Technologies

iPhone 16E vs. Pixel 9A: I Tested the Cameras and Was Surprised by the Results

Here’s how Apple and Google’s most affordable phones compare against each other in terms of photography.

Most phones these days take decent photos for posting to Instagram or sharing with friends and family on a message thread. But the best cameras are found on smartphones that typically cost $1,000 or more. Fortunately, Google has proved with the Pixel 9A that 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.

iPhone 16E and Pixel 9A camera specs

Camera	Resolution	Apeture	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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Technologies

Tariff Pricing Tracker: We’re Watching 11 Products You Might Need to Buy

Technologies

OpenAI Wants to Fix ChatGPT’s ‘Annoying’ Personality

Sam Altman is calling out ChatGPT’s personality as «too sycophant-y and annoying.»

If it feels like ChatGPT is laying on the flattery a little thick, you’re not the only one who’s noticed.

CEO of OpenAI, the company responsible for ChatGPT, Sam Altman said in a recent post on X the latest batch of updates made to its GPT-4o model have made it become too much of a people pleaser. He added that the company is working on personality tweaks. (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)

«The last couple of GPT-4o updates have made the personality too sycophant-y and annoying (even though there are some very good parts of it), and we are working on fixes asap, some today and some this week,» he said — perhaps forgetting the word sycophantic exists.

He added that «at some point» the company will share what it’s learned from the updates. «It’s been interesting,» Altman said.

In recent weeks, OpenAI has rolled out a handful of subtle changes to the way it responds to users, such as improving its ability to guide conversations, enhancing how it listens to and follows instructions, working more collaboratively and dialing down its emoji use.

The changes are part of a larger effort to make generative AI more intuitive and conversational in natural language, as it becomes an even bigger part of everyday life.

Technologies

I Tried This Cheap Android Phone. There’s a Lot to Be Excited About

The Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro is cheap, stylish and has six years of support.

Spending £219 (or $279) on a new phone won’t hurt your wallet, and Nothing’s CMF Phone 2 Pro still offers an impressive lineup of features for its low price. There’s the large, vibrant display, the multiple rear cameras, the capacious battery and the Android 15 software. Throw in the IP54 water-resistance and a generous six years of security updates and you really are getting a lot for your money.

But my favorite thing about the phone is its design. It eschews the plain looks of other budget phones, instead using exposed screw heads, metallic camera surrounds and, on my review model, a delightful soft spearmint color. There’s even a little removable circle on the back of the phone that allows you to attach a lanyard directly to it — ideal for those who love taking photos at festivals.

Read more: Best Phone Under $500

The Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro is available for preorder in the UK from today for £219 for the base model with 8GB of RAM and 128GB of storage. In the US, you’ll be able to buy 256GB model for $279, but only via Nothing’s beta program, which requires you to sign up and provide feedback on your experience with the phone. Nothing says the phone will not support all network bands in the US.

It’s certainly worth checking out the beta program if you’re interested. And hopefully Nothing will give the phone an official US launch in the future.

Strictly speaking, the phone is called the «CMF by Nothing Phone 2 Pro.» CMF is the confusing affordable sub-brand of already-affordable phone maker Nothing. It’s the second-gen CMF phone and I’m still baffled why Nothing thinks it needs to create a separate clunkily named brand, rather than just launching it fully under the Nothing name. But hey, maybe that’s why I’m writing about phones, rather than selling them.

Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro hands on

I’ve only spent a short time with the phone so far, but there’s already plenty I like about it. The design immediately stands out. It doesn’t have the flashing LEDs of Nothing’s more expensive phones, but I like the look and it feels surprisingly premium and sturdy to hold for such an affordable phone. It has an IP54 water resistance rating which will help keep it safe from the odd spilled drink, too.

The AMOLED display is bright and vibrant. Colorful YouTube videos looked good and it managed to counter the bright overhead lights of my office. It has a 1 to 120Hz variable refresh rate so playing fast-paced games shouldn’t be a problem here.

It runs on Android 15 at its core and Nothing has given it the same skin as its other phones. It relies on a stark monochrome aesthetic, with minimalist black and white icons and widgets which look quite cool (although I sometimes struggle to tell exactly which app I’m looking for). Nothing has committed to six years of total security support for the phone which is especially generous for a phone of this price. The OnePlus 13, for example, also offers six years of support and that phone costs almost £1,000 in the UK.

The rear cameras include a 50 megapixel main camera, a 50 megapixel telephoto camera (with a 2x optical zoom) and an 8 megapixel ultrawide. I haven’t used the cameras yet so I can’t speak to their quality, but based on the previous CMF Phone 1, I expect them to be able to take decent everyday snaps, but certainly won’t be a rival for top camera phones like the iPhone 16 Pro or Galaxy S25 Ultra.

Is the Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro worth buying?

I haven’t tested the phone for long enough to give a final verdict yet, but I’m impressed with it based on my early impressions. It’s a quirky-looking phone that stands out from the budget crowd. The solid lineup of specs and its six years of support are generous at such a low price.

I’m especially keen to see how its cameras perform — along with the processor performance for everyday tasks and more demanding gaming — but on paper at least this phone should be able to do a fair job with both.