Customer Reviews

Samsung TL34HD 14.7MP Digital Camera with 3.6x Schneider Optical Image Stabilized Zoom (Black)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I recently acquired this camera and it has received mixed reviews around the web and not so good reviews here on Amazon. But after having spent some time with this camera, I have a very positive impression of it. Instead of blowing up the picture to 500 percent and looking for purple fringing, I looked at it from the aspect of "how good is an 8 by 10 printout? And, "How good does it look on a TV or a computer screen? Real issues and not the technical aspects of the output.

And to me, the photos it takes are excellent. Crisp and clean, with good color representation - not extreme or unnatural. The pictures have a decent amount of blowup range before becoming pixelated. Slightly ;less than a decent SLR, but still good. The flash is a bit underpowered, but still is sufficient for most needs. The touch screen is a superb idea. Most people won't bother with the manual comtrols of a point and shoot becasue they are usually buried in menus and difficult to get to. But the on screen system used here makes it very easy (and quick) to get to common manual controls. This is the first point and shoot camera that I felt like even bothering with the manual controls.

The video also seems to work and look fine. The 320 by 240, 60 frames per second output doesn't look much different than the 640 by 480 30 frames per second movie, other than the obvious resolution difference. But the 640 resolution looks sharp and with good color and is playable on most decently powered computers.

The camera also has a 1280 by 720 High Defintion (720p) resolution. It plays well on the camera, but you need a fairly powerful PC or Mac to play it on, and even then it's a bit jerky. But that's the fault with HD on a computer and not a camera problem. But the camera does not include an HD cable for connection to a TV (just RCA and USB cables are included) and that's a major downpoint since you must buy a fairly expensive dock to do that. A very bad call on Samsung's part. I also did not experience any lockups of strange problems that someone in Amazon have reported. Maybe a newer firmware?

But overall, this is a good, durable (metal body) camera to take with you when an SLR is just too inconvenient.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Well, I'm going to see if I can return this camera. I took a few videos, this time with audio and the audio was AWFUL; broken at best and completely gone a lot of the time. I tried several videos, with and without using the zoom feature. It's really bad!!!!
I've read some disturbing reviews online, so I was a bit pleased to see the quality of the photos and the videos. I captured two videos, about one minute each and transferred them to my computer with a card reader. The videos are just fine. I find them to be as good as most other digital camera videos. They were smooth, the zoom works well and focuses quickly, though your image is out of focus during the zooming. The photos are crisp and shape, the flash works really well. As far as image quality, I'm as pleased with this camera as I am my twice as expensive Canon SD950IS.
The camera itself is a bit larger than I expected, but still a pocket size. The body is all light weight plastic and even feels and looks a bit cheap. I was disappointed in the general appearance of the camera.
The touch screen is fun and I don't activate the wrong feature too often. I did put a screen protector on right away.
My hands keep getting in the way of the pop up flash and prevent it from popping up, but I'm getting use to holding properly. It's comfortable to hold and use and I don't find any problem with the placement of the buttons.
This camera has a lot of manual options as well as special features like kid portrait mode. I haven't tried the blink or smile alert features yet but the stabilizer seems to work well.
All in all, for the $180 that I paid for this camera, it's a good buy and I'd recommend it to someone who is looking for a light weight, inexpensive digital camera that takes good photos and movies.

This is a neat little camera. It's a good backup for a SLR and works as a quick "pull-out" camera for those split second moments you'd like to catch on film (but I'm supposing 'film' isn't exactly the best choice of word here). Auto-sensing technology helps to seek out focus points for group pictures and the built-in menu is easy to navigate.

I'm not really sure what kind of math they're using to come up with a 14.7MP output but the pictures are clear nonetheless.

The movies are smooth as well--displaying nicely on a 720-capable screen.

I own quite a few compact cameras so I got a chance to do some comparisons. I compared the pictures quality between the Panasonic FX01 (old), Canon IS870, Panasonic LX3, and this one. I just compared the IQ in various ISOs in good lighting. I didn't bother testing in bad lighting since I know the noise would be at least a stop worse in bad lighting so I didn't bother. Needless to say, the Panasonic FX01 is the oldest and the IQ is the worst with only usable ISO up to 200. This was the camera that I wanted to replace so I compared just to confirm for myself that replacing it was the right choice. In good lighting using either ISO 80 or 100, the Samsung TL34HD had the most detail since it has the most pixels at 14.7 MP. The Panasonic LX3 and the Canon 870 were very close. However, I had to bump down noise reduction to -2 (all film modes) on the LX3 to get the full details. The Canon kept almost all the details at the default settings. It's probably a three-way tie at ISO 200 since the Samsung's noise reduced detail level down to the other two. At ISO 400, the LX3 edged the Canon (not much) for the win. The Samsung lost fine details so you could probably only print up to a 8x10. Both the Canon and Panasonic lost some details but were considerably better than the Samsung. At ISO 800, the LX3 was the clear winner. The Samsung's image looked almost like a water color painting at 100% on the screen, however, I could still print a 4x6 and the picture would look OK. What's more disturbing is that the colors were very flat due to noise reduction. I would definitely not use ISO 800 on the Samsung. The Canon also lost a bit of detail at ISO 800 but at least the colors were still mostly saturated. The Panasonic LX3 had noise but I could see 80 percent of the fine details. At ISO 1600, the LX3 was the only usable option if you're desperate for a shot in low light. The LX3 still retained details at ISO 1600 but there's no way to remove the noise without losing the details at this point. Another note is that while I maxed out the apertures on both the Samsung and Canon at f2.8, I still could drop to f2 on the LX3 which means I could use ISO 400 instead of ISO 800 like the other two cameras.

I also compared the HD video recording between the Samsung and the Panasonic LX3. Both could record 720P but the Samsung does it at 30 fps while the Panasonic records at 24 fps. Given the specs, one would think that the Samsung has smoother video but it was more jerky. The Samsung requires good lighting for the video to look like HD. The Panasonic's video looked like HD even with indoor lighting. I really like the fact that I can use the zoom while recording video on the Samsung. It also has the option to mute the audio while zooming so that you don't hear the zooming mechanism. The Samsung uses AVCHD format which requires much less space but requires the latest software and a powerful system for video processing. The Panasonic uses motion JPEG which takes up much more space.

I would have rated the Samsung three starts but the user touch-screen interface is excellent and the low price. The online price for the Samsung is only half of the Panasonic. It is very pocketable unlike the Panasonic. The touch-screen is very intuitive and responsive. It also has the onscreen help so you really don't need a manual at all. My only wish for this camera to make it better is that the IQ would perform at least as good as the Canon IS870 in low light. The Canon has good IQ and usable ISO 800 but the menu system is not very user friendly and only 640x480 video recording. Overall, I would give the Samsung and Canon a tie. The Canon has better IQ starting at ISO 200 and up but the Samsung has better IQ at lower ISO and HD video and an excellent touch-screen interface. The Panasonic LX3 is the winner but it's not on the same price level as the other two.

The end result is that I keep the LX3 while my wife gets the Samsung. She likes the touch screen and small size while I like the IQ, fast lens and full controls of the LX3.

Great features! Go to love the smile detection, wide angle touch screen is pretty awesome. I would have given a 5 star but the pop up flash bothers me a little but that is purely aesthetics just kind of a drag to have to close it after power is off.

I own quite a few compact cameras so I got a chance to do some comparisons. I compared the pictures quality between the Panasonic FX01 (old), Canon IS870, Panasonic LX3, and this one. I just compared the IQ in various ISOs in good lighting. I didn't bother testing in bad lighting since I know the noise would be at least a stop worse in bad lighting so I didn't bother. Needless to say, the Panasonic FX01 is the oldest and the IQ is the worst with only usable ISO up to 200. This was the camera that I wanted to replace so I compared just to confirm for myself that replacing it was the right choice. In good lighting using either ISO 80 or 100, the Samsung TL34HD had the most detail since it has the most pixels at 14.7 MP. The Panasonic LX3 and the Canon 870 were very close. However, I had to bump down noise reduction to -2 (all film modes) on the LX3 to get the full details. The Canon kept almost all the details at the default settings. It's probably a three-way tie at ISO 200 since the Samsung's noise reduced detail level down to the other two. At ISO 400, the LX3 edged the Canon (not much) for the win. The Samsung lost fine details so you could probably only print up to a 8x10. Both the Canon and Panasonic lost some details but were considerably better than the Samsung. At ISO 800, the LX3 was the clear winner. The Samsung's image looked almost like a water color painting at 100% on the screen, however, I could still print a 4x6 and the picture would look OK. What's more disturbing is that the colors were very flat due to noise reduction. I would definitely not use ISO 800 on the Samsung. The Canon also lost a bit of detail at ISO 800 but at least the colors were still mostly saturated. The Panasonic LX3 had noise but I could see 80 percent of the fine details. At ISO 1600, the LX3 was the only usable option if you're desperate for a shot in low light. The LX3 still retained details at ISO 1600 but there's no way to remove the noise without losing the details at this point. Another note is that while I maxed out the apertures on both the Samsung and Canon at f2.8, I still could drop to f2 on the LX3 which means I could use ISO 400 instead of ISO 800 like the other two cameras.

I also compared the HD video recording between the Samsung and the Panasonic LX3. Both could record 720P but the Samsung does it at 30 fps while the Panasonic records at 24 fps. Given the specs, one would think that the Samsung has smoother video but it was more jerky. The Samsung requires good lighting for the video to look like HD. The Panasonic's video looked like HD even with indoor lighting. I really like the fact that I can use the zoom while recording video on the Samsung. It also has the option to mute the audio while zooming so that you don't hear the zooming mechanism. The Samsung uses AVCHD format which requires much less space but requires the latest software and a powerful system for video processing. The Panasonic uses motion JPEG which takes up much more space.

I would have rated the Samsung three starts but the user touch-screen interface is excellent and the low price. The online price for the Samsung is only half of the Panasonic. It is very pocketable unlike the Panasonic. The touch-screen is very intuitive and responsive. It also has the onscreen help so you really don't need a manual at all. My only wish for this camera to make it better is that the IQ would perform at least as good as the Canon IS870 in low light. The Canon has good IQ and usable ISO 800 but the menu system is not very user friendly and only 640x480 video recording. Overall, I would give the Samsung and Canon a tie. The Canon has better IQ starting at ISO 200 and up but the Samsung has better IQ at lower ISO and HD video and an excellent touch-screen interface. The Panasonic LX3 is the winner but it's not on the same price level as the other two.

The end result is that I keep the LX3 while my wife gets the Samsung. She likes the touch screen and small size while I like the IQ, fast lens and full controls of the LX3.

They have managed to package a good camcorder and a fantastically high resolution still camera into something that goes into one's shirt pocket. I was so happy with the first one I bought for $250.00 that I bought a second from J and R for $200.00. The HDMI cradle is coming in the mail this week. You have to get it directly from Samgsung at this point.

I have only had the camera for a week but am very pleased with picture quality. We bought it as a camera the entire family can use and the auto feature is great for anyone who wants to shoot a picture. We bought it primarily for the video (pause) feature and we are very happy to have that in a small pocket camera. The only negative is I like putting the camera in my pocket and it has come on and worn down the battery because the camera powers up when you push a little button on the back. Samsung should change this.

Awesome photos for a point-n-shoot camera. It's auto mode seems to pick the right time to flash, focus, etc, and does a great job of it. And it's photos are very clear and the best digital's we've taken with a PNS camera. It's video mode is ok for quick videos of something you just have to take. It is a photo camera more than a video. With videos, we had a lapse between voice and the speaking person. Overall, it's a wonderful camera, but if you're looking for video as your main need, then you may want to look at a dedicated video camera.

I HAVE OWNED SEVERAL DIGITAL CAMERAS, EACH BETTER IN PICTURE QUALITY THAN THE PREVIOUS ONES, NOT TO MENTION THE OPTIONS AND THE BULKY SIZE. BUT NONE THAT I HAVE RESEARCHED AND COMPARED HAS COME CLOSE IN RESOLUTION, OPTIONS,SIZE AND THE PRICE. I LOVE IT. THE MENU IS SIMPLE THE STYLE IS GREAT. THE SCREEN IS LARGE ENOUGH TO VIEW PHOTOS WITH IT'S RICHNESS, NOT TO MENTION THE SMOOTH FLOW OF THE TOUCH SCREEN. THIS CAMERA IS MARVELOUS.