Previous news story    Next news story

Samsung's Android-powered Galaxy Camera: the most connected camera?

By dpreview staff on Aug 29, 2012 at 17:34 GMT

Samsung today launched the first true compact camera/smart device hybrid - the Galaxy Camera, with 3G/4G connectivity as well as Wi-Fi (which sets it apart from Wi-Fi-only competitors like the recently-announced Nikon Coolpix S800c).

Camera manufacturers have been seeing sales of their compact cameras fall for a long time now, challenged by a new generation of camera-equipped smartphones. As the photographic specification of phones get better, there's less need for most casual photographers to carry a dedicated camera, and if you're in the business of selling compact cameras, this is a serious problem. But Samsung believes it has a solution. Take a WB850F camera, and a Galaxy SIII smartphone, and... blend them. 

We've been talking to Samsung representatives for months about the concept of a camera running the Android OS, and the Korean manufacturer's early plans were the subject of more than one confidential briefing during a trip to Seoul earlier this year. Now that the wraps are off, the final specification is more or less in line with what we expected - a versatile, consumer-level camera running 'full strength' Android and equipped with both 3G/4G connectivity in addition to the now-standard (for Samsung) Wi-Fi. A 1.4GHz quad-core processor completes the picture and should provide enough 'grunt' to make everything run nice and smoothly. 

From the front, the Galaxy Camera's photographic lineage is obvious. An optically-stabilized 21X zoom lens (you have the option of controlling this via a conventional zoom rocker switch or via the touchscreen interface) and contoured handgrip denote a 'proper' camera.

The Galaxy Camera is a 16.3MP compact camera with a 4.8in LCD touchscreen running the Android operating system. It runs the latest iteration of Android (4.1 - known as 'Jelly Bean'), and will be available in two versions - a 3G + Wi-Fi model and a 4G + Wi-Fi variant (carrier and regional information TBC). This makes it the first 'connected camera' to offer more than just Wi-Fi connectivity.

Although we understand that the camera does not have cellular voice capabilities, it will be compatible with various VoiP apps, such as Skype, which will enable it to be used for making voice and video calls over 3G/4G or WiFi. Photographic features include a 21X zoom lens, spanning 23-481mm (equivalent) and a built-in 'Photo Wizard' for editing photographs in-camera. 

Months ago, in Seoul, we asked Samsung representatives how they envisaged smartphone/camera convergence: specifically, whether in the long-term the Korean manufacturer intended to expand the photographic capabilities of phones, or build smartphone features into cameras. At the time we received no clear answer. The fact that Samsung is calling this a 'Galaxy' product is interesting, but there's no mistaking that this is an enhanced camera, not the other way round.

Semantics aside, the Galaxy Camera is highly significant. It is the nearest thing we've seen to a true camera/phone hybrid, and as well as solid photographic specifications it contains a serious amount of DNA from Samsung's well-established line of smartphones. The key is the addition of a powerful processor, and 3G/4G connectivity. This means that just like a smartphone, the Galaxy Camera can connect to the web anywhere that there's mobile coverage, and should have enough power to run apps and browse the web without feeling sluggish. An 'Auto Cloud Backup' feature automatically saves images to Samsung's AllShare cloud storage service the moment they're taken - another benefit of 'always on' connectivity.

From the back, however, the Galaxy's massive display and three 'soft' buttons are classic Android OS. Gone are the usual buttons and dials that we'd expect on the rear of a Samsung compact camera.

Interestingly though, although the screen size is similar, the display on the back of the Galaxy Camera is an LCD unit, not the gorgeous AMOLED used in the Galaxy SIII. 

Likewise, the potential to send images captured with the Galaxy by email, or upload them directly to social network sites from pretty much anywhere is very appealing, and as Samsung knows very well, for a huge number of photographers working with mobile devices, this is already second nature. What these photographers aren't used to of course, is the sort of advanced photographic feature set that the Galaxy camera offers. In theory, this makes the Galaxy Camera an ideal first point-and-shoot for someone who's used to taking pictures on their phone, and wants to go further with photography. 

Of course, because the camera runs the open-source Android operating system this means that the camera's feature set can be expanded in the same way as any modern Android-based smartphone, via a huge number of third-party applications. We have some worries about battery life though - the Galaxy Camera's battery has roughly 50% greater capacity as the battery used in the WB850F, but around 25% less than the battery used in the Galaxy SIII, which isn't known for its stamina. Another big question mark - for now - is price. A significant amount of processing power is required to run a full smartphone OS - much more than would be necessary for a conventional compact camera - and it doesn't come cheap. At the time of writing, Samsung's pricing model, which may include carrier subsidies, is unknown. 

When we spoke to Sunhong Lim - VP Sales & Marketing in Samsung's Digital Imaging division back in March, he predicted that 'once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless'. The Galaxy Camera is Samsung's surest step yet in this direction.

Related articles:

6
I own it
5
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums
6
I own it
8
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 290
123
techmine
By techmine (Aug 30, 2012)

Sorry Samsung get ready to be sued by Apple because the color of the camera is white and the font of the brand name closely resembles that of Apple :-) sorry to bring it up but I am tired of listening that Samsung is a big copy cat.

Nice looking camera/device.

14 upvotes
Toh
By Toh (Aug 30, 2012)

It was a good thing that iPhone does not use removable battery and storage cards. Otherwise all the cameras would be banned from being sold in the US!

5 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Aug 30, 2012)

derp watch apple try to start patent wars with camera companies now. "Hey, you can't have a rectangular touchscreen!"

Although honestly Android is a little too similar to iOS. Obviously there are many differences, but it's clear where the inspiration comes from. Microsoft at least did something distinctly original.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Aug 30, 2012)

Don't confuse the interface with the underlying OS. All computer OS's with GUIs have a lot of similarities. They all do the same thing - it's inevitable because they are trying to perform similar functions. But Android is an open platform and you can build your own interface.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
waitformee
By waitformee (Aug 30, 2012)

This is the end.

This is a very good attempt. If you see it as a camera (with a phone feature) then dslr is better but if you see it as a phone (with a camera feature) then it may just be the best.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Sep 3, 2012)

Except it is not a phone, genius.

0 upvotes
Gkpm
By Gkpm (Aug 30, 2012)

Stupidest idea I've heard all year. We carry phones already, just need cameras that communicate with them.

Absolutely no need for cameras to become phones, just more time wasted with an extra platform to setup, keeping up to date and worry about security.

3 upvotes
Charlie Jin
By Charlie Jin (Aug 30, 2012)

You must be over 70 years old...
The rest of us need this camera. Absolutely.
I am sure that the next version of Sony RX100 will
come with Android like this Samsung.

You see, the key concept is connectivity with "social",
and a lot of editing applications on Android,
with "good" quality image capture which cannot be done
using just a cell phone camera.

1 upvote
garyknrd
By garyknrd (Aug 30, 2012)

You know I am 60 and just getting into this kind of stuff. I think it is kinda cool. I love the idea. Don't think it is quite there yet, but in 5 years I think this and more will be the norm.
I just got the Nexus 7 and really like it. My first tablet. And I love Jellybean OS.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Aug 30, 2012)

@Gkmp

Your premise would work fine for larger cameras, but for many a single device that they can have with them all the time is also useful.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah right, because your dSLR can upload the images to a cloud and backup everything instantly..

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Aug 30, 2012)

Rooru, I think it will be a while before I will be backing up RAW files to the cloud. And if I did have the bandwidth, and a phone, why would I need Android running on my SLR when I can simply connect to the phone?

1 upvote
JojieRT
By JojieRT (Aug 30, 2012)

57, that's like saying why one would need a computer if they have a wireless router? hehe

0 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Aug 29, 2012)

This camera is what will kill the phone. Yes I said phone.

People will eventually realize that there's no need to pay for voice minutes when Internet already allows voice too, via VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) apps like Skype, not to mention video chat.

Yes I know tablets already do that, but they are too large to carry around. It's also less weird to talk to the cameraphone than to a tablet.

Wireless carriers usually don't like selling a VoIP cellphone, because they want to charge people twice, once for voice and another for internet. But adding a camera to the device makes a perfect excuse for not requiring monthly voice charge. Eventually this will catch on and becomes the cheapest way to own a Galaxy SIII phone, whether the camera functionality is needed or not.

5 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (Aug 29, 2012)

True. Just install service like WhatsApp or Viber or even Skype and why should you bother with expensive pay-by-minute calls...

0 upvotes
JojieRT
By JojieRT (Aug 30, 2012)

which carrier has a data-only plan and which has cheaper data than voice?

0 upvotes
svuori
By svuori (Aug 30, 2012)

Well, in Finland for 5€ ($6.3) / month you get unlimited amount of data. For unlimited speed you have to pay around 14€ (~$17).

I don't know about the other corners of the world but even the higher price would buy me only around 200 minutes of normal calls. So for 14€/mo I get something like 8/2M broadband for my phone (that's in real usage, don't remember what they promise), unlimited surfing/voip+video calls.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Aug 30, 2012)

All major carriers have a data-only plan, usually called "tablet plan", "laptop plan", or "internet devices plan". For example, AT&T has
$15/mo plan for 250MB
$30/mo for 3GB
$50/mo for 5GB
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/data-plans.html#fbid=fIilHj4aiRL

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 29, 2012)

DPR, please confirm whether the thing has mic/speakers or not.

At least in the pictures I do not see mic.

OK, but that's not important. My main question: can an app written for the camera take shot as a RAW image?

1 upvote
b534202
By b534202 (Aug 29, 2012)

It can do video so unless they have an inept marketing department, it should have a mic ...

0 upvotes
JojieRT
By JojieRT (Aug 30, 2012)

marketing can sell anything. it's the engineers that have to deliver.

0 upvotes
oohaah
By oohaah (Aug 30, 2012)

Not always. Look at Nokia/AMD's marketing department.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 29, 2012)

I would have produced the first of these new hybrid cameras on one of the folded optic platforms. Image quality and zoom range might not have been as good, but everything would be flat like today's smart phones. Easier to carry in a pocket, jacket, etc.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Aug 29, 2012)

Seems that it is slimmer than the WB850F, amazing
BTW, why are the PR pics overexposed and putting a white camera in a white background doesn't help either.

1 upvote
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 29, 2012)

Hehe. +1 to Samsung.

This is an interesting concept. I'd love to see what apps would materialize for it. If they would also provide the RAW support, it might get even more interesting.

The numerous people asking about voice support. Had the camera also included voice, I think it would only add costs and potentially limit markets: due to regulations and whatnot applicable to the phones.

If the concept would pay off, I'm pretty sure we would see more of the Android/etc on cameras.

P.S. I would have preferred Sammy to put the Bada OS instead of the Android - for the aforementioned better battery life. But I guess for a proof-of-concept camera they wanted wider appeal to the app developers.

1 upvote
Michael Barkowski
By Michael Barkowski (Aug 29, 2012)

The best camera is the camera that you use.

These online features will get people to use their cameras more. It's a good thing!

7 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Aug 29, 2012)

well in other words it is indeed a smartphone with better optics and sensor but with disabled cellular voice. But why? If it already have 3G why not keep the voice ability?

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Aug 29, 2012)

Because it does not need a Smartphone contract here in the US at Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc. It should be like my new 4G LTE Verizon iPad with 5mp camera & 1080p video were you could just sign up for one month of 4G LTE for as little as $20 ( 1GB). It might even be able to work as a mobile hotspot for a laptop like my MacBook Air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlL4GGwCQWw

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
tojkr
By tojkr (Aug 29, 2012)

so there is no real flash?

1 upvote
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Aug 29, 2012)

It has a pull-up flash. See picture here:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/29/samsung-ek-gc100-galaxy-camera-hands-on/

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Aug 30, 2012)

No, Flash on Android has been discontinued by Adobe.

(hehehe)

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Aug 29, 2012)

It would be kind of cool for some of my "always connected" friends who like telling me what they had for lunch, but the thing is you STILL need a phone.

Would be quite cool I think to have an integrated device. One less thing to carry around. It's not huge after all.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 29, 2012)

A phone maybe?

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes, with this camera. If you are content with an iPhone camera, good for you. Some people would probably prefer this as long as it made calls.

0 upvotes
Roger Knight
By Roger Knight (Aug 29, 2012)

Anyone who has a NOKIA Belle smartphone with it's superb new smooth Symbian operating system will appreciate that this SAMSUNG is still many, many years behind the Nokia 808 PureView in every respect photographically and Belle is right up there with both iOS and Android in the operating system stakes. So, because I already have Nokias superb E7-00 Belle I shall wait for the Nokia windows Phone version of PureView because the camera is so damned good and usefull especially for back up travel use.

5 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (Aug 29, 2012)

You know that superb new smooth Symbian operating system is done for? Dead. Kaput. No more.

12 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 29, 2012)

> this SAMSUNG is still many, many years behind the Nokia 808 PureView

Let's wait and see for the reviews?

Also. If e.g. SilkyPix or Adobe would develop a RAW editor for the camera, the winner might not be as obvious as you imply.

(In fact, Googling reveals that Android already has at least one RAW editor app - RawDroid.)

1 upvote
Roger Knight
By Roger Knight (Aug 29, 2012)

I actually don't get this Wi-Fi to the cloud stuff because I do not feel that I have sufficient financial and security control over it. I have better things to do than play with Passwords during my fun times so I am quite content to wait until I get home to drop my files onto my computer. So. because this will not make or receive calls wherever I am I don't need the compromises this camera with a PDA comes with and besides the sensor is way too tiny to be useful just like most point and shoots.
If I wanted to, I could use Wi-Fi to send photos to the cloud with a NOKIA 808 PureView. I can already do it on my NOKIA E7 which runs Belle superbly, I can also send photos by Wi-Fi or 3G to my computer also already anyway. So what is the big deal about an Android PDA with a tiny sensor that you can't even make calls on.
So actually this SAMUNG is way behind the times compared with the best from NOKIA which will only get better with the Windows Phone 8 operating system version.

2 upvotes
Ryan_Valiente
By Ryan_Valiente (Aug 30, 2012)

Oh hey guys!, let's talk about the camera that we haven't used yet or seen sample photos of it!

1 upvote
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Aug 30, 2012)

Camera A must be superior to camera B - I own camera A!

0 upvotes
C0NAN
By C0NAN (Aug 30, 2012)

Symbian is DEAD get a life!

0 upvotes
David Zamora
By David Zamora (Aug 30, 2012)

@ Roger - for some of us who are a little older, I can see the need for security, but to be honest, the younger generation live in a technology and social media culture now. The need for security isn't as precious, as they are used to sharing their lives openly on the internet. You can see this on Twitter and Facebook now...its a new culture where people aren't afraid of sharing even the most intimate things with the world. A new age, I'd say...

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Aug 29, 2012)

Can you play Angry Birds on it? that is the only thing this camera is good for

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
JojieRT
By JojieRT (Aug 30, 2012)

why do you say this thing is only good for angry birds when you don't know if it runs angry birds? it can take pictures, do you think it's good for taking pictures maybe?

0 upvotes
halc
By halc (Aug 29, 2012)

Many people just don't get this.

Especially die-hard photographers.

Online features, instant youtube/vimee/fb etc sharing are already reality on the camera phones.

It's just a matter of time that cameras that already had wifi, got some of the same features.

Of course the photographers will not (for the most part) find these useful.

But bloggers, amateurs and special usage pros will find it very useful.

Just because you don't have use for it, doesn't mean others don't.

6 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Aug 29, 2012)

Quite right. We are all different, but for some reason some people think we should all be the same....

6 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Aug 29, 2012)

I agree with you 100% 57even

0 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (Aug 29, 2012)

Yeah, the poor Youtube servers. With the growing number of every crap uploaded in Full HD instantly it is only a question of time when they will crash. Or image hosting sites. This people can´t even be called "amateurs", they are just social networking victims who think they should share everything of their lifes with the world, no matter if taking a dump, going to the doctor or shopping.

6 upvotes
McCool69
By McCool69 (Aug 29, 2012)

@ halc:

I totally agree - you nailed the exact market this is going for.

I think it is an excellent device. Just look at all the strange lenslike-stuff people buy to clip on to their iPhone just to get more range or a different angle of view.

And adding 3G/4G support so you can upload wherever you have cell phone coverage is pure genius. People love taking photos with their phone and share it right away - and even the simplest of point and shoot cameras easily surpass the quality of the best phone cameras today.

Priced right this will sell like hot cakes. And what's even more important is to a large extent the first step of what is the logical progression of cameras - both snapshot, semi-pro and pro cameras will be considered lacklustre in just a few years if they don't have some of the key features this camera has.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 29, 2012)

«Of course the photographers will not (for the most part) find these useful.» Of course. Because their prime concern is image quality, not being able to share images instantly on Facebook or shooting bullying videos and uploading them to YouTube.
Now if you could be a bit more specific about those «special usage pros» that need this camera... Pros scorn mirrorless cameras, let alone this fad gadget!
(P. S. I'm not a pro...)

1 upvote
Suave
By Suave (Aug 30, 2012)

@ManuelVilardeMacedo

If you're not a pro why do you speak on their behalf?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 30, 2012)

Don't understand the purpose of your question: am I obliged to curse professional photographers because I'm not one of them?
I speak on their behalf because I happen to know some pros whom I'm fond of and I respect their job. They know more than me about photography and infinitely more than the fashion slaves who buy products like this idiocy in the shape of a camera.
Dig it now?

0 upvotes
David Zamora
By David Zamora (Aug 30, 2012)

I posted this above, but thought it would also be relevant here. Many of us older photographers have different ideas of how photography is shared, while the younger generation of photographers live in a technology and social media culture now. They wan't to be able to share their travels, daily life, etc. on the fly, without having to worry about a lengthy work flow process of moving the images from SD card > PC/MAC > editing > social media site. They are used to the conveniences that smart phones give them...and smart phones are very powerful tools! Also, the need for security isn't as precious any longer, as the new gen of photogs are used to sharing their lives openly on the internet. You can see this on Twitter and Facebook now...its a new culture where people aren't afraid of sharing even the most intimate things with the world. A new age, I'd say...

0 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (Aug 29, 2012)

I like where things are heading. I wonder how long it will take Canon and Nikon to see the light.

2 upvotes
rondhamalam
By rondhamalam (Aug 29, 2012)

DESIGN for HUMAN

1 upvote
godzen
By godzen (Aug 29, 2012)

This is what happen when samsung tries to innovate. My goodness. Go back and copy what apple and motorolla does but only this time, do it more Subtlely.

0 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (Aug 29, 2012)

If Apple made this, fanboys would be drooilng all over the carpet.

9 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Aug 29, 2012)

So when are Nikon going to sue Samsung?

5 upvotes
Dylthedog
By Dylthedog (Aug 29, 2012)

Well it is silver, expect an Apple law suit any time soon :)

6 upvotes
Gerard Hoffnung
By Gerard Hoffnung (Aug 29, 2012)

I notice it has rounded corners. Didn't Apple patent rounded corners :)

13 upvotes
vladimir vanek
By vladimir vanek (Aug 29, 2012)

What the... is this?? :D I don't need any apps or whatever in a CAMERA! I only need 3 functions, M, Tv and Av... :)

2 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (Aug 29, 2012)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't need no stinking video in my camera, I don't need no stinking autocus in my camera, I don't need no stinking exposure metering in my camera, I don't need no stinking camera = this line of reasoning goes all the way to the guy with a box of paints.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Aug 29, 2012)

I really really dont think I need an autocus in my camera, but it would come in handy in the back window of my car....

0 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (Aug 29, 2012)

And ISO! :D
Yes, you´re right. I don´t need apps or any other gimmicks in a camera. All this will quickly eat the battery. Despite Android and all the connectivity stuff this is just an ordinary superzoom with an oversized display.

1 upvote
Lupti
By Lupti (Aug 29, 2012)

"this line of reasoning goes all the way to the guy with a box of paints."

Not really! There is a huge difference between features that are undoubtly useful for photography and questionable gimmicks like wifi, 3G, Android and so on. It´s wrong to condemn useful(!) new features, but also wrong to praise every "innovation" just for the sake of it.

3 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 29, 2012)

No, it was working pros that always said we don't need such and such (auto exposure, auto focus, etc.) and yet were the first adapters. Maybe, things have changed in the sense that consumers always benefited from the latest and greatest developed for working pros (motor drives, lenses, films, then sernsors). Now, consumers seem to be driving developments.

1 upvote
caterpillar
By caterpillar (Aug 30, 2012)

Rupti,

You are going to regret those thing you said in a year to 2 years from now. Wifi is not a gimmick. Anybody who has tried to transfer files or tried to print and be bound by wires will tell you otherwise.

As for Android, I am not sure if that will be OS of choice. But all these hacking shows you that there is a need to have users activate or add features that were not there. If Android will be that OS to make it easier and standard well that is well and good.

Many cannot see the advantages of these 2 techs because there is no precedent. But the success of Android is partly to the ability to customize a smarphone or tablet. If you can do the same with the camera then we will enter a new phase of photo-video that is unheard of.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Aug 29, 2012)

Why the ... did Samsung leave the phone function out of this? What does this add to the equation when you can't make calls with it? Nothing really. You still have to carry a phone. This is Bulls.

I will rather carry a Nokia 808 in my pocket, since it is a completely different animal and can deliver all sorts of handy stuff, and brilliant images, in one relatively compact package.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (Aug 29, 2012)

SkypeOut/any SiPGate works as it has 3g/4g - not what I'd call an ideal solution, but with an unlimited data plan it should be workable.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 29, 2012)

@chris, you miss the "little" detail: the camera has no mic and no speaker.

0 upvotes
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (Aug 30, 2012)

@ThePhillips. You missed the 'little' sentence in the announcement that reads "Although we understand that the camera does not have cellular voice capabilities, it will be compatible with various VoiP apps, such as Skype, which will enable it to be used for making voice and video calls over 3G/4G or WiFi." - which suggests it has a speaker and mic. It doesn't have cellular voice capabilities which just means it doesn't to TDMx audio (though why not mystifies me)

Also, if it was absent a mic and speaker, it couldn't run Android 3.0 or higher - as a mic and speaker are in the minimum mandatory hardware requirements list to be allowed to use the Android trademark.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
auctionman
By auctionman (Aug 29, 2012)

Maybe they should check to see if Apple has a patent on it 1st...............

0 upvotes
tecnoworld
By tecnoworld (Aug 29, 2012)

if only they could apply this concept to a nx camera...

that would be great, since apps could be developed to support focus peaking, custom shutter speeds, and much more.

unfortunately this is just a toy camera for my tastes, given the specs and the sensor size.

0 upvotes
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Aug 29, 2012)

Needs a much bigger sensor, less zoom.
The problem is, Samsung asks clueless people what they want during market research, and they all want lots of zoom and a trillion megapixels, but they don't care how big the sensor is. They really should rather do their market research in DPR comments.

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Aug 29, 2012)

They're in the selling products business, not the making nice products business. They're not generally the same things.

5 upvotes
Dylthedog
By Dylthedog (Aug 29, 2012)

Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and given their aspirations they will get better at both.

This camera is definitely built for a specific customer though and I suspect Samaung will hit the market they aimed for.

1 upvote
Valentin Hertz
By Valentin Hertz (Aug 29, 2012)

In a couple of years a US court will ban these devices because Samsung stole these patents and original ideas from Apple....LOL
I like both but one of these days someone will kill Apple and that will be teh begining of the end for Apple, nothing is forever.

4 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2012)

The first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_W880

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Aug 29, 2012)

First to receive a worldwide release.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Aug 29, 2012)

Hey DPreview, how about taking the word "Phone" out of the headline, since its not? Samsung's release doesn't call it a phone. Since it can't make calls, I think that's a good call...

8 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (Aug 29, 2012)

No phone, no phone/camera hybrid I would say.
I would be interested if it had phone features too (calling, SMS).

2 upvotes
TOM SKY
By TOM SKY (Aug 29, 2012)

time for moronless camera not another phonodroidiot

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Aug 29, 2012)

Funny, it doesn't look look like the iPhone or iPad.

I can always wait to get to a hotspot to make a call: "Look, Ma, no phone charges." Yes, I never use(d) 3G with my smartphone or a laptop.

Don't be surprised the (super)Amoled isn't there. Amoled is supersaturated and not just right for serious photos. Of course, I said I didn't like it with the high end Olys. But amoled is a real eye catcher for high contrast (message) info and games.

IPS is here for hi-Q pictures and at crowd pleasing price. Dpr is delinquent in not commenting on this technology. In fact, it is kinda silly to compare studio shots on washed out tilt color screens.

0 upvotes
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 29, 2012)

"Amoled is supersaturated and not just right for serious photos."
It's not the fault of display device if it's driven with improperly processed input signal.

Anyway why should that even bother when these consumer compact's often apply Disneyland-processing to pictures...

0 upvotes
Puddleglum
By Puddleglum (Aug 29, 2012)

It's neither a camera phone nor a phone camera, because IT DOESN'T MAKE PHONE CALLS. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

4 upvotes
Jman13
By Jman13 (Aug 29, 2012)

Where do you put your thumb?

3 upvotes
unotisto
By unotisto (Aug 29, 2012)

I would imagine that this was designed by the phone folks...

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 29, 2012)

...Which still doesn't justify the handgrip. Having it without a thumbrest is dumb.

0 upvotes
Michael Barkowski
By Michael Barkowski (Aug 29, 2012)

I am so tempted to make a smart reply to this, but I won't.

4 upvotes
TOM SKY
By TOM SKY (Aug 29, 2012)

Good try to steer up the soup of good tries by others far from decent photographic tool stick with your iphone for now

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 29, 2012)

"Interestingly though, although the screen size is similar, the display on the back of the Galaxy Camera is an LCD unit, not the gorgeous AMOLED used in the Galaxy SIII. "

LCDs are usually able to produce higher maximum brightness, which is important when using outdoors without a VF.

1 upvote
Mattoid
By Mattoid (Aug 29, 2012)

So its not a phone. You got my hopes up.

0 upvotes
b534202
By b534202 (Aug 29, 2012)

With a data plan - you can text and skype ... good enough.

0 upvotes
Michael Barkowski
By Michael Barkowski (Aug 29, 2012)

b534202: texting usually means receiving SMS messages, which requires a phone number... so how would you text with this?

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 29, 2012)

@Michael: Skype.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Aug 29, 2012)

Get me this camera with project glass specs for a viewfinder and I'm game.

https://plus.google.com/+projectglass/posts

0 upvotes
Gkpm
By Gkpm (Aug 29, 2012)

You know Project Glass only projects to the periphery of vision right?

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Aug 29, 2012)

it's still beta too, duh! Let me dream please, maybe some tech heads will pick it up :p.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Aug 29, 2012)

Whether its stinks or not, is about the quality; in the total combination.

At issue is the "good enough" idea; but that is an aberration of anti-competitive price tiers, and where the makers, do not wish to make affordable combos, with balance qualities, and so do not.

However, this is the first of an era. The "good enough", non photo educated masses *will* noticed a total, balanced device, when they look at the pictures, consider the total user experience(like various speeds), and how many keepers they get; along with the phone (etc...) qualities, that it combines.

A camera is about the lens (1st), stupid. A quality, and flexible, glass system is going to take-up, some of the space, or it is full of limits. Next up is the largest sensor you can use, for the desired size, and wide angle (to tele), plus every working trick in the book, to effect better IQ.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Aug 29, 2012)

The open thing (firmware/OS/Apps) is a huge plus. What we really need, is an open, high bandwidth, wireless Internet connected network. Not the toll road schemes, that we have today. *You* are the Internet. Not the ISP's, and cell carrier. We need to act like it.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Aug 29, 2012)

i want a phone that can keep my coffee warm or microwave my lunch. yes, samsung you can do it!

i also want the walkie-talkie feature back too...it's @#$#@ing stupid to make a phone call while my wife is just a few aisles away in the supermarket...

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Aug 29, 2012)

Well well, the DP readers don't like it. I never would have thought that could happen with something new....

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 29, 2012)

What did you expect? It's a lowly compact superzoom in there - IQ-wise, nothing comparable to the RX100 or the Nokia 808. And the thing doesn't have voice capabilities - that is, it can't be used as a true phone.

If and when the RX100 is built inside a real, high-end Android phone or phablet (phone tablet), I think the majority of the DPR readers will want to purchase it.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Aug 29, 2012)

You kids get off my lawn!

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 29, 2012)

Honestly, people, last thing I want is to get a call when I'm trying to compose a shot.

0 upvotes
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Aug 29, 2012)

Would've been nice if it had less zoom and a larger sensor.
Guess I'll have to wait for Sony to bring out an Android version of the RX100.

2 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Aug 29, 2012)

I don't even know why people still take pictures, there sould be an app for that

4 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 29, 2012)

Promising, BUT...

- they could have put in voice capabilities in there to provide a TRUE phone + camera combo. I love convergence. For the time being, I think I'll stick with either the Nokia 808 or the next Nokia WP8 models, assuming they do have a comparable camera - or, for that matter, the iPhone 5, assuming the latter has a decent camera.

- at least a front camera could have been added.

- hopefully the LCD is of good quality (read: it's IPS). LCD's (at least the ones used by other Andoid manufacturers: HTC, LG etc.) do have advantages over the PenTile screens used by Sammy: true HD resolution. When paired with IPS technology, they can be a better choice than AMOLED.

What I really would go for is a Sony RX100 with a true high-end Android phone; say, the Samsung Note (with the Wacom pen support, of course) with true HD resolution (no PenTile joke, please!) and the goodies of Android and Symbian (e.g., call recording).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
caterpillar
By caterpillar (Aug 29, 2012)

Interesting.

But somewhere in the hoopla of the smartcamera, we lost and forgot the features of the camera! What's the sensor size? ISO range? Does it have PASM? Max-min shutter speed? Does it do burst mode? Does it have auto-ISO? Is it configuratble? It does video but what framerate? Does it have stabilzation? Etc. etc.

This may not be a good start. In any case, I'll wait for version 2. Interesting as this one may be, there will be many things forgotten and not done right in the first outing. The lack of a 2nd camera or a tilt screen alone will make skyping hard to imagine!

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 29, 2012)

Don't expect much - it's a WB850 in there. However, it's still much better than 99,9999% of camera phones out there (except for the Nokia 808).

0 upvotes
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 29, 2012)

Don't worry, they'll offer enough fashion applets, automatic quality degradation Instagrams etc. to make people forget hardware/physical deficiencies.

When that's achieved same marketroids will next dumb down also higher end cameras to same level of smallest denominator.

0 upvotes
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Aug 29, 2012)

"...a non-connected device will be meaningless."

Unless the Cylons attack. Then you'll wish that phone had a cord and your camera used film, won't you?

2 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Aug 29, 2012)

"...a non-connected device will be meaningless."
Haha! isnt this a bit harsh?
Damn they always come up with these sweeping all or nothing statements!

3 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Aug 29, 2012)

Phamera or camerone???

5 upvotes
jkrumm
By jkrumm (Aug 29, 2012)

Looks appealing, but I agree that battery life would be a concern. Battery life for my daughter's HTC with Android is about a day. Anyway, would rather just have wireless with Android like the new Nikon, and keep my dumbphone. I'd really like an Lx7 class camera running Android, decent battery life, with wi-fi but no phone service.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Aug 29, 2012)

Any choice for a 7" or 10" screen?

1 upvote
AZBlue
By AZBlue (Aug 29, 2012)

Samsung is good at two things: 1) stealing, and 2) throwing lots of darts hoping one of them sticks. This company can't think its way out of a cardboard box. I will never buy anything they make. Con artists.

4 upvotes
edm78
By edm78 (Aug 29, 2012)

I am guessing you own stock in Apple. LOL

10 upvotes
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Aug 29, 2012)

this all apple vs samsung is a scam..its all about economic war..but this will backfire on apple....

9 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 29, 2012)

"Samsung is good at two things: 1) stealing"

Well, actually, this camera isn't stolen. I really wish Apple came up with an RX100 (or something comparable) + iPhone combo.

0 upvotes
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Aug 29, 2012)

6/10 average troll

5 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Aug 29, 2012)

:2) throwing lots of darts hoping one of them sticks.: Didn't Nikon do something like that with all its new P&S models: one miniature; one outrageous zoom ratio; one with connectivity; etc.

0 upvotes
Esa Tuunanen
By Esa Tuunanen (Aug 29, 2012)

If there's someone who is good at claiming innovations of others as theirs it's Apple!

2 upvotes
Al
By Al (Aug 29, 2012)

**** Apple. All they ever did was steal ideas, wrap them in pretty packages, print an Apple on them and sell them to morons for three times what they were worth. Proprietary, locked up, over priced, gee whiz icrap.

7 upvotes
Valentin Hertz
By Valentin Hertz (Aug 29, 2012)

Al I couldn't have said it better! But afterwards what matters is what people buy and vote and most of teh time that has nothing to do with inteligence.

1 upvote
Prime_Lens
By Prime_Lens (Aug 29, 2012)

/Face palm

1) This is the 1st of its kind. Enough said.

2) Samsung is a massive company that is broken down into many branches and sub-branches of tech. Matter of fact, there aren't many(if not zero) companies that can rival what is Samsung is doing.
They are well aware of the possibility of failure, but they are bold enough to do it and push the limit anyway.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (Aug 29, 2012)

Fanbiy detected.

0 upvotes
edm78
By edm78 (Aug 29, 2012)

Let the hate begin... small sensor; crap. No viewfiender;crap. No dials;crap. Too much zoom;crap. To little zoom;crap. Too big...too small...lol

4 upvotes
shademaster
By shademaster (Aug 29, 2012)

touch-to-focus??? if so, is it optional??? touch screen is capacitive or pressure-based like some other cameras?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 290
123