Oppo Find X9 Ultra Hasselblad Earth Explorer Kit hands-on

23 April 2026
You get just one zoom, but it's a 300mm piece of glass that looks as Pro as it gets.


I was initially taken by the teleconverter zoom reach until I did some maths. 13x at 300mm, 30x at 690mm, and 60x at 1,380mm are basically 1x at 23mm. But given that the external teleconverter lens only works with the 70mm 3x zoom camera, it means that 300mm only gives out a 4.3x optical zoom, whereas 690mm gives out 9.9x zoom and 1,380mm gives out 19.7x zoom. Something doesn't add up.

    Luis4Sports, 29 Apr 2026It’s a bit misleading to judge a teleconverter setup withou... moreWhat's this insanity now that the only people allowed to talk about something are people who've used it? There are reviews, videos, photo samples, specs sheets...
    99 % of people never used a real camera, yet all of them comment on how they're big, heavy, inconvenient. Why aren't you commenting on that and are telling people I'm wrong when I say if they have an interest in photography large enough to give 1000+ extra for a phone that they might want to think about exploring with a bit of slightly older camera gear that would cost them exactly 0 (in words: zero) money, go back to just phone if they discover nothing they appreciate there?

    And this product has obvious shortcomings absolutely inexplicable for a device costing as much as a real camera, hence my calling it "toyish" unless it costs 25 € which it's obviously worth. Among other things:

    "For a start, the whole thing has a very awkward centre of gravity that sits far forward. (...)
    Then I noticed that the autofocus is, unfortunately, a complete disaster. Even with high-contrast subjects, it takes up to ten seconds or simply fails to find the correct focus plane at all. If I didn’t meticulously check the images in the live view, every other shot taken with this camera kit would be out of focus. This is particularly noticeable at longer focal lengths, but even at the shortest setting (200 millimetres), the chance of a picture being in focus is only around 50 per cent.
    To be honest: that’s the end of this camera kit for me. There’s no convenient way to focus manually, and the Vivo X200 Ultra’s autofocus clearly can’t cope at all with the teleconverter and the resulting significantly narrower depth of field.
    Source: https://www.smartzone.de/vivo-x200-ultra-kamera-kit-mit-handgriff-und-telekonverter-im-test/
    Translated with DeepL.com (free version)"

    Or is this reviewer also a liar and China flagship hater, like I've been told here the (obviously Chinese) YT reviewer and people under the video complaining about extreme shutter lag in some RAW low-processing mode are. Don't have the link, unfortunately, but would advise people to be wary of overpromises from any (phone) manufacturer and do their research. The reality with all these camaraphones apparently isn't as rosy as some fans make it out to be.

    I've got no idea what kind of pockets you people have. 🤣 The only pocket I have this stuff could fit in is a jacket pocket, and then I might as well carry a compact and have both that and the phone always ready to do their thing. In summer I'd need a bag for either anyway.

    Why should a tool, as you like to call them, tell me what I am or should be doing? 🧐 I'm the one telling the tool what it should do.

    As for "how long does it take", generally it takes a literal nothing; I set up the photo while bringing the viewfinder to my eye, it's why we have the display(s) on the camera, quick glance to see what the current settings are and the rest gets done (90-100 %) blindly with buttons, rings and dials, it's what those are there for, no? 🤔 Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

    You can say that a phone is the more convenient tool generally 'cause it also does phonecalls and navigation and whatnot, but saying that it beats a pro (no less 🧐) body at its own game of speed and control of photos one captures again borders on absurdity 🤣, sorry.
    You can lift it up and do a dozen different photos varying focal length, aperture, shutter speed, composition, focal plane without moving your own eyes from the subject in less time than it takes for a phone camera app to open and to tap there that you've installed a teleconverter. 🤷‍♂️

    Definitely one of the weirder conversations I've had lately. 🤔

      User935, 28 Apr 2026From Merriam-Webster: "amateur, noun Definition ... moreIt’s a bit misleading to judge a teleconverter setup without actually using it. I’ve been using the Vivo X300 Pro photography kit with the 200mm teleconverter, and it’s very practical in real use.

      The teleconverter fits in my back pocket, the phone with the grip/battery in my right pocket, and my S26 Ultra in my left—so the entire setup is compact and ready. Mounting the teleconverter is much easier than with cameras, takes less time because you have it in your pocket, and the AI implementation and the assistant help you set options automatically if you agree with the assistant. One touch screen and nothing else. (Ex. If I'm shooting a river, the system tells me that I'm doing landscape, and it can change the phone for long exposure just by touching the option and asking me to maintain the phone static until it finishes.) Can I do it with my Pro cameras? Yes. How long does it take?

      More importantly, the teleconverter integrates with the phone, so you can smoothly zoom from about 200mm up to 1600mm directly through the interface. That’s not theory—that’s actual hands-on use.

      Comparing that to older camera gear without considering real-world usability misses the point. Experience matters more than assumptions.

      Let's talk about it after you use any of the new teleconverters.

        Luis4Sports, 27 Apr 2026I’m not going to call you names—but you keep doing it, and ... moreFrom Merriam-Webster:

        "amateur, noun
        Definition
        1: one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession
        2: one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science
        3: devotee, admirer"

        Now, please do explain, how is someone buying their first camera (for hobby) not an amateur and based on what do you consider that "calling names"?

        "fanboy, noun
        : a boy or man who is an extremely or overly enthusiastic fan of someone or something"

        I know a lot of people who say (nearly all also laugh at it) themselves they're fanboys of Apple, Samsung, this or that. Seen some here on GSMArena too. Where's the problem?

        "We’re here to discuss gear, share experience, and learn—not to attack people for using different tools. If you prefer older systems, that’s perfectly fine. Others choose newer tech for their own reasons. Both can coexist."

        I'm not attacking people, I'm attacking greedy companies. Not being able to notice the huge difference between the two due to defining oneself through companies and their products is very common among people fitting the dictionary definition of a fanboy. 🤷‍♂️

        "And criticizing gear you haven’t actually used, "about a 600 € toyish teleconverter," only reinforces that point. Real experience matters—otherwise it’s just opinion, not fact.”"

        So until I've spent 2000-2600 € on phone plus "Photography Kit" I am not allowed to comment on, nor can I even be aware of, the facts that:
        - teleconverters aren't any "new tech" but a cheap way to change focal length and have been used since the invention of the camera
        - the teleconverter doesn't have any movable focusing mechanism/motor, zooming mechanism/motor, variable aperture...
        - the TC requires mounting on the phone, preceeded by the specific phone case and additional bayonet mount
        - the TC lacks any way of communicating with the phone, requiring manual selection in the camera app
        - the TC prevents normal usage of other cameras on the phone while mounted
        - the dimensions of the TC will prevent storing the phone with the TC mounted in pockets
        - the dimensions of the grip will prevent storing the phone with it mounted in many pockets
        - the phone lacks a viewfinder limiting the usability of a tele lens/TC
        - the phone will be weighed down by the TC in the upper portion of the phone, changing balance when holding it to type on the phone
        - the phone will have a ~20 cm long pipe sticking from the user's ear if receiving/making a phonecall with the TC mounted

        - many lenses for real cameras cost less
        - many real cameras cost less
        - many real cameras with built-in or separate lenses cost less
        - real cameras are much more complex, while costing less
        - lenses for real cameras do have a movable focusing mechanism/motor, zooming mechanism/motor, variable aperture... while costing less
        - real cameras with real lenses with real viewfinders have superior capabilities, superior ergonomics and superior image quality, while costing less

        - if, instead of carrying phone plus a teleconverter the user would use just the phone or phone plus real camera, one would be able to use both the phone, all the phone cameras as well as the real one, at all points in time to their usual capacity, without e.g. first dismounting the teleconverter to make a wide photo, to answer a message without having a heavy TC attached, or to just store it in a pocket, while paying less than for the solution which severely compromises the smartphone's usual qualities.

        It is impossible for you, me, or anyone else to know e.g. that the TC doesn't communicate with the phone or that the phone with the teleconverter doesn't fit in a pocket in which a phone itself easily fits by looking at specifications, photos from this hands-on etc.? Quite an.. interesting argument. 🤔

          User935, 27 Apr 2026Let's go one by one 'cause you Chinese Ultra fanb... moreI’m not going to call you names—but you keep doing it, and then label your assumptions as “facts.” That doesn’t really help the discussion.

          Selective quoting + assumptions ≠ about facts.

          Quoting half of what I said, filling in the rest, and adding labels like “fanboys” or “amateurs” just avoids the actual point, and doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it.

          Here’s what I actually said:
          "I respect your preference for traditional legacy old cameras—they’re great tools. But calling newer tech ' toys' feels a bit dismissive, especially if you haven’t actually used it in real situations.
          Also, calling names at people who like, can, and have only new technology tells us that you have no valid arguments.
          I'm not pushing anything other than correcting your absurdity about new technology you didn't use or can't afford.
          We are here to learn more about the new devices and their specifications, not to criticize them or their users. If you like Nikon so much, go to one of their forums."

          We’re here to discuss gear, share experience, and learn—not to attack people for using different tools. If you prefer older systems, that’s perfectly fine. Others choose newer tech for their own reasons. Both can coexist.

          Disagreeing is fine. Misrepresenting what I said isn’t.
          If we’re going to debate, let’s stick to the full context and actual experience—not assumptions.

          And criticizing gear you haven’t actually used, "about a 600 € toyish teleconverter," only reinforces that point. Real experience matters—otherwise it’s just opinion, not fact.”

            User935, 27 Apr 2026Let's go one by one 'cause you Chinese Ultra fanb... moreI’m not going to call you names—but you keep doing it, and then label your assumptions as “facts.” That doesn’t really help the discussion.

            Selective quoting + assumptions ≠ about facts.

            Quoting half of what I said, filling in the rest, and adding labels like “fanboys” or “amateurs” just avoids the actual point, and doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it.

            Here’s what I actually said:
            "I respect your preference for traditional legacy old cameras—they’re great tools. But calling newer tech ' toys' feels a bit dismissive, especially if you haven’t actually used it in real situations.
            Also, calling names at people who like, can, and have only new technology tells us that you have no valid arguments.
            I'm not pushing anything other than correcting your absurdity about new technology you didn't use or can't afford.
            We are here to learn more about the new devices and their specifications, not to criticize them or their users. If you like Nikon so much, go to one of their forums."

            We’re here to discuss gear, share experience, and learn—not to attack people for using different tools. If you prefer older systems, that’s perfectly fine. Others choose newer tech for their own reasons. Both can coexist.

            Disagreeing is fine. Misrepresenting what I said isn’t.
            If we’re going to debate, let’s stick to the full context and actual experience—not assumptions.

            And criticizing gear you haven’t actually used, "about a 600 € toyish teleconverter," only reinforces that point. Real experience matters—otherwise it’s just opinion, not fact.”

              Luis4Sports, 26 Apr 2026I respect your preference for traditional legacy old camera... moreLet's go one by one 'cause you Chinese Ultra fanboys are really turning into a less reasonable bunch than Apple fanboys 20 years ago...

              "calling names to people who like, can, and have only new technology"
              Who am I calling names? I'm stating facts. If you found yourself called out in my comment about "amateurs", that's on you. You said in the other topic that you're doing videography professionally and my assumption is that you're in the other group of my comment.

              "calling newer tech “toys” feels a bit dismissive"
              "your absurdity about new technology you didn't use"
              Which "newer tech"? A teleconverter? Kodak DC20, one of the first digital cameras, 30 years ago, had an add-on TC. The concept is probably as old as the daguerreotype. What's new is its Ultra pricing which surpasses the pricing of real far superior and more complex lenses and entire cameras which also don't destroy the phone's convenience. You said yourself you don't use the vivo as a phone at all but only as a camera, so you aren't getting any calls and messages or need the smartphone otherwise while shooting like most buyers will, and you said you switch between two devices for all of that in an obviously controlled environment. So also no sudden need for a wide shot with the toy mounted and it disappearing while taking off the TC. Real cameras are according to Ultra fanboys the worst thing ever because of possibility of carrying and changing extra lenses, but this is oh so amazing despite limiting the normally versatile phone camera to only one focal length, at which it doesn't even perform particularly well. There's a reason (not image quality, obviously) why nobody uses long tele primes in the real camera world, unless they know exactly what and why they're doing it.

              "can't afford"
              Pathetically cheap ad hominem, trying to discredit someone based on their financial wealth; typical result of absolute lack of any arguments in a discussion.
              Like it or not, no, I could go to the nearest camera store and just for fun buy your whole Sony setup and all the Chinese Ultras today and not feel a dent in my finances. However, I don't find anything about bragging with the latest trendy crap online or otherwise fun, don't define myself through my belongings or their price and only buy stuff based on their worth and what I personally need and/or want.

              "We are here to learn more about the new devices and their specifications, not to criticize them or their users"
              We are here to comment on the developments in the mobile phone industry, of which, like for the past 30+ years, some are good, useful, amazing, some are snake-oil mixed with extreme manufacturer greed. Some people are here to only write praises about the devices they spent money on turning into fanboys to justify their purchase and/or their bias and can't deal with objective criticism or objective comparisons to alternatives.

              "Phones aren’t trying to replace cameras—they solve a different problem: being fast, available, flexible, and convenient when the moment happens."
              If you ever happen to decide to read with comprehension and get off your "I discovered cameraphones in 2025 and they're the best thing ever" high horse, you'll see that that's exactly what I'm talking about. Those are exactly the qualities of phones that these "Photography Kits" do not have, unlike phone itself, real camera or phone plus real camera. While costing more than any reasonable solution.

                User935, 26 Apr 2026You're again pushing the discussion into absurdity to ... moreI respect your preference for traditional legacy old cameras—they’re great tools. But calling newer tech “toys” feels a bit dismissive, especially if you haven’t actually used it in real situations, also calling names to people who like, can, and have only new technology is telling us that you have no valid arguments.
                I'm not pushing anything other than correcting your absurdity about new technology you didn't use or can't afford.
                We are here to learn more about the new devices and their specifications, not to criticize them or their users. If you like Nikon so much, go to one of their forums.

                I have been using the Vivo X300 Pro with the pocket-sized teleconverter, and it is a fantastic device that lets me leave my Big Legacy Camera with huge zooms at home.

                I'll stay with Vivo until something better comes up, and I'll buy the new Vivo X300 Ultra with 200 and 400 mm teleconverters from China next week, so I can drop my other old camera when I record events without Media Pass.

                From my experience using both, they’re just different approaches. Phones aren’t trying to replace cameras—they solve a different problem: being fast, available, flexible, and convenient when the moment happens.

                Every tool has trade-offs. Cameras have strengths, phones have strengths. It’s not about one being “right” and the other “wrong.”

                At the end of the day, what matters is capturing the moment—not what label we put on the gear.

                  xPandamon, 26 Apr 2026I said the photos taken with this kit don't look that ... moreit's fascinating how you found the answer yet missed the point entirely anyways, ciao lmao

                    jiyen235, 26 Apr 2026now im obsessed with you damn mate, that's interesting... moreI said the photos taken with this kit don't look that good and barely like an upgrade, you somehow took that and attacked me saying if it was Samsung, I wouldn't say so. Like what do you expect me to answer to that bullshit? I complain about them not offering all AptX codecs. About the cameras being behind the competition. About the throttling that is worse than it should be. About phones not getting meaningful upgrades year after yeah. Yes I did defend the S25 Ultra to some degree because it does feel much better than the S23 Ultra in many regards, especially regarding software optimization, but I still said this is the last time it's still somewhat acceptable and find the S26 Ultra to be completely pointless outside of the cool privacy display feature.

                    And now you even agree that the photos here look bad and that the Find X9 Ultra has bad processing, which to me makes this even worse cause it means Oppo sell this garbage for 599$ despite the phones camera issues being unfixed at this point. As for that photo, I know the focus is not on the top part, yet the bokeh looks terrible, probably because it's not natural but some AI nonsense or because the processing is just really messed up, but that's what you buy such a kit for, to disable the interning processing and just use the raw sensor plus a capable lens for good looking natural photos, something this phone and kit combination right now CANNOT DO, despite the insane price tag.

                      Luis4Sports, 25 Apr 2026I agree with you completely: "I don't know why so... moreYou're again pushing the discussion into absurdity to argue for the sake of arguing with 5000 and 10000 € setups. Someone buying such expensive gear is either an absolute amateur who is overpaying for things he's seen in ads but won't ever use 5 % of its capabilities or a very enthusiastic hobbyist or professional who knows exactly what and why he's buying.

                      In either case completely beside the point in a topic about a 600 € add-on.

                      What is relevant in the topic about a 600 € toyish teleconverter is that that same money can get the person a range of better more convenient (also for phone usage itself as phone and as camera) solutions, new compacts, superzooms, M4/3 and even APS-C cameras with a lens or two. Or if the person isn't gullible enough to think that DSLRs are obsolete and wants moremore capabilities, anything from beginner-friendly D5600, more advanced D7200 or even D800/750/610/600 which can fully use very affordable older AF lenses to explore whatever possible genre and style they imagine might interest them. Nikon's lineup used just as example, anyone can find the manufacturer of choice themselves.

                      And the 600 € in the last paragraph doesn't get one a dead piece of glass and plastic. But entire devices with comparably, if wanted, huge sensors and all its benefits, with viewfinders without which any tele lens can't be used for more than 20 % of its capabilities, with lenses of which some can actually zoom unlike this toy, have focusing mechanisms, variable apertures, and chips and connectors to communicate with the camera, also image stabilisation where needed...

                      Heck, a 25-100 € APS-C D3100/3200 eats this pos for breakfast, equally expensive P500/600/610... superzoom has way more zoom, actual optical zoom, if that's someone's priority, compacts fit in pockets better than the "Photography Kit" toypack and don't need assembling to do anything nor ever compromise the phone's usability.

                        xPandamon, 26 Apr 2026Look, you are obsessing over me not being negative about Sa... morenow im obsessed with you damn mate, that's interesting, guess im obsessed with everyone i've ever replied to as well

                        anyways, it's not this lens's fault, the phone's processing is wack as of now with inconsistency, focusing errors and horrendous overusage of AI. If you think this lens is useless then it simply isn't for you? If you're looking for value for money on an Ultra tier product that's like looking for fish on land. Ofc these are all overpriced, but so are ultra phones in general. Overpriced product as overpriced accessories, whoop dee doo.

                        The first shot, if you look at the left, is focusing on something closer, thus the background is blurred. Probably they're using AI to reconstruct the background in some way, that's why the detail feels off. I like the natural look here, it's funny how you're poking holes in the shots with the least horrible issues lol

                        my bad for engaging with you. i should learn to keep my trap shut.

                          jiyen235, 26 Apr 2026ad hominem lol as expectedLook, you are obsessing over me not being negative about Samsung even though I did write plenty of negative comments about them too. Even though this was just about this kit right here not being good for what it costs.

                            • N
                            • NoWaY
                            • pD%
                            • 26 Apr 2026

                            Looks so easy to break...how about buying a compact real camera, much more easy to bring with you than that long pipe...

                              xPandamon, 25 Apr 2026You really got issues dude, get some help pleasead hominem lol as expected

                                User935, 25 Apr 2026I don't know why so many people writet, but don't... moreI agree with you completely: "I don't know why so many people write, but don't read beforehand."
                                And I appreciate the clarification.

                                I just think the “toy” label is doing a bit of heavy lifting here.
                                I guess where I see it differently is that those “toyish add-ons” are optional. Most of the time, the phone works on its own—quick, simple, always ready. If I decide to add something, it’s no different than choosing to carry an extra lens for a camera.

                                Also, I have to smile a bit at the “toys” comment—because these “toys” today are doing things that would’ve required serious gear not that long ago. And the "toyish add-ons" are normally in flagship phones, not on regular cell phones that you can buy for:

                                🥇 Best overall (cheap + strong camera) OnePlus Nord N30 5G $199.21
                                🥈 Best camera for the money (higher detail) Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G (200MP) · $324.99
                                🥉 Cheapest that is still usable (budget option) Moto G 5G (2024) · $189.97 50MP camera.

                                And for me, my typical camera setup isn’t exactly light either. Between a body like a Sony A7R V (~$3,500) or A9 III ($6,000+), plus lenses like a 35mm f/1.4 ($1,500), 24–70 f/2.8 ($1,600), 100–400 ($2,700), or 400–800 ($2,700)… we’re easily talking well over $10K. And my typical light cellphone setup is: Vivo X300Pro, Samsung S25Ultra, S26Ultra, DJI Osmo Pocket 3, Action 6... we’re easily talking well over $5K.

                                So yeah, everything has a cost and trade-offs.

                                The difference is that with a phone, you can choose to use it as is or add features when you need them. With a camera system, you’re already committed to carrying the setup.

                                At the end of the day, it’s just different ways of solving the same problem. Some people prefer a dedicated camera, others prefer flexibility, and some mix both. Nothing wrong with any of that.

                                  • A
                                  • AntiPlannedObsolesce
                                  • asx
                                  • 25 Apr 2026

                                  Anonymous, 25 Apr 2026Very poor quality on those telephoto samples. I hope they&#... moreNah the lens simply sucks. I've seen better performance out of kit lenses that cost you maybe 50€

                                    • ?
                                    • Anonymous
                                    • nvu
                                    • 25 Apr 2026

                                    Very poor quality on those telephoto samples. I hope they're not taken at the native 300mm because there's a ton of AI processing.

                                      jiyen235, 25 Apr 2026everything makes sense when you're in delululand igYou really got issues dude, get some help please

                                        zen44, 25 Apr 2026You don't have to carry the lens if you don't wan... moreI have nothing against options. What I have something against is using people's ignorance to sell products at a price 50 times their worth.
                                        At 25 €, I'd say it's a fun little toy. At entire new real camera with lens(es) money, the thing is overpriced junk.

                                          1 of 3