Software matters more than hardware, even if hardware ultimately wins here

Google's a-series phones have to cut a few corners to hit their value-forward pricing, and one thing it doesn't have that the bigger Pixel 6 and 6 Pro do is the upgraded camera system. While all three phones share their ultra-wide camera specs, the primary sensors differ, and the Pixel 6a doesn't have the 6 Pro's telephoto. So how does this hardware difference actually compare in terms of real-world examples? In short: The Pixel 6 and 6 Pro conclusively have a better camera, but if you aren't picky, you might not even care or notice; the differences can be so slight in some situations. In fact, there are even ways that the Pixel 6a beats the more expensive phones.

For some comparisons below, I've lumped the Pixel 6 Pro together with the Pixel 6, as they share a primary and ultra-wide camera, differing only when it comes to the telephoto camera the Pixel 6 Pro has and which the Pixel 6 doesn't. Where the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro differ in hardware and performance, as in the case of telephoto and "zoom" photos, all three phones are compared.

Also, remember to click/tap to see the full versions of the samples. When shrunk on the page here, a lot of the details I'm discussing can be hard to see otherwise.

Before we dive in with samples, let's go over the hardware differences.

The wide-angle camera specs appear to be identical between all three phones, but the situation elsewhere varies. The Pixel 6 and 6 Pro have a much bigger and higher-resolution primary sensor — by default, that's binned down to a similar 12-ish MP resolution, but Google told us previously that a cropping factor can be applied for better zoom performance. (The results aren't identical to having a 12MP sensor with a native higher optical zoom level, being a Quad-Bayer sensor complicates the discussion, but the short version is that it should still be better than your "normal" digital zoom, and testing bears that out.) The field of view for the primary sensor also varies between the 6a and 6 series, which testing will indicate.

The Pixel 6 Pro also has a dedicated telephoto camera that the other two phones lack entirely, giving it both a higher maximum "zoom" factor and better telephoto performance on paper. But how do all these specs actually bear out in real-world testing?

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/24 ISO548. Right: Pixel 6, 1/60 ISO1230.

Taken as a whole, the Pixel 6/6 Pro and Pixel 6a take similar overall photos, but a crop starts to reveal some differences, and they're frustratingly situational. At times, the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro capture more detail, but once in a while, the Pixel 6a actually does a little better — I think because it doesn't have a key shortcoming with which Google saddled its more expensive phones.

This is the more typical situation you're likely to see, with the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro beating the Pixel 6a. At a close crop, you can see it is lacking detail in the fine texture of the wood grain that the Pixel 6 captured, and there are likely a few different reasons for this. And the difference in field of view here isn't because I was closer; the FoV between the Pixel 6a and 6 actually differ slightly, and that carried through to an identically-sized crop.

For one, the Pixel 6a had to use a longer shutter to get the same exposure. It's still long enough that OIS should have been able to easily compensate, but a longer exposure can mean movement impacts fine details. In real-world use, that can mean that you might get better photo quality with a tripod or while using the phone against a stationary object, but this was actually the best of the multiple samples I took on the 6a in this scene, and detail in most of the others was slightly worse — not that you'd notice outside a close crop and pixel-peeping like this.

The relatively muddier processing on the Pixel 6a is also even though the Pixel 6a took the photo at a lower ISO — typically, a higher ISO means noisier images and muddier processing. However, the sensor in the Pixel 6 has the advantage of being binned down, which can help compensate for the ISO noise somewhat, and that higher base resolution can (and, in my testing, conclusively does) mean better detail capture. But there will be times when the Pixel 6a can actually capture... perhaps not "more," but "better" detail than the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro.

Above: Full images. Below: Close crop. Left: Pixel 6a 1/5848 ISO61. Right: Pixel 6, 1/4926 ISO44.

On a close crop here, the difference is immediate and striking: The Pixel 6a shows details that the Pixel 6 doesn't, with stronger and more contrasty edging around the slate tiles on this angled roof. The Pixel 6a is a little noisier and has some outright muddy-looking details that the Pixel 6 doesn't, but at least it has those details. The photo captured by the Pixel 6 is just washed out.

I suspect that's not because of a difference in the sensor or processing but because the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro have a noted issue with lens flare, which can also cause an image to look a little hazy or washed out when strong light sources are at an angle, reducing contrast. It's a problem I observed in my review of the Pixel 6 Pro as well as a few times in my testing to compare it against the 6a, and I'll be discussing it more in the section below on dynamic range.

Outside these relative corner cases where lighting poses an issue, even though it shouldn't, the Pixel 6 objectively captures better details in (most) photos.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/418 ISO50. Right: Pixel 6, 1/314 ISO40.

I was surprised to notice that at a few different times, the Pixel 6a beat the Pixel 6 when it came to dynamic range, showing more detail and color in areas of shadow. But I'm pretty sure that primarily happens in scenes where, again, the Pixel 6 can frustratingly wash out photos, as you can see above.

Google hasn't offered a concrete explanation for the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro's lens flare issue, but I'm convinced this tendency to wash out is tied to it, or that both problems are caused by the same root issue, as it only happens when lighting is at a certain angle. According to design changes shown in the upcoming Pixel 7 and 7 Pro, as well as differences on the Pixel 6a, I think the cause might be related to the single flat, wide piece of glass covering the camera visor on the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro, which Google has swapped for a smaller oval glass cover on the Pixel 6a and 7 series.

At that size, the huge glass window could be causing interior reflections of some kind, interacting with the design in some other unwanted way, or it may not have been correctly coated/treated internally to prevent problems like this. I don't know the precise cause, but the effect is noticeable and annoying.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/120 ISO86. Right: Pixel 6, 1/48 ISO43.

Part of the difference in color balance here, I have to assume, is tied to this wash-out/flare issue. Because most of the rest of the time, the Pixel 6a and 6 agree on colors, though there are some instances where the Pixel 6 tends just a little bit cooler. It's not consistent, but when they disagree, that's usually the direction, as you can see below.

There does seem to be a small difference in FoV between the two primary cameras. I tried to be as careful as I could taking photos back to back from the same position on a broken ankle, but the difference in looking at photos after the fact seems to consistently show the Pixel 6 has a slightly wider view of the world with its primary camera.

Left: Pixel 6a ultra-wide, 1/1603 ISO38. Right: Pixel 6 ultra-wide, 1/853 ISO29.

This last example pair really highlights the strongest difference in dynamic range you're likely to see between these phones. The Pixel 6 can definitely edge out the Pixel 6a in specific circumstances, better pulling down highlights in areas like the sky and pulling up details slightly shadows. However, the reds and shadows in the Pixel 6 look just a little washed out — that same issue happening again.

This temporarily concludes our tour of New England wooden bridges.

The much bigger primary camera sensor in the Pixel 6 should give it a decisive edge in low-light situations, and it does, but you'd be surprised by the difference between the two. The Pixel 6a admirably holds its own, even if it does get beaten, as the Night Sight example below shows.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/7 ISO1615. Right: Pixel 6, 1/3 ISO641

At a quick glance, you might not be able to tell these two photos apart, which is a testament to Google's processing abilities. But if you look at the top right of the image, you can immediately see that the line of the roof isn't as well-defined on the Pixel 6a, lacking the contrasting white line that follows the edge, and the transition to the sky is blurry rather than sharp. Many of the details in deeper shadow, like the brickwork around the more distant windows, are lost entirely. The graffiti of a boar in the back has also lost much of the texture of the brickwork beneath it on the Pixel 6a, turned into matte mud, while the Pixel 6 has even preserved the subtle reflections from the streetlight off the glossy paint and exposed wires.

The Pixel 6 Pro did do something a little weird when it comes to the top of the roof of the car at the bottom, with what looks like some kind of HDR effect creating a light spot that wasn't actually there. Both phones have OIS, and the Pixel 6 actually took a longer shutter than the Pixel 6a (though I'm not sure how accurate measures of shutter speed actually are when you're dealing with long multi-frame exposures, as in the case of Night Sight).

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/7 ISO1615. Right: Pixel 6, 1/3 ISO641

On a close crop, you can see that the Pixel 6 is much less noisy, at least partly indicative of the difference in the ISO the two phones had to hit to achieve a similar exposure, thought he Pixel 6 further benefited from being able to bin out more of that noise. The Pixel 6a does an admirable job preserving as much detail as it does, but the Pixel 6 has both a higher resolution sensor and a bigger sensor enabling it to capture and preserve more. Details on the windowsill here are barely visible as splotches of color on the Pixel 6a, while the Pixel 6 shows the cracks that are present. The same goes for the brickwork: You can actually see the mortar on the Pixel 6 while it's almost entirely gone on the 6a.

This is a win for the Pixel 6, but I'd argue the Pixel 6a swings far above its weight here. Unlike a lot of other low-light comparisons I could make with other smartphone brands, there aren't whole swaths of the scene that are drastically different outside a crop.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/8 ISO 267. Right: Pixel 6, 1/3 ISO 162.

I like this example because it does a very good job of showing off the Pixel 6's problem with lens flare. All cameras and all lenses will suffer from some lens flare to some degree in a challenging lighting situation like this, but the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro suffer from particularly bad lens flare which can be a big issue at night, as you can see great streaks of red and a big green blob in the top left corner streaking out from the light. It can also manifest as an arcing halo of color in some other circumstances, where light is at a more oblique angle. But it's a serious problem with using the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro at night, nearly ruining the astrophotography mode if the moon happens to be out. And the Pixel 6a doesn't suffer lens flare to anywhere near that degree, giving the phone its own edge over the more expensive models.

The other reason I like this image is that since it poses a more challenging lighting situation, it can draw out more specific weaknesses. Taken as a whole these are both very good results, showing surprising detail and less noise than expected. But areas of extreme shadow finally highlight the Pixel 6's deeper strengths, and a crop bares all.

For each pair above, Left: Pixel 6a. Right: Pixel 6.

The Pixel 6 better captures contrast and detail in the grain of the wood shining through the glossy paint above, as well as the roof and the tree behind it, all with less noise. And the Pixel 6 can show the basketball hoop visible in the darkest shadow behind the building to the left, while the Pixel 6a turns that whole area into noisy and indistinguishable mud.

It's these particularly fine and subtle details that the Pixel 6's bigger and higher resolution sensor is able to preserve. During the day, the distinction is smaller, but at night it can be a lot more noticeable. I'd argue it's still a pretty small difference outside a close crop most of the time, but it's definitely there.

There's another interesting curiosity these images show. With a much larger sensor, the Pixel 6 should be able to get by with much shorter shutter speeds. The few examples I have here clearly don't cover the full range of its exposure logic, but I've noticed that the Pixel 6 aims for about the same shutter speed as the Pixel 6a does — on average, it might actually even aim for slightly longer. Frankly, I'm not sure how much the potentially outdated metric of a single-capture shutter speed actually matters when you're looking at Night Sight's cascade of multi-frame exposures, though.

More anecdotally, I was quite surprised while taking these photos that there wasn't as big a difference in capture time as I figured there would be — I had to stand still for about the same amount of time to capture both, so the Pixel 6 doesn't have the advantage I expected there, either.

The Pixel 6, 6 Pro, and 6a all have the same ultra-wide sensor (a Sony IMX386), paired with what looks like the same optics. And so far as I can tell, they take nearly identical photos very consistently.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/834 ISO49. Right: Pixel 6, 1/750 ISO51.

There is a small difference in sharpness on a close crop. The shutter here is fast enough that I don't think motion is to blame. But it's only visible on a close crop, and later examples won't demonstrate it, so I have to assume it was a one-off.

A closer crop of the above. Left: Pixel 6a. Right: Pixel 6.

Other details, like color, dynamic range, etc., are effectively identical here. What little chromatic aberration/fringing the camera shows in these examples is the same as well.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/1299 ISO47. Right: Pixel 6 1/1664 ISO37.

Surprise: the bridge is back, baby! This example, taken with the ultra-wide cameras on both phones, is just about identical when it comes to sharpness and detail, no matter how you crop. Dynamic range on the wide-angle cameras is pretty decent, but you will notice some lost details in areas of shadow compared to the much-better primary sensors in both phones. For some reason, the Pixel 6 brightened the asphalt paving just a little more than the Pixel 6a did, though that could be due to a small difference in the scene — I had a broken ankle and tried my best to keep things the same, but they weren't quite identical, sorry.

There is also a minor difference in color balance, and I'd argue that the Pixel 6's image looks just a tiny bit washed out in the reds compared to the Pixel 6a. This could be the issue I discussed before cropping up again, and the angle of the sun is about right for that to happen, but it's very small and could also just be a difference in processing due to the slight differences in the scene.

While I wish more Google would adopt the ultra-wide-as-macro-camera paradigm, since the feature works well on other phones that I've tested that have it, you're getting almost exactly the same wide-angle experience between the Pixel 6a and Pixel 6, as far as I can tell.

Returning to an earlier geographic location, it's finally time to add some Pixel 6 Pro-specific discussion. If you weren't aware, the Pixel 6 Pro has an extra telephoto camera that the Pixel 6 and 6a lack. But, on top of that, the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro have a bigger and higher resolution sensor that can be effectively cropped for better performance. (There's more to it than that, Quad-Bayer sensors complicate the discussion as it's not a 1:1 mapping to a "normal" sensor, but that's what Google told us previously.) But the fact that all three phones are using different sensors at certain times means this is now a three-way comparison. That also means I'm mixing up the comparison format a little.

Left: Pixel 6a, 1/5848 ISO63. Middle: Pixel 6, 1/3050 ISO45. Right: Pixel 6 Pro, 1/2899 ISO44. All at 2x "zoom."

Differences kick in almost immediately here. As touched on before, the Pixel 6 can wash images out in certain situations like this, which affects the comparison. Somehow the Pixel 6 Pro dodged the effect here (maybe a subtle difference in angle relative to the sun?), but the Pixel 6 Pro typically has the same issue in my testing. Lens flare is also visible as an arcing rainbow on the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro, noticeable where the brick meets the roofline. But you'll notice that both the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro still capture more detail with less noise, even here in the daytime.

Closer crop of the 2x "zoom" photos. Left: Pixel 6a. Middle: Pixel 6. Right: Pixel 6 Pro

In this example, Pixel 6a has more contrast than the Pixel 6 does, but in this case I'm pretty sure it's due to the wash-out the Pixel 6 is prone to. If you compare the Pixel 6a to the 6 Pro directly, it's astounding how close they are, though the Pixel 6 Pro is able to capture more detail with slightly less noise and mud than the Pixel 6a, particularly in areas of shadow.

Left to right: Pixel 6a at 7x, 1/3344 ISO59; Pixel 6 at 7x, 1/1825 ISO44; Pixel 6 Pro at 4x, f/3.5 1/396 ISO34; Pixel 6 Pro at 20x, f/3.5 1/410 ISO34. (I didn't think to capture on the Pro at 7X, since that isn't one of the default settings — sorry!)

The same argument again applies at the maximum 7x zoom range for the Pixel 6a and Pixel 6. Taken as a whole, the Pixel 6a image honestly looks nicer than the Pixel 6 with better contrast since it's less washed out, but it's actually a little bit noisier and muddier on a crop than the Pixel 6 is:

Close crop of 7x "zoom" photos, Pixel 6a (left) and Pixel 6 (right).

Arguably, the Pixel 6 and 6a still trade blows here, delivering their own relative advantages and drawbacks. The Pixel 6 captures better detail and is a little less muddy when applying digital zoom in good lighting, but the Pixel 6a exhibits better contrast since it doesn't get washed out in situations like these. But once you start talking about the Pixel 6 Pro and its dedicated telephoto camera, there's no comparison.

Because I didn't capture a sample at 7x on the Pixel 6 Pro (it isn't a default setting, and I wasn't thinking at the time), this comparison had to be engineered by cropping a photo from the Pixel 6 Pro at 4x as compared to the Pixel 6a at 7x, so it's not quite as direct a comparison as the others. This means you're looking at a purely optical vs. almost purely digital "zoom" here, and take it with a grain of salt. I'd argue you're looking at the best the Pixel 6a can manage compared to the Pixel 6 Pro at arguably a slight disadvantage, but that's up to you.

Left: Pixel 6a at 7x. Right: Pixel 6 Pro at 4x cropped to 7x.

Again the Pixel 6a has a nice edge in contrast (I'd argue that contrast looks a little more like what my eye saw at the time) and the Pixel 6 Pro looks a little washed out. But you have to be squinting not to notice the difference in detail, muddy processing, and noise between the two, with the Pixel 6 Pro beating the Pixel 6a by miles and miles. The limits of digital zoom are quite clear. And this further ignores that we haven't even reached the upper limits of what the Pixel 6 Pro can do when it comes to "zoom." Google won't let the Pixel 6a's digital zoom go that far, but let's compare a crop of the Pixel 6a to the Pixel 6 Pro at 20x.

Left: Pixel 6a cropped after the fact to a 20x "zoom" equivalent. Right: Pixel 6 Pro at 20x.

This really isn't a fair comparison at all, since you can't even reach this level of "zoom" on the Pixel 6a without cropping after the fact (or even on the Pixel 6) but it does demonstrate the difference in detail that's captured when you have an honest-to-god telephoto camera on your smartphone.

If you care about "zoom" performance, the Pixel 6 Pro is better than the Pixel 6, which is better than the Pixel 6a.

Given the handful of deficiencies in the Pixel 6 when it comes to blowing out contrast and lens flare, there's no one winner across all categories here. The Pixel 6 and 6 Pro aren't better for every situation. Arguably, the Pixel 6a is even a better camera in certain very specific instances because of that. And if you look at images as a whole and don't care about details you won't see on a crop, the Pixel 6a is nearly on the same level as the Pixel 6, even with its older primary sensor. But once you factor in low-light detail or "zoom" performance, the competition ends, and the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro beat the Pixel 6a.

In the wake of the announcement, I've been hearing a repeated claim that the Pixel 6a's camera isn't as good as the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro, without any concrete details backing up precisely how one is better than the other. As the results here show, even if you discount the telephoto camera and compare the Pixel 6a merely to the Pixel 6, the differences can actually be small sometimes.

The Pixel 6 and 6 Pro unarguably have better cameras, but not by the margin that some might imply, with most of the benefits manifesting as improved fine details on a very close crop, marginally better dynamic range (when lighting that highlights the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro's deficiencies isn't an issue), and improvements to sensitivity in low-light situations. The improved "zoom" performance on the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro is also a notable perk, preserving details that can otherwise either not be captured or become lost in processing, but it's subtle and arguably offset by the Pixel 6a's other benefits, like a lack of lens flare and a reduced tendency to wash out images when strong light sources are at certain angles. ​​​​​​

In the vast majority of circumstances, photos taken by the Pixel 6a are almost indistinguishable from the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro outside a pixel-peeping crop. On top of that, the wide-angle cameras appear to use the same hardware and have results that look about identical. Arguably the biggest benefit of choosing the Pixel 6 or 6 Pro over the Pixel 6a are the improvements to telephoto "zoom" performance, which get better the more you're willing to spend. All three phones can even do 4K 60FPS video, though I'm no videographer and decided early on in this comparison that video was outside my scope here.

Honestly, it's a little astounding how small the differences captured by the primary cameras can be in certain circumstances, given the sensors aren't just different sizes, but even different brands. Google's photo processing might create art, but the company has its camera down to an exact science. The Pixel 6a is still a winning camera phone, "old" sensor and all — but the 6 and 6 Pro are still better.

Ostensibly a senior editor, in reality just some verbose dude who digs on tech, loves Android, and hates anticompetitive practices. His only regret is that he didn't buy a Nokia N9 in 2012. Email tips or corrections to ryne at androidpolice dot com.