x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

Camera Comparison: Samsung Galaxy Camera vs Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, iPhone 5, Nokia 808 PureView

Color reproduction:

As far as color reproduction is concerned, the snapper that satisfies us the most is on the Samsung Galaxy S III. And that's not only because the photos it captures exhibit true-to-life colors, but also because it gave us the most consistent results. The iPhone 5 comes next for capturing vibrant hues across the entire spectrum, although it often tends to exaggerate color tones, thus making them look less natural.

The Samsung Galaxy Camera also performed well, but the results weren't consistent. In other words, its color accuracy is top notch under certain conditions, but then when trying to capture a totally different scene, hues would look washed out and unnatural. Same can be said about the Samsung Galaxy Note II as it has difficulties capturing blue skies properly and reds appear slightly less dull than they should be.
The Nokia 808 PureView takes the last place because the colors in its photos are often lifeless, but tend to be highly accurate under optimal lighting conditions.

1. Samsung Galaxy S III
2. iPhone 5
3. Samsung Galaxy Camera
4. Samsung Galaxy Note II
5. Nokia 808 PureView

  • Options

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:27 12

1. bobfreking55 (Posts: 866; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)

Can't believe the S3 itself destroys the GCamera. I hope the SGS4 trumps the iPhone 5S/6.

Also hoping the BlackBerry 10 devices have iPhone-like cameras and that Windows Phone gains more apps because...

Nokia EOS.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 09:46 15

16. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

What's disappointing here is that the Galaxy camera has been beaten by cameras on phones. Not demeaning them, of course, but the Galaxy camera is a device that is solely meant to perform as a camera and it being not better than these phones is not much of improvement. I know it can do other things than it being a camera but that's not an excuse.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 13:57 4

38. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)

PA did a bit of holding the thumb on the scale however. Things like not including the multiple pre-programed scene modes that come stock with the G Camera, passing mention of the 21x optical zoom, limiting the image taken to 8 Mp. The positioning of the G Camera is as a compact P&S camera with 21x optical zoom and optical image stabilization for both photos and video that has Internet connectivity with the Android UI.

The 21x optical zoom comes into its own when you are trying to take a picture of something far away. Two photos that I was able to take courtesy of the 21x zoom immediately come to mind - one was of a sailboat on the S.F. Bay that I took from the waterfront of Sausalito. The sailboat was probably 1 mile away, but the 21x optical zoom brought the sailboat right into the frame to the point where numbers printed on the sail were readable. A second photo was during the recent Mavericks surfing competition. There was a U.S. Coast Guard cutter that was keeping water-borne onlookers from getting up close and interfering with the surfing competition. The Coast Guard cutter and company were again about 1 mile from where I was taking the picture. Trying to replicate both photos with an iP5 (or L920, for that matter) would not be possible. The digital zoom would not be up to the challenge.

I could have done way better with a dedicated telephoto lens on a FF DSLR and tripod, but not with the convenience of a compact camera that fit in my jacket pocket. I think there is a place for something like the G Camera, and hope that Sammy invests in developing it further.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 15:03 2

43. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

I understand and agree with the point you made...and that's an area where phones still have miles to cross.
But other than that, i still stand corrected. 8 megapixel or not the quality of a dedicated camera has to be different. Else, there's no point in owning one just for the sake that you can zoom something extremely close without noise and pixelation. I hope the Galaxy camera II does a better job with the image quality.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 15:51 1

46. protozeloz (Posts: 5396; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)

the issue with the image quality is more related with the dumbed down resolution, there is no point in testing a camera at a setting people are not going to use

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 20:10 3

63. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

Like i said, minimized resolution or not, IT IS A DEDICATED camera. And it doesn't mean a smaller resolution will have more bad image quality. Better get that right first

posted on 12 Feb 2013, 15:15

124. Integer (Posts: 5; Member since: 06 Feb 2013)

Why do they always put embarrassing cameras in android phones? If I left it at that, the first thing someone will reply with, is that this new phone will have a 13MP camera. As if microscopic pixels that are intended to collect light is somehow better than larger ones.

I understand people are dumb, and to most, more MP is better, but common, the engineers know that isn't true, why not leave it to them, and install a larger sensor with fewer pixels that's actually usable...

SGCam sensor is 31.81x smaller than a Full Frame.

They should reduce the MP count to 2MP to get the quality per pixel up.

posted on 12 Feb 2013, 16:13

125. Integer (Posts: 5; Member since: 06 Feb 2013)

Zoom is not a measure of reach, but rather the wide to long ratio.

In summary, the 'reach' of the Galaxy Camera is 86mm which doesn't sound all that impressive until you factor in the crop ratio which gives it an equivelant reach of 483mm

To avoid confusion, every camera ever made can have 'equivelant reach' via croping. (MP obviously drops as you crop, but who cares how many MP the camera is if it's smugy ugly anyway when viewed 100%

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 10:06 12

22. MONUQ (Posts: 31; Member since: 26 Jan 2013)

Lol PA don't have courage to put more of better devices.....like Lumia 920 and Sony Xperia Z....

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 10:13 10

23. No_Nonsense (unregistered)

Xperia Z isn't available yet and the 920 quality is more or less the same as iPhone 5/S3 in normal situations. In low light and stability of pics/videos it trumps them though.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 14:52 1

41. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)

True, but in the concluding paragraphs, the GCam beats in low-light situations, something the 920 excels in above pretty much anything below DSLR-grade.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:29 13

2. Lauticol (Posts: 375; Member since: 25 Jun 2011)

Looking at the comparison of the 100% crops of all the devices, the Galaxy Camera sucks, Galaxy S3 (much older device) could beat him!

EDIT: Want a comparison with Nokia Lumia 920, 808 Pureview and the Galaxy Camera!

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:42 3

7. freebee269 (Posts: 539; Member since: 10 Aug 2012)


posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:52

11. Lauticol (Posts: 375; Member since: 25 Jun 2011)

Thank you, but I'm looking a review with the 808 included. Also we don't know if the update Portico is in that Lumia (the camera gets improved with the update)

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 09:50 1

18. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

You do know that the 808 is a Symbian phone and not a Lumia don't you?

posted on 29 Jan 2013, 10:25

112. Lauticol (Posts: 375; Member since: 25 Jun 2011)

When I said "in that Lumia" I was referring to the 920

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 11:22 1

30. RiseAgainst94 (Posts: 281; Member since: 03 Mar 2012)

The conclusion claims that this camera can beat any phone indoors or in low light but what PA failed to do is add the Lumia 920 which has by far the beat low light photo quality. The 808 pureview is by no means a replacement as Nokia has since allowed their senor to stay open longer to allow more light in, a feature not found in the 808 Pureview.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 13:43

36. TheCynicalTechie (Posts: 78; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)

It is adjustable actually. There is a shutter speed option, but without OIS it will look blurred and ugly.

posted on 29 Jan 2013, 11:32

115. cripton805 (Posts: 1485; Member since: 18 Mar 2012)

I saw a shot of a 920 in a dark room. The flash is more focused than some other phones Ive seen. So that can be a negative or positive thing. The surrounding image looks darker compared to other phones. Maybe scenery when there is some light present? Like I mentioned here earlier even on the 808, the night is not too great because of glare and someone mentioned tweaking settings to help. If the 920 has this issue, that can be a problem.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 15:11 3

44. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)

GSM Arena and All About Symbian/All About Windows Phone have come to similar conclusions, and also had the foresight to include the Lumia 920:




The GCam has some positive attributes, but, IMHO, it's massively overpriced. I can get a Galaxy Player and a decent P&S for less money. The 808 PureView is still a tad overpriced, but for portability and overall quality, it would be the one to take my money if I knew I were going somewhere during the day and there might be some sudden photo opps. At least, until the next-gen Lumia comes out

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:30 5

3. umadd (banned) (Posts: 40; Member since: 25 Jan 2013)

GSMArena says galaxy camera > pureview but to each his own

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 14:34 10

39. -RVM- (Posts: 331; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)

Actually GSMArena says PureView > Galaxy Camera:

"Anyway, the Nokia 808 PureView is the smartphone equivalent of a decades-old world record. A combination of genius, inspiration and hard work - and perhaps a bit of good luck - that's just impossible to match even if all the ingredients are there. We don't think anyone was surprised at the Nokia 808 PureView getting the better of another digicam. But we won't be surprised either if connected cameras do to cameraphones what Android did to Symbian."

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:32 6

4. dickwyn (Posts: 621; Member since: 07 May 2012)

i'll just wait for the Nokia EOS vs Galaxy Camera 2 comparison

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:35

5. imsickwithsmartphone (Posts: 153; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)

So which one is better??

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 20:16 1

65. fahqman (Posts: 38; Member since: 06 Jan 2013)

iphone 5. I have note 2.

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 20:22 2

66. chaoticrazor (Posts: 2347; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)

and how have you come to this conclusion? explain as i know its bs

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 23:47 1

96. Anamela233 (Posts: 24; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)

why waste time on explaining to a fanboy like you sir?

posted on 29 Jan 2013, 09:27

109. chaoticrazor (Posts: 2347; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)

what kind of fanboy am i kid?

please try to think before answering lol

face it he cant explain his bs and you are just a cheerleader cheering him on

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:37 4

6. sats.mine2k4 (banned) (Posts: 208; Member since: 10 Aug 2012)

I think the 2nd picture bunch clearly shows that Galaxy camera is better than the 41mp Pure view...

posted on 28 Jan 2013, 08:51 20

8. chaoticrazor (Posts: 2347; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)

well shows how much you read as the 808 isnt 41mp just has a 41mp sensor. full res 34-38mp photo's are the highest it takes not 41mp

but ofcourse on this android oriented comment section this would happen

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories