68 of 108 people found the following review helpful
What a rip-off,
I borrowed and extensively played with it for 2 hours and my conclusion: an utter rip-off. It has a tiny sensor - the same size as that of Sony Cybershot DSC TX20, which is priced at one third of this one, with Carl Zeiss optics and is dust-proof, water-proof and shock-proof (although it has less optical zoom) and is supremely well-made. Talk of value. For this camera's street price of $620, you could almost get Sony RX100, the king of pocket camera, or even a real mirrorless or a DSLR.
Its photo quality falls short of that of Sony Cybershot series. The camera is totally mundane and no better than any $100-200 cameras, and the price premium comes solely from the fact that you can share your photos with others anytime anywhere through 3G network. Big deal. How can it justify the 3X price difference? Only the most die-hard Facebook real-time updaters would fall for this feature. If you need the SIM card and data plan for it, it might as well have a phone capability as well -- but it doesn't. The recent Nokia phones produce similar-quality photos.
Samsung sells almost exactly same camera without the 3G data but with wi-fi at $150: Samsung WB150F White 14.2-megapixel Digital Camera (and that one even has a superior Schneider lens whereas this Galaxy Camera has a Samsung lens). Other differences between the two models are minor - see for yourself. (See http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-WB150F-14-2-megapixel-Digital-Camera/dp/B0072618G0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1355168946&sr=1-1&keywords=Samsung+WB150F+White+14.2-megapixel+Digital+Camera) If you must somehow share your photos without transferring them to your computer, isn't wi-fi enough? And yet this Galaxy Camera is 4 times more expensive, and add $10 per month data plan to that.
This is the kind of product that comes from shoddy thinking. Samsung should really concentrate on raising the fundamental quality of a camera (IQ etc) rather than throwing in such auxiliary gimmicks to pump up the price. Some may think one star is too harsh, but I really think Samsung needs to get the message.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 1, 2013 10:00:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2013 10:01:22 AM PST
There are so far only two shipping Android cameras from major manufactures and this is one of them (the Nikon S800c is the other). When something is brand new, bleeding edge, and relatively unique you can expect a premium price. This is the only camera running Android 4.x (the Nikon runs the relatively ancient Android 2.3).
Relatively speaking this is a fairly unique new product, and as such, probably required a fair amount of new R&D (vs just refining previous generation cameras and phones). So I'm sure that's a big part of the price. To properly judge the image quality we need to see a professional review that comparess it to similar sized well regarded cameras.
It may sound simple to merge a phone and camera but it's not. For one thing the boot up time of a typical Android phone would be intolerable to most camera users. Likewise, they're not going to want to leave a camera on 7x24 and charge it daily as you would a phone. Battery life with the screen on is another significant issue.
There are some rather unique benefits to a camera like this that go well beyond social media/sharing--most notably the ability run various apps on the camera--for example Google Goggles and other image recognition apps that require a data connection, GPS applications, maping, etc. For vaction photography I can imagine many cool applications.
I would like to see a WiFi only version of this camera that's more price competitive with the Nikon. Samsung has far more expertise with Android than Nikon although that expertise is likely in different divisions of the company (phones, tablets, and media players). I'm sure prices will come down with future generations and increased competition.
I believe there's a market for hybrid Android cameras as the tiny sensors and lenses in phones are inherently limited in many ways (especially in low light). Even the iPhone 5's "rave reviewed" camera can't come close to a $150 point-and-shoot under many conditions. I suspect this Samsung is just the tip of a new iceberg and all but the "gotta have it" early adopters are probably best advised to wait for the next generation.
Posted on Jan 17, 2013 6:24:10 PM PST
nice read and I couldn't agree with you more...for a nice camera phone I got Nokia 808 with with 41 megapixel...
Posted on Jan 24, 2013 4:36:53 PM PST
Amazon Customer says:
Sorry , I own one and it is expensive but it works without a hitch. The pictures are more than adequate and the software it comes with is exceptional, not to mention that the tablet portion works great also.
Posted on Jan 30, 2013 6:38:54 PM PST
Shikata Ga Nai says:
Go do your SONY Fanboy gig somewhere else. According to Amazon, you don't even own it.
Posted on Feb 14, 2013 1:57:07 PM PST
J. J. Epperson says:
Sounds like the comment is more against the concept.
Who wants this? Lots of people...heck, if they did this WITH a cell phone. This would be my wife's go to device.
I have a DSLR, I have $2,000 lens. I barely use it cause lugging it around all the time isn't fruitful. My iPhone does most of my photography, especially for my kids and normal life.
Would I like a step up. Heck, sure would. Just wish they'd add a phone to it so I could get it at a subsidized $199 2-year contract price.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 1:55:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 5:26:37 PM PST
Unless you purchase an item through Amazon, then they can't tell if you own it. Which means neither can you. I have seen the same remark numerous times and it drives me crazy. There are countless internet stores, plus the brick-and-mortar retailers. Just because it wasn't purchased here doesn't mean it isn't owned.
Posted on Feb 19, 2013 3:41:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 3:44:14 PM PST
You are obviously not an early adapter.
This product is what the future of photography for most people will look like. Get used to it.
Posted on Feb 24, 2013 1:27:01 PM PST
Katherine A. Yoerg says:
The primary difference as far as I can tell is the Android OS. I love the photo apps available through Android, but sometimes the quality of my phone camera is just not enough. The appeal of this particular camera is the ability to download those apps and use them with a better quality camera. Is it the best camera on the market? Absolutely not. But it is more about flexibility due to the Android OS than camera quality.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2013 8:20:49 PM PST
Sky Blue says:
How difficult is it to put wifi and android functionality into a camera? Any camera makers worth their salt could do it. I would hardly call it "the future of photography." They are not camera's core functions and do not deserve 3X hike in price. You don't buy a camera to browse the web on its back.
Posted on Jul 4, 2013 2:48:16 PM PDT
Ive read where people complained about the over all picture Quality for the price of the device.. Am i correct in understanding the price doesn't just stop there? It also involved a monthly subscription to your cellular provider for a data plan? How much does that average a year? Now im just asking, it is more Gadget based and less camera focused? (Quality of photo, sensor(s) lens etc?)
‹ Previous 1 Next ›