DxOMark is the go-to camera benchmarking platform. They use specialized hardware and conditions to test and review the cameras present on our devices. The current evolution of smartphone cameras, including multi-lens systems and various shooting modes, pushed them to update the testing protocol and take new additions to the consideration. Until today, the Huawei P30 Pro was considered as the best shooter, while Samsung's newest Galaxy S10 was named as the best selfie camera. But, Samsung still has another device on the way, and the Galaxy S10 5G dethroned its brother as it got top scores for front and back cameras.
To refresh your mind, Samsung Galaxy S10 5G's camera isn't all that different hardware-wise. Sure, it has an additional TOF (Time of Flight) sensor, but DxOMark explicitly says that it didn't have any effect on the scores as they don't test bokeh quality in video. With that out of the way, the Galaxy S10 5G and Galaxy S10+ have completely identical cameras. So, what made the 3 point difference? It's the software. At the start of the review, DxOMark mentions that firmware used for testing isn't even out yet and it should be available as an OTA update before the end of the month.
During the testing, DxOMark noticed that Galaxy S10 5G lacked the detailing in certain conditions while shooting photo or video. Where it shined though, is autofocus, flash, stabilization, and exposure. The front camera's main advantage is the colors. DxO mentions a slightly inaccurate white balance and limited dynamic range can be noticed. Of course, you may or may not have these problems, as you're probably not going to take 1500 test images and 2hr+ videos to compare them against each other, as DxOMark does.
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G was launched on the 1st of April in South Korea. The device hasn't made it into the US just yet, but we're expecting a Verizon-exclusive launch on May 16th.
Source 1: DxOMarkSource 2: DxOMark
The post DxOMark ranks the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G tops for front and back cameras appeared first on xda-developers.
No comments:
Post a Comment