Android Central

We've been all over the Samsung Galaxy Camera so far at IFA here in Berlin, but we're still not done! Here's a recap so far:

And that's all well and good. But let's get down to the really important stuff. How do the images shot by the Galaxy Camera actually look? We've got a monster gallery after the break showing just that.

One thing to remember, though, is that these are shot with preproduction software. So think of them as preview samples, perhaps. Quick-and-dirty from the show floor. We'll obviously be spending more time with the retail hardware when it's available. [Update: We now have full-resolution images available after the break.]

And with that, on to the gallery!

Warning: Pictures open in a new window in full resolution. These are big images.


Reader comments

Samsung Galaxy Camera - sample pics gallery


The pictures look a little on the warm side, and don't seem to have that good of focus, or is this just a side effect of them being scaled down and the site reducing quality a bit?

Focus does not look good because in this high resolution little shakes creates a blur, thats why people use stands in professional photos, not that photos made on table looks a lot better.

its not the "high resolution" I can tell you i have 2 cameras with similar resolution (a point and shoot and a 18mp entry level DSLR) and both are fantstic with movement and such.... IMO... its just not a great camera.

now if they would through a larger sensor in there, THAT would help a ton. Still worried they are going to price themselves out of the market on this.

i would have no issue at all spending good money on this camera if it were a good camera. as it stands this thing looks to be a $250-$300 camera and add on $200 more for the screen. which is ridiculous. i would much rather and probably would spend seven or eight bills on this and it have that 1.4 lens the guy was talking about in the special podcast, an s-pen, and the huge screen.

for me this camera is pointless. and why did they not include the s-pen? seems like that would be a given with all of the r&d they have put into it.

View any of these at full resolution and they do indeed look like SHit.

Thumbnails are fine, scaled down to 1/3 size is acceptable, but the full res images, even when downloaded into a competent image management program are monumentally bad.

No wonder Samsung chose to leave the Make and Model information out of the EXIF info and substitute WHOAMI WHATISIT in its place.

The lense is showing red/blue separation even at center-of focus (see #9 -the word "note"). Compression artifacts are everywhere. Edges are a total mess.

Its a very cool idea and I love that it runs Android. At the end of the day, when I spend $400+ on a camera, image quality is my main concern, not bells and whistles. This camera seems to have soft focus and poor IQ. I am too old to appreciate all the gimmick filter apps that the kids seem to like and connectivity is already there with eyefi. I can personally can wait until I get home to post to a sharing site so therefore I will probably pass on this camera. I still love the concept and praise Samsung for their efforts.

horrible looking pics. this must be a kids camera, anything further than 3feet away look horrible. i cant imagine how horrible the pics look in a little bit lower light. if this cost more than $60 it must be a joke.

The camera has focused on objects in the foreground, as a result objects in the backgroud will look blurrier, that's how focus works -_-

wrong, that's how a horrible camera works, obviously you haven't even looked at the pics. your telling me you never seen a pic where everything was in focus when there were things in the background? my father has been a photographer for over 30 years and his pics never look that bad. my droid X takes similar quality pics.

Maybe your father who's a photographer should be the one commenting in here then. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I am a photographer and APERTURE is what causes blurry or sharp backgrounds. Not camera quality. Professional photographers use lenses with wide apertures on purpose to get blurry backgrounds. It's called depth of field.

Look at any of these photos, at full resolution and tell me if you would charge people for delivering that kind of work.

Find the field of focus, Should be easy for a pro like you, view it full res, not zoomed in, and tell me you can't see mountains of compression pixelation, edge artifacts and red/blue separation. Not at the edge of the scene, but dead center and fully in the focal plane.

Download the full images, look at the ISO settings, aperture. Even the shots at F4.2 and 1/60th second at ISO 100 are a mess.

If you think you can turn up with a long zoom compact camera, call yourself a photographer and actually charge someone for it you must be dealing with simpletons. You're all judging the camera based on some pictures taken at a trade show with a pre-release model and taken by people who just picked up the camera and snapped some shots. Get it in your own hands and try it and then decide.

Oh, stop with that pre-release nonsense. Its not going to improve by release date.

Same thing happened with the GS3. Mediocre pics came out from the British trade show, and everybody screamed pre-release!!!.

Guess what?

When the production version came out it was the exact same stuff. It never improved.
Its not going to get any better before release date.

This is a camera, not a phone. Why would you take your second best to a trade show?

It was a handful of shots, taken by a non-photographer (in fact someone who has, in the past, turned in a LOT of crappy photos) shot inside a convention center booth (terrible lighting unless you're at a car show) so I would say basing your opinion of the camera on those pictures is a bit of a stretch. Look for a Samsung WB850F review (the camera that got a S3 implanted on it's back) for ACTUAL sample pics of what it can do.

Lol by who? I'm not talking about professional cameras, I said my droid x takes better pics, not blurry, and no I dont have a tripod for it.

I was excited about this, until I saw the image quality. These shots look no better than my Galaxy Nexus shots. Let me know when Canon makes a High end Powershot P&S with Android. I might get interested in a product like this again when that happens. Until then I will stick with the S100.

Good luck at night (thru we yet to see how this preforms at night) and with making photos of objects few meters away with your Galaxy Nexus.

The images are so different from each other, I think some of it is the photographer. It'd be nice to see a gallery with a more steady use of the camera.

If this camera has a sub-$200 price point, I do see a lot of people buying it as a point and shoot, but any more and it probably won't do well.

No one will buy this as a point and shoot when they can get a sub-$200 point and shoot from best buy that blows it out of the water. This thing requires a data plan and the only way you'll get it at that price, is with a contract.

Well, according to some french websites it will be available in October for... 550€ (off contract)! I don't see anybody buying this.

That's not a good thing in this case. It should look as good as a decent P&S camera.

I want to see a gallery of pictures done by a camera review crew, instead of a phone review crew.

Lots of noise in the photos, but as PN mentioned, it's production software. Plus, who shoots beautiful photos with any camera before they read the manual and tweek the settings.

I'm excited about this camera despite the photos; I see great potential.

No offense, but it's basically a smartphone with a big lens attached to it, likely using much of the same code as the GS3 devices (which probably used a lot of code carried over from the S2). Samsung's devices pretty much all (Galaxy Series) perform not so well in low-lighting and produce less shart images with a bit undersaturated colors compared to iPhones and HTC devices (Anything from the MT4G onward has bested Samsung's devices for Camera output in stills).

I traded my Vivid for a Skyrocket and the first thing I noticed was just hot absolutely terrible Samsung's camera was compared to HTC's. I went from being able to take 1:1 crops and post them to having to perform voodoo on images to make them acceptable.

No one expects professional results from a camera, but if this $400+ device that requires a data plan cannot outperform a sub-$200 point and shoot camera from Best Buy there is really no point for it to exist, considering normal smartphone cameras - if you buy the right brand (Apple or HTC, a Sony here and there) are good enough in most circumstances.

I couldn't fathom having to carry this thing around, either. It certainly would and could never be my daily driver... I'm sure battery life won't be steller, either.

I suppose if it came with 64GB internal storage and could output RAW images, I'd be a bit less harsh on it...

I doubt it will "require" a data plan. But the added expense of putting 3/4G radios in it is kind of a waste. I can't see this thing costing sub $400 at which point you are kind of getting into higher performance P&S and maybe even the compact system camera range.

Meh. IQ is sub par. Noisy. As big as this phone is they should have went with a larger sensor and maybe eschewed the longer lens and 3/4G radio mumbo jumbo.

The pictures look OK for a point and shoot. I noticed some chroma aberration on the text of the Galaxy Note 2 sign. I see the software is running some noise reduction on the photos. Would be nice if you could turn that off, or vary its strength.

It takes crappy photos in a brightly lit trade-show room and has a pinhead LED for a flash. Right. Next.

It has a pop up xenon flash on top. AC doesn't show it and neither do the specs, but other websites do.

But yeah, IQ isn't good.

Wow, After the SGS3 camera I was expecting this would be awesome but I honestly think it's worse. I even compare with a picture taken with my SGS3 and the amounts of noise and chroma are way less in the phone cam. The purpling on edges really makes things look cheap.

even the bokeh, rather than being smoothly out of focus is so grainy and uneven.

i understand having bluetooth but 4g/3g ect seems useless.

I can only imagine the quality of photos here stems from JPEG compression? I have to agree with some folks here and say my Galaxy Nexus takes similar quality photos. Otherwise I would want to chalk it up to this alleged "preproduction software" and hope the retail product can produce much better quality because these pics are very disappointing for the specs.

I understand the whole "pre-production software" issue, but with that said, these pictures DO suck. Very blurry overall unimpressive. My S3 takes much better pictures. You would think, bringing a great new device like this to the IFA convention, they'd make sure the software was up to snuff! Just sayin....
I am looking forward to you guys reviewing this once it's released.

Heeeelllooooo excessive noise reduction to mask crappy image quality. Wake me up when Sony puts its RX100 sensor in a Android camera and I might be interested.

I am sure though lots of folks will pick these up because all the average consumer tends to see is:

-woah look at the stylish design of the body!
-check out the number of megapixels!
-it has lots of zoom!
-look at how big the screen is!
-I can play games on it..sweet!

People with some halfway decent understanding of cameras...keep calm and move on.

Kudos to Sammy though for thinking outside the box, I am sure this will likely be the first of many android integrated cameras.

Aside from them being higher resolution I'm certain my S2 with Camera fv-5 would take a better looking picture...This thing better be $200 lol