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

130

108

130

109

125

103

125

107

117

71

82

75
Bokeh
75

85

43
Preview
43

93

150
Zoom
112

128

110

122

131
Video
92

116

95

120

106

120

104

118

111

120

80

86

114

119

Use cases & Conditions

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

BEST 180

Outdoor

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

BEST 169

Indoor

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

BEST 138

Lowlight

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

BEST 154

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
42nd
1. Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
163
2. Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
158
2. Honor Magic6 Pro
158
4. Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max
157
4. Apple iPhone 16 Pro
157
4. Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
157
4. Oppo Find X8 Pro
157
4. Oppo Find X7 Ultra
157
9. Huawei P60 Pro
156
10. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
154
10. Apple iPhone 15 Pro
154
10. Google Pixel 9
154
13. Google Pixel 8 Pro
153
13. Oppo Find X6 Pro
153
13. Xiaomi 15 Ultra
153
16. Honor Magic5 Pro
152
17. Oppo Find X6
150
17. Vivo X100 Pro
150
19. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
149
19. Xiaomi 14 Ultra
149
21. Google Pixel 8
148
22. Apple iPhone 16
147
22. Google Pixel 7 Pro
147
22. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
147
22. Xiaomi 15
147
26. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
146
26. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
146
26. Motorola Edge 50 Ultra
146
26. Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra
146
30. Apple iPhone 15 Plus
145
30. Apple iPhone 15
145
32. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
144
33. Huawei P50 Pro
143
34. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
141
34. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
141
34. Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold
141
34. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
141
38. Google Pixel 7
140
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
140
38. Vivo X90 Pro+
140
38. Xiaomi 13 Ultra
140
42. Huawei Mate 40 Pro+
139
43. Tecno Camon 40 Pro 5G
138
43. Xiaomi 14
138
45. Honor Magic V3
137
45. Honor 200 Pro
137
45. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
137
48. Google Pixel 8a
136
48. Vivo X90 Pro
136
48. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
48. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
136
52. Huawei Mate 40 Pro
135
52. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
135
52. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
135
52. Xiaomi 14T Pro
135
56. Google Pixel 6 Pro
134
56. Vivo X70 Pro+
134
56. Xiaomi 14T
134
59. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
133
59. Apple iPhone 14
133
59. Google Pixel Fold
133
59. Google Pixel 7a
133
59. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S24+ (Exynos)
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S24 FE
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S24 (Exynos)
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S23+
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S23
133
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip6
132
70. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
131
70. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
131
70. Xiaomi 13T Pro
131
73. Honor 200
130
73. Motorola Edge 40 Pro
130
73. Oppo Find X5 Pro
130
73. Xiaomi 13
130
77. Huawei P40 Pro
129
77. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
129
77. Xiaomi 12T Pro
129
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
129
81. Oppo Find X3 Pro
128
81. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
128
83. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
127
83. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
127
83. OnePlus 11
127
83. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
127
83. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
127
88. Google Pixel 6
126
88. Honor Magic4 Pro
126
88. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
126
88. Vivo X60 Pro+
126
92. Apple iPhone 13 mini
125
92. Apple iPhone 13
125
92. Asus Zenfone 11 Ultra
125
92. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
125
92. Vivo X50 Pro+
125
97. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
124
97. Xiaomi Mi 11 Pro
124
99. Xiaomi 13T
123
100. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
122
100. Google Pixel 6a
122
100. Honor 90
122
100. OnePlus 10 Pro
122
100. OnePlus 9 Pro
122
105. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
106. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
109. Honor Magic Vs
119
109. Sony Xperia 5 IV
119
111. Sony Xperia 5 V
118
111. Sony Xperia 1 IV
118
111. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro+ 5G
118
114. Apple iPhone 12
117
114. Apple iPhone 12 mini
117
114. Honor Magic V2
117
114. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
117
114. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
117
114. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
117
120. Apple iPhone 11
116
120. Asus Zenfone 8
116
120. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
116
123. Honor 70
115
123. Motorola Edge 50 Neo
115
123. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Snapdragon)
115
123. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
115
123. Xiaomi 12T
115
128. Nothing Phone(1)
114
128. OnePlus Nord 2T 5G
114
128. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
114
128. Oppo Find X5
114
128. Oppo Find N2 Flip
114
133. Crosscall Stellar-X5
113
133. OnePlus 8 Pro
113
133. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
133. Xiaomi 12
113
137. Oppo Reno8 5G
112
137. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
112
139. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
111
139. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Exynos)
111
139. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
111
142. Google Pixel 5
109
142. Xiaomi 12 Lite 5G
109
144. Asus ROG Phone 7
108
144. Fairphone 5
108
144. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
144. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Exynos)
108
144. Xiaomi 11T Pro
108
149. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
150. Oppo Find X3 Neo
106
150. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro 5G
106
152. Sony Xperia 1 III
105
153. Samsung Galaxy A35 5G
104
154. Motorola Edge 40 Neo
103
154. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G
103
156. Huawei P40
102
156. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
158. Black Shark 5 Pro
101
158. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
101
160. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
160. Google Pixel 4a
100
162. Motorola Moto g75 5G
96
162. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
96
164. Oppo Find X5 Lite
95
165. Oppo Reno4 5G
94
166. Oppo A94 5G
93
166. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
93
168. Motorola Razr 50
92
168. Samsung Galaxy A72
92
168. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
168. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
172. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
173. Oppo Reno6 5G
89
174. Motorola Moto g85 5G
88
174. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
174. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
177. Honor 200 Lite
86
178. Motorola moto g54 5G
85
178. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
178. Samsung Galaxy A16 LTE
85
181. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
84
181. OnePlus Nord CE 5G
84
181. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14
84
184. Samsung Galaxy A15 5G
83
184. Vivo Y76 5G
83
186. Samsung Galaxy A15 LTE
81
187. Honor 90 Smart
79
187. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
189. Sony Xperia 10 V
78
189. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
191. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
77
192. TCL 40R 5G
76
193. Motorola Moto G35 5G
75
193. Realme 9i 5G
75
193. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
75
196. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
74
197. Honor 90 Lite
73
198. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
199. Fairphone 4
69
199. Oppo A78 5G
69
199. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
202. Motorola moto g34 5G
67
202. Samsung Galaxy A14 5G
67
204. Motorola Moto G62 5G
66
205. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
206. Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
64
207. Sony Xperia 10 IV
63
207. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
63
207. Xiaomi Redmi 14C
63
207. Xiaomi Redmi 13C
63
207. Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G
63
212. Honor X7
61
212. Honor Magic4 Lite 5G
61
214. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
60
214. Xiaomi Redmi 13C 5G
60
216. Crosscall Stellar-M6
59
217. Honor 70 Lite
58
218. Honor 200 Smart
55
219. Motorola Moto G23
54
220. Oppo A77 5G
53
221. Honor X8 5G
52
221. TCL 406
52
223. Xiaomi Redmi 10 2022
51
224. Crosscall Action-X5
50
225. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
226. Crosscall Core-Z5
47
227. Oppo A57
46
227. Oppo A16s 5G
46
229. Samsung Galaxy A05s
45
229. Xiaomi Redmi A3
45
229. 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.