Connect with us

Technologies

iPhone 14 Pro vs. Pixel 7 Pro Cameras Tested: Which Takes Better Photos?

Both these top-end phones take amazing photos, but which one does it better? We test both side-by-side to find out.

This story is part of Focal Point iPhone 2023, CNET’s collection of news, tips and advice around Apple’s most popular product.

Google’s Pixel 7 Pro packs an excellent triple camera system, a sleek design and streamlined Android 13 software that’s a delight to use. The phone impressed me so much I gave it a highly sought-after CNET Editors’ Choice award. 

But the competition is brutal, with Apple’s top-end iPhone 14 Pro also rocking a potent set of specs and a camera setup capable of taking truly superb images. And yes, we loved the 14 Pro enough to give it an Editors’ Choice award too. 

So which one of these award-winning smartphones packs the best camera setup and which one should you consider if you’re looking for the best photography phone around? I took both phones around the stunning Edinburgh suburb of Leith to find out. 

It’s an interesting matchup as both phones have similar camera offerings with a main standard lens, an ultrawide lens and a telephoto zoom. And both have already proved their photographic prowess in our full reviews, with rich images and excellent dynamic range being delivered on both sides. 

I’ve since put the Pixel 7 Pro through some more tests. And though it wasn’t top of the pack in night mode situations, I found its zoom gave the epic Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra a run for its money. 

Photograph of a boat on a riverPhotograph of a boat on a river

Pixel 7 Pro, main lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Image of a boat on a riverImage of a boat on a river

iPhone 14 Pro, main lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Take a look at the photos above from the Pixel 7 Pro’s 50-megapixel and the iPhone 14 Pro’s 48-megapixel main camera lens. Both scenes are well exposed here, with controlled blue skies and plenty of detail to be seen in the more shadowy areas. The iPhone’s color balance is a bit warmer, which I think suits the scene well, although the Pixel’s image is arguably a touch more natural looking. 

A wide-angle image of a boat on a riverA wide-angle image of a boat on a river

Pixel 7 Pro, ultrawide lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

A wide-angle image of a boat on a riverA wide-angle image of a boat on a river

iPhone 14 Pro, ultrawide lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Switch to the ultrawide lens, and again both phones have done a great job in capturing this high contrast scene above. There’s very little to choose between them, but I think the Pixel 7 Pro’s more natural color tones might give it the edge.

An image showing riverside buildings and moored narrowboats.An image showing riverside buildings and moored narrowboats.

Pixel 7 Pro, 5x optical zoom lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

An image showing riverside buildings and moored narrowboats.An image showing riverside buildings and moored narrowboats.

iPhone 14 Pro, 3x optical zoom lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Things change when we switch to the zoom lenses though, most notably because the Pixel 7 Pro’s 5x offers a much closer view than the 3x optical zoom of the iPhone 14 Pro. I love a longer zoom as it helps you find different photo compositions in a scene that would be lost to those who only have wide angle lenses. Using the zoom lens for the photos above let me capture a totally different scene, but I didn’t have to physically move to get it.

That extra reach is noticeable on the Pixel’s shot, with a much closer zoom on the buildings in the distance. Both phones have achieved a good exposure however, and while the Pixel’s image is noticeably warmer (particularly on the buildings themselves), I like the color balances of both shots. 

An image showing riverside buildings.An image showing riverside buildings.

Pixel 7 Pro, 5x zoom lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

An image showing riverside buildings.An image showing riverside buildings.

iPhone 14 Pro, 3x zoom lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Again, that extra zoom on the Pixel let me get a tighter composition on the buildings next to the river in the images above, and it’s a better-looking photo as a result. That said, I prefer the tones and exposure of the iPhone’s shot, with brighter whites and a more vibrant pop of orange visible on the central building and richer blue tones in the sky.

Wide angle image of a riverside sceneWide angle image of a riverside scene

Pixel 7 Pro, ultrawide lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Wide angle image of a riverside sceneWide angle image of a riverside scene

iPhone 14 Pro, ultrawide lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

The ultrawide photos above are more mixed however. While both phones achieved a generally decent exposure, they both have slightly blown out highlights visible in the distant clouds. And while I prefer the more natural blue sky of the iPhone 14 Pro, the Pixel 7 Pro has achieved more vibrant color tones on the buildings and trees toward the center of the frame. It’s tough to make a call on which is “better” here. 

An image showing trees around a riverAn image showing trees around a river

Pixel 7 Pro, main lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

An image showing trees around a riverAn image showing trees around a river

iPhone 14 Pro, main lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Back to the main camera lens, and there’s again very little to choose between the two pictures above. There’s tons of detail in both, and the overall exposure is spot on. If I were nitpicking — which I am — I’d say the Pixel 7 Pro’s sky has a bit too much of a purple tinge in it and it’s a slightly more contrasty scene overall. While that’s resulted in deeper orange hues on the fall leaves, it’s less representative of the actual colors of the scene. It’s largely down to personal preference, but I’m marginally erring toward the iPhone’s shot here.

A wide angle image showing trees around a riverA wide angle image showing trees around a river

Pixel 7 Pro, ultrawide lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

A wide angle image showing trees around a riverA wide angle image showing trees around a river

iPhone 14 Pro, ultrawide lens.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

The photos above show the same scene but from the ultrawide lens this time. To my eye, it’s an easier win for the iPhone here. The overall color balance is more natural. And while the iPhone kept a decent contrast in the darker area in the bottom left, the Pixel has tried to brighten this area artificially, resulting in a weird-looking grey patch that I’m not keen on. 

An image showing a close up of a flower.An image showing a close up of a flower.

Pixel 7 Pro, wide-angle lens with macro focus.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

An image showing a close up of a flower.An image showing a close up of a flower.

iPhone 14 Pro, wide-angle lens with macro focus.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

With the Pixel 7 Pro now packing auto-focus on its ultrawide lens, it’s able to offer macro photography as it can focus within a couple of inches of the lens. It’s something Apple introduced on the iPhone 13 Pro, and it’s great fun to experiment with. 

In the macro photos above, I prefer the image from the Pixel 7 Pro’s camera. The white balance has resulted in more vibrant — and more accurate — blue-purple tones on the flower’s petals. The leaves in the background also have more of an emerald tone, rather than the yellow-green tones seen on the iPhone’s shot. 

A close up image of a dandelion in grass with a cloudy blue sky behind.A close up image of a dandelion in grass with a cloudy blue sky behind.

Pixel 7 Pro, wide-angle lens with macro focus.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

A close up image of a dandelion in grass with a cloudy blue sky behind.A close up image of a dandelion in grass with a cloudy blue sky behind.

iPhone 14 Pro, wide-angle lens with macro focus.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

And it’s much the same in the pictures above when I used the phones to get a low-down shot of this dandelion, with the blue sky behind it. The Pixel 7 Pro’s shot has much more vibrant green tones in the grasses around the subject. The iPhone 14 Pro captured a warmer scene, with more yellow tones seen in the grasses that I personally don’t like as much. 

A selfie of a man wearing a hatA selfie of a man wearing a hat

Pixel 7 Pro selfie camera test.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

A selfie of a man wearing a hatA selfie of a man wearing a hat

iPhone 14 Pro selfie camera test.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

The Pixel 7 Pro is packing a 10.8-megapixel front-facing selfie camera, which is slightly below the iPhone 14 Pro’s 12 megapixels. It’s not a huge difference, there is slightly more detail visible when you zoom in. Both shots are generally solid, however, although I think the Pixel has gone a bit too “HDR” by reducing the highlights on my face too much. Personally, I prefer how I look in the iPhone’s image. 

selfie-wide-pixelselfie-wide-pixel

Pixel 7 Pro wide-angle selfie test.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

selfie-wide-iphoneselfie-wide-iphone

iPhone 14 Pro wide-angle selfie test.

Both phones have a wider-angle option for the front-facing cameras, which is helpful if you want to capture more of your surroundings or want to squash more of your friends into the picture. I took the photos above in this mode, and the Pixel actually has the edge slightly in terms of fine image details. But again, I prefer the exposure and contrast from the iPhone as the Pixel’s HDR has flattened the tones in my face a bit too much for my liking. 

A night time image of a pub on a cobbled street.A night time image of a pub on a cobbled street.

Pixel 7 Pro, night mode.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

A night time image of a pub on a cobbled street.A night time image of a pub on a cobbled street.

iPhone 14 Pro, night mode.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

When switching to night mode on both phones, I had to give an early win to the iPhone in the photos above. Its white balance produced a nicer-looking shot without the overly warm orange tone seen in the Pixel’s image. 

night-roseleaf-pixel-100-cropnight-roseleaf-pixel-100-crop

Pixel 7 Pro night mode, 100% crop.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

night-roseleaf-iphone-100-cropnight-roseleaf-iphone-100-crop

iPhone 14 Pro, night mode, 100% crop.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

It’s also clear that the iPhone’s image is sharper when cropping in to 100% on both images, with the Pixel’s shot showing some motion blur, particularly on the pub sign. Look at the spotlights on the wall sculptures above; the Pixel’s shot hasn’t been able to capture the dynamic range here, resulting in blow-out areas, while the iPhone has done a much better job of keeping those bright tones under control. 

night-shore-pixelnight-shore-pixel

Pixel 7 Pro, night mode.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

night-shore-iphonenight-shore-iphone

iPhone 14 Pro, night mode.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

There’s not as much to choose between in these night-time shots above that I took overlooking Leith Shore. Both have similar color tones, exposure and only marginal improvements on the iPhone’s shot when viewed at 100%. 

night-shore-zoom-pixelnight-shore-zoom-pixel

Pixel 7 Pro night mode, 5x zoom.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

night-shore-zoom-iphonenight-shore-zoom-iphone

iPhone 14 Pro, night mode, 3x zoom.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

Switch to the zoom mode, and there’s a bigger difference between the two phones. In the images above, the Pixel’s shot is brighter and more vibrant but suffers hugely from motion blur, despite that fact that I stabilized myself against a bridge wall when taking the shot. I took three images here and this was the best I could get. 

night-shore-zoom-pixel-100-cropnight-shore-zoom-pixel-100-crop

Pixel 7 Pro, night mode, 5x zoom at 100% crop.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

night-shore-zoom-iphone-100-cropnight-shore-zoom-iphone-100-crop

iPhone 14 Pro, night mode, 3x zoom at 100% crop.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

You can really see how blurry the Pixel’s image is when cropping in to 100%. Sure, the iPhone doesn’t have the same reach with its 3x zoom. But its shot is much sharper and clearer, and it easily takes the win here.

night-flare-pixelnight-flare-pixel

Pixel 7 Pro, night mode.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

night-flare-iphonenight-flare-iphone

iPhone 14 Pro, night mode.

Andrew Lanxon/CNET

I also found that the Pixel 7 Pro is particularly susceptible to lens flare at night when shooting towards bright light sources like the street lamp shown in the pictures above. While both cameras suffer from lens flare, the Pixel’s is particularly problematic since most of the night sky is filled with red-pink flares surrounding the light. It’s a shame because this would otherwise have been a nice night-time scene. 

Which phone takes better pictures?

Both phones took some truly superb photos during this test, and it’s not easy to give either one the definitive win. Some elements of what makes a “better” photo will come down to personal preference. In well-lit outdoor shots, I found that the Pixel 7 Pro achieved a more natural color tone from its main lens than the iPhone managed. But its colors weren’t as good in some wider-angle shots. Of course, you can set up different photographic styles on the iPhone to customize how the camera captures photos and make them look more natural if that’s your preference.

At night the iPhone is the clear winner though, with better colors, crisper detail and a superior ability to handle bright light sources — both in terms of exposure and lens flare. However, the Pixel 7 Pro absolutely takes the win with its superior zoom skills, with its 5x zoom letting you snag beautiful, crystal-clear images that are simply out of reach of the iPhone’s 3x zoom. I also preferred the look of the Pixel’s macro images in all of the tests I shot. 

So which is “best” will come down to what you want most from your phone camera. If night photography is important, then go for the iPhone 14 Pro. If you want zoom skills to find creative compositions in your landscapes and street photography, then the Pixel 7 Pro is for you. 

If you just want a great all around camera to snap vibrant shots of your kids at the beach, your friend’s food at a local market or some stunning woodland scenes on your next hike, then either phone will suit you incredibly well. Your bigger decision will instead come down to whether you want to go with iOS or Android as your operating system and whether spending the extra hundred bucks or so on the iPhone 14 Pro is worth it. 

Technologies

Kremlin Confirms Putin Transmitted Iran’s War Resolution Plan to Trump

The Kremlin says Putin relayed Iran’s proposal for ending the war to Trump, while Trump announced a Russian diesel supply deal that drew sharp criticism from Zelenskyy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin communicated Tehran’s perspective on a potential conclusion to the conflict in Iran to U.S. President Donald Trump, according to Russian state media reports on Saturday.

This disclosure follows Trump’s Friday statement that Russia will provide diesel to global markets amid soaring energy prices driven by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

Russia’s Interfax news agency cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating that Putin conveyed the message to Trump “in agreement with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian,” per a Google translation.

Additional Russian media accounts indicate Putin spoke with Trump by phone after meeting Pezeshkian on the margins of a summit in Turkmenistan.

Interfax did not detail the specifics of how Iran envisions the war — which erupted on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets — reaching an end.

The White House did not immediately respond to Verum’s emailed request to confirm the reported conversation between Putin and Trump.

Russia supply deal

Trump announced Friday that Russia will deliver more than 4 million tons of diesel to the global market under an arrangement he said he agreed with Putin during a phone call.

Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons immediately after, Trump posted on Truth Social. Moscow will then provide another 3 million tons of diesel contingent on the condition of Russia’s refineries, Trump added.

The Treasury Department temporarily waived sanctions on Russian diesel through April 2027 under a general license issued Friday.

Iran has intensified attacks on oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, with vessels coming under fire almost daily as Tehran attempts to choke off a rebound in crude exports.

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard official stated Wednesday that Iran will block all “illicit routes” through Hormuz, according to the Fars News Agency, an outlet considered close to the Guard.

The surge in tanker attacks coincides with crude oil exports from the Middle East rebounding in September to prewar levels, largely because the U.S. military escorted ships through Hormuz along Oman’s coast.

An interim agreement signed in June between the U.S. and Iran to pause hostilities to allow for negotiations quickly collapsed.

‘Gifts to Putin’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately denounced Trump’s diesel deal with Putin. Ukraine’s leader warned that easing sanctions without a commitment from Russia to de-escalate the war will only prolong it.

“Gifts to Putin will not bring peace or any benefit to the civilized world,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post. “Russia will ‘repay’ the diesel with further terror and perfidy. Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

Diesel prices have surged worldwide as Ukraine has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports to global markets. Iran and its Houthi allies have also attacked refineries in the Middle East, further constraining fuel supplies.

Trump faces mounting political pressure to lower fuel prices ahead of the November midterm elections. Republicans confront competitive races in conservative strongholds like Iowa, where farmers feel the pinch of high diesel prices.

Continue Reading

Technologies

AI is Changing How Lawyers Work — and Putting the Billable Hour Under Pressure

AI is reshaping the legal industry by reducing the time needed for routine tasks, challenging the traditional billable hour model, and changing how lawyers learn and practice.

Artificial intelligence is now used by almost 90% of legal professionals in the U.K. and Ireland, and it’s putting one of the profession’s oldest conventions — the billable hour — under the microscope. That’s according to legal software company Clio’s U.K. & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026.

It found that among firms using AI, almost 80% said they can handle more work without increasing resources, while over 70% said it cut costs by absorbing administrative work once done by support staff.

As a result, AI is challenging some of the assumptions on which the legal profession was built, forcing firms to reevaluate how their lawyers spend their time, how they charge for it and how new lawyers learn the ropes. You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 secondsNick Rowles-DaviesLexolent Some of the U.K.’s biggest firms are already putting this into practice.

A&O Shearman has worked with legal AI company Harvey to develop artificial intelligence agents for tasks, including reviewing loan agreements and analyzing regulatory filings, which it says can complete in minutes work that previously took several hours. Slaughter and May, meanwhile, has rolled out Harvey across all practice areas this year, including for regulatory research and document analysis.

Billable hour pressure The billable hour is central to the business model of many law firms, but when AI significantly reduces the time lawyers spend sifting through and drafting documents, the economics are no longer so straightforward. “You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 seconds,” Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of legal finance fund Lexolent, based in London and Dubai, told CNBC.

About one in five firms that have widely adopted AI report difficulty meeting billable-hour targets, according to Clio’s report. Globally, senior legal leaders expect the share of work charged by the hour to fall from 72% to 44% over the next two to three years, according to a Deloitte survey.

Routine work is the most exposed, Rowles-Davies said. “If you’ve got standard documents and you’re just putting in detail, then clearly that’s an automatic process.” But complex legal work still requires human judgment, he added, particularly when interpreting AI output and determining the right strategy for a client.

Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting betterJoshua LenonClio

AI and workloads

Whether AI efficiencies ultimately make lawyers’ working lives better may depend on what firms do with the time they get back. Clio’s report found that 51% of legal professionals work evenings, but only 32% want to, while 22% work weekends compared with 11% who would choose to.

Joshua Lenon, Clio’s New York-based lawyer-in-residence, believes some lawyers are already seeing the benefits. “Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting better,” Lenon told CNBC, as AI becomes more commonplace.

“People are really looking at these tools and saying, ‘This is making work better.’”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump’s diesel agreement with Putin accused of contradicting Russia sanctions law

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

President Donald Trump’s Friday announcement that Russia will supply diesel fuel to the global market marked an apparent pivot from recent efforts to pressure Moscow to end the Ukraine war by targeting Russian energy exports.

Trump claimed the move, unveiled with less than a month left in an affordability-focused midterm election, would swiftly bring down record-high diesel prices.

But commentators and critics were quick to highlight contradictions between the new policy and prior efforts by the U.S. to clamp down on Russian oil sales.

Those efforts most recently included the enactment of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, empowering Trump to impose tariffs up to 100% on the top purchasers of Russian crude oil or gas, among other restrictions. Trump signed the bill into law just three weeks ago.

“Congress just passed a law giving Trump the power to impose new tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil & gas,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said on X after Trump’s Friday announcement.

“Can America tariff America?” he quipped.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, accused Trump’s latest move of being “directly contrary to Congress’s intent in our bipartisan sanctions bill.”

Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, in an X post said that the relaxation of Russian diesel restrictions “pretty much proves the point that the Graham Russia Bill was not going to force the Trump Administration to increase economic pressure on Moscow.”

Some of the criticism crossed party lines.

“Through the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, we gave the president significant authorities and leverage against China and Russia to bring Putin’s war to an end with a negotiated settlement,” Rep.

Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in an X post. “Unfortunately, while I understand the desire to bring down diesel prices, I am concerned the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil will only fund the Kremlin’s war machine—emboldening more violence and destruction, as we have seen in recent days,” McCaul said.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s questions about the diesel agreement with Russia.

Less than a year earlier, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on multiple Russian oil companies in response to what it called “Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.”

Trump also had previously slammed NATO allies for continuing to buy Russian oil. In a September 2025 Truth Social post, he wrote, “the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

Later that month, Trump again harangued world leaders for doing business with Russia.

“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” he said in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. “They can’t be doing what they’re doing. They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia.”

Trump announced the diesel deal in a Truth Social post Friday afternoon after what he described as a “highly successful discussion” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Under the agreement, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, then another 500,000 tons in November, followed by 1 million tons “immediately thereafter” and 3 million more depending on refinery conditions, Trump wrote.

The Treasury Department soon after said that Trump directed the Office of Foreign Assets Control to immediately issue a “temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market.” OFAC specified that the sanctioned transactions will be authorized for about six months, until April 7.

Russia seemed to celebrate the move. “Russia-US cooperation on diesel and energy will benefit the world,” an X account associated with Putin’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev said in response to the announcement.

But Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose military has started targeting Russian oil refineries, said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

“Any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness,” Zelenskyy said. “Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

“We count on America’s fair support for our defense of life, for our defense of people in Ukraine – and on the United States having a correspondingly strong conversation with Russia,” he said.

“A strong one, not a weak one,” he added.

Trump thanked Putin later Friday afternoon for enabling “massive amounts of oil” to come to the U.S.

“We need oil for the world, and this is diesel, which is what we need, so we’re very happy to get it,” Trump told reporters before heading to Syracuse, New York.

The Trump administration has previously eased some Russian energy sanctions temporarily, though more narrowly than Friday’s announcement.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to stabilize markets after the start of the Iran war, the Trump administration issued limited, 30-day waivers allowing countries to buy sanctioned Russian oil that was already in transit.

But some interpreted the latest move as a more significant step.

“It looks like Trump cut a deal with the devil,” Jeremy Siegel, professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” Friday afternoon.

“It’s not a permanent solution at all. It’s sort of a short-term Band Aid,” Siegel said. “And cutting back on or eliminating sanctions on Russia for the invasion in Ukraine, I think, is a very unfortunate consequence.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media