Vivo Xshot is one of the first mobile phones equipped with optical anti shake for the IMX214, while the MX4 is the first machine to use the IMX220 outside Sony. They undoubtedly represent the highest level of domestic mobile phone photography, but who is stronger?
Parameters and description
Vivo Xshot uses Sony IMX214 13 million pixel sensor, with CMOS size of 1/3.06 inch, pixel size of 1.12 µ m, F1.8 aperture with optical anti shake, and 6P lens. Snapdragon 801 integrated ISP (image processor) is used, and the algorithm is provided by Hongruan ArcSoft;
Meizu MX4 uses Sony IMX220 20.7 million pixel sensor, with CMOS size of 1/2.3 inch, pixel size of 1.2 μ m F2.2 aperture, 5-chip lens, 4-channel ISP, and unknown algorithm.
Our previous evaluation《 I am the king? Meizu MX4 Pro detailed evaluation 》The imaging of MX4 and MX4 Pro has been compared sporadically, but there is no unified conclusion on who is stronger in the evaluation room. However, the author's opinion is that although the MX4 Pro has upgraded the lens and algorithm, which is dominant in extremely weak light imaging, the overall performance of the MX4 will be more balanced, so in this comparison, the MX4 will be the representative of the IMX220 camp.
According to their independent evaluation before, the author's simple expectation for them is that the high pixel MX4 will dominate the details in the daytime, and the optical anti shake of the Xshot will affect the edge resolution (because it cannot play all the discrimination at night, the impact on the daytime will be more obvious than that at night); Although the unit pixel size of the IMX220 on the MX4 is larger, the Xshot has optical anti shake, and weak light scenes such as night scenes will be more dominant.
In all the sample pieces below, the left side is MX4, and the right side is Xshot. The MX4 is an engineering machine with the latest firmware, while the Xshot is an elite version, which is also the latest version of firmware.
Daytime outdoor perspective
Meizu MX4's camera is 20.7 million pixels and vivo Xshot is 13 million pixels, so there will be a certain gap in the size of their photos, but the gap is far smaller than expected.
The size of the viewing angle (wide-angle) of the MX4 is a bit larger. When the left side is aligned, the right side lamp post is a bit larger. In terms of white balance, both machines are relatively accurate. The MX4 is slightly red, and the Xshot is slightly yellow.
In the last sample, the outdoor light is sufficient in the daytime, the shutter of both machines is close to 1/1000s, and the ISO is pressed at 100. In this case, they should have reached the limit of their analytical power.
The first unexpected result after the central magnification of the sample sheet was 100% was that the central discrimination of the Xshot exceeded that of the MX4... Because the Xshot was sharpened and the MX4 was smeared (it was one of the few Meizu models that did not take the re sharpening route), the Xshot should be better in the details of "Mingfeng Square and its logo" and the background apartment building.
The lower left corner of the same sample sheet is magnified by 100%, and there is an optical anti shake Xshot. As expected, there is a sacrifice in edge imaging. The edge details are much less than those of the MX4, and the distortion is serious. Brother Guazi's figure and the BMW wheels behind are flattened.
Original drawing
Zoom in to 100% in the center
After running from the backlight to the straight light position, the metering of the two machines turned over. This time, the MX4 appeared to be dark, and the Xshot began to show the nature of high metering. In terms of white balance, the MX4 is close to the real situation at that time, while the Xshot sample is slightly green and blue, but the image permeability is still better than the MX4 (the problem with the lens set?). The MX4 still loses a little bit of detail after zooming in at the center.
Outdoor close view in daytime
In the other group of daytime samples, the white balance and photometry of the MX4 are more accurate than those of the Xshot. The Xshot is still blue-green and the picture brightness is higher than that seen by the naked eye.
The central part is 100% enlarged, and the 20,7 million pixels of the MX4 can be felt in close range, which should be more detailed than the Xshot, but the Xshot has sharpening processing, which does not open the gap between the two.
When the upper left corner of the picture is enlarged, it is found that the edge of the MX4 on the left side is flaky.
However, Daji in the middle and lower part of the picture is also more abundant in the details of its leaves. Except for the focus, the details of the MX4 are not as good as those of the Xshot (that is, the depth of field/clear range of the Xshot is much larger).
It is estimated that this is related to the 1/2.3 inch IMX220 "big bottom" on the MX4 (under the same lens level, the larger the sensor, the stronger the background virtualization, and the worse the edge imaging). In contrast, the IMX214 on the Xshot is only 1/3.06 inch. The depth of field performance and focusing tolerance will be better.
Indoor lighting scene
Normal indoor light, both of which are close to the naked eye. The white balance trend is still the same as in the daytime. The MX4 is red and yellow, and the Xshot is blue-green, but both are slight.
The central magnification is 100%, the Xshot on the lantern position is a bit overexposed, and the control of the MX4 is more accurate. Surprisingly, the Xshot with optical anti shake has raised the shutter speed to 1/33 second for the film rate, while also raising the ISO to 400. In contrast, although the shutter speed of the MX4 is only 1/20 second, the ISO is only 193, and the image purity is better than that of the Xshot (ceiling noise). However, the glare of the MX4 lens is a bit exaggerated (ceiling lighting).
Central magnification 100%
Enlarge the lower left corner by 100%
From another angle, the shutter and ISO of the two machines have not changed much. The image of the Xshot is still brighter, the light is slightly overexposed, and a lot of mesh details on the wall have been lost. In addition, the high ISO has also turned the nearby meal tags into a pile, which is far inferior to the performance of the MX4.
However, if you zoom in on the lower left corner, the MX4's outsole has once again caused serious edge image quality degradation. In the enlarged picture, the upper part of the brand on the right can be seen, but the lower part is pasted into a ball, and the faucet closer to the edge is even more unbelievable
Outdoor weak light sample
20.7 million on the left and 13 million on the right
The left is 20.7 million yuan in automatic mode, and the right is 5 million yuan in night mode
The left is 20.7 million full height display (both sides are too long and cut off), the middle is 13 million, and the right is 5 million pixels in night view mode
It is generally recommended to turn on the night mode under outdoor ultra weak light conditions, but the night view mode of the MX4 is limited to 5 million pixels. The size difference after pixel change is very, very large. Officially, this is the 2x2 binning mode, which combines four pixels into one pixel for use, improving the light sensitivity and weak light imaging, but the effect is a bit unsatisfactory (maybe the environment of the proof is not dark enough?).
Both are MX4. Enlarge the sample to near size. The left is the night view mode, and the right is the automatic mode. The ISO on both sides is about 700, but the automatic mode shutter has 1/14 second, and the film rate is higher. Moreover, the advantage of 4 times the number of pixels is too obvious. The details are hung in the night view mode. The biggest advantage of the night view mode seems to be that the white balance is more accurate (the automatic mode is obviously green).
The sample also revealed the glare problem of the MX4 lens. The glare facing the light source is just against the sky. Fortunately, most of the glare can be avoided by slightly changing the angle (as shown in the right figure).
Another group of samples, the left side is in automatic mode, and the right side is in night view mode. The automatic mode has lower ISO and faster shutter speed, but the picture is darker. However, in details, the night view mode is still available. Moreover, the metering is more accurate. The advertisement board in the upper right corner is slightly overexposed, and "very important" details can be seen.
In line with the "fairness principle", both sides simultaneously opened the night view mode, and the result was that Xshot hung the MX4. In addition to the white balance of the Xshot is slightly yellow, the noise of the hood and the details of the rear pylon are much better than those of the MX4, and the image brightness is higher, while the overexposure is slightly higher than that of the MX4 (the lantern in the middle is slightly higher).
Finally, the automatic mode is used for comparison. In terms of overall sample view, Xshot is much more pleasing, but the image brightness of the MX4 is closer to that seen by the naked eye (more accurate metering). In terms of details, the optimization algorithm of Xshot makes the noise cleaner and sharper, making the picture as pleasing as oil painting.
Although 5 samples were taken at the same time and the clearest one was selected, it is still doubted that the MX4 is burnt here (maybe too dark to focus?), so we will not compare their details here.
Original drawing
But for the other group of samples, the focus is also in the middle, but the real focus positions of the two machines are opposite. The MX4 on the left is far away, and the Xshot on the right is near. So after zooming in on the distant memorial archway, the MX4 details hang the Xshot, but even excluding the focusing factor, the MX4's photometry and white balance are better.
Near the middle part of the picture, the MX4 on the left is not only not smeared but also slightly sharpened, while the Xshot on the right is affected by overexposure and algorithmic smearing, losing a lot of details.
At the lower center, the dignity of the Xshot has returned. Although the details of the lights have been partially smeared, the picture is brighter and more transparent. There is little noise on the hood, and the license plate is extremely clear.
At the right edge of the picture, the details and noise control of the MX4 are still lost to the Xshot, but the unexposed MX4 can see the goods in the store clearly.
summary
In the comparison results, there are many completely opposite to expectations:
First, the MX4's algorithm smearing is weaker than Xshot's daytime discrimination;
Secondly, Xshot, which has purchased third-party algorithms, is not as correct as the MX4 (although it tends to be blue-green) in terms of light measurement and white balance, although it is very stable (but the MX4 sometimes has a large deviation), and the picture is uniform and bright, which will seriously affect the details of bright spots at night;
The most unexpected thing is that under normal indoor light conditions, the detail discrimination ability of the Xshot is much worse than that of the MX4 because the Xshot is so ISO to ensure the picture brightness.
It is expected that:
The edge degradation of the Xshot is much more serious than that of the MX4 with the big bottom, but the lens has obvious advantages and the picture transparency is perfect;
The Xshot added by optical anti shake and third-party algorithm on night low light imaging is much better than the MX4 in terms of image purity and brightness, but the difference in discrimination is not obvious.
During the test, it was also found that the MX4 had a special problem: under the size of the mobile phone, a 1/2.3 inch big bottom sensor was used, resulting in a small depth of field (clear range) of the image, and obvious edge degradation and insufficient depth of the image would appear in close range. The specific performance is that the center of the near still life is clear, but the edge and the near and far objects before and after the focus are blurred. In this way, although it can achieve better background virtualization effect, the accuracy of auto focusing is very high when the clear range is small, and it is easy to miss the target object under weak light at night.
The final conclusion is that the Xshot is better in daytime and ultra weak light, but the MX4 will be more dominant under normal indoor light. If I really choose the best domestic photo, I will vote for Xshot. Although the Xshot has a small problem of overexposure, it has better image permeability and perception, a larger range of clarity (depth of field), and is clear when shooting casually. It does not have the problem of slow imaging speed of the MX4. In addition, it has its own professional mode, which will be easy to use.
Of course, the previous work is based on the use of automatic and night view modes. If you like tossing, you can turn on the full manual mode of Xshot or install a manual camera app for the MX4. The effect will be no less than that of a native camera.
