Google Pixel 9a and iPhone 16E: Mid-Range Smartphones with Advanced Camera Capabilities

I Tested the iPhone 16E and Pixel 9A Cameras and the Results Were Stunning

Patrick's play The Cowboy is included in the Best American Short Plays 2011-12 anthology. He co-wrote and starred in the short film Baden Krunk that won the Best Wisconsin Short Film award at the Milwaukee Short Film Festival. 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. 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 $1,000. While $599 is Apple's lowest price for a new phone, the iPhone 16E misses the Pixel 9A's $500 sweet spot. If you're looking to save money by buying a base smartphone, are you giving up all hopes of taking good photos? The cameras on flagship phones like the iPhone 16 Pro and Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra are capable of astonishing results, but those and other best-camera options cost $1,000 and up. 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. 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). Take a look at some of my favorite photos from both phones. 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. 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.

Google Pixel 9a Review: $499 Phone Delivers Value But Lacks 'Wow' Factor

The most advanced mobile photography features are a trickle-down affair where some end up being part of mid-range and affordable phones. That's been Google's Pixel A series in a nutshell, only in the case of the Pixel 9a, it also applies to the AI-driven tools that play a key role in the broader imaging package. However, the $499 starting price is arguably just as big a draw. Coming across a somewhat frugal mid-ranger that packs a big feature punch is unique by North American standards, given how common it's become for brands in Asia these days. For Google, the camera remains a big selling point and even makes an argument for saving money over competitors. The cascading influence of Pixel flagships also includes overall design, though, like its predecessors, the Pixel 9a isn't exactly a knockout. The rear camera strip is gone because the rest of the Pixel 9 lineup abandoned it, replaced by a more recessed cutout for the rear camera module. The back is a slick surface that isn't quite glossy nor fully matte, only slightly changing what it feels like in your hand. There are also two new colorways: iris (lavender) and peony (Barbie pink). The body is also slightly taller and lighter, but the more obvious shift is in the straighter contours along the edges that arguably make it easier to hold while taking photos or videos. Even the corners get a little rounder to help the cause. The height difference means a slight increase to a 6.3-inch P-OLED display, up from 6.1 inches on the Pixel 8a. Oddly, Google didn't find a way to reduce the bezels to eke out a bigger screen or to make the phone just a little slimmer. It's still the same Gorilla Glass 3 for protection, which is a bit dated but consistent with the phone's mid-range positioning. As is, the screen retains the 120Hz refresh rate for smooth scrolling and animations, all of which are easier to see in varying conditions because of the vastly improved brightness. The 1,800 nits (2,700 nits peak) brightness obliterates the standard 800 nits (1,028 nits peak) of the iPhone 16e. Where things get a bit interesting is in the color profiles: Adaptive and Natural. When using Natural mode, you get an average Delta E of 0.24, which is flagship-level, though only marginally better than the 0.26 in the iPhone 16e. Natural covers 98.1% of the sRGB color gamut and 99.3% of its total volume, whereas Adaptive is supposed to play around with saturation based on what's onscreen, so movies, shows, and games would get that treatment. It's not clear if photos are part of that, and Google hasn't clarified yet. Internally, the Pixel 9a is powered by the same Tensor G4 chip found in Google's higher-end Pixel 9 phones, paired with 8GB of RAM and storage options of 128GB or 256GB. While Pixel A-series phones have never been spec-heavy, Google's Tensor silicon is built to leverage Gemini-powered AI features and impact the device's reliability and convenience. It's no real surprise the hardware-software synergy feels smooth here. Yet again, Google has found ways to recycle older components, including the camera system. The 13-megapixel ultra-wide (14mm equivalent) is the exact same as the Pixel 8a, right down to the Sony IMX712 sensor, f/2.2 aperture, and 120° field of view. That also goes for the 13-megapixel front camera (20mm equivalent), which uses the same IMX712 sensor. That leaves the 48-megapixel main camera as the only differentiator on the hardware side. This time, it's a smaller image sensor at Type 1/2 compared to the Type 1/1.73 the previous model had. However, the aperture gets wider at f/1.7 and now includes a new Macro Focus mode that kicks in when you get really close to a subject. Still, the smaller sensor on the main camera feels like a drawback, and that may explain why Google tries to make up for it with software optimization and AI. After all, there are no telephoto lenses, and given some of the excellent results seen in telephoto lenses and image sensors so far this year, the digital zoom Google offers really does have a tipping point. At 2x, it's okay, but beyond that, it gets progressively worse. The wider aperture helps gather light, but since pixel binning knocks them down to 12 megapixels, the smaller sensor doesn't always deliver. There was a reason Google took this route. The Samsung Isocell GN8 image sensor is designed to do better in low-light conditions, but it's not always evident that there's a big difference. It's also time for the company to rethink its approach to modes and settings within the camera app's interface. I keep saying it every year now. While you have no manual control apart from shooting in RAW, it would be nice to have some settings appear when swiping down on the screen. I've grown wary of having to tap the bottom right corner to unintuitively cycle through adjusting brightness, contrast, and white balance. Ever since Google hid these tools in this sub-menu, rather than making them available onscreen at all times, composition has become a longer, more tedious exercise. The more I see what other brands are doing, including those from China, the less this setup makes practical sense. Perhaps it's intentional as a way to demonstrate the prowess of Google's AI suite. Gemini has since supplanted Google Assistant, but its power permeates anything the phone does for you when you want a helping hand. Magic Editor is an all-encompassing tool, with Magic Eraser and generative AI being the two main pillars. Circle or select a person or object in a photo and either erase it or turn it into something else via a prompt. You can still find Magic Eraser (along with Blur and Unblur) under Tools in the editor, while Best Take appears as an additional option when people are in the shot. Audio Magic Eraser is available for video recording as well. Circle to Search is still a handy one, making it super easy to look up anything onscreen by simply drawing a circle around it. Unfortunately, Google left out Pixel Screenshots, which could have helped extract key info from screenshots more efficiently, along with Call Notes to record phone calls and transcribe them. Pixel Studio carries over from the other Pixel 9 phones, and it lets users generate images or stickers with some creative flair -- but not a lengthy creative license. You can't generate anything with people unless you pay $20/month for Gemini Advanced to unlock that feature. Nor can you use your own personal photos as reference points without ponying up, except the catch is that Google still blocks the use of actual photos of individuals for that purpose. You get Advanced for a whole year if you have any of the other Pixel 9 phones, but it's limited to a 30-day trial with the Pixel 9a. Without the ability to take a single photo at full resolution, the real metric is how pixel binning makes 12-megapixel images look, regardless of whether they're JPEG or RAW photos. Google clearly isn't aiming the Pixel 9a at people who care about resolution, especially since it plays the same game as the Pixel 9. Only when you go to the Pro models do you get the chance to go full-res. The good news is switching to a smaller image sensor doesn't negatively impact most images in varying conditions. Solid dynamic range (for a mid-ranger) and good color accuracy give photos some pop, though Google's HDR effects also mask some of the limits imposed on the device. For example, low-light shots are even muddier than before, curtailing a signature feature that sets Pixel devices apart from others. Night Sight is available even when you're not in that mode, adding convenience in those cases, only you end up with a better shot when the phone doesn't move at all. There is some nuance here, though. The Pixel 9a may surprise or impress you when capturing static subjects, like architecture or street life, but it isn't as effective if there are people in the photo. Available light makes all the difference here in drawing the line between a decent and pedestrian photo. I came away far more impressed with the macro capabilities. Normally shoehorned into a pithy image sensor on certain mid-range phones, results almost always came out forgettable. Not here. Not only can you get really close to a subject, you can also do it with the 2x crop zoom, delivering detail comparable to what a Pixel 9 Pro can do. There is nothing to note here because the results are similar to the Pixel 8a. It literally is night and day based on what you want to capture. Daylight helps it bring out some decent color and detail, though without any focusing, you have little stylistic control over how to use the ultra-wide in closer confines. In low light, you can get a good photo, but the results get worse and worse when you start peeping pixels. Google's processing can't mask the sensor's obvious limitations, so you're left rationing this camera based on what's in front of you. No doubt, there are ways to squeeze more out of it, given a compelling subject. However, I suspect you'll find it less reliable the more you shoot with it. Video recording remains unchanged going back to the Pixel 7a, where you can still record in 4K at 60fps with the main lens or 30fps with the ultra-wide. You can also do 1080p at 60fps or 30fps with either lens. As I expected once I tried it, the main camera produces far better results in low-light conditions compared to the ultra-wide. Day or night, it matters when using the stabilization features to keep things steady. As good as Active is, it requires you to drop down to 1080p to make use of it. Overall, the Pixel 9a is okay for basic video, but it is just not likely to really "wow" anyone. The one constant the Pixel 9a has is what it costs. Google can rest on the fact some of the best mid-range competitors are nowhere to be found in North America. Much like the company has been coasting on the premium flagship side, this device feels like a familiar formula that way. It's bad enough that Apple sees fit to include only one camera in its budget iPhone 16e, but even two in the rear feel limiting now. Telephotos have proven their worth, and leaving it out may not be an option for Google in the long run. At the same time, it's becoming clearer that Google doesn't expect people to get the Pixel 9a because of the camera. Those who just want something good and dependable will be fine with this, whereas those expecting more from the camera will want more. Gemini and associated AI features figure more prominently in its marketing now, though it would be a mistake to squander the trust the A series earned over the years as a reliable point-and-shoot camera by not taking it seriously. Only a year ago, I noted that it was hard to find good competition at the same price as Google's mid-ranger. My eyes tell a different story today -- albeit one many won't see because the product landscape is so different in North America. For example, the Vivo V50 not only offers a far more varied camera system, it also produces photos that simply crush the Pixel 9a. From low-light to action photography, it's almost no contest. Granted, the V50 doesn't have a telephoto lens, but the dynamic range, variety of modes, and ability to shoot full-res JPEGs help it stand out for the right reasons. It's just too bad that you have to import it from an online vendor. The OnePlus 13R is in a similar boat, though available on these shores, offering double the storage capacity and a telephoto lens (only 2x zoom) for $500-$600. While it's missing the Hasselblad integration enjoyed by its flagship brethren, it's still more than capable of taking great photos through its solid image sensors and wealth of modes and settings. It doesn't hurt that it also obliterates the Pixel 9a in battery life and charging speed. The Samsung Galaxy A56 actually has more in common with Google's phone because it feels like more of the same. A newer option like the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro may be a more intriguing choice for the same money, given its periscope telephoto lens. Then there's the iPhone 16e, which is clearly not built for taking quality photos, catering more to those who want to upgrade from something much older without paying a premium. Mind you, it's hardly "cheap" at $600 to start with, and one lens all but ensures it's more for snapshots than more interesting mobile photography. Maybe. If you're upgrading from an older Pixel A phone, the 9a makes a lot of sense. It's also a good choice if you're fine with the camera limits and like the AI features, which Google will only continue to push with new capabilities going forward.

The Pixel 9a Is a Powerhouse Disguised as a Budget Phone

If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, Rolling Stone may receive an affiliate commission. The last few months have been big for mid-range phones, with Apple launching the iPhone 16e in February and the Pixel 9a releasing in April. It's also been a busy time for Google, as the tech giant has announced a slate of new AI features at its I/O keynote. Most of the pertinent Android news came before I/O, with Google confirming a refreshed, vibrant look for Pixel phones, dubbed Material 3 Expressive. And while we can't go hands-on with Material 3 Expressive yet, we got our hands on the Pixel 9a to see if it's worth it. The quick answer? There are more powerful phones out there, but the Pixel 9a is the mid-range phone to beat. The reasons are simple. For the stuff that most people care about -- battery life, camera quality, smooth performance -- the Pixel 9a gets high marks, even outperforming higher-priced flagship phones in some categories. First, the basics. The Pixel 9a costs $499, $100 less than the iPhone 16e. It has a 6.3" display, with 6.1" x 2.9" x 0.4" dimensions, and weighs 6.6 ounces. It comes in Iris, Peony, Porcelain, and Obsidian. The most "controversial" decision Google made was to dispense with the Minion-esque camera bar that protrudes from the phone. The camera bar has long been the key visual signifier that distinguishes Pixel from Samsung and Apple, and some Pixel fans might miss it. But the new camera layout is nearly flush with the phone, so you can -- gasp! -- set the phone down flat on a table. The phone has a plastic back and noticeable bezels on the screen. Of course, some compromises had to be made at this price point, and neither of these factors makes the phone feel cheap. The model I tested was the Iris colorway, which I found fun and vibrant. The peak brightness is stated at 2,700 nits (compared to the iPhone 16e's 1,200 nits). The display is undoubtedly bright and easily viewable in direct sunlight, and the colors look sharp and crisp. The variable refresh rate is 60 to 120Hz (compared to the iPhone 16e's 60Hz). That means the Pixel 9a offers smooth performance and animations. Related: The 6 Best Earbuds for Android, From Pixel to Technics You can also customize your home screen with Pixel's themes, including matching app icons. Of course, not every app supports these themes, so some will stick out like a sore thumb. But for the most part, the design language feels playful and fun, particularly compared to the rather staid look of iOS and One UI. The biometrics are excellent, too. You can use facial or fingerprint recognition to unlock the phone, and both work smoothly. Coming from Samsung, I've long been accustomed to fingerprint unlock, and the Pixel 9a's fingerprint sensor feels just as responsive as the Galaxy S25. The 9a uses the Tensor G4 processor, the same one used in the Pixel 9, meaning you can expect similar performance across the devices. Notably, Google promises seven years of software updates, so if you're looking for a phone for the long haul, the Pixel 9a is a solid option. Google has made AI a major focus with Pixel. The AI-enabled Gemini is now the native assistant app, replacing Google Assistant. The Gemini app has generative text capabilities, while the Pixel Studio app generates images. If, like a lot of people, you're ambivalent about AI, these features are not obtrusive, and you can switch from Gemini back to Google Assistant in settings. Although I generally don't use AI, my favorite smart feature on Android is Circle to Search. Holding down the bottom of the screen activates the feature, and you can either circle what you see on your phone screen (a cool-looking jacket on Instagram, a character actor you can't quite place) or search from your phone's camera, and Google will identify it. It works surprisingly well, capably identifying products, people, and places. The Pixel 9a has a 5,100mAh capacity, the biggest of any Pixel phone. The Pixel 9 Pro has a 4700 mAh capacity, while the S25 Ultra has a 5,000mAh battery capacity. The stated battery life is up to 30 hours, and in my experience, the Pixel 9a lasted an impressively long time between charges compared to my Galaxy S25. The biggest drawback, battery-wise, is the slow charging speeds. It maxes out at 23W fast charging, compared to the S25+ and Ultra, which offer up to 45W wired charging. And with such a big battery, the slow charging speeds are felt. But again, the large battery life means you have to reach for the charger less often. The rear cameras are a 48 MP wide and 13 MP ultrawide, while the front is 13 MP. The rear video is shot in 4K. Pictures look crisp and detailed, although zoom is somewhat limited. There's a portrait and night photography mode, and you can use Magic Editor and Magic Eraser to adjust your photos afterward. All your photos are stored in Google Photos, meaning there's no native gallery app. If you want to find the photos stored on the device, you can access them through Google Photos' Collections tab. There are a lot of features on the Pixel, including AI tools, but what makes the 9a shine as the mid-range phone to beat is that it nails the fundamentals. The battery life is outstanding, outlasting even flagship phones. The variable refresh rate makes for smooth, seamless performance when switching between apps or scrolling through social media, and the camera excels in various settings. Plus, Google's Material design is more fun and poppy than what Apple and Samsung offer, particularly with what we've seen of the new design. The Pixel 9a is a budget-conscious phone that doesn't cut corners; in short, it's the phone to beat at this price and a no-brainer for Android users.