Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere STEM nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch New Album by Prophets of Rage PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon BradsStatus BradsStatus BradsStatus  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno

Customer Review

on July 10, 2012
2012 Travel Zoom Digital Camera Round-Up

Way, way back in 2009, a lengthy group test of pocketable long-zoom travel cameras was performed by one of the most popular sources for digital camera reviews. It was only three years ago and the camera specifications were all within a narrow range: The tested cameras all had 10 - 12MP CCD sensors, zoom ability was 10x-12x, none could record video at full 1080 HD, and most screens were of the 230k pixel, 2.7 inch to 3 inch variety. The winners in that match-up happened to be Panasonics, with Panasonic ZS-3 having a street price of $380 or thereabouts, at that "ancient" time.

Onto 2011, where another, larger group test was conducted. The cameras as a class offered BSI (back side illumination) sensors more often, LCD screen resolution was improved to 460k (or better) and the long zoom notion was no longer 10x, but 14x to the (at that time) 18x Nikon S9100 as the class leader in the zoom department. GPS units were added as a "feature" and the winners were the Canon SX230 (a verdict I agree with) and the Nikon S9100 which I personally found to be a spectacular disaster of a camera.

It is just a year later, and BSI sensors have become standard fare, claimed to be twice as sensitive as the CCD variety. The 14x zoom of the 2011 Canon SX230, actually a fine camera, now seems anemic compared to the 16x - 20x base capabilities of the current crop. I don't particularly subscribe to putting a price on a memory, but as a bonus 2012 compact long zooms, despite having more expensive sensors, greater usable magnification ranges, better video capability, and more features the price of entry is no more, often less than three years ago.

Some of the common "complaints" about this class of camera are nonsensical. You'll redundantly hear about the lack of an EVF, the electronic viewfinders, RAW capture (meaning s-l-o-w with the intent of post-processing) and some equally nonsensical carping about low-light. The reason to enjoy this class of camera is that it fits in a shirt pocket, weighs one half pound or less, and has long zoom capability. If you don't care about bulk, heft, and zoom range . . . you are looking at the completely wrong platform of camera for your needs. The camera in your pocket captures the event when the others are not with you. A seven ounce camera is more pleasant to carry than a two or four pound hunk of equipment; a 16x zoom offers composition possibilities that no 3.8x, 4x, and 5x zoom can possibly match.

Of more importance is shooting performance, handling, overall speed. No one wants a camera they have to wait for-- by then, the shot you wanted may already have ceased to exist. Image stabilization ability is also a very important component of this class of camera. There are only three basic components: lens, sensor, processor. The software / cpu combination is often designated as an "engine," with a newer bit of programing called a better version of the engine. How they work together, under the most diverse circumstances, is what makes for the satisfying travel compact long zoom. The basics, in 2012, for a camera to qualify as a modern compact travel zoom appears to be 15x zoom or better, a BSI sensor, and at least some HD video capability.

Of the last dozen cameras I've spent quality time with over the last year, few actually qualify as those that I can confidently recommend. The 2011 Canon SX230 is one, as is the current enhanced zoom (20x) 2012 Canon SX260. The 2012 Panasonic ZS-15 is another, perhaps the most well-rounded and versatile value out there to this point. The unevenly performing Fuji F660EXR was a failboat with the horrific video performance sending it soundly to the cannot recommend list.

Now comes a final 2012 model long-zoom compact, the Samsung WB750. It is easy to confuse the WB750 with the Wi-Fi version, the WB750F, but they are different cameras with different sensors: the "F" edition has a 14.2 MB CCD type sensor, not the 12.5 MB BSI CMOS of the WB750. The WB750F also lacks full HD video, stereo audio, the slow-motion video modes, and so forth. It is easy to confuse the two, my feeling is that Samsung could have made the differences far more easy to discern. Yet, the $350 or so W850F model does have a BSI sensor, further adding to the muddle.

Sensor size is perhaps the best barometer of image potential, though the industry seems to go to great lengths to disguise it. More megapixels on a tiny surface means each photosite gets less light, must be smaller, and there is more opportunity for signal cross-talk. Yet, the number of megapixels has long been touted, though more megapixels tends to diminish image quality potential.

The WB750 was actually announced September 1, 2011, to little fanfare. The original press release stated, "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, a global leader in digital media and digital convergence technologies, today announced the launch of the WB750 camera - featuring a proprietary BSI (Back Side Illuminated) CMOS sensor that ensures consistent professional images and video. Featuring a newly-redesigned image sensor, lens and image processor, the WB750 brings to bear a range of new technologies to deliver unprecedented levels of performance and ease-of-use. The WB750 also features an 18x optical zoom with 24x Smart Zoom technology, making it the longest ever zoom in Samsung's compact camera portfolio." Rightly or wrongly, mostly wrongly, we tend to pay more attention to brand names than actual product. It tends to mean that Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic get better coverage whether deserved or not. Such is the blinding power of the mythical world of product branding.

While the specifications of the Samsung WB750 would have been astounding a year prior to its original announcement, most of them in July, 2012, fit the middle of the road. A year ago, the 18x zoom would have been equaled by very few, such as the frustratingly bad Nikon CoolPix S9100 I tried to work with, that sounded like a tractor when I used it, had erratic image stabilization for stills and no effective image stabilization for video. The WB750 has essentially a 24-432mm range, wider than many, has a panoramic feature that Canon still doesn't, and offers smaller image size high-speed video that many lack: 440fps @ 224x160 and 250fps @ 368x272 pixels. In night scene mode, the shutter speed goes all the way down to 16 seconds if you prefer.

For purposes of comparison, I'm pitting the Samsung WB750 primarily against the Panasonic ZS-15, perhaps my favorite travel zoom to date.

Battery life: Panasonic wins, though not by much at 260 shots vs. 225 for the WB750 (CIPA standard). Both have in-camera charging, requiring the purchase of an external charger to avoid taking the camera out of commission by plugging it in.

Lens: f/3.2 - f/5.8, 18x, 24mm-432mm for the Samsung vs. F3.3 - F5.9, 16x, 24mm-384 mm for the ZS-15. Advantage Samsung, for the slightly brighter lens and longer true optical zoom, though neither "advantage" is apparent to me.

Size: At 4.15 in. x 2.34 in x .98 inch thick and a weight of 6.7 oz., the Samsung is notably slimmer than the 6.6 oz. 4.13 x 2.27 x 1.31 inch Panasonic ZS-15. The stated thickness is misleading from both companies, as the cameras are thicker through the lens portion than published. The Samsung is still the thinner camera, if minimally.

LCD: Both have 460K three inch LCD's. They are close, a slight edge to the Panasonic for its "high angle mode."

Price: The Samsung is currently available at $150 - $170 street, clearly less than the $190 - $230 recent pricing of the Panasonic ZS-15. For the record, I actually paid $150 for my WB750 vs. $230 for my ZS-15. This isn't exactly dinner, dancing, and Chilean Sea Bass money difference but still-- the Samsung is currently a better value by a clean forty dollars, if it does what you want it to do.

Video: The Samsung is more fully featured with stereo sound and high-speed capabilities. Also, the full18x true optical zoom is available during video as well. The WB750 allows taking a few *full* resolution stills during video where the Panasonic captures two total in 3.5M (16:9) reduced resolution. The Samsung's fast zoom easily outruns its autofocus ability. However, the Samsung picks up far less camera noise with the "Sound Alive" on and as a result, it has superior audio quality.

Shooting Performance: Start-up times to first shot are both quick, 1.6 seconds for the Panasonic vs. 1.7 seconds for the Samsung. The Panasonic, if anything seems to focus faster but both are reasonably quick. Neither camera is going to keep you waiting; both offer 10fps burst modes if only for a limited number of frames at full resolution: 4 frames for the Panasonic, 8 frames for Samsung at 10fps. Shot to shot times are similar, about one second for the ZS-15, about 1-1/4 seconds for the Samsung. The Samsung gives you a brief "processing" screen more often than the ZS-15 does. The Panasonic is far peppier when using the flash at 2 seconds vs. 3 seconds or so for the Samsung. The slow-charging flash of the Samsung is a negative.

Videography: Travel zooms, as a class, are very poor substitutes for camcorders. The audio invariably picks up some motor noise and due to the pathetically small mics, audio quality is limited with no possibility of using an external mic. Still, some are better than others with a recently tested Fuji F660EXR yielding uniformly tragic results. Yet, the Samsung has the cleanest audio of the long-zoom compacts I've tested this year.

Unlike many travel zooms (Canon SX230) both the Panasonic ZS-15 and the Samsung can take a few stills while you are recording video. In the case of the ZS-15, the value is dubious to non-existent. In an indoor, very low-light test I found that the ZS-15 captured very clear, sharp, ISO 1000 stills. You get but two still captures in video mode, they are 3.5M, and used under the same conditions they were not only low-resolution, but captured at a horribly grainy ISO 3200. Most small travel zooms pick up motor noise when zooming: it is to be expected. The best solution is avoid zooming as much as possible, or displace the audio with music, etc. Samsung at least recognizes this with a "Sound Alive On" mode that is designed to reduce zoom noise. It does work, actually far better than I expected. While the Samsung does have stereo mics, this advantage is primarily a "spec-sheet only" benefit in a compact travel zoom with tiny onboard mics that can offer minimal stereo separation. Nevertheless the Samsung shines brightly in audio quality compared to the Panasonic.

The current notion of wanting, much less needing 1080p capture from a non-dedicated still camera is silly, more marketing than beneficial. Too soon we forget the movies we enjoyed, and still enjoy from the "lousy" DVD format: 29.97 fps, 480 interlaced resolution. Yet, DVD is still the dominate medium in market share. Resolution alone is a very poor indicator of video quality. Consider that even the full HD of 1080 rates only as low resolution in still image terms. The native resolution of the Panasonic ZS-15 sensor is 4000x3000, I suppose we'd call it 3000p if it was video, the native resolution of this Samsung is 4096x3072.

Clearly, the notion of sensor native resolution does not translate into any meaningful measure of video prowess, nor does the resolution of the video mode itself. In a compact long zoom, the best that can be hoped for is in-focus moving images with good color fidelity, the notion of excellent audio quality is a myth. This is why, from a video perspective, there isn't too much to get excited about here, nor could there be. The best video is obtained when not zooming at all and with the use of a tripod for full zoom. Even then, audio quality can only be amateurish. The edge in video goes to the Samsung, as full-resolution images can be taken while in video mode, and the Samsung offers more fun novelty-type modes, including high-speed capture.


The Samsung WB750 comes as an unexpectedly pleasant surprise. Prices vary for all kinds of reasons with digital cameras but I can't call the WB750 at $150 - $170 anything less than a spectacularly good bargain. It joins the Panasonic ZS-15 and the Canon SX260 as the only compact long-zooms I can recommend to anyone seeking this platform of camera.

The Panasonic "Intelligent Zoom" does retain image sharpness better than its competitors when exceeding its true optical limitation; Samsung has a "24x Smart Zoom" that is essentially an in-camera crop. There is a curve of diminishing returns when magnifying images: I'm just not clever enough to be able to tell you what it is. The "long zoom" compact used to be 10x, but I certainly have had several instances where that proved insufficient. Even last year's Canon SX230, a very competent unit, seems underpowered compared to all three of these despite its 14x zoom. Twenty-eight percent more zoom ability in the WB750 vs. the SX230 is substantial but the eleven percent additional of the SX260 vs. the WB750 is far less noticeable. Note the Canon lens is F3.5 wide-angle to F6.8, a bit slower than either the Samsung or the Panasonic, but in real-world terms this isn't a noticeable difference. They are all competitive; where the true optical zoom becomes the most noticeable is during video capture, something that none of the three do superbly well. Those that want the 20x of the Canon and think the GPS is of value could be easily swayed. In my terms, for my uses, the Samsung and the Panasonic are better fits.

The Samsung is a slight winner in pocketability, with a thickness of just under an inch, in at least some areas. Both of the others are about 30% thicker in places: the Samsung can be slipped in where the others cannot.

The display is vital for shot composition. All three have generally good, 460K displays. The Panasonic display is more reflective, yet that is combated by Power LCD" and "High Angle" modes. The Samsung has an auto mode, but gives you three basic choices: normal, dark, and bright. It doesn't sound as sexy or technological as "Power LCD" but it is the same idea. Canon features the "PureColor II G" LCD, which also imposes a bit of needless technobabble. Non are as good as the higher-resolution, 921k screens, as good as the fold out and swivel "articulated" LCDs, or nearly as good as an EVF in bright sunlight. Yet, they are all larger (3 inch) than the standard fare of a couple of years ago and are double the pixels of the screens of a couple of years ago as well. None are anywhere close to perfection in bright, sunny conditions but all are improved and far more helpful when reviewing images prior to transfer to your PC.

If you feel a GPS is invaluable or the 20x optical zoom is vital, then the Canon SX260 will likely be your choice. Neither of these features are particularly important to me, the GPS of precisely zero benefit, so for me . . . the SX260 would be a 3rd place choice, yet it is a very, very good long-zoom compact with no great negatives to stop the purchase excepting price, although by some (Sony) levels, the Canon seems a strong value.

That leaves the ZS-15 and the Samsung and it is a very difficult to find a clear winner. I can't shake the feeling that if this Samsung had "Sony" branded on it, it would have already have been heralded as the marvel of the age and the loudest screaming deal of screaming deals. It is a sleeper in the compact long zoom class, largely ignored compared to competitive models without solid basis that I Have been able to discover.

Yet, the all-round shooting performance of the ZS-15 is faster than the Samsung; the ZS-15 processor is clearly quicker. The Samsung creative modes are surprisingly good, the audio is better, and the full-resolution still ability during video is of clear value. The Samsung rendition of the Panorama mode is excellent; up / down / left / right, just move the camera and the WB750 does the rest. And, you have more smart filters to experiment with as well as high-speed video.

The all-around winner, for my purposes, is the Panasonic ZS-15, with a higher percentage of "keeper" photos than the rest in a variety of conditions. The Samsung WB750 remains a great value, as it is both feature-laden, economical, and takes very good video if you lay off the zoom and the audio is actually very clean. For indoor use, it falls behind both Panasonic and Canon for its turtle-slow to charge up flash, and both weak and unpredictable color saturation and cast. You can get decent indoor pictures with the Samsung, but all too often it is a slow and tedious process.

The Panasonic ZS-15 wins, the Samsung remains a surprisingly good value best suited for outdoor use and also if the audio quality of your video is important to you. The Canon SX260 gets the nod if you want a GPS, is still a very worthy travel companion, but it lacks in the video department, and does not have the manual controls of either of the more economical choices, nor a panorama mode.

In the value department, the WB750 is very hard to fault and the full-resolution during video ability is something most of its competition lacks. Nevertheless, its shooting performance is only average compared to the ZS-15 and SX260: the ZS-15 @ fifty bucks more, the SX260 at about twice the price.

For video ability and 18x zoom value, the Samsung does well. Six-eight months ago, it would have been far more appealing though, as today (12/2012) the ZS-15 is a better still-image camera with prices now running as low as $149, the ZS-15 is tough to beat.

Copyright 2012 by Randy Wakeman and Randy Wakeman Outdoors. All Rights Reserved.
4040 comments| 44 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse| Permalink
What's this?

What are product links?

In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this: [[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)

You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.

Please write at least one word
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.