#1 very expensive
#2 ugly design
#3 limited software updates
#5 lots of bugs
#6 low DxOMark
Whackcar, 22 Apr 2020I think that's a fair score. It's sensor has potential to take great photos, but the poor Auto... moreAre you freaking kidding???poor choice for phoyography??..this camera setup is better thn the s10 +and the s10+ was 1st or 2nd during in dxo tests
Without any intention to defend Samsungs 108 sensor cause no one ever expected it to perform better than S20 sensor that sensor was Samsung's marketing tool to command higher price and let everyone know there is still some innovation going on.
DxO in the same way is the marketing tool first and foremost, it's just a set of camera tests and nothing more, shallow set of tests if you ask me. They sell those sets to manufacturers who want it in order to tweak their camera to score better, those who have bought the tests have their phones show up in testing at the very moment of their debut. It doesn't even cover the whole spectrum of camera abilities in the first place, instead it focuses on trending camera modes/gimmicks such as Night Mode but it never covers shooting of moving objects to tap into motion blur and how good and fast is AF. They never tap into burst shooting either. They never bother to test super slow motion video, HDR video and many other features that some cameras can or cannot do. And that's exactly why they are not doing it because most of the cameras cannot record HDR video so they will have to deduct the score.
They also use wrong terminology which is a cardinal sin for someone who claims to have photography benchmarks. They refer to video with different exposure stacking as HDR video which is not true at all. They refer to same different exposure stacking as dynamic range which is not true either.
I read DxOMark's assessment carefully.
Actually, the camera performance is good overall, but remember that you are paying $1400 for an Android and you've expected it to be very special. 100x zoom is a gimmick when the Mi Note 10 Pro does at 50x zoom. And images above 50x zoom (when I tried a unit in a phone store before quarantine) are blurred already. AF issues (which I didn't really spot) are acceptable initially but it's still not fixed yet-which makes even an iPhone 11 Pro shine in this respect.
And guess how $1400 gets you lowest-of-the-line chipset (Exynos) which has SD855+ levels of performance (Notebookcheck) but has very poor thermal throttling with bad battery life. My S10 Exynos already has rubbish battery life and the display is fixed at 60Hz. Gaming is a no-go. Don't expect the S20 to run at maximum details (at say fixed 60fps) in games. I will provide examples if anyone requests.
Overall it should have been a great phone if it costed 20% less and no mandatory 5G (the latter is just sub-6Ghz) in Europe/US. Don't have the confidence to buy it with junk resale value. Consider Mi 10 Pro instead.
It is a shame for a flagship (S20 Ultra) with its hefty price to get these kinds of standings. Not to mention for those of us who did not get the SD 865, and got the underdog Exynos 990 with slower speed and overheating on the top of the autofocusing problem. I feel so cheated by Samsung. Samsung should upgrade us free to Note 20 otherwise I am done with Samsung, and as I know many others who got the Exynos 990 Ultra are thinking the same. Will see what will happen. As a loyal customer to Samsung since Galaxy S3, it is the last chance for Samsung to keep us close to its brand. Xiaomi and Oppo are the brands I am considering for my next upgrade.
Oops.... Price no longer justified
Nick Tagataka, 22 Apr 2020The camera software for testing will be given to the consumers afterwards and it always has be... moreHere's a interesting question, Nick. Why should PAYING consumers have to wait for a updated camera software deployment, a $1200 - $1500 device, when the reviewers have had said device for weeks before it's released locally/globally and they are only supplied with a "loaner?"
I think that's a fair score. It's sensor has potential to take great photos, but the poor Auto-Focus & the flawed image processing algorithm make it a poor choice for anyone interested in smartphone photography.
At $1400, it's just not a recommendable purchase. You can get better cameraphones for cheaper.
Looks like Samsung didn't pay them enough :D
NotAnOpinion, 22 Apr 2020You mean the "special camera software" that's supposedly be only granted access to it is DxO, ... moreThe camera software for testing will be given to the consumers afterwards and it always has been the case, because why wouldn't they?
Nearly everyone like chips,but Samsung seem to think they are the best at every thing,and the EXynos chips are going to be on peoples minds when they want to buy there next phone,as the S20 models with Exynos are struggling really bad,but will Samsung come forward an admit this No they will not,why should a phone struggle at first and then with updates makes it worse,as rubbish battery life and green screens will not be good for Samsung
KnightX, 22 Apr 2020If you check all the images you will se it is no match against the class of Huawei or Find X2 ... moreYou mean the "special camera software" that's supposedly be only granted access to it is DxO, no consumers?
KnightX, 22 Apr 2020If you check all the images you will se it is no match against the class of Huawei or Find X2 ... moreAs long as you can't use YouTube, PlayStore or root the phone to obtain administrator privileges, I don't care if Whoawho has Hubble quality on their cameras. No thanks! Keep your garbage!
Only Samsung or Sony for me. Nothing else.
Firstly, it is in 5th position.
And to be honest, I do not understand why people take DxoMark so seriously. The thing is when you have a phone that takes impressive photos, you won't even compare it.
Same goes for benchmarks. SD 865/855 are powerful enough to run the phone for several years, yet people compare raw power using these benchmarking apps. I am still usi h SD845 n I haven't yet found any dip in performance.
DxoMark, benchmarks are all just numbers. These numbers will hardly have an effect in your normal phone usage.
its a shame, with all that tech, it seems that this camera module just isnt quite ready for mass production, its been a little bit plagued by issues since its release, the flagship samsung cameras of old used to be very good, it was usually the post processing algorithms that let the cameras down, but it seems that the camera tech is not as good on this model, my note 10+ exynos produces so much nicer shots when used with my Gcam v6.1 vs the stock camera app, and many note 10 shots have shown to be better then the ultra shots in comparisons, I was going to get the Ultra until I read all the problems with it, and its rediculous cost, I will hold off until the Note 20+ arrives, hopefully they iron out a lot of the kinks by then
NotAnOpinion, 22 Apr 2020Who didn't expect this soft score?
To be fair, a low-score was expected for the Ultra but, ... moreIf you check all the images you will se it is no match against the class of Huawei or Find X2 in many occasions, its images are full of low light noise, over-saturation, autofocus issues, highlights clipping and a fake 100x space zoom which can't even keep up with Huawei's 5x zoom
Stop being a fanboy! Samsung is like that dog that always barks but seldom bites!
Who didn't expect this soft score?
To be fair, a low-score was expected for the Ultra but, sheesh, I didn't expect this low.
Sammy didn't pay up, obviously. :-)
Finally some legit source confirmed how crap is the Samsung S20 series camera.they have been begging those companies not to review their phones eventually whole world will once again notice hardware can not be corrected with software.
Justified! Great camera but definitely not the best with lots of issues still unanswered even after so many updates!