Home / Cameras / Camera / Samsung WB550 / Test Shots - ISO Performance

Samsung WB550 - Test Shots - ISO Performance

By Cliff Smith

Reviewed:

Summary

Our Score:

9

Over the next few pages we show a range of test shots. On this page the full size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced to let you see the full image, and a series of full resolution crops have taken from original images at a range of ISO settings to show the overall image quality. These pictures were taken indoors using reflected natural light.

----

This is the full frame at 80 ISO.

----

The image quality is very good at minimum ISO, but there's some colour noise in this 1.0 second exposure.

----

Virtually identical results at 100 ISO. The white marks are dust on the model car itself. I really must clean it.

----

Slightly more luminance noise at 200 ISO.

----

The colour gradients are getting a bit patchy at 400 ISO, but the overall quality is still very good.

----

Noise is becoming a problem at 800 ISO.

----

Tonal gradation is severely affected at 1600 ISO.

----

3200 ISO is available, but only at 3MP. Image quality is pretty poor.

----

This is the full frame at 3200 ISO.

----

interpleb

November 24, 2009, 10:41 am

How stiff is the mode selector switch? The loose one on my TZ6 is doing my head in, it is pretty much guaranteed to have moved to the wrong setting no matter what you have done with it.





Also, what is the battery life like?

PStar

November 24, 2009, 2:50 pm

Which would you choose Cliff and why?


Samsung WB550 or Panasonic TZ7? (£220 vs £230). The choice gets harder!

Cliff Smith

November 24, 2009, 3:19 pm

The mode dial is nice and clunky, and partly recessed, very unlikely to get jogged by accident. The battery is the same 3.7v 1050mAh Li-ion as the WB500. I'm not sure of the exact duration, but it's showing 2/3rds charge after a week's use and about 150 shots.

GordonDownie

November 24, 2009, 3:22 pm

It is a shame that going from 10MP on the WB500 to 12MP on this one is considered to be a superior specification. So many pixels on such a tiny sensors mean that all you are likely to get for the extra money is (even) less dynamic range, poorer noise control and bigger files that are slower to do everything with. Picture quality certainly won't be any better.

Tony 3

November 24, 2009, 6:11 pm

Great review Cliff, but does the extra pixels and the better screen warrant the extra £50 or so over the WB500?

PS3½

November 24, 2009, 8:37 pm

Thanks for the review Cliff. One question, how would you compare the video performance of this camera to the Panasonic TZ7? Does the 50/60p frame rate of the Panasonic (albeit achieved through frame doubling) make much difference?

Zero

December 7, 2009, 12:07 am

@TR Which out of these two performs better via HD movie Samsung WB550 or Fujifilm S2000HD ???

Xamph

May 17, 2010, 2:42 pm

Just to point out that amazon.co.uk is flogging this camera as part of this week's 'Deals of the Week' for 139 quid, which should bump up the value for money a notch or two...

comments powered by Disqus