Smartphones  >  Huawei Mate 40 Pro+  >  Camera Test Results
Ultra-Premium ?

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+ Camera test: King of camera

This device has been retested in the latest version of our protocol. Overall, sub-scores and attributes are up to date. For detailed information, check the What’s New article

The Huawei Mate 40 Pro+ is the top-end model in the Chinese manufacturer’s premium Mate 40 line. It shares many key components with its cousin Mate 40 Pro, such as the 6.76-inch OLED display and the Kirin 9000 chipset, but there are some important differences in the camera hardware.

Like the standard Mate 40 Pro, the Plus model’s primary camera uses a 50 MP 1/1.28″ sensor coupled to a 23 mm f/1.9-aperture lens. However, the Plus adds optical image stabilization to the mix. The ultra-wide camera has been boosted as well, at least on paper. Again, both models share the same sensor (20 MP 1/1.54″), but at 14 mm, the Mate 40 Pro+ offers a noticeably wider field of view versus the 40 Pro’s 18 mm. On the flip side, users of the top-end model have to make do with a slower aperture (f/2.4 vs. f/1.8).

The most important differences arguably lie in the tele-camera setup, though. While the Mate 40 Pro uses a single tele-camera with a 5x magnification, the 40 Pro+ divides tele duties between a pair of cameras. Shorter zoom ranges are covered by a 12 MP module with an f/2.4-aperture lens and 3x magnification. For long shots, the camera switches to an 8 MP module with an f/4.4-aperture lens that reaches a 10x magnification.

The camera can capture 4K video footage at up to 60 frames per second, and 1080p video can be recorded at up to 480 frames per second for slow-motion effects.

The Huawei Mate 40 Pro+ comes with one of the most impressive camera spec sheets we have seen on a smartphone. Read on to find out how it performed in our DXOMARK Camera tests.

Key camera specifications:

  • Primary: 50 MP 1/1.28″ sensor (12 MP output), 23 mm-equivalent (1x defined as 27 mm) f/1.9-aperture lens, full-pixel Octa-PD, OIS
  • Ultra-wide: 20 MP 1/1.54″ sensor, 14 mm-equivalent f/2.4-aperture lens, PDAF
  • Tele 1: 12 MP sensor, 70mm-equivalent f/2.4-aperture lens, PDAF, OIS
  • Tele 2: 8 MP sensor, 240 mm-equivalent f/4.4-aperture lens, PDAF, OIS
  • LED flash
  • 4K video, 2160p/60 fps (2160p/30 fps tested)
  • Multispectral color temperature sensor
  • ToF 3D sensor

About DXOMARK Camera tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone camera reviews, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate over 3000 test images and more than 2.5 hours of video both in controlled lab environments and in natural indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. This article is designed to highlight the most important results of our testing. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera test protocol, click here. More details on how we score smartphone cameras are available here.

Test summary

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.


Huawei Mate 40 Pro+
139
camera
141
Photo
114

123

108

125

109

123

103

124

107

116

71

82

75
Bokeh
75

80

43
Preview
43

91

150
Zoom
112

118

110

121

131
Video
92

116

95

119

106

119

104

118

111

119

80

86

114

118

Use cases & Conditions

Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.

BEST 175

Outdoor

Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)

BEST 160

Indoor

Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)

BEST 132

Lowlight

Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)

BEST 149

Friends & Family

Portrait and group photo & videos

Please be aware that beyond this point, we have not modified the initial test results. While data and products remain fully comparable, you might encounter mentions and references to the previous scores.
CAMERA
Position in Global Ranking
27th
1. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
157
2. Huawei P60 Pro
156
3. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
154
3. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
154
5. Google Pixel 8 Pro
153
5. Oppo Find X6 Pro
153
7. Honor Magic5 Pro
152
8. Oppo Find X6
150
8. Vivo X100 Pro
150
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
149
11. Google Pixel 8
148
12. Google Pixel 7 Pro
147
12. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
147
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
146
14. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
146
16. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
145
16. Apple iPhone 15
145
18. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
144
19. Huawei P50 Pro
143
20. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
141
20. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
141
20. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
141
23. Google Pixel 7
140
23. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
140
23. Vivo X90 Pro+
140
23. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
27. Huawei Mate 40 Pro+
139
28. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
137
29. Vivo X90 Pro
136
29. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
29. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
136
32. Huawei Mate 40 Pro
135
32. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
135
32. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
135
35. Google Pixel 6 Pro
134
35. Vivo X70 Pro+
134
37. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
133
37. Apple iPhone 14
133
37. Google Pixel Fold
133
37. Google Pixel 7a
133
37. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
133
37. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
43. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
131
43. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
131
43. Xiaomi 13T Pro
131
46. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
130
46. Oppo Find X5 Pro
130
46. Xiaomi 13
130
49. Huawei P40 Pro
129
49. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
129
49. Xiaomi 12T Pro
129
49. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
53. Oppo Find X3 Pro
128
53. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
128
55. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
127
55. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
127
55. OnePlus 11
127
55. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
127
55. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
127
60. Google Pixel 6
126
60. Honor Magic4 Pro
126
60. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
126
60. Vivo X60 Pro+
126
64. Apple iPhone 13 mini
125
64. Apple iPhone 13
125
64. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
125
64. Vivo X50 Pro+
125
68. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
124
68. Xiaomi Mi 11 Pro
124
70. Xiaomi 13T
123
71. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
122
71. Google Pixel 6a
122
71. Honor 90
122
71. OnePlus 10 Pro
122
71. OnePlus 9 Pro
122
76. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
77. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
77. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
77. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
80. Honor Magic Vs
119
80. Sony Xperia 5 IV
119
82. Sony Xperia 5 V
118
82. Sony Xperia 1 IV
118
84. Apple iPhone 12
117
84. Apple iPhone 12 mini
117
84. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
117
84. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
117
84. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
117
89. Apple iPhone 11
116
89. Asus Zenfone 8
116
89. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
116
92. Honor 70
115
92. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Snapdragon)
115
92. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
115
92. Xiaomi 12T
115
96. Nothing Phone(1)
114
96. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
114
96. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
114
96. Oppo Find X5
114
96. Oppo Find N2 Flip
114
101. OnePlus 8 Pro
113
101. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
101. Xiaomi 12
113
104. Oppo Reno8 5G
112
104. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
112
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
111
106. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Exynos)
111
106. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
111
109. Google Pixel 5
109
109. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
109
111. Asus ROG Phone 7
108
111. Fairphone 5
108
111. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Exynos)
108
111. Xiaomi 11T Pro
108
115. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
116. Oppo Find X3 Neo
106
117. Sony Xperia 1 III
105
118. Motorola Edge 40 Neo
103
119. Huawei P40
102
119. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
121. Black Shark 5 Pro
101
121. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
101
123. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
123. Google Pixel 4a
100
125. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
96
126. Oppo Find X5 Lite
95
127. Oppo Reno4 5G
94
128. Oppo A94 5G
93
128. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
93
130. Samsung Galaxy A72
92
130. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
130. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
133. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
134. Oppo Reno6 5G
89
135. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
135. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
137. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
138. OnePlus Nord CE 5G
84
139. Samsung Galaxy A15 5G
83
139. Vivo Y76 5G
83
141. Samsung Galaxy A15 LTE
81
142. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
143. Sony Xperia 10 V
78
143. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
145. TCL 40R 5G
76
146. Realme 9i 5G
75
146. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
75
148. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
74
149. Honor 90 Lite
73
150. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
70
150. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
152. Fairphone 4
69
152. Oppo A78 5G
69
152. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
155. Samsung Galaxy A14 5G
67
156. Motorola Moto G62 5G
66
157. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
158. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
64
159. Sony Xperia 10 IV
63
159. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
63
159. Xiaomi Redmi 13C
63
159. Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G
63
163. Honor X7
61
163. Honor Magic4 Lite 5G
61
165. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
60
166. Honor 70 Lite
58
167. Motorola Moto G23
54
168. Oppo A77 5G
53
169. Honor X8 5G
52
169. TCL 406
52
171. Xiaomi Redmi 10 2022
51
172. Crosscall Action-X5
50
173. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
174. Crosscall Core-Z5
47
175. Oppo A57
46
175. Oppo A16s 5G
46
177. Samsung Galaxy A05s
45
177. Xiaomi Redmi 12C
45

Pros

  •  Wide dynamic range in all conditions
    • Nice colors and good white balance in bright light and indoors
    • Excellent detail in most conditions
    • Fast and consistent autofocus in most situations
    • Good detail and low noise levels in ultra-wide camera shots
    • Excellent detail and low noise in tele shots
    • Wide dynamic range and good texture/noise in night shots
    • Very good texture/noise tradeoff in bright light and indoor videos
    • Effective video stabilization

Cons

  • Color quantization, aliasing, and ghosting artifacts
    • Shallow depth of field, occasional focus failures at close range
    • Preview images often significantly different from capture
    • Sharpness differences between video frames, especially in low light

With a DXOMARK Camera score of 139, the Huawei Mate 40 Pro+ is the new king of cameras in our DXOMARK Camera smartphone ranking, offering excellent performance in most sub-categories. It delivers the highest Photo score (144) we have seen to date and comes a close second in both the Zoom and Video categories, making it an excellent choice for any kind of mobile imaging application.

The addition of optical image stabilization (OIS) is a wise move that ensures improved detail and lower noise compared to the standard model in most conditions, but especially in low light. Longer exposure times with lower ISOs are now possible with the aid of OIS, and the Mate 40 Pro+ sets a new benchmark for night photography in our analysis.

The Huawei Mate 40 Pro+ sets a new top score for night photos, with particularly impressive detail and noise in low-light cityscapes. 

Mate 40 Pro+ still images generally leave very little to complain about. Exposure is excellent and the device achieves a joint top score in this category (109) alongside the Mate 40 Pro. Target exposures are generally very accurate in all conditions and the camera offers a wide dynamic range, capturing good highlight and shadow detail in high-contrast scenes. Dynamic range is particularly impressive under indoor and low-light conditions, too. Our testers observed slight exposure instabilities under indoor conditions, but that’s a minor blip in an otherwise solid performance for exposure.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, accurate target exposure with very wide dynamic range
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max, slightly low exposure with some highlight and shadow clipping
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, slightly low target exposure with significant highlight clipping

The Mate 40 Pro+ achieves some excellent measurements for color in our benchmark lab tests, which helped it attain a high score in this category. In our perceptual analysis, color was generally nice and white balance is usually very accurate, except in very low light where some color casts can occur. Slight white balance instabilities are also evident over consecutive shots, but nothing too problematic. You can see in the best indoor examples that the Mate 40 Pro+ is as good if not slightly better than the iPhone 12 Pro Max, and shows noticeable improvement over the cold white balance captured on the Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, very neutral white balance
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max, good but a slightly yellow color cast
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra: the blue white balance cast makes the color feel a little flat.

Autofocus is fast and accurate and the Mate 40 Pro+ achieves close to a top score in this category, just a couple of points behind the iPhone 12 Pro Max. Many of its performance results in our benchmark tests were noticeably better than the Mate 40 Pro’s, and autofocus is very reliable even while handholding the device in very low light. Some points were dropped in the perceptual analysis, however, due to autofocus failures when shooting at very close proximity to the subject, and depth of field is fairly shallow for a smartphone. The limited depth of field does ensure a slight natural bokeh effect even in standard pictures, which is nice, but also means backgrounds or people at the back of a group are usually out of focus.

Autofocus performance handheld in low light (5 lux) conditions with 0 EV brightness range

The Mate 40 Pro+ boasts close to the top score for texture, with a high level of detail captured in most conditions. Performance is very close to that of the standard Mate 40 Pro, but the + model is slightly better both indoors and in low light. Its texture rendering isn’t as good as the Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra in low light, but better detail on moving subjects helped the Mate 40 Pro+ achieve a fractionally better texture score compared to the Xiaomi overall. That said, some motion blur is still visible in some Mate 40 Pro+ shots and slightly unnatural rendering of skin textures is evident, too. The Mate 40 Pro+ isn’t among the very best for noise either, but still delivers very good results and maintains an excellent texture/noise tradeoff overall.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, low-light test scene
Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, crop: high detail but unnatural texture
Huawei Mate 40 Pro, low-light test scene
Huawei Mate 40 Pro, crop: slightly lower detail to the + model
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, low-light test scene
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, crop: acceptable but fine details are lost

Switch to Portrait mode and the Mate 40 Pro+ is also one of the best devices we’ve tested for bokeh simulation. Depth estimation is fairly accurate, with a natural-looking blur gradient effect in both the foreground and background, and first-class color rendering. The texture-versus-noise tradeoff is also better than many high-end competitors, with similar results to the Mate 40 Pro in this regard. Overall, the Mate 40 Pro+’s performance isn’t quite as consistent as some other top devices for bokeh, however, with a difference in rendering sometimes evident across consecutive shots; but in the best examples, the overall quality is very high.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, portrait mode
Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, crop: accurate depth estimation
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max, portrait mode
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max, crop: good depth estimation but visible noise
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, portrait mode
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, crop: good depth estimation with visible noise

The Mate 40 Pro+ is outstanding for night shots, achieving the highest score in this category by some distance. Again, OIS brings a lot to the party in this area as the device can increase the exposure time and reduce the ISO to enhance the photon flow and improve the signal-to-noise ratio and exposure. So with the flash turned off, texture and noise are well balanced and dynamic range remains wide down to very low light, which is something that most rivals struggle with. Occasional unnatural texture rendering makes images look a little like an oil painting, but generally you won’t have too many complaints about shooting nightscapes on the Mate 40 Pro+. Capturing night portraits in flash-auto mode, the flash fires accurately when a subject is detected and overall the image quality remains very high. Target exposure on the subject is accurate and wide dynamic range ensures shadows and highlights in the background are also nicely exposed. In the comparison below, the Mate 40 Pro+ offers a nicer flash exposure and much better detail compared to the Mi 10 Ultra. Arguably exposure isn’t quite as good on the iPhone 12 Pro Max, with the Apple device capturing a lower target exposure on the subject with some highlight clipping in the background. That said, the high saturation and bright background on the Apple shot does ensure a striking result.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, flash-auto: good flash exposure, wide dynamic range and high detail on face
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max, flash-auto: lower flash exposure and some highlight clipping, but the high color saturation produces a pleasant overall effect
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, flash-auto: good flash exposure and wide dynamic range, but lower detail in the face

Preview is one of the areas where the camera still has room for improvement, and the Mate 40 Pro+ is close to the bottom of the ranking for this category. The lack of live HDR processing means the preview image often fails to give you an accurate impression of the final exposure, which is especially true in all situations where there are extremes of brightness. Bokeh rendering in preview is actually quite good—which isn’t often the case on many devices— but for standard shots it’s hard to judge what the final image will look like from what you see on-screen. The smoothness and stability of the preview image while pinch-zooming also leaves significant room for improvement, with very obvious jumps in exposure, focus, and framing visible as the device transitions between the different camera modules.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, preview: very limited live HDR capabilities
Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, final image: a very different exposure than preview indicated

Global control of artifacts is another weakness for the Mate 40 Pro+. Color quantization is often visible on both dark areas and faces, as well as some ghosting on moving objects. Some fusion artifacts are occasionally visible, too, but the overall impact from this is less significant compared to the color quantization, which is quite strong compared to other top-ranked devices in our database.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, artifacts
Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, crop: color quantization

Our Zoom score comprises a device’s ultra-wide and tele-lens scores, and with excellent results for both, the Mate 40 Pro+ chalks up our second-highest Zoom score to date at 98.

Its ultra-wide score of 53 is only bettered by the Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, and overall, the 14 mm ultra-wide camera on the Mate 40 Pro+ offers excellent image quality with nice exposures, wide dynamic range, pleasant color rendering, and a good texture-vs-noise compromise. Huawei is the first to use free-form lenses in its ultra-wide cameras, which allow for some optical control of distortion. Currently its competitors have to rely on software to correct this distortion, which can impact the effective focal length we measure, but the Mate 40 Pro+ free-form lens manages to keep vertical lines nice and straight without altering the focal length too much.

Ultra-wide shots aren’t perfect, with slight yellow color casts occasionally visible, some unnatural texture rendering in intricate areas, as well as some white balance and exposure instabilities in low light, but these are small quibbles about an otherwise excellent performance. Noise is also better on the Mate 40 Pro+’s wide shots compared to the Mi 10 Ultra, but with the Xiaomi device opting for stronger denoising and more natural-looking texture, improved white balance consistency, and (crucially) a wider 12 mm field of view, the Mi 10 Ultra just gets the nod for top spot in our ultra-wide camera analysis.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, ultra-wide: well-controlled geometric distortion
Huawei Mate 40 Pro, ultra-wide: lower detail at the default FOV compared to the + model
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, ultra-wide: wider FOV but slight barrel distortion evident

Thanks to a double telephoto configuration, the Mate 40 Pro+’s performance improves noticeably over the standard model in the tele category. Again ranking second with a tele score of 129, overall performance is close to that of the category leader, the Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, with very good exposure, dynamic range, detail, and noise control. In fact, the Huawei is actually slightly better than the Xiaomi at close and medium range, thanks to some very efficient computational photography algorithms. Combining images from the main and shorter tele-lens cameras at medium range, and using OIS from the main camera for super-resolution images at close range, the Mate 40 Pro+ achieves very high-quality images and top scores at these shorter zoom distances.

It’s not quite as good in our long-range zoom analysis, however, and while overall image quality remains good, there are a few niggles to be aware of. The 240 mm-equivalent second tele-lens provides a high level of detail at 10x zoom, which is great when you need to zoom in that much, but it’s a bit of a rarity on a smartphone. Drop the magnification to a more usable 170 to 200 mm-equivalent range where the second tele-lens isn’t fully activated, and some problems start to arise. Detail remains good in the center, but fusion artifacts with unnatural texture rendering are obvious in the outer field in landscape or architectural images. Fusion processing isn’t applied in long-range portraits, though, so texture rendering is more consistent across the frame, but overall detail is slightly lower than the top performers on these type of images. Autofocus on the long tele module is a point of criticism, too, with slow reaction times often resulting in instabilities. This said, if you give it the time it needs, the long tele does deliver accurate focus.

The comparison below illustrates some of the pros and cons at long range. Details are very well preserved at the center but not towards the edges, where a strong difference in texture rendering looks unnatural. In comparison, the standard Mate 40 Pro and the Mi 10 Ultra offer less detail in the center but more consistent results across the entire image.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, 170 mm-equivalent zoom
Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, crop: well-preserved fine detail
Huawei Mate 40 Pro, 170 mm-equivalent zoom
Huawei Mate 40 Pro crop: some loss of fine detail
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, 170 mm-equivalent zoom
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, crop: significant loss of fine detail

The Mate 40 Pro+’s Video score of 115 is only one point shy of the current video top score held by the Mate 40 Pro, thanks to excellent results in all test areas. Target exposure is mostly accurate in indoor and outdoor videos, and dynamic range is reasonably good in most static videos, although shadow and highlight clipping is evident in very challenging high-contrast lighting conditions. The video exposure strategy is generally similar to the standard Mate 40 Pro’s. There are some minor differences, with the Mate 40 Pro+ rendering slightly better dynamic range in some scenes—but with more obvious steps in exposure adaptation visible, too. Dynamic range tends to be more extended in the Mate 40 Pro+’s static videos, too, so there is some need to improve HDR rendering consistency across all videos.

Video exposure comparison

White balance is fairly neutral in most videos and relatively stable in outdoor and indoor scenes. It’s a little less consistent in low light, where changes in the color matrix and white balance instabilities do creep in, but unless you’re recording a lot in very low light, it isn’t a problem. Color rendering is pleasant generally, although it could be a bit better in portraits, where reddish skin tones are often visible (which explains why the Mate 40 Pro+’s video color score is fractionally lower than the Mate 40 Pro’s).

Like with stills, the texture-to-noise tradeoff is good in outdoor and indoor videos. Texture rendering isn’t quite as good as the standard Mate 40 Pro’s, particularly in portraits, where texture and skin tones aren’t rendered quite as nicely. As for video exposure, the Mate 40 Pro+ also tends to behave slightly differently in static and moving videos, with more obvious loss of detail in videos captured while moving. It lost the most points for video texture in our perceptual analysis of low-light videos, however, so again, seeking out better light will help improve overall quality.

Video texture comparison

In our objective measurements, noise control on the Mate 40 Pro+ is on par with its key competitors in all lighting conditions. Again, it’s better in brighter light, with coarse noise occasionally visible in flat areas in low-light videos. Noise control is better in static low-light videos, where the device can perform frame stacking to improve image quality, but noise tends to increase in moving videos and this leads to noticeable differences in image quality throughout the video.

Video noise comparison

Video autofocus is generally fast and accurate, and stabilization is efficient, with particularly good motion control on static videos. Stabilization remains effective on handheld videos captured while walking or running, too, and overall stabilization performance is very close to that of the standard Mate 40 Pro.

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+, accurate exposure and white balance with slightly reddish skintones
Huawei Mate 40 Pro, very similar overall quality to the + model
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra, autofocus inaccuracies, with focus locked on to the background

Conclusion

The Huawei Mate 40 Pro+ is a premium device in every sense and deservedly takes the stop spot in our DXOMARK Camera ranking. In many areas its results are similarly excellent to those of the Mate 40 Pro, but the Plus model’s improved tele and ultra-wide cameras will make a difference to those photographers who like to vary focal lengths from very wide to very long. The addition of optical image stabilization on the primary camera also helps improve the texture/noise tradeoff as well as close-range tele results. Video quality is equally good, making the Huawei flagship an easy buy if you’ve got the cash.

Pros

• Wide dynamic range in all conditions
• Nice colors and good white balance in bright light and indoors
• Excellent detail in most conditions
• Fast and consistent autofocus in most situations
• Good detail and low noise levels in ultra-wide camera shots
• Excellent detail and low noise in tele shots
• Wide dynamic range and good texture/noise in night shots
• Very good texture/noise tradeoff in bright light and indoor videos
• Effective video stabilization

Cons

• Color quantization, aliasing, and ghosting artifacts
• Shallow depth of field, occasional focus failures at close range
• Preview images often significantly different from capture
Sharpness differences between video frames, especially in low light

DXOMARK encourages its readers to share comments on the articles. To read or post comments, Disqus cookies are required. Change your Cookies Preferences and read more about our Comment Policy.