vivo X300 Ultra is official with near 1" 35mm camera, new 200MP 85mm zoom Comments
- User935
- gEb
Nick Tegrataker, 13 Apr 2026Or it can mean unnoticeable vs. noticeable motion blur from the subject's movement at the... more"That would depend on how Vivo's camera app selects the shutter speed automatically."
Several of low-light samples in the last year's X200 Ultra review here are even slower than 1/10 s. That's 100 % useless for anything that moves. Maybe it's different if it detects a person/animal? Though I doubt it and most reviews are useless.
Even daylight samples vivo shared a month or two ago from the X300 Ultra were at 1/100 s, photos of birds etc. so obviously no smart subject recognition. Nobody in their right mind does that so... 🤷♂️ Obviously it's made to just get you an occasional lucky shot when the bird decides to freeze itself for a while. 😄
Stabilised or not, that shutter speed is a guarantee for failed shot of wildlife 95 % of the time.
Reminds me of this cartoon about the Daguerreotype 🤣
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography#/media/File:1855-daguerrotype-familyphoto-joke-Punch.gif
- Nick Tegrataker
- Xpg
User935, 31 Mar 2026Or it can mean unnoticeable vs. noticeable motion blur from the subject's movement at the... moreOr it can mean unnoticeable vs. noticeable motion blur from the subject's movement at the same ISO.
That would depend on how Vivo's camera app selects the shutter speed automatically.
"we'll justify half a stop this year, half a stop next year... Removal of the shutter button this year, perhaps slightly smaller sensors all around next year..."
If this trend keeps happening, then yes, it would be worth criticising. The reason why they focused on the stabilisation (and ended up making the telephoto camera module larger than last year) is that they now have a 400mm teleconverter option, where even the slightest shakes would be emphasised to an extreme. I guess we can wait and see what X500 Ultra would bring to the table, but my guess is that they will never reduce the aperture size or sensor size further, especially since they are focusing a lot on delivering consistent video recording performance across all lenses now.
- Mrbas3
- 0C2
Zuzuz, 01 Apr 2026While you're right, also you're wrong because you don't see the whole picture. ... more- every time companies say that the new smaller aperture or smaller new sensor is actually better "because blabla", in real life tests it still follows the rules of physics. X300u will choose a slower shutter in the same environment vs x200u. Just wait for the comparisons.
- aperture size has nothing to do with quality, distortion..etc. you can make a high quality f1.2 lens and also a shirty F2.8 lens.
- User935
- gEb
Zuzuz, 01 Apr 2026While you're right, also you're wrong because you don't see the whole picture. ... moreHm... 🤔 I actually did comment on most of those things, especially stabilisation. I think you're missing a crucial fact about it, i.e. that stabilisation is about the camera shake and does nothing about the subject's movement. Do the math e.g. here and tell me where and when will you benefit from 7 vs. 5 stops stabilisation:
https://polyhaven.com/tools/ev-diff
I mean, generally you don't want to photograph people with a shutter speed longer than 1/100 s, if they're moving 1/250 or so. Since they're advertising so much with tele and "birding" is a popular genre with tele lenses, another example, you'll want a shutter speed shorter than 1/500 even for lazy and relatively slow birds like crows. A pigeon is much faster, both in flight and otherwise and you'll go for at least 1/1000. Smaller birds flap their wings so fast that they have loads of motion blur in flight at 1/2000.
What I want to say is that it's very often the subject that defines your shutter speed and not the reciprocal rule or image stabilisation of the lens/camera. And a faster lens helps achieve shorter shutter speeds/lower ISO there, image stabilisation doesn't and that's why I say if the slower lens has to do with them chasing a better CIPA certification, it's for bragging rights with the specs sheet instead of making an effort for things useful in real life.
Or maybe all you people want to photograph are buildings in the evening and subjects that can move aren't that relevant. 🤷♂️
- Zuzuz
- mA{
User935, 31 Mar 2026Theoretically, and only for shooting dead stuff, as you know yourself. I imagine people might ... moreWhile you're right, also you're wrong because you don't see the whole picture. They've improved the stabilisation, maybe the sensors are more sensitive, so , maybe, the difference in aperture is not that important. But having a small aperture make less distorsion, less flares, less thickness.
- Zuzuz
- mA{
Anonymous, 01 Apr 2026Why the article doesn't cover pricing??Because it wasn't mentioned in the launching event.
The price is available on Giztop
- User935
- gEb
Anonymous, 01 Apr 2026Why the article doesn't cover pricing??Because the manufacturer is still hiding it. 🤷♂️
- User935
- gEb
Lord Bennington, 01 Apr 2026What nonsense is this? Nokia used to dominate the phone market.
Several of the Nokia phones ... moreAnd once again you're dramatising by twisting other people's words for your entertainment. I clearly wrote that 3,5 mm jacks were rare, not non-existent.
Even among Nokias... Do a phone search here; 2004-2007, out of 117 Nokia phones, only 8 had a 3,5 mm jack, and every I click had an mp3 player (no filter for that unfortunately).
Like it or not, just like what all the other copycat manufacturers do now, what Apple did then was done by everyone else and is suddenly exactly what the average consumer wants, including both making 3,5 mm jack on phones the norm and removing it later to push the e-waste BT buds business and that same consumer even criticises consumer-friendly and superior features on the rare phones (e.g. Sony) that still have them, just to be as trendy as what Apple says they should be.
- Anonymous
- rKK
Why the article doesn't cover pricing??
- Lord Bennington
- xv2
User935, 01 Apr 2026Admittedly they did push one positive trend which was the 3,5 mm jack on phones. Before Apple ... moreWhat nonsense is this? Nokia used to dominate the phone market.
Several of the Nokia phones I used back in the day had a proper 3.5mm headphone jack.
Apple, in fact, removed the headphone jack in favor of selling Airpods and rest of the industry followed.
- Lord Bennington
- xv2
User935, 30 Mar 2026No idea, I'm not really interested in foldables. In theory, I might see a real-life pu... moreNeither are you aren't interested in foldables nor are you interested in buying the X300 Ultra, then why whine about the price?
- User935
- gEb
Android Trumps iOS, 01 Apr 2026If Samsung, followed by other brands didn't make the Foldable, Apple wouldn't have c... moreAdmittedly they did push one positive trend which was the 3,5 mm jack on phones. Before Apple came to the market, those were very rare and we had to use dongles and headphones with unsuitable connectors. Although that partially had to do with the fact that iPhone was the only phone incapable of using Bluetooth A2DP headphones in late 00's.
Sadly, 10 years later they pushed us back into stone age with dongles and headphones with unsuitable connectors and all copycat manufacturers followed suit, just like they do with all other things.
- Ss
- S9g
Anonymous, 31 Mar 2026Sales every year Samsung S ultra: more than 12 million, makes top 10 global Vivo X ... moreThis is very sad instead, i really want to try these chinese flagship phones but what available in all malls nearby house are samsung stores. I hope those samsung stores get replace soon especially if they keep producing the same old boring phone with bad camera and battery.
Anonymous, 31 Mar 2026Sales every year
Samsung S ultra: more than 12 million, makes top 10 global
Vivo X ... moreThe highest grossing movies on the box office aren't necessarily the best ones.
Besides, there's no shortage of Samsung and Apple brand loyalists to help the sales. Both these companies are solely relying upon their brand value developed in the past.
Both these companies are pushing average products at best, while calling them flagships.
So all your sales figure arguments are not going to make the S26 Ultra better than the Vivo X300 Ultra in any department. Not even software. OneUI as I previously mentioned has a minor software advantage over Origin OS.
Meanwhile, Vivo delivers the best A+ tier service centre experience whereas Apple and Samsung are mediocre at best in these areas, in my country.
ProMaxUltraAreBricks, 31 Mar 2026If Apple didn't make the iPhone Air, Honor wouldn't have made the Magic9 Pro Air I c... moreIf Samsung, followed by other brands didn't make the Foldable, Apple wouldn't have considered making one.
Apple doesn't deserve any praise.
They are notorious for pushing the worst trends in the industry.
- Anonymous
- dNR
Nick Tegrataker, 31 Mar 2026They reverted back to the original lens design to make room for far better stabilisation mecha... moreThe worse effective lens diameter also leads to more diffraction.
- Inedian
- L7s
Well X200 Ultra should gather about 30% or even more light than X300 Ultra remanafactured periscope sensor from X200 Ultra, so i don't know how can X300 Ultra win this, even with CIPA 7.0, especially indoor 🤔
- User935
- gEb
Anonymous, 31 Mar 2026Take your own advice and shut up till then rather than shouting out your own preconceptions. ... morehahahaha, what's your issue? 🤦♂️
- Anonymous
- pY1
User935, 31 Mar 2026Or it can mean unnoticeable vs. noticeable motion blur from the subject's movement at the... moreTake your own advice and shut up till then rather than shouting out your own preconceptions.
Thanks.
- User935
- gEb
Nick Tegrataker, 31 Mar 2026If you're using the same shutter speed to capture the subject, X200 Ultra would be shooti... moreOr it can mean unnoticeable vs. noticeable motion blur from the subject's movement at the same ISO. I can do the math myself. 💪😄 Half a stop slower lens is a lot compared to the 100 % non-existent benefit of CIPA 7.0 vs 5.0 stabilisation as soon as there's a plant and a gust of wind, let alone a human or a bird, in the frame.
I doubt very much that a "one year more advanced" sensor or noise reduction make up for it, and the way these things go, we'll justify half a stop this year, half a stop next year... Removal of the shutter button this year, perhaps slightly smaller sensors all around next year... All while paying more and more for, as you call them, "sidegrades" instead of actual upgrades. 🤷♂️
As I said earlier, all of these discussions are largely theoretical and nonsensical anyway because every phone photo is just a phone photo and it will be that in 10 and 20 years too. It's just annoying to see a company trying to not only basically scam people into thinking they're getting "pro camera level" photography for paying more than double the price of their already very good cameraphone offering, but then even doing "sidegrades" on it instead of actually doing the bit of upgrades that would physically be possible in the format.
Maybe I'm wrong and there is some magic benefit to the newer sensor with its slower lens, guess we'll see in the reviews. 😄
