If you're looking tosave moneyby buying a base smartphone, are you giving up all hopes of taking good photos? The cameras on flagship phones like theiPhone 16 Pro and Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultraare capable of astonishing results, but those and otherbest-cameraoptions cost $1,000 and up.
Fortunately, Google has proved with thePixel 9Athat you can still take good-looking snaps and pay less than $500. Images from the phone look terrific and capture a lot of detail and texture. And Google's algorithm secret sauce for capturing beautiful and natural complexions in portraits is on full display here.
But something curious happened this year. Apple replaced its cheapest phone with the iPhone 16E. In doing so, it tried to pull some of the affordable photographic attention away from the Pixel. The iPhone 16E takes lovely photos, even with one fewer camera than the Pixel. Apple is well-known for pushing the limits of phone photography with the iPhone, but that is usually tied to its iPhone Pro line, which starts at a grand. And while $599 is the lowest price that Apple sells a new phone for, the iPhone 16E misses that $500 sweet spot of the Pixel 9A.
So that raises the question: Does a pricier phone take better photos?
To find out, I took the iPhone 16E and Pixel 9A around San Francisco and put them through a camera test. Several hundred photos later, I was surprised by the results, but I ended up with one being my favorite.
Watch this: Camera Comparison: We Pit the Pixel 9A Against the iPhone 16E
iPhone 16E and Pixel 9A camera specs
| Camera | Resolution | Aperture | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pixel 9A wide | 48MP | f/1.7 | OIS |
| Pixel 9A ultrawide | 13MP | f/2.2 | Takes 12MP photos |
| Pixel 9A selfie | 13MP | f/2.2 | Fixed focus |
| iPhone 16E wide | 48MP | f/1.6 | OIS |
| iPhone 16E selfie | 12MP | f/1.9 | Autofocus |
Right off the bat, this isn't exactly a level playing field. The Pixel 9A has three cameras: a wide, ultrawide and selfie. The iPhone 16E only has two: a wide and selfie. Each phone's main camera has a 48-megapixel sensor and groups four pixels together to create a "super" pixel that captures more light. That also means photos exhibit less image noise and therefore need less noise reduction, which can otherwise leave your pictures looking like a blurry, soft mess.
Both phones lack a dedicated telephoto camera and use sensor cropping to achieve a 2x magnification that in my testing looks pretty good.
Enlarge Image
The Pixel 9A has a "macro mode" and can focus on subjects that are close up. Interestingly, it doesn't use its ultrawide camera for macro shots like many other phones do. Sadly, the iPhone 16E lacks a macro mode unlike the rest of its iPhone 16 brothers and sisters. However, I noticed that the main camera can take close up shots with the subject in-focus (maybe not as dramatically close as a dedicated macro mode allows for).
iPhone 16E vs. Pixel 9A: Photos
Take a look at some of my favorite photos from both phones.
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
iPhone 16E vs. Pixel 9A: Photo comparisons
In general, I found that the Pixel 9A really pushes the dynamic range in its images. The phone captures more details in the shadows but really aggressively brightens them too, like in the photos below of Maisie the cat. The iPhone 16E's image of Maisie doesn't have as much detail and texture in her fur. Somewhere in between the Pixel's photo and the iPhone's image is how the cat actually looked in real life.
Enlarge Image
I also find that the Pixel takes images with a cooler color temperature, while the iPhone's photos have more contrast, especially outdoors. Take a look at the photos below of a brick building here in the Mission in San Francisco. Notice the bricks in each photo.
Enlarge Image
In terms of Portrait mode, neither the Pixel nor iPhone have a dedicated telephoto lens. And remember, the iPhone 16E has only a single rear camera, so it relies solely on AI and machine learning to determine the depth of a scene and create that artistic out-of-focus background.
Enlarge Image
The first thing I notice with the portrait mode photos below of CNET's Faith Chihil is how differently the iPhone and Pixel handled the textures in the yellow sweater and green chair. The "cutout" (from in focus to out of focus) looks natural, except for the green chair in the iPhone's photo. And Faith's complexion looks most true to life in the Pixel 9A image. The iPhone 16E's photo makes her skin look muddy and muted.
Enlarge Image
Something else I noticed is that the iPhone 16E's portrait mode only works on humans; on the iPhone 16 and 16 Pro, animals are automatically recognized as portrait subjects. So, if you want dramatic-looking snaps with artistically blurred backgrounds of Fido or Mr. Cupcakes, then the Pixel is the way to go. Sorry for yet another cat photo, but check out the portrait mode snap below of Maise the cat.
Enlarge Image
Both phones take night mode images (Google calls them Night Sight photos). In the photos below of a space shuttle Lego set taken in a very dim room, neither of the images are great. The iPhone 16E's photo has the least image noise, but the contrast is heavy. I prefer the Pixel 9A's photo.
Enlarge Image
I also snapped images of a residential block at dusk where the street lights really make the iPhone's night mode photo look orange. The iPhone's image is brighter. But notice the details in the telephone wires across the top of the images below. The iPhone captures them as continuous lines, whereas the Pixel 9A's image has them made up of tiny jagged line segments.
Enlarge Image
iPhone 16E vs. Pixel 9A: Which would I choose?
Overall, both phones have their shortcomings when it comes to photography. I don't think most people would choose an affordable phone solely based on the camera's performance. Be assured that if you get either phone, you'll be able to take decent snaps with some images bordering on looking great.
The iPhone 16E costs more, lacks an ultrawide lens and, while the pictures it takes are decent, I think that the Pixel 9A's cameras are great for a $500 phone, and would likely opt for it.
