Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pixel 3 Review

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#31

Post by culot »

kodablah wrote: post #21
awill wrote: post #19

I really appreciated the critical honesty here. With a Pixel you're getting an 8 month old SoC. The reason this detail is important is because the 8 month old Galaxy S9 is now selling far below MSRP. You can get them new for around $500. That makes the Pixel FAR more expensive than it's SD845 brothers. Also, it's crazy to me that Apple has such a huge lead in single threaded CPU performance. They've been ahead for ye…

> the 8 month old Galaxy S9 is now selling far below MSRP. You can get them new for around $500 I am only seeing them ~$800 (not plus or note which are obviously even higher), e.g. from AT&T [0] and Verizon [1]. That's quite the difference from $500, can you link where you are seeing this or do you mean second hand or when you switch carriers or something? 0 - https://www.att.com/cellphones/samsung/galaxy-s9.html#sku…

- Unlocked: https://swappa.com/buy/samsung-galaxy-s9-g960u1-unlocked?con...

$600 looks to be the most reasonable price for a sealed new unlocked Galaxy S9 [in the US]. The lower priced 'new' copies on Swappa look open-box, which are likely not new, but a refurb/return, or someone selling their used device as new. Most of the new copies on Swappa are apparently open-box units, as are most of the new units on Ebay. Definitely hard pass there.

Best Buy has new copies for $700 - that'd probably be the... best buy. Maybe you can find a like-new refurb for $500, but it seems like a sealed actual new copy will be harder to find for that price.

So like $150-250 saved by choosing Samsung, and probably getting a superior package in most ways. Google has reduced the warranty period in the US of the newest waves of Pixels by 1 year, so really they aren't offering a ton of value for that high price.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#32

Post by jzelinskie »

awill wrote: post #19

I really appreciated the critical honesty here. With a Pixel you're getting an 8 month old SoC. The reason this detail is important is because the 8 month old Galaxy S9 is now selling far below MSRP. You can get them new for around $500. That makes the Pixel FAR more expensive than it's SD845 brothers. Also, it's crazy to me that Apple has such a huge lead in single threaded CPU performance. They've been ahead for ye…

I have a Pixel 1 and neither the Pixel 2 nor the Pixel 3 are a compelling upgrade for the price. I'm worried that Pixel 4 will be also be mediocre, but I'll be forced to upgrade anyway because Google will start to drop support for Pixel 1.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#33

Post by culot »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #3

The phone is good, but the price is nuts. I'd rather have a disposable Chinese phone and spend the difference on Sony A7 III.

Don't underestimate the convenience of having a decent small camera. Since it also is your all-purpose pocket computer and communication device it is super convenient. Having to grab an interchangeable lens camera out of your bag for every shot gets annoying.

Sometimes you just want a quick snapshot, sometimes you don't want to carry several pounds of camera gear at all times.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#34

Post by rackforms »

celeritascelery wrote: post #28
rackforms wrote: post #23

The basic point and shoot camera tests are fascinating. A cursory glance shows the Pixel 3's camera the best of the bunch, sometimes by far . That said, as an iPhone user it's annoying to see Apple purposely hobbling itself with its overly aggressive (re: terrible) image processing. In this image, for example: https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/6731/A_iX_IMG_0308.jp... The cobblestone ground is literally left unr…

> A cursory glance shows the Pixel 3's camera the best of the bunch, sometimes by far. I am surprised that you drew that conslusion from the review. I got the impression that iPhone and Samsung flagships consistently beat the Pixel 3 in daylight and normal light shots. They just have better hardware. He stated multiple times that iPhone is a better representation of the actual scene. However the night mode is obvious…

Yeah, looking for I should qualify in overall presentation yes.

My comment was more a remark on the de-noise Apple's default camera app applies.

Again, I'd check out that image I linked to. At 100% zoom the ground detail is quite literally erased from the iPhone X image, to the point where it looks like a stylized art filter was applied.

The Pixel at least retains detail in such places (also, for example, on the roof tiles). Link: https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/6731/G_Pixel3_IMG_201...

None are perfect of course -- Samsung loves them some sharpening, and the Pixels images have a slightly garish blue cast I'm not a fan of.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#35

Post by threeseed »

rackforms wrote: post #23

The basic point and shoot camera tests are fascinating. A cursory glance shows the Pixel 3's camera the best of the bunch, sometimes by far . That said, as an iPhone user it's annoying to see Apple purposely hobbling itself with its overly aggressive (re: terrible) image processing. In this image, for example: https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/6731/A_iX_IMG_0308.jp... The cobblestone ground is literally left unr…

Based on EXIF data that image was taken with an iPhone X back in October.

Which means the OS was 12.0 which had a widely reported bug where the image processing was interpolating images incorrectly. This has been fixed in 12.1. Would be interesting to see the photo taken again to see if the quality has improved.

Also why are you comparing an iPhone X against the Pixel 3. The iPhone Xs has had significant improvements to the camera.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#36

Post by threeseed »

fermienrico wrote: post #11
Yhippa wrote: post #2

Very thorough review! Phone reviews are pretty tough to go by. I'm including users comments on phones. If you're going with a major brand like Google or Apple chances are that your phone will be damn good. For the other tiers do some research to make sure the phone is obviously not bad or you can live with purported issues. Hopefully you can go with a phone that has a decent return policy in case it's not great. The…

I don’t know why people like MKBHD. I much prefer reading a thorough objective analysis like they do on Anandtech than some anecdotal opinions. It’s entertaining to watch MKBHD though. I want data. Not entertainment in my reviews.

I'm confused as to why you suddenly brought up MKBHD.

Or why you think Marques should in any way be compared to Anandtech given they serve completely different purposes. MKBHD is a fun, light hearted Youtuber designed for a quick watch often whilst you're doing something else. Anandtech is a multi-page, detail focused review where you often need to block a half hour to read through. The two simply aren't comparable.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#37

Post by on_and_off »

fermienrico wrote: post #11
Yhippa wrote: post #2

Very thorough review! Phone reviews are pretty tough to go by. I'm including users comments on phones. If you're going with a major brand like Google or Apple chances are that your phone will be damn good. For the other tiers do some research to make sure the phone is obviously not bad or you can live with purported issues. Hopefully you can go with a phone that has a decent return policy in case it's not great. The…

I don’t know why people like MKBHD. I much prefer reading a thorough objective analysis like they do on Anandtech than some anecdotal opinions. It’s entertaining to watch MKBHD though. I want data. Not entertainment in my reviews.

>I want data.

I can't help but frown : the anandtech review really rubs me the wrong way when it starts with a long benchmark.

Unfortunately benchmarks are an extremely poor simulation of real life workload and have indirectly contributed to extremely poor devices by making OEMs very tempted to optimize their devices for benchmarks and not for real life workloads.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#38

Post by fireattack »

culot wrote: post #31
kodablah wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the 8 month old Galaxy S9 is now selling far below MSRP. You can get them new for around $500 I am only seeing them ~$800 (not plus or note which are obviously even higher), e.g. from AT&T [0] and Verizon [1]. That's quite the difference from $500, can you link where you are seeing this or do you mean second hand or when you switch carriers or something? 0 - https://www.att.com/cellphones/samsung/galaxy-s9.html#sku…

- Unlocked: https://swappa.com/buy/samsung-galaxy-s9-g960u1-unlocked?con... $600 looks to be the most reasonable price for a sealed new unlocked Galaxy S9 [in the US]. The lower priced 'new' copies on Swappa look open-box, which are likely not new, but a refurb/return, or someone selling their used device as new. Most of the new copies on Swappa are apparently open-box units, as are most of the new units on Ebay. Def…

I don't think the price from private seller should count, so yeah, That BB's price ($700) should be the one used for comparison.

Re: Pixel 3 Review

#40

Post by on_and_off »

mherdeg wrote: post #27

I distinctly remember working with grad students in 2006 whose project was "collaborating with Nokia to make super high quality cameras in cell phones". At the time, I laughed inside and thought, "ha, it's gonna be tough to beat a D2Hs and a decent set of lenses." I was very wrong. Image sensors have come a long way incredibly fast.

I am considering selling my camera.

To be fair my 500$ lens on a $1000 consistently takes better looking portraits (I know it is subjective) than a phone .. but my phone already takes good pictures and is always with me.

It also automatically updloads my pictures to google photos, which is both creepy and incredibly useful.

Post reply on HN