News - Reader comments

Samsung Galaxy Camera goes on sale in the UK in two days

05 November, 2012 | Read the news | Post your comment
Samsung Galaxy Camera goes on sale in the UK in two days - read the full textThe Samsung Galaxy Camera drew a lot of attention when it was announced though launch date and pricing details were a bit slim. Samsung put out a press release today, saying the camera will be in the UK stores in a couple of days. The Samsung Brand Store will get in on November 7, while other...

 

Sort by:

> In reply to loks @ 2012-11-06 09:42 from t7Xk - click to readYou could use the earphone

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-09 07:46
  • YP1t

> In reply to Lee @ 2012-11-06 15:37 from QItt - click to readYeh there's the wifi option. Turn your packet data off. simples. *meerkat noise*

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-07 12:38
  • 3AxW

Hey, there are enough proof about that. They have both 808 pureview and Galaxy camera. And not all samples of pureview performs better than Galaxy camera. What's your problem. Who's gonna buy a Digital camera with a DSLR price tag? When that camera falls behing Iphone 5 and Pureview. Don't be such samsung fanboyish. You are gonna accept that or not it completely depends on you.

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-07 09:55
  • uNVK

@ guys below,

duh Galaxy Camera is going to win... why is this even a battle..

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-07 07:16
  • j5Jk

> In reply to thephonegeek @ 2012-11-06 17:19 from uNVK - click to readsome nokia fan made few photos around himself and concluded phone is making better photos then normal camera with optical system. thats joke. show some real test from professional. not from kid ;)

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-07 00:23
  • MPvx

Guys, check it out. First 808 pureview vs Galaxy camera battle.
http://unleashthephones.com/20...era-samples/

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 17:19
  • uNVK

Do we know yet if this will be available as a wi-fi only device? I wouldn't use a cellular data connection, and don't want to pay for it. :) Otherwise, sweet little camera!

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 15:37
  • QItt

please compare with pureview .

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 14:43
  • fkeK

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-11-05 21:45 from fmWh - click to readOh and camera features and specs are better on galaxy too. Better zoom, larger screen, bigger internal memory and remote viewfinder that allows any android to control it from a distance.

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 14:12
  • SvCj

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-11-05 20:46 from thpG - click to readThanks again, I might have made things confusing with mentioning the Nokia 808. I wasn't comparing it to this one in particular, I used it as an example for some manufacturer trying to make a new trend, but I got carried with it since it is a fact that the 808 has a much better picture quality than many point & shoot cameras. "I" was expecting samsung to come up with a better solution than Nokia in this device by making it a real camera that can make telecommunications, I was wrong and it's not Samsung's intention as it is clear now.
Now, back to the Galaxy camera (I won't be mentioning the 808 again), when you cnsider it as camera with smart features, I think it does not have the "Samsung WOW!" effect. We had tablets around for a while, but when Samsung came up with the Note 2, it was a "WOW!" because they fined-tuned it to what a real person would want in a device. They didn't come up with new hardware or out of space technology, they used the common technology available to all others and made their product better in terms of every day use. The same story goes for the S3, and it also reaches to the TV Panels, always they come up with these small details that when you combine it together, you realize that Samsung has actually spent some time to make it a personal device for me and you and many others. Now, this one, in the price range it is offered is going to be a "No-Go" for many people around simply because there are many other cameras around (including ones from Samsung, like the NX-1000) that produce pictures miles away better. Since it is going to be treated as a camera, then I assure you no one with be carrying this around all day, you'll grab it when there is an event for it (hiking or going out with friends/family, party...etc) and this is where it gets tricky. Remote outdoor activities like sailing and hiking or camping are usually outside the coverage of any network or you could hardly get a signal, so the data connection will have to wait till you get back to an area with coverage. Other events, well, yes it will have coverage but, how many are willing to pay +$600 to have that option? AND, you are not getting the best picture quality in that price range, without going to other brands, Samsung NX-1000 is actually an impressive model to be honest, specially for the price range. So again, and that's just "me" here, I can not find my usual "WOW" in this one, it is more of "Are you serious?" to me. It is not impressive as a +$600 camera at all, and afterall, it is a camera.

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 13:00
  • HxgV

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-11-05 17:34 from thpG - click to readmy 808 can do all of that, even better than this once again crap.
808 imaging is comparable to low end dslr, some say comparable to d5mark3 though i say this part might be bs.

Any pro can tell u build in optical zoom is as good as digital zoom, thats why they buy dslr with interchangable lens.

As usual, we have tons of trolls who knows nuts but talks bout the skies and clouds, this here is just a wanabe device. The 808 has already ousted some of the low end dslr from their proud sits based on end imaging quality, so maybe u'll wanna explain how a p&s wanabe is better?

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 12:47
  • Ke1t

I really don't think this is going to be big...

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 11:56
  • 2CEQ

at least we can play angry bird with this camera... lol


still pointless gadged for me

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 10:27
  • U}}x

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-11-06 07:35 from 7Ei5 - click to readThe 21x optical zoom makes the difference. try zooming in using digital zoom vs optical and you'll see a huge difference.

Personally dont see the point of this though, as a camera it sounds average, as an android device i doubt itll be comfortable so not really one thing or another tbh

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 10:05
  • SeQT

This is NOT a phone. You can't make conventional calls with it, because it doesn't have GSM radio. Calls can be made via VoIP (Skype etc.), which is what my PC can do also, but I don't intend to call it a phone.

If you want his camera to upload "better quality" pics to social sites, you have no brain. Facebook, Instagram, etc, they all resize your photos no matter what. They are made for regular phonecam pics with overall trashy "quality".

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 09:53
  • SggL

you know what, just imagine how'd you look like if you hold a big and fat 25mm camera against your ear when making calls.youll goin to look like an idioot,.. so this camera is better off bein a camera not a phone. . btw, 808 pureview camera is better than this, and fyi, iphone 5 camera will never be on par with a dslr. .

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 09:42
  • t7Xk

> In reply to photin @ 2012-11-05 20:05 from 85@r - click to read"...iphone 5 is better than DSLRs"
Why on earth did you compare a cam-phone to a professional camera, and claiming iphone is better than a DSLR (since you generalized it, lets just say a 5D or a D800).
If you're telling us that "iphone 5" is better than a dslr because it can do calls and be an expensive paperweight with apps than just shoot photos, maybe you're right, because they are called "camera-phone".

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 08:45
  • vx0n

Well the 808 is a proper smartphone and a better camera than this.. so.. I really don't see the point.

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 07:35
  • 7Ei5

> In reply to Nex @ 2012-11-06 04:37 from KiSe - click to readPlaying games on camera?big camera hump?how about holding the camera in landscape?

Lol...

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 07:11
  • RJiw

> In reply to Anonymous @ 2012-11-06 03:57 from thpG - click to read"Smart point-and-shoot camera" perhaps, not "smart camera" since it doesn't produce any better images than many of the existing cameras. If it claims itself to be a smart camera, I would call it a smartass camera. It's a good device though, but naming it smart camera is just not right.

  • Reply
  • 2012-11-06 04:52
  • KiSe

Note: Sponsored advertising links are in green.