Android Central

Samsung's Galaxy Camera is the first wirelessly-connected, Android-powered camera to hit the mainstream. But so far it's been limited to 21Mbps HSPA+ "4G" speeds in all territories, even the U.S., where it's sold through AT&T.

That may be about to change if we're to believe a recent FCC filing, which shows a new Galaxy Camera model going by the name EK-GC120, rocking support for Big Red's LTE bands. (Incidentally, it seems there's no support for international GSM bands.)

The images accompanying the filing show a Galaxy Camera-like device that's labeled as such. So that seems pretty conclusive, if you ask us.

No word on other specs, but considering the similarities of design and model number, it's likely that Verizon's model will stick fairly close to the hardware of the international/AT&T Galaxy Camera -- a 16MP sensor with 21X Samsung zoom lens, with 4.8-inch display and TouchWiz'd Android 4.1 running the show.

The only question now is where will they put the logo?

Source: FCC; via: Engadget

 
There are 10 comments

Reader comments

FCC filing points to possible Verizon Galaxy Camera with LTE

10 Comments
Sort by Rating

"The only question now is where will they put the logo?"

My money's on the lens. That way, all the photos will have a Verizon 'watermark'.

Verizon has me leaning toward an exit. So I haven't updated phones and won't update phones unless I see a moderation of their practices. So while this camera would have been on my "list" I won't buy a device that can't conceivably be used on another network.

About the only reason I'd want a camera with a data plan is for photo journalism (does anyone do that job anymore?).

You could send roving reporter out to cover stories, games, what-ever, and all their work, stills and video, shows up in the editing room in real time, all location coded and time stamped. Or maybe directly to blog posts at trade shows or something.

Other than that, I can't see paying for a data plan for a camera. I would never use it that often. Wifi and bluetooth seem more than adequate.

I'm in the same boat. I can't see paying an extra $10/mo for this when I have Wifi at home and I can tether it via wifi to my phone if I needed connectivity while out and about.

The camera is an interesting idea; I"m just not sure I want one with a data plan.

As a former high school sports journalist, there is no way a small point-and-shoot camera can do cover most sports. I've seen people try it, and it just doesn't happen. Most football games are at night, so you need professional equipment to compensate, including a good flash. Indoors in gymnasiums? Too much motion blur for point-and-shoots. Again, professional equipment is needed. Then you have the zoom question, which professional equipment and lenses can easily take care of.

On top of that, point-and-shoots do one picture at a time. Professional equipment can allow you for rapid-fire picture taking, which is so nice when you go back and try to put together a photo gallery of plays. Otherwise, you're praying the one shot you get works, or you're relying on a non-action shot of the team on the bench or in a huddle.

At slower-paced events, like golf or cross-country, you might be able to get away with a point-and-shoot, but I'd still prefer a professional camera because of the aforementioned rapid-fire ability.

As for news stories, that's a little different. Photos are not always centered around action like sports photos are, so you may be able to get away with it there. If you have to go to an accident or emergency scene, most of the time it's "done" (so to speak) when you get there. The car has already wrecked, the firefighters are standing in set positions using their equipment, etc. Those are much easier with a point-and-shoot, since it's not a WR jetting down the sideline trying for a touchdown, or a fast-break on the hardwood, or a bang-bang play at first base. And since you would be using that camera in a breaking news situation, that could help the editing desk immensely when posting to the website.

The caveat to news usage? If it's outside at night, is the flash good enough? Even for still scenes, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, so even then, you may still be relying on a professional camera.

Overall, I would have to give the cameras a pass for journalism use. Nice in theory, but not as practical or able as one would think.

HEY! This is an Apple infringement!! I smell a lawsuit. b'cuz.....cuz.... the lens on this thing looks like an Apple if you squint hard enough. And it's white to boot!!

FLAG!!

I might consider this camera but only if they make a non carrier version. I would use it over Wifi only.

I can't wait for the day whn radio manufactures figure out how to make the cellular radio the size of a sim card and one antenna that can handle any frequency. Then we can just buy the phone outright, or camera in this case, and just pop in the cellular radio card of our choice.