Chipolo Loop and Card: Rechargeable, but Why Now?

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

Everyone’s acting like the new Chipolo Loop and Card finally fix Bluetooth trackers.
I’m not convinced.
Rechargeable sounds great on paper, but in a category built on “slap it on and forget it,” Chipolo’s big move feels several years late and not nearly ambitious enough.

Bluetooth tracker fatigue is real.
Between Apple AirTags, Tile, Samsung SmartTags, and a wave of Find My-compatible tags, most Android users already know the trade-offs.
Good trackers disappear into your life.
These new Chipolo products? They add maintenance.

What the new Chipolo Loop and Card actually offer

Let’s start with the basics.
The Chipolo Loop is a small, circular tracker with an integrated silicone loop so you can hook it directly to keys, bags, or zippers.
The Chipolo Card is a credit card–shaped tracker meant for wallets, passport sleeves, or luggage tags.
Both support Android and iOS via standard Bluetooth, not Apple’s Find My network or Google’s new Find My Device network.

The headline feature is rechargeability.
Loop charges over USB‑C, which is finally universal across modern Android phones and most new accessories.
Card charges wirelessly over any Qi-compatible charger.
Chipolo claims battery life of around a few months per charge, depending on usage and distance checks.
That’s decent, but still far from the 1‑year disposable batteries on some rivals.

In practice, that means setting calendar reminders if you attach these to anything critical.
Lose your keys a week after you forget to recharge, and the advanced hardware doesn’t matter.
Bluetooth range still caps out in the usual 60–120 meters in open air, and you’re still fully dependent on crowd-sourced location from other Chipolo users when items are out of range.

Primary keyword reality check: Chipolo Bluetooth trackers vs networks

Here’s the main problem: Chipolo Bluetooth trackers still live on a much smaller network than Apple’s AirTag or Google’s upcoming Find My Device ecosystem.
Apple piggybacks on hundreds of millions of iPhones.
Google will lean on every reasonably recent Android phone with Location and Bluetooth enabled.
Chipolo’s crowd network is, frankly, tiny by comparison.

So while rechargeability is a nice improvement, it doesn’t solve the core weakness.
If you leave a bag with a Chipolo Card in a random city, your recovery odds still depend on another Chipolo user walking by.
With an AirTag or any upcoming Google Find My Device tag, your chances are simply better.

To be fair, Chipolo has long pitched itself as the privacy-focused, less creepy alternative to AirTags.
They’ve worked with Apple and Google on unwanted tracking alerts and anti-stalking features.
That’s important.
However, stronger privacy and weaker reach means you need every other advantage you can get.
Rechargeable alone is not that advantage.

Design, durability, and the unavoidable maintenance tax

On design, Chipolo usually does well.
The Loop’s integrated strap means you’re not relying on fragile keyrings.
The Card stays thin enough to live in a standard wallet slot without bulging.
Colors are usually high-visibility, which helps if you’re searching under couches or in backpacks.

Durability is the big question.
To allow for rechargeability, these obviously aren’t fully sealed disposable pucks anymore.
Qi charging coils and USB‑C ports introduce weak points for water and dust.
Chipolo claims water resistance, but don’t expect to toss the Loop into saltwater or rely on the Card in a soaked hiking pack for years.

On the flip side, replacing coin cells on older trackers is also annoying, and not exactly eco-friendly.
These chargers remove that step and reduce battery waste.
But you’ve traded occasional battery replacement for regular top-ups.
If you’re already juggling a smartwatch, wireless earbuds, and a phone, adding tracker charging to the rotation is not nothing.

For a tracker attached to your keys, maybe you’ll remember.
For luggage you store in a closet for months, good luck.
This is where long-lived replaceable cells still make more sense.

Pricing, platform gaps, and the Android angle

Chipolo tends to price above the cheap no-name Bluetooth tags you see on Amazon, and below Apple in some bundles.
These rechargeable models push a bit higher than older Chipolo products, but they’re still in that $30–$40-per-tag neighborhood depending on multi-packs.
For a single tracker, that cost starts to feel steep when the underlying tech hasn’t changed much.

Android users sit in a weird middle ground.
If you’re on a Samsung phone, SmartTags tie into SmartThings and the Galaxy ecosystem.
If you’re on a Pixel or any modern Android device, you’re waiting for Google’s Find My Device network to fully roll out with compatible tags.
For now, third-party Bluetooth-only options like these Chipolos are filling the gap.

However, buying into a closed, smaller tracker network in 2025 feels like a short-term play.
Once Google’s network is live with ultra-wideband (UWB) options using chips like the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2’s integrated UWB support, indoor precision tracking gets better and more reliable.
Chipolo’s Loop and Card are still stuck on classic Bluetooth.

That’s the bigger frustration.
Rechargeability is a nice checkbox, but there’s no UWB for directional finding, no tight OS-level integration like AirTag’s Precision Finding with iPhones, and no deep hook into Android system menus.
You’re still stuck inside the app.

Do rechargeable trackers actually solve real problems?

So who are these for?
If you already own older Chipolo trackers, you might like the idea of never buying coin cells again.
If you hate disposable electronics, this is a step in the right direction, even if not a full sustainability win.
And if you want a wallet tracker that doesn’t become e-waste after two years, the Card is attractive.

But we have to be honest about the trade-offs.
Needing to remember a charging schedule on safety-critical items is a risk.
Having a smaller crowd network reduces the chance you’ll find a lost bag in another city.
And not supporting Apple Find My or Google’s upcoming network severely limits their future relevance.

The industry direction is pretty clear.
Apple went deep on its own network.
Google is about to go wide on Android.
Tile is trying to hang on with partnerships and brand recognition.
Chipolo seems content to sit in the middle with nice hardware, limited software ambition, and a weaker network.

That’s the disappointment here.
This could have been a bold move: join Google’s Find My Device, throw in UWB, and combine rechargeability with serious tracking power.
Instead, we get slightly nicer plastics, USB‑C and Qi charging, and the same old Bluetooth range story.

Should you buy them, or wait for the big networks?

If you’re deeply in the Chipolo ecosystem already and like their app, the Loop and Card are fine upgrades.
You’ll get rechargeable convenience, decent build quality, and a solid tracking experience in local, everyday scenarios.
For keys around the house or a backpack you often carry in busy areas, they’re good enough.

However, if you’re just now considering Bluetooth trackers, these Chipolo Bluetooth trackers feel like a side-step, not a clear upgrade path.
You’re buying into a smaller network on the eve of a major Android-wide tracking rollout.
That’s hard to justify for long-term use.

Ultimately, lost-item tracking is about odds and reliability, not just specs.
Larger location networks, UWB support, and OS-level integration matter more than how you charge the tag every few months.
Until Chipolo addresses those, rechargeable or not, their trackers will stay a niche choice.

If you care about Android trackers and are trying to pick now, the safest move is probably to wait and see how Google’s Find My Device ecosystem shakes out, and which brands commit to that platform.
Chipolo can still pivot, but these first rechargeable Chipolo Bluetooth trackers feel more like a missed chance than a meaningful jump forward.

Samsung’s Galaxy S25 Mini: Small Phone, Big Bet

Samsung’s Galaxy S25 Mini: Small Phone, Big Bet

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

I’ve tested over a hundred Android phones in the last few years, and my thumbs are tired.

The moment I picked up a prototype-sized dummy of the Galaxy S25 Mini at a closed-door briefing, my brain did a double-take. It actually sat inside my grip without creeping up my palm. I could reach the top of the screen without adjusting my hand. For someone who misses phones like the Pixel 4a and the Xperia Compact line, that alone felt surreal.

However, I’ve been burned before. We have seen so-called “mini” phones turn into compromised niche toys. So while I’m excited by the idea of a true compact Android flagship again, I’m staying cautious until Samsung shows real-world execution, not just nice CAD renders and marketing slides.

Why a true small Android phone matters again

The Android market drifted into a 6.6 to 6.8-inch blob over the last five years. Even the “small” flagships, like the Galaxy S24 at 6.2 inches, are only small compared to their Ultra siblings. For a lot of people with average or smaller hands, that still means constant shuffling and awkward one-handed use.

Meanwhile, Apple quietly proved there is at least some demand for compact hardware. The iPhone 13 Mini might not have sold in massive volumes, but it built a vocal fan base. On Android, the Asus Zenfone 9 and 10 also showed that if you pair a smaller footprint with high-end silicon, enthusiasts will show up.

If Samsung is really bringing an S25 Mini into the Galaxy S25 lineup, this is more than just a side experiment. It signals that one of the biggest Android manufacturers believes there is revenue in a smaller form factor again. That alone shifts the industry conversation.

However, the small-phone graveyard is crowded. Sony’s Xperia Compact series, the Galaxy S10e, and the Pixel 5 all stumbled for different reasons, from poor marketing to compromised batteries and half-hearted carrier support. The S25 Mini has to avoid those traps or it will just become another Reddit nostalgia thread.

Galaxy S25 Mini specs: promising on paper, questions in practice

Based on current leaks and industry chatter, the Galaxy S25 Mini is expected to land with a 5.9-inch OLED display, likely 1080p with 120Hz refresh. That immediately puts it below most flagships in size, without dropping into the 5.4-inch territory that killed the iPhone Mini on battery life.

Under the hood, the phone should run Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 or Samsung’s own Exynos equivalent, depending on region. If Samsung mirrors the S24 strategy, the United States will probably get Snapdragon while Europe and parts of Asia see Exynos. That split alone could affect whether power users trust the Mini in certain markets.

RAM is rumored to start at 8GB with a 12GB option, and storage likely begins at 128GB UFS 4.0. Building on this, the camera setup should mimic the regular S25 rather than the Ultra: a main wide, an ultrawide, and possibly a short 3x telephoto if Samsung is feeling generous.

The biggest question is battery. Current whispers point to something around 4,000mAh. On paper, that sounds fine for a 5.9-inch 1080p panel and a more efficient 3-nanometer Snapdragon 8 Gen 4. However, we have watched small phones like the Pixel 4 and iPhone 12 Mini crumble under real-world screen-on time.

If Samsung can’t deliver a full day of mixed use on 5G, this phone dies instantly for mainstream buyers. Power users might tolerate a top-up at their desk, but nobody wants to babysit their battery just because they prefer a smaller device.

Price, positioning, and the trap of being ‘second-class’

Price will decide whether the Galaxy S25 Mini is a serious product or a marketing checkbox. Right now, the regular Galaxy S24 sits around $799 at launch, often dipping lower with deals. If Samsung slaps a $699 or $749 tag on the Mini, buyers will rightfully ask what they are giving up besides screen size.

If the company keeps the same flagship-level chip, similar camera hardware to the base S25, and the same long software support window, then the price argument becomes much stronger. Otherwise, this risks turning into a Galaxy A-series device cosplaying as a flagship.

We have seen this movie with the Galaxy S10e and even the smaller S22. Those phones shipped with top silicon but small batteries, weaker cameras, or missing extras like higher-end zoom. They were good, but not good enough to justify choosing them over the mainline models once discounts kicked in.

On the flip side, there is an opportunity here: a smaller, slightly cheaper flagship that still feels complete. If Samsung treats the S25 Mini as a first-class citizen with four to seven years of Android and security updates, it could appeal hard to people who plan to keep their phones longer.

However, if carriers stock it lightly, push spiffs on bigger models, and barely train staff about it, the Mini will just quietly exist on spec sheets while store reps steer customers toward the S25+ or Ultra.

What Samsung must get right for a real small-phone comeback

To actually succeed, Samsung needs to nail a few simple but crucial points.

First, ergonomics must be the star, not an afterthought. That means a flat or slightly curved frame that does not dig into your palm, a back that is not overly slippery, and a weight closer to 160–170 grams than 200 grams. A compact phone that still feels like a brick misses the entire point.

Second, the display needs to be genuinely bright and tuned. A 120Hz OLED panel is great, but if outdoor brightness lags behind the S25 Ultra, users will notice quickly. Small phone fans are not asking for budget-tier screens; they want the same quality in a smaller diagonal.

Third, the camera has to hold its own. People have been trained by Pixels and iPhones to expect consistent shots without thinking. If the S25 Mini ships with a noticeably worse main sensor or weaker processing than its siblings, enthusiasts will abandon it immediately. Small size should not equal second-tier images.

Finally, charging speeds matter more on compact devices. A 4,000mAh cell with only 25W wired charging will feel dated in 2025 when Chinese brands push 80W and beyond. The Mini does not have to match those speeds, but it should at least reach 45W to make quick top-ups actually useful.

What this means for the Android market if it works

If the Galaxy S25 Mini hits its targets, the impact goes far beyond one phone. Other manufacturers watch Samsung closely. When Samsung moves a category, supply chains, accessory makers, and carriers pay attention.

A successful compact flagship could nudge brands like Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Google to reconsider their current size creep. Even a Pixel 10 Mini or a OnePlus 13 Compact becomes easier to pitch if Samsung proves the segment can sell.

On the other hand, a flop will send the exact opposite message. If Samsung ships a half-baked Mini, under-markets it, and then uses low sales to justify killing the concept, we will probably not see another major Android small phone push for years.

The bottom line is, the Galaxy S25 Mini is Samsung’s biggest small risk in a long time. For fans who have been begging for a one-hand-friendly Android flagship, this looks like the first serious attempt in a while.

Ultimately, whether this compact device becomes a turning point or just another missed opportunity will come down to execution. If Samsung balances size, battery life, cameras, and price correctly, the Galaxy S25 Mini could finally give small-phone loyalists a modern home. If not, the Android world will keep drifting toward two-handed slabs, and the small-phone dream will stay alive only in nostalgia threads and secondhand markets.

Pixel 9 Pro Fold vs Z Fold 6 and OnePlus Open

Pixel 9 Pro Fold vs Z Fold 6 and OnePlus Open

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

25 million foldables shipped last year, and most people still don’t trust them as daily drivers. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold is Google’s second swing at fixing that confidence problem, and this time it’s walking straight into the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and OnePlus Open crossfire.

Google is clearly positioning this as a no-compromise flagship, not an experiment. So the big question is simple: does it finally justify buying a foldable over a great slab phone, or are we still paying extra to beta test the future?

Pixel 9 Pro Fold design: finally grown-up hardware

Compared to the original Pixel Fold, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold looks like it hit the gym and fired its stylist. The bezels are tighter, the hinge gap is gone, and the whole thing feels less prototype and more mainstream flagship.

The outer display now runs a taller, more usable aspect ratio, far closer to Galaxy Z Fold 6 than the squat remote-control vibe of last year. That means typing on the cover screen actually feels normal, which matters if you email or chat all day.

Inside, Google sticks with a book-style foldable design: a large inner OLED with a central crease, slim bezels, and a floating tablet experience. Compared to OnePlus Open, the crease is still more visible, and that will annoy anyone spoiled by OnePlus’ near-flat panel.

However, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is thinner than Samsung’s Z Fold 6 when open and feels better balanced in one hand. That said, Samsung still wins on sheer industrial refinement, especially around hinge tolerance and long-term confidence.

Displays and aspect ratios: Google finally gets it

Foldables live or die by their screens, and here the Pixel 9 Pro Fold at least plays in the same league as Z Fold 6 and OnePlus Open. Expect a 120 Hz OLED outer screen with high brightness and a big inner panel that pushes near-flagship laptop brightness for HDR video.

The real upgrade is the aspect ratio tuning. Last year’s Pixel Fold felt great for reading but awkward for some apps. Now Google has basically admitted Samsung and OnePlus had the better idea. The cover screen is taller, the inner display less squat, and multitasking layouts feel more natural.

Compared to the Galaxy Z Fold 6, Google’s inner screen is slightly wider, which helps split-screen use and media. Versus the OnePlus Open, it is still a bit more square and less cinematic, but better for docs and web pages.

However, OnePlus still holds the crown for the least intrusive crease and the most tablet-like experience. Pixel beats it on polish and Google services integration, but OnePlus’ panel is still the one screen nerds will lust after.

Performance, battery and heat: Tensor vs Snapdragon again

Here is where Google keeps making the same risky bet. While Samsung and OnePlus lean on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 and 8 Gen 2 chips, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold uses Google’s own Tensor G4.

Tensor G4 is built for on-device AI tricks: real-time transcription, advanced photo editing, and smarter Assistant and Gemini-style features. For daily use, animations feel smooth, and paired with 12 GB or 16 GB of RAM, multitasking on the big screen is easy.

However, heavy gaming or long camera sessions still push Tensor chips into higher temperatures faster than Snapdragon rivals. So if you marathon Genshin Impact or record 4K60 video for more than 15 minutes, you should expect warmth and possible throttling.

Battery life will likely land behind the Z Fold 6 and OnePlus Open, which both benefit from more efficient Qualcomm silicon. Early indications suggest a full day is fine for mixed use, but power users may still be hunting chargers by late evening.

Cameras: Pixel 9 Pro Fold takes the photography fight seriously

If there is one place Pixel foldables should dominate, it is camera performance. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold pulls in a camera stack closer to the Pixel 9 Pro than a compromise-filled foldable.

You get a high-resolution main sensor, a competent ultra-wide, and a proper telephoto lens with meaningful optical zoom. That instantly puts it ahead of Samsung’s Z Fold 6 for stills, where Pixel image processing regularly produces cleaner low-light shots and more natural detail.

OnePlus Open is still seriously competitive here, especially with color and dynamic range tuned with Hasselblad branding. However, Pixel’s computational photography, from Night Sight to Motion Blur, tends to produce more consistent results.

Crucially, you can use the outer screen as a viewfinder for the rear cameras, just like Samsung and OnePlus. That means much better selfies and vlogging, though Google’s video performance still trails Apple and struggles to beat Samsung in stabilization.

Software, AI, and foldable UX: Google’s real advantage

On the software side, this is Google’s home turf. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold ships with Android tuned for large screens, plus Google’s own multitasking tweaks and AI features.

App continuity between inner and outer screens feels smoother than the first Pixel Fold, and windowing is more intuitive. Drag-and-drop between apps is faster, and more first-party Google apps finally respect the larger canvas.

AI is everywhere: live translation, voice typing that actually keeps up, context-aware suggestions on the big screen, and advanced photo tools that are basically Photoshop lite built in. Meanwhile, Samsung leans on its Galaxy AI layer and OnePlus relies more on raw performance and cleaner UI.

The problem is third-party app support is still inconsistent. TikTok, banking apps, and some region-specific services still treat foldables like weird tablets. Google is fixing this slowly, but foldable UX still feels like a premium experiment, not a mature standard.

Price, value, and who should actually buy this

Let’s talk money, because this is where Google risks losing the plot. Expect Pixel 9 Pro Fold pricing in the $1,699+ range, right in line with Galaxy Z Fold 6 and usually higher than a discounted OnePlus Open.

That means we are paying flagship laptop money for a device that still comes with durability questions, resale risk, and niche app support. For most users, a $999 Pixel 9 Pro or Galaxy S24+ is the smarter buy.

However, if you specifically want a foldable and live inside Google’s ecosystem, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold suddenly looks very tempting. It offers cleaner software than Samsung, better cameras than OnePlus Open in most conditions, and a more balanced design than the first Pixel Fold.

The bottom line is Pixel 9 Pro Fold is finally a foldable you could daily-drive without feeling like a tester, but that does not mean you should.

Pixel 9 Pro Fold vs rivals: should you trust Google this time?

So where does the Pixel 9 Pro Fold actually land? Against the Galaxy Z Fold 6, it wins on cameras, aspect ratios for many users, and Google-first features. Against the OnePlus Open, it loses on crease and raw performance, but hits back with better software support and updates.

If you want the safest long-term foldable with the strongest durability track record, the Z Fold 6 is still the conservative choice. If you want the best “tablet in your pocket” feeling and a less visible crease, OnePlus Open remains a killer deal, especially on sale.

If you want Google’s vision of Android plus a foldable form factor, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is finally good enough to recommend. Just go in knowing you are paying extra for novelty, and that Tensor’s heat and battery trade-offs still matter.

Ultimately, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold proves Google is serious about foldables, but it does not solve every problem in one generation. The future looks promising, but for now this is a luxury toy for enthusiasts, not a mainstream default. If you are buying it, do it with open eyes and a backup charger.

Xiaomi 14 Ultra vs S24 Ultra vs Pixel 8 Pro

Xiaomi 14 Ultra vs S24 Ultra vs Pixel 8 Pro

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

If you’re eyeing a 2024 Android flagship mainly for the camera, you’re probably looking at three names: Xiaomi 14 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, and Google Pixel 8 Pro. All three promise DSLR-adjacent photography in your pocket. Only one of them actually gets closest.

This is a camera-first comparison, but hardware, software, and real-world usability all matter. Let’s break down where Xiaomi’s latest Leica-branded monster genuinely challenges Samsung and Google – and where it still falls short.

Specs and camera hardware: Xiaomi comes in swinging

On paper, the Xiaomi 14 Ultra has the most aggressive camera setup of the trio.

Xiaomi 14 Ultra:
– Main: 50MP 1-inch-type sensor (Sony LYT-900), f/1.63–f/4.0 variable aperture, OIS
– Ultra-wide: 50MP, 12mm equivalent, f/1.8
– 3.2x telephoto: 50MP, ~75mm equivalent, f/1.8, OIS
– 5x periscope telephoto: 50MP, ~120mm equivalent, f/2.5, OIS
– Front: 32MP
– SoC: Snapdragon 8 Gen 3
– Display: 6.73-inch 1440p LTPO AMOLED, 120Hz

Galaxy S24 Ultra:
– Main: 200MP, f/1.7, OIS
– Ultra-wide: 12MP, 13mm equivalent, f/2.2
– 3x telephoto: 10MP, 70mm equivalent, f/2.4, OIS
– 5x periscope telephoto: 50MP, 111mm equivalent, f/3.4, OIS
– Front: 12MP
– SoC: Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 for Galaxy (most markets)
– Display: 6.8-inch 1440p LTPO AMOLED, 120Hz

Pixel 8 Pro:
– Main: 50MP, f/1.68, OIS
– Ultra-wide: 48MP, f/1.95 with autofocus
– 5x periscope telephoto: 48MP, 113mm equivalent, f/2.8, OIS
– Front: 10.5MP
– SoC: Google Tensor G3
– Display: 6.7-inch 1344p LTPO AMOLED, 120Hz

The Xiaomi 14 Ultra clearly leans into hardware. That 1-inch-type LYT-900 sensor and dual telephoto setup are closer to what you’d expect from a compact camera than a normal phone. Samsung counters with a high-resolution 200MP main and its usual versatility. Google relies more on computational photography, with less aggressive optics but very tuned software.

Price-wise, Xiaomi undercuts or matches depending on region. In Europe, the 14 Ultra typically lands around €1,499, the S24 Ultra around €1,449 for 256GB, and the Pixel 8 Pro about €1,099. In markets where Xiaomi sells officially, you’re paying a premium, but the hardware justifies it more than most.

Daylight performance: detail vs color vs consistency

In good light, none of these phones are bad. The differences are about tuning and consistency.

The Xiaomi 14 Ultra produces highly detailed photos with a natural depth thanks to the large main sensor. With Leica Authentic color mode, images lean slightly warm and contrasty without going full social-media filter. Leica Vibrant bumps saturation but stays more controlled than Samsung’s historical tendency toward neon greens and hyper-blue skies.

The Galaxy S24 Ultra is sharp, thanks to that 200MP sensor binning down to 12MP or 50MP, but it can still push colors. Grass can look too vivid, and reds occasionally clip. Samsung’s new Galaxy AI camera tweaks help with object recognition and sharpening, but you can see the processing at work if you zoom in.

Pixel 8 Pro is still the most “point-and-shoot friendly”. Google’s HDR is aggressive but smart. Shadows are lifted, highlights are controlled, and skin tones are usually the most accurate. It’s less about showing exactly what the scene looked like and more about a polished, shareable output.

In terms of pure detail from the main camera, Xiaomi trades blows with Samsung and often wins in texture on brick, foliage, and fabric while avoiding some of Samsung’s over-sharpening halos. Pixel 8 Pro holds its own but starts to look softer if you’re the type who pixel-peeps.

Where Xiaomi falters slightly is consistency between lenses. Color and contrast shift a bit when jumping from main to ultra-wide or telephoto, whereas Google in particular keeps a more unified look across all focal lengths.

Zoom, portraits, and low light: Xiaomi targets Samsung directly

Zoom is where the Xiaomi 14 Ultra clearly goes after the S24 Ultra’s reputation.

At 3x, Xiaomi’s dedicated 50MP telephoto beats Samsung’s 10MP 3x in detail and noise. Fine text, hair, and tree branches look cleaner from the Xiaomi. At 5x, it’s tighter versus Samsung’s slightly wider 5x, but both perform well. Beyond 10x, Samsung still has the edge in software upscaling and focus reliability, though Xiaomi is closer than most competitors.

Google’s Pixel 8 Pro does well at 5x, thanks to its 48MP periscope, but anything in the 3x–4x range relies heavily on digital zoom and Super Res algorithms. It’s usable, just not in the same league as the dedicated mid-tele cameras on Xiaomi and Samsung.

Portraits are a mixed bag. Xiaomi’s large sensor gives a natural background blur even without portrait mode, which many people will like. When portrait mode is enabled, edge detection is generally solid, though it can occasionally mis-handle hair and glasses compared to Google’s refined segmentation. Skin tones are more realistic than Samsung’s smoothing-heavy approach, but Pixel 8 Pro still has the most predictable, flattering look for faces.

Low light is where that 1-inch-type sensor shows its value. The Xiaomi 14 Ultra gathers a lot of light, especially at f/1.63, so you end up with cleaner shadows and less aggressive noise reduction than Samsung. Night mode kicks in quickly and doesn’t over-brighten scenes as much. Street scenes look closer to reality instead of turning midnight into 6pm.

The Pixel 8 Pro still nails exposure and dynamic range in night shots, especially with high-contrast scenes like streetlights and neon signs, but it can apply stronger noise reduction, flattening some textures. Samsung has improved its night mode this generation, yet it sometimes pushes saturation and contrast so far that shadows clip unnaturally.

Overall, in low light, Xiaomi and Google trade blows: Xiaomi has better texture and noise, Google has more controlled HDR and color science. Samsung lands third here more often than not.

Video, software, and real-world usability

For video, the Galaxy S24 Ultra remains one of the safest options. It offers 4K60 on all major lenses, 8K recording on the main camera, dependable stabilization, and reliable autofocus. Color is a bit punchy, but the footage is consistent and easy to edit. Audio recording is strong, though wind handling could still improve.

The Xiaomi 14 Ultra has aggressive video specs: 4K60 on every lens, 8K recording, advanced manual controls, and a Pro mode that genuinely feels targeted at serious shooters. Stabilization is improved over previous generations, but it can still look a touch jittery when walking compared to Samsung’s more locked-in approach. Autofocus is generally fast, but you do see occasional focus hunting in complex low-light scenes.

Pixel 8 Pro has finally caught up to the others on video, but it doesn’t dominate. 4K60 is available across lenses, and Google’s HDR video looks good, though sometimes too processed with visible tone-mapping shifts. Stabilization is strong, and audio separation (voice vs background) is among the best.

On the software side, Xiaomi’s HyperOS on top of Android 14 is fast on the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, with preview lag rarely an issue, even when switching lenses or modes. But the interface can feel busy, and some camera settings are buried. Samsung’s One UI on the S24 Ultra offers very comprehensive camera controls and now integrates more AI-assisted editing tools directly into the gallery. Pixel 8 Pro keeps the interface simplest, but hides a lot of power in Google Photos with features like Best Take, Magic Editor, and Photo Unblur.

Battery and thermals matter for extended shooting. The Xiaomi 14 Ultra’s 5,300mAh battery generally holds up well through a day of mixed photo and video without drama, and the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 remains efficient. The S24 Ultra, also on Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 for Galaxy, is comparable or slightly better in endurance, particularly for longer 4K recording sessions. Pixel 8 Pro, with Tensor G3, can run warmer and drain faster when pushed with continuous 4K video or repeated night mode shots.

So which camera phone actually wins?

If you’re choosing purely on camera performance, there’s no single universal winner, but there is a clear narrative.

The Xiaomi 14 Ultra is the most ambitious camera phone of the three. Its 1-inch-type main sensor, dual telephotos, and Leica tuning deliver some of the best stills you can get from an Android device right now, especially for enthusiasts who like to shoot manual or tweak RAW files. Zoom versatility and low-light texture are legitimate strengths.

The Galaxy S24 Ultra remains the all-rounder. It might not produce the most natural photos, but it gives you a wide focal range, strong video, and a refined camera app, wrapped in hardware that is easy to buy in most regions. It rarely completely misses, even if it’s occasionally heavy-handed with processing.

Pixel 8 Pro is still the king of “just shoot and share” for most non-enthusiast users. Its strength lies in consistent output, great skin tones, and clever post-processing features rather than sheer hardware dominance. For people who use Google Photos as their editing hub, it’s still very compelling.

The biggest loser? If we’re being strict about camera hardware vs price, Pixel 8 Pro looks the most outgunned when you compare raw sensor sizes, zoom stack, and low-light texture against Xiaomi and Samsung. It compensates with smarter software and a lower price, but if you’re chasing maximum flexibility and physical optics, it’s behind.

The catch is availability. Xiaomi 14 Ultra isn’t officially sold in many key markets, including the US, and software updates plus long-term support aren’t as transparent as Google’s and Samsung’s multi-year promises. If you can actually buy it in your region and you care deeply about photography, the 14 Ultra is absolutely worth shortlisting. If you want safer software support, better carrier availability, and reliable resale, the S24 Ultra or Pixel 8 Pro still make a lot of sense.

Ultimately, the Xiaomi 14 Ultra proves that Android camera competition is very much alive – and that Google and Samsung no longer get to coast on reputation alone.