Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs. Vivo X300 Ultra: My results after camera-testing the Android phones
ZDNET's camera test says Vivo X300 Ultra usually delivers richer detail and more natural blur, while Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra still holds advantages in some color and night shots.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
ZDNET compared the Galaxy S26 Ultra and Vivo X300 Ultra on a photowalk and found that Vivo often looks more natural and detailed, especially at 1x and in portraits. Samsung, though, still impressed in night mode and in some framing and color situations.
The story compares two super cameras in phones. One phone, Vivo, often makes pictures look richer and more lifelike, like a bigger window showing more of a scene. The Samsung phone still does better in some dark or colorful moments.
Analysis
Main takeaway
ZDNET contributor Prakhar Khanna tested the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra against the Vivo X300 Ultra and expected Vivo to dominate. Instead, the comparison came out more nuanced: Vivo generally produced more depth, richer detail, and more natural background blur, but Samsung still had strengths in certain scenes.
What stood out in testing
The Vivo X300 Ultra uses a 35mm-equivalent main camera by default, which the article says makes it easier to shoot at a more natural perspective without relying on digital zoom. That helped in close everyday shooting, especially at 1.2x and 1.5x. The larger main sensor also seemed to give Vivo more depth and a cleaner look in several 1x shots.
Samsung's Galaxy S26 Ultra did not look bad by comparison. In one scene, the Galaxy got the skin tone right and preserved the background arc better, even if the image looked gloomier overall. In other daylight shots, though, Samsung was described as oversharpened or overexposed, while Vivo showed more contrast and detail.
Where each phone won
At night, the article says Samsung's saturated colors and stronger contrast were more appealing, especially on a signboard. Vivo could be tuned for a more dramatic look, but with the tested settings, Samsung had the edge in that lighting. In portraits, Vivo's telephoto shots produced more natural blur and better fine detail, while Samsung tended to warm the image and sharpen some areas too aggressively.
Overall, the article does not crown one phone as universally better. It argues that Vivo is often more enjoyable for still photography, but Samsung remains competitive and can outperform it in specific scenes and lighting conditions.
Key points
- Vivo X300 Ultra often produced more depth, detail, and natural blur in daylight and portrait shots.
- Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra looked stronger in some night-mode scenes because of its contrast and saturated colors.
- The Vivo's 35mm-equivalent default main camera made everyday shooting feel easier for the reviewer.
- Samsung sometimes handled framing and skin tone better, even when the image looked less detailed overall.
- Neither phone won every test; the better choice depends on the kind of photos someone takes most often.
If Vivo's camera style holds up across more scenes, it could give buyers a strong reason to choose it for natural-looking photos and portraits. Samsung also shows it can still compete in night shots and color handling, which suggests the gap is not one-sided.
Vivo's 35mm default framing may not suit every scene, and the article notes some loss of sky detail in certain shots. Samsung's processing still shows signs of oversharpening and overexposure in daylight, which could frustrate users who want more consistent results.
