shots, better zoom, more punch overall.
But the Galaxy Z Fold7 holds its own. At 1x to 3x — and especially in low light — it sometimes captures a mood the Find N5 over-brightens. The beer glass in a dimly lit bar is a perfect example: OPPO lit it up; Samsung kept the vibe.
At the end of the day, this comes down to what you value.
- Want bright, punchy, more dramatic photos? Go OPPO.
- Prefer subtler, moodier, more natural output? Samsung’s your bet.
That said — if we’re choosing a winner in camera versatility and polish, the OPPO Find N5 edges ahead.
Camera Shootouts
HONOR 400 vs vivo V50: Camera Shootout
Comeback camera showdown of the two Chinese mids
Just like a year ago, HONOR and vivo both step on the arena again for a head-on midrange camera showdown.
Although the HONOR 400 Pro exists, we clearly don’t have it. This just means we have to compare it to the next ideal candidate, the base HONOR 400.
This is up against vivo’s one and lonely V50. After all, the “vivo V50 Pro” simply doesn’t exist in vivo’s 2025 glossary.
HONOR thy vivo
The best reason to compare these two are none other than their similar 1x wide + UWA camera combo.
HONOR 400 |
vivo V50 |
|
Wide |
200MP f/1.9
|
50MP f/1.88
|
Ultra-Wide |
12MP f/2.2 |
50MP f/1.9 |
Selfie |
50MP f/2.0 |
50MP f/2.0 |

Both phones possess a main shooter with a wide aperture closing to f/1.9. But, numbers-wise, HONOR 400 offers four times the megapixel count offered by the vivo V50 (200MP vs 50MP).
The equipped Samsung sensor is also a tad bit larger compared to its OmniVision counterpart.
The opposite happens in their ultra-wide modules. The vivo V50 has the upper-hand with its wider and bigger 50MP f/1.9 unit. Meanwhile, the HONOR 400 has a 12MP f/2.2 shooter.
One thing they obviously met head-to-head is none other than their 50MP f/2.0 selfie cameras.
All Natural
Both the HONOR 400 and vivo V50 feature a trio of color profile options when shooting photos in the default camera mode: Natural, Vibrant, and Authentic for the HONOR 400.
On the other hand, ZEISS Natural, Vivid, and Textured for the vivo V50.

vivo V50 | 2025
For the second midrange camera shootout of the year, we’re going to stick with the “Natural” mode of both phones. They’re both set by default anyway.

HONOR 400 | 2025
Disclaimer: Photos were all taken using Auto Mode with AI scene detection turned on. These images were collaged, resized, and labeled for faster loading and better preview. No color correction, zoomed-in cropping, nor any other type of photo manipulation were applied.
Ultra-Wide (UWA)
How does a smaller or bigger megapixel count affect the overall quality of the phone’s UWA output?
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
Wide (1x)
Now onto the main filling: 200MP vs 50MP — does megapixel count really matter?
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
2x Lossless Zoom
Just because we don’t have a dedicated zoom unit, it doesn’t mean we cannot take photos past 1x.
LZ1
LZ2
LZ3
LZ4
LZ5
LZ6
LZ7
LZ8A
LZ8B
LZ9A
LZ9B
LZ10
Beyond Zoom
Going beyond the lossless zoom limits just to see how far can these two phones take the cake in digital zoom imagery.
BZ1
BZ2
BZ3
BZ4
BZ5
BZ6
BZ7
BZ8
Good Mood for Food
It won’t be a complete camera chow down without a food-dedicated section.
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5A
F5B
Right at Night
Night Mode algorithms make or break a phone’s camera performance.
In this case, which phone is the best when there’s already an absence of natural light?
N1A | 1x Wide
N1B | 2x Zoom
N2A | 1x Wide
N2B | 2z Zoom
N3A | 1x -Wide
N3B | 2x Zoom
N4
N5
N6
N7
BONUS: Portraits and Selfies
Harcourt or ZEISS?
Also, which is the selfie expert among these two midrangers?
P1
P2
S1
S2
S3
S4A | Regular Selfie
S4B | Ultra-Wide Selfie
S5A | Regular Selfie
S5B | Ultra-Wide Selfie
Results
It’s honestly hard to discern which is which, even if you’re familiar with how both phones process photos.
Nevertheless, here are the consistent results:
Truthful Thoughts
After spending a Taipei-filled photo session with these two, I can truthfully say no one is a solid final winner as the results were pretty much a mixed bag.
Sometimes, vivo is victorious over its HONOR counterpart — and vice versa.
Starting with their ultra-wide shooters. Sets U1 / U2 / U4 both showed how the V50’s output leans more into the cooler side. However, the opposite happens in its other shots. Honestly, this can be fixed in post if it’s not your cup of tea.
That said, the vivo V50 still has the overall upper-hand with its larger megapixel count and wider aperture. Such configuration creates UWA images that are clearer and less noisy when zoomed in.
Quite an Oddity
Now, when it comes to their main cameras, you’ll notice right away how the HONOR 400 always captures the tighter shot.
That’s due to the fact that it uses an odd focal length of 27mm versus the 23mm found on the V50 — and pretty much any normal smartphone camera would.
Again, something that’s user-preferential as others like it wider. While some like it tighter than ever 👀
Personally, I prefer the wider focal length for overall flexibility — whether preserving the negative space of a photograph or completely cropping it to fit in the perfect aspect ratio when posting on socials.
In the 1x wide category alone, the vivo V50 is my overall pick over the HONOR 400.
HDR and rightful exposure is just one. The color accuracy and consistency is for another.
HONOR 400’s lackluster shots in some parts just proves my unending point that having a larger megapixel count doesn’t necessarily equate to better-looking images.
While the HONOR 400 admittedly has an extra 0.15-inch in its sensor size, vivo still lives with its better color calibration and software algorithms. A true testament to their long-lasting partnership with ZEISS.
Speaking of, ZEISS Style Portraits are just way ahead of the game compared to HONOR’s Harcourt partnership meant for Portraits (P1 / P2).
Some confusion in the conclusion
The 200MP Samsung shooter of the HONOR 400 comes at an obvious advantage when it comes to taking photos in 2x zoom with its heavy reliance on in-sensor cropping.
If you’ll click in one of the shots above and zoom in, the details are clearer compared to what the V50 shows. The latter looks smudged in favor of a noise-free result.
Weirdly enough, the HONOR 400 tends to produce brighter shots when taking past 2x in most zoomed shots (LZ1 / LZ2 / LZ3 / LZ8A / LZ9A / LZ9B / BZ1 / BZ5 / BZ6). That’s despite having photos with lower exposure and highlights in the 1x category.
Now when it comes to food, the HONOR 400 delivered unexpected results with its muted colors that made food barely appetizing (F1 / F3 / F5A). Surprisingly, the contrary happened in Sets F4 and F5B as the HONOR 400 had the more scrumptious shots.
Once the sunlight goes out and moonlight fades in, each of the phones’ Night Mode algorithm both kick in.
Honestly, both took equally acceptable photos that are also quite alike in overall exposure, contrast, sharpness, and saturation. Then again, the HONOR 400 always had the tighter shot between shots in 1x and 2x (or beyond).
Last but definitely not the least, selfies.
While I’m never the selfie type of guy, my eyes are crystal clear and aren’t deceitful.
Even if the HONOR 400 brought the “natural-looking” selfies outdoors, it failed big time when used indoors (S1 / S2 / S3). Again, the color inaccuracy and inconcistency is ever-present in this category.
No one would simply use that as their profile photo (or even as their featured portrait in the matchmaking app of their choice).
Kudos though for bringing ultra-wide angle selfies that other flagships fail to bring.
Just A Little Bit Caught in the Middle 🎵🎶
Deciding which of these two midrangers is the true marvel when it comes to photo-taking is simply something you’d be stuck in the middle.
Both phones and their camera systems had some fair share of pros and cons that might make you pick one over another.
Other notable hardware specs such as display tech and size, overall battery capacity and charging standards, plus the familiarity, user-friendliness, and overall software experience are the factors that will make you stay or sway.
One thing’s for sure. both the HONOR 400 and vivo V50 run Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 7 Gen 3 SoC with the 512GB configuration being offered around the same price range: HONOR 400 at EUR 549 while less 39 Euros for the vivo V50 at around EUR 510
It’s just a matter of which phone you’re willing to spend on, which phone is closer to what your heart desires.
-
Gaming2 weeks agoRed Dead Redemption is coming to PS5, Xbox Series X|S, Switch 2
-
Reviews1 week agorealme C85 5G review: Big battery, tough body
-
Cameras1 week agoDJI Osmo Action 6 review: An adventurer’s best friend
-
Entertainment2 weeks agoThe Legend of Zelda film gets its first official photos
-
Gaming2 weeks agoClair Obscur: Expedition 33 bags record-breaking 12 nominations at Game Awards
-
Reviews2 weeks agonubia Air Review: The air that’s lighter on your pocket
-
Reviews3 days agoPOCO F8 Pro review: Lightweight, heavy hitter
-
News1 week agorealme C85 with 7000mAh battery, 5G connectivity officially launches














































































































































































