Technologies

Camera Champions Face Off: iPhone 16 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra

When photo quality is a top consideration, the best phones from Apple and Samsung are amazing. But which is better? It’s time to find out.

When you’re looking for the best camera to carry in your pocket, you need to consider today’s top-tier phones. The imaging capabilities of the iPhone 16 Pro and Galaxy S25 Ultra are among the best money can buy. And with travel season ramping up, carrying a phone may be the most convenient camera. But for photo details how do these two mobile titans compare?

To find out, I shot hundreds of photos using both phones in a variety of conditions to see which phone takes the best-looking images. What’s «best» is often down to personal perspective so while I’ll be giving my personal take on each test as a professional photographer and giving my reasons why I prefer one over the other, you may well find that you prefer the other. So have a look through the range of examples here and see if you come to a different conclusion.

Read more: Best Camera Phone of 2025

All images shown have been taken using each phone’s default camera mode using default settings, unless otherwise stated. While images from the Galaxy S25 have been uploaded as taken, the iPhone’s images have had to be converted through Adobe Lightroom as our publishing platform doesn’t support Apple’s default HEIF image format. This process doesn’t affect the image in any way.

Ready? Let’s dive in.

Starting out with an easy outdoor scene. Both phones have done a great job capturing an even exposure here and both images are packed with detail. It’s difficult to choose between them, but the iPhone has the edge for me as it’s achieved a slightly warmer image with more natural-looking tones. The S25 Ultra’s image looks too saturated, especially in the blue sky, which I find quite distracting.

It’s much the same story when we switch to the ultrawide lenses on both phones. I prefer the warmer tones in the iPhone’s shot, which makes the S25 Ultra’s look quite cold by comparison. I also prefer the lighter shadows on the iPhone’s image, making it an easy win for the iPhone here. Notably, both phones are doing a good job of compensating for the ultrawide lenses at the edges (a function turned on by default on both phones); the railing remains straight in each shot and not curving as you’d typically see using a lens this wide.

There’s almost no difference between these two outdoor scenes. The blossom looks crisp on both images, with excellent overall exposure. The iPhone’s image is again slightly warmer in tone but it’s negligible.

The Galaxy S25 takes an easy win with this image of bluebells. The colors are much more vibrant, especially in the greens on the blades of grass, which look quite washed out on the iPhone’s image. It actually looks like the S25’s camera lens is slightly polarized to reduce reflections and increase saturation, but I don’t know if that’s the case. Either way, Samsung takes the win here.

At 5x zoom things get worse for the iPhone. Despite the bluebells being reasonably far away, the phone seemed unable to achieve a sharp focus on the flowers. The S25 Ultra, meanwhile, managed to achieve a sharp image with richer colors.

I prefer the iPhone’s image here though. It’s brighter and the warmer colors on the bricks on the surrounding buildings look much more true to life.

The iPhone’s image is again brighter here and I prefer its colors too. The Galaxy S25 Ultra does have the edge in fine detail, though. You really need to zoom in to see it but the tiny lines on the building are slightly sharper on the S25.

The S25 Ultra does have a physical advantage over the iPhone with its 10x optical zoom lens, which allows it to zoom in even further while still maintaining a pin-sharp image.

You can still digitally zoom in with the iPhone to 10x, and the results aren’t bad. I prefer the colors of the S25 Ultra’s shot here, but the difference in detail isn’t that noticeable.

Zooming in close to see the fine details, the S25 Ultra’s optical zoom image definitely has a bit more clarity but the digital upscaling on the iPhone’s shot has done a great job here, as the difference isn’t immense.

iPhone 16 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Night modes compared

At first glance, the only real difference between the iPhone’s 5x shot and the S25 Ultra’s 5x shot is the color balance. And honestly, I don’t have a preference between the warmer tone of the iPhone or the more magenta bias of the S25.

However, when you zoom in close to the details, the iPhone has produced a sharper image here, with an odd sort of digital blurring around the lamp post in the S25 Ultra’s image. So sometimes the S25 Ultra’s zoom is sharper, other times it’s the iPhone’s. I’m glad they’re making this easy for me.

Again, the only real difference here is in the color balance and I don’t really know which I prefer. The exposure, noise levels and amount of detail are practically identical.

Things changed when I switched to the ultrawide lenses, though. The S25 Ultra’s shot is definitely brighter, capturing more detail in the cobblestones in the foreground and in the buildings in the distance. The iPhone’s image is much darker overall.

Just to confuse things further, the iPhone’s nighttime image with its ultrawide lens is noticeably brighter than the S25 Ultra’s in this example that I shot in the Arctic. I actually had to double-check the image metadata to make sure I hadn’t mixed these up, but I haven’t. The iPhone’s image has captured more light information here and produced more detail on the ice door to the right.

The iPhone’s nighttime image is again slightly brighter here but it’s also kept the bright highlights on the pub sign under control. On the S25 Ultra’s image, those highlights are almost lost to pure white but the lovely green and yellow tones have been retained in the iPhone’s image. The colors overall are noticeably warmer on the iPhone’s shot, however, which may not be to your taste. Here, I think they work well.

But in this example, the iPhone has produced a weirdly warm-looking image that I really don’t like. Those warm colors were not present at the time of capture and it doesn’t work for the scene, especially not with such strong orange tones in the sky. The S25 Ultra’s image is much more balanced overall and it’s a slightly sharper image too. It’s a very easy win for Samsung here.

Things don’t improve for the iPhone when using the ultra-wide lens. Its image is again plagued by overly warm tones, while the S25 Ultra’s shot is both more color-accurate and brighter.

iPhone 16 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Which takes better selfies?

While the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s selfie is slightly brighter, I don’t like what it’s done with the colors. My face has been made a weird shade of orange and my denim jacket is a much deeper blue than it really is. The skin tones on the iPhone’s shot are much more accurate, and its shot is sharper as well.

Both phones have a wider-angle mode for the selfie camera, although the iPhone’s seems to be a lot wider. That’s definitely worth keeping in mind if you frequently like to cram lots of friends into your group pics. You could probably squeeze at least one or two extra friends in if you used the iPhone, or have to decide who you like least and leave them out of frame if you used the S25 Ultra. Otherwise, the image differences are the same as before.

iPhone 16 Pro Vs Galaxy S25 Ultra: Which camera is better?

I’ve written many of these comparison pieces on various generations of phones in my 14 years at CNET and I don’t remember having done one that’s felt this close. The problem is that neither phone excels consistently in one area; the iPhone 16 Pro’s ultra-wide shots aren’t as bright as the S25 Ultra’s, except on those occasions when they actually are, confusingly. I’ve taken many more images not included here that both support some of my conclusions and argue against them. Go figure.

But there are some takeaways I can give with confidence. Generally speaking, the iPhone’s colors are more natural than the S25 Ultra’s, which can sometimes look overly saturated. This has been the case with almost every Samsung phone since the company started putting cameras in them and it’s still the case today. Those looking for a more natural base image to apply your own filters and effects over will be better suited with the iPhone 16 Pro.

But that’s less the case at night, when the iPhone more consistently delivers warmer tones that look less natural than the S25 Ultra’s. So, if night photography is important to you, the S25 Ultra may be the better option. Overall, its night mode images from all lenses were brighter and sharper.

Sure, the S25 Ultra has the extended zoom range but you’d really need to know you’ll make the most of a 10x zoom to justify picking one over the other. Personally, I find the 5x zoom level a perfect sweet spot and here the phones are pretty much on par. And on those rare occasions you may want to push things further, the iPhone’s digital zoom can still deliver sharp results.

There are other things for photographers to consider too: Apple’s ProRaw is superb and while the company’s Photographic Styles can be good for adding a creative look to your images, Samsung’s new tool for mimicking the color grade from example photos you feed it works surprisingly well — I actually think I might get more use out of that overall. I haven’t even gone into video quality either, which is a whole other article, especially when you consider both phones shoot Log video, although only the iPhone uses ProRes.

Deciding between the phones based solely on the cameras is nigh on impossible. Which one you should get will instead come down to the bigger question of iOS versus Android; which platform you’re already using and which one will work best with other pieces of tech in your life. But for simple picture quality, you may as well toss a coin.

Technologies

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Monday, May 19

Here are the answers for The New York Times Mini Crossword for May 19.

Looking for the most recent Mini Crossword answer? Click here for today’s Mini Crossword hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Wordle, Strands, Connections and Connections: Sports Edition puzzles.

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword is pretty easy. 5-Across, «one for whom every day is Boxing Day,» stumped me because I really wanted the answer to have something to do with cats. (Spoiler: It did not.) Need some help with today’s Mini Crossword? Read on. And if you could use some hints and guidance for daily solving, check out our Mini Crossword tips.

The Mini Crossword is just one of many games in the Times’ games collection. If you’re looking for today’s Wordle, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands answers, you can visit CNET’s NYT puzzle hints page.

Read more: Tips and Tricks for Solving The New York Times Mini Crossword

Let’s get at those Mini Crossword clues and answers.

Mini across clues and answers

1A clue: Network satirized on «30 Rock,» for short
Answer: NBC

4A clue: Sport played on horseback
Answer: POLO

5A clue: One for whom every day is Boxing Day?
Answer: MOVED

6A clue: Like correct letters in Wordle
Answer: GREEN

7A clue: Blend together
Answer: MELD

Mini down clues and answers

1D clue: «Invisible Man» or «Little Women»
Answer: NOVEL

2D clue: Run in the wash
Answer: BLEED

3D clue: What bourbon whiskey is primarily made from
Answer: CORN

4D clue: Tiny hole in the skin
Answer: PORE

5D clue: Longtime movie studio acquired by Amazon in 2022
Answer: MGM

How to play more Mini Crosswords

The New York Times Games section offers a large number of online games, but only some of them are free for all to play. You can play the current day’s Mini Crossword for free, but you’ll need a subscription to the Times Games section to play older puzzles from the archives.

Technologies

Today’s NYT Connections: Sports Edition Hints and Answers for May 19, #238

Hints and answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, No. 238, for May 19.

Looking for the most recent regular Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle and Strands puzzles.

Connections: Sports Edition might be tough today if, like me, you don’t know what «loge» means. Read on for hints and the answers.

Connections: Sports Edition is out of beta now, making its debut on Super Bowl Sunday, Feb. 9. That’s a sign that the game has earned enough loyal players that The Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism site owned by the Times, will continue to publish it. It doesn’t show up in the NYT Games app but now appears in The Athletic’s own app. Or you can continue to play it free online.

Read more: NYT Connections: Sports Edition Puzzle Comes Out of Beta

Hints for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.

Yellow group hint: Brag.

Green group hint: Where’s my seat?

Blue group hint: City that never sleeps.

Purple group hint: Opposite of go.

Answers for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group: Boast

Green group: Stadium seating sections

Blue group: New York Knicks

Purple group: ____ stop

Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words

What are today’s Connections: Sports Edition answers?

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is boast. The four answers are crow, gloat, grandstand and showboat.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is stadium seating sections. The four answers are bleacher, loge, suites and upper deck.

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is New York Knicks. The four answers are Bridges, Hart, McBride and Towns.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is ____ stop. The four answers are back, jump, pit and short.

Technologies

Blade Runner: 18-Rotor «Volocopter» Moving from Concept to Prototype

It may look "nutty" and like a "blender," but the designers say the craft could challenge helicopters

Inventor and physicist Thomas Senkel created an Internet sensation with the October 2011 video of his maiden—and only—test flight of a spidery proof-of-concept 16-rotor helicopter dubbed Multicopter 1. Now the maker of the experimental personal aviation craft, the European start-up e-volo, is back with a revised «volocopter» design that adds two more rotors, a serial hybrid drive and long-term plans for going to 100 percent battery power.

The new design calls for 1.8-meter, 0.5-kilogram carbon-fiber blades, each paired with a motor. They are arrayed around a hub in two concentric circles over a boxy one- or two-person cockpit.

After awarding the volocopter concept a Lindbergh Prize for Innovation in April, Yolanka Wulff, executive director of The Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation, admitted the idea of the multi-blade chopper at first seems «nutty.» Looking beyond the novel appearance, however, she says, e-volo’s concept excels in safety, energy efficiency and simplicity, which were the bases of the prize.

All three attributes arrive thanks largely to evolo’s removal of classic helicopter elements. First, the energy-robbing high-mass main rotor, transmission, tail boom and tail rotor are gone. The enormous blades over a normal chopper’s cabin create lift, but their mass creates a high degree of stress and wear on the craft. And the small tail rotor, perched vertically out on a boom behind the cabin, keeps the helicopter’s body from spinning in the opposite direction as the main blades, but it also eats up about 30 percent of a helicopter’s power.

The volocopter’s multiple rotor blades individually would not create the torque that a single large rotor produces, and they offer redundancy for safety. Hypothetically, the volocopter could fly with a few as 12 functioning rotors, as long as those rotors were not all clustered together on one side, says Senkel, the aircraft’s co-inventor and e-volo’s lead construction engineer.

Without the iconic two-prop configuration, the craft would be lighter, making it more fuel efficient and reducing the physical complexity of delivering power to the top and rear blades from a single engine. Nor would the volocopter need an energy-hungry transmission. In fact, «there will be no mechanical connection between the gas engine and the blades,» Senkel says. That means fewer points of energy loss and more redundancy for safety.

E-volo’s design eliminates the dependence on a single source of power to the blades. As a serial-hybrid vehicle, the volocopter would have a gas-fueled engine, in this case an engine capable of generating 50- to 75 kilowatts, typical of ultralight aircraft. Rather than mechanically drive the rotors, the engine would generate power for electric motors as well as charge onboard lithium batteries. Should it fail, the batteries are expected to provide enough backup power so the craft could make a controlled landing.

Whereas helicopters navigate by changing the pitch of the main and tail rotor blades, the volocopter’s maneuverability will depend on changing the speed of individual rotors. Although more complex, it is more precise in principle to control a craft using three to six redundant microcontrollers (in case one or more fails) interpreting instructions from a pilot using a game console–like joystick—instead of rudder pedals, a control stick and a throttle.

Wulff’s first impression about the volocopter’s design is not uncommon. E-volo’s computer-animated promotional videos of a gleaming white, carbon-fiber and fiberglass craft beneath a thatch of blades recall the many-winged would-be flying machines of the late 19th century. This point is not lost on Senkel.

«I understand these skeptical opinions,» he says. «The design concept looks like a blender. But we really are making a safe flying machine.»

That would be progress in itself. Multicopter 1 looked like something from an especially iffy episode of MacGyver, complete with landing gear that involved a silver yoga ball. Senkel rode seated amid all those rotors powered only by lithium batteries. Multicopter 1 generated an average of 20 kilowatts for hovering and was aloft for just a few minutes.

There’s a reason why the experimental craft flew briefly and only once.Senkel describes that first craft as «glued and screwed together.» Seated on the same platform as the spinning blades, he says, «I was aware of the fact that I will be dead, maybe. Besides, we showed that the concept works. What do we win if we fly it twice?» he asks rhetorically.

Other than putting the pilot safely below the blades, the revised volocopter design would operate largely the same as the initial prototype. The design calls for three to six redundant accelerometers and gyroscopes to measure the volocopter’s position and orientation, creating a feedback loop that gives the craft stability and makes it easier to fly, Senkel says.

The volocopter’s revised prototype under construction could debut as soon as next spring. The first production models, available in perhaps three years, are expected to fly for at least an hour at speeds exceeding 100 kilometers per hour and a minimum altitude of about 2,000 meters, still far shy of standard helicopter’s normal operating altitude of about 3,000 meters. «This could change our lives, but I don’t expect anything like that for 10 years,» Senkel adds.

Given that most of the technology needed to build the volocopter is already available, «this idea is fairly easy to realize,» says Carl Kühn, managing director of e-volo partner Smoto GmbH, a company that integrates electric drive systems and related components.

Like Senkel, Kühn has modest short-term expectations despite his repeated emphasis on the standard nature of the technology involved. «I guess that e-volo will have [a prototype] aircraft in three years that can do the job—that it will lift one or two persons from one point to another,» he says.

The biggest immediate limitations appear to be regulatory. For instance, European aviation regulators consider any electrical system greater than 60 volts to be high voltage and regulate such systems more aggressively, Kühn says. As a result, the volocopter will operate below that threshold. The craft will also need to weigh no more than 450 kilograms to remain in the ultralight category, which is likewise subject to fewer government aviation regulations, according to Senkel.

The Lindbergh Foundation’s Wulff says the organization’s judges felt e-volo had «a greater than 50 percent chance of succeeding, or they wouldn’t have given them the innovation award.» Asked if she would line up to fly one someday, she says, «I sure would. It looks very compelling to me.»