Home / Mobile / Mobile Phone / Samsung Galaxy S5 / Camera Image Quality and Video

Samsung Galaxy S5: Camera Image Quality and Video

Andrew Williams

By Andrew Williams



Our Score:


Samsung Galaxy S5: Camera Image Quality and Performance

It is often said that megapixels are meaningless in mobile phones. However, give a high-resolution phone like the Galaxy S5 a bright and sunny day and it will generally be able to resolve more detail than a lower-resolution phone.

As our standard view of London test shows below, the Galaxy S5 is capable of producing much, much more detailed photos than the HTC One M8 – one of its key rivals. The difference between the Galaxy S5 and Galaxy S4 is less marked, but it is there. By increasing sensor resolution without reducing the size of the photo sensor pixels, it doesn't lose out to its predecessor in any way.

If you passed on reading the last page on camera hardware, the Galaxy S5 has a 16-megapixel sensor of ½.6-inch size. It's a mite smaller than the Xperia Z2's sensor, but crucially the camera pixels are of the same size.

In daylight conditions, sharpness in photos is excellent. It falls off a bit in the extreme corners, but not to a severe extent. With fine, pixel-level details such as the branches of far-away trees you can see the evidence of the Galaxy S5's image engine doing a bit of sharpening, but nothing that should stop you from being able to crop into pictures should you wish.

S5 screens 8

S5 screens 10

The S5's sharpening algorithm seems to be less invasive than the S4's - and let's not forget the light conditions are very different here.

S5 screens 9

Before we get too excited, the S5 is soundly beaten by the Lumia 1020 on the detail stakes.

Exposure metering is fairly reliable too. It's not hard to take good photos with the Galaxy S5.

When focusing, the phone uses a mix of contrast detection and phase detection, and it is indeed a good deal faster than a plain contrast detection system in many situations. A/B testing with the contrast-based HTC One M8, the Galaxy S5 is much quicker at switching between fairly close objects. Samsung's claim of 0.3 second focusing naturally depends on the lighting and the subject, but the Galaxy is roughly twice as fast as the HTC.

You're less likely to notice these focus benefits when shooting far-away subjects, though, where the focusing element only needs to move a fraction to alter focus. Still, any speed improvement is handy.

We did notice the odd glitch when using face detection, though. The Galaxy S5 would occasionally focus on the near background behind the subject, suggesting the camera may have been favouring a PDAF focus point that wasn't actually sat on the subject. But we're speculating at this point.

Regardless, these speed improvements make the Galaxy S5 about as fast as an iPhone 5S in daylight conditions.

S5 screens 11

A phone you can tell the time by. Not bad, eh?

Low-light shooting

The situation changes completely when the lights go down, though. The Samsung Galaxy S5 small pixel pitch camera sensor means without drastic measures the phone will struggle with low lighting compared with an iPhone 5S or HTC One M8.

Samsung has provided the necessary drastic measures, though. When shooting with the Auto mode, the Picture Stabilization feature kicks in once the light dims to a certain level.

Picture stabilisation isn't traditional optical image stabilisation, which uses a motor to tilt lens elements in line with your movements in order to allow longer exposure times. Instead, the Galaxy S5's software stabilisation appears to take a whole series of photos using different settings, and then merges them together to create a single image. A kind of turbo HDR mode, it's likely these settings include sensitivity (ISO) and exposure compensation.

It is remarkably effective, but also really quite slow. The time it takes to produce the photo depends on how rubbish the lighting is, but it can get on for 5-6 seconds. Given standard HDRs take about a second, the Galaxy S5 could be experimenting with a dozen or more exposures here.

Picture Stabilisation is smart, though. The phone asks you to stay still while using picture stabilisation, but if you move half-way thru, the Galaxy S5 seems to discard any shots that don't fit the scene rather than producing a blurry mess.

S5 screens 6

S5 screens 7

These 1:1 pixel crops from the above photo shot the impressive detail the S5 maintains in low-light conditions

Night-time shots are still not going to look anywhere near as good as your daylight ones, but stabilisation and the new ISOCELL sensor do bridge the gap between this phone and 'low light specialist' mobiles like the HTC One M8 in image quality terms. Noise levels are quite impressive, and fine details aren't wiped away as a result – detail is actually slightly better in the stabilised shots than the non-stabilised ones.

S5 screens 2

S5 screens 3

Without stabilisation, night shots aren't bad, but feature a lot more noise

S5 screens 4

Some low-light shots can end up looking a little 'painterly'

As the Galaxy S5 doesn't have any big problems with overeposure, our tests show that it can at times produce better-looking shots of stationary objects at night than an HTC One M8. What's particularly impressive is the level and fidelity of colour offered by these low-light shots, and this is largely present whether you use stabilisation or not. Colour performance is something that Samsung says is improved by the new ISOCELL sensor, so we'll give it the credit.

For shots of people at night, though, the Galaxy S5's stabilisation mode is a little slow (people get bored when asked to pose). Weirdly enough, the blurring caused by the composition of various images is actually quite similar to the blurring effect of moving objects we saw in the Lumia-series stabilisation, which uses longer exposures for better low-light shots.

Would real optical stabilisation be better? Absolutely. And indoors low-light shots do struggle with white balance a little, tending to make photos look yellowy at times.

So far we've been talking about shooting completely flash-free. The Galaxy S5 does have a flash, and it is pretty powerful. However, it is the standard single-tone, single-LED type that generally doesn't produce great results. S5 screens 12

This is a very tricky shot without flash. Despite movement among the subjects, it's not completely awful

Samsung Galaxy S5: HDR

As we've come to expect of top Samsung phones, the Galaxy S5 has a pretty great HDR mode. It's effective, but not to the extent that photos look fantasy-style fake.

It's a great way to introduce loads more shadow detail in photos, and to deal with bright-but-cloudy skies that would otherwise risk being overexposed. Here are a few demos:

S5 screens 1S5 screens

Here HDR reduces overexposure and increases detail in the sky

S5 screens 20S5 screens 19

HDR increases shadwow detail, making the tires much clearer

S5 screens 13S5 screens 14

You can see masses more foliage in the HDR shot

Samsung Galaxy S5: Macro

If we were to believe the Galaxy S5's focusing reticule, the phone can focus on objects just a few centimetres away. In reality, it mis-reports close focusing at times and its minimum focal distance is roughly the mobile phone norm – 10-15cm. However the relatively 'zoomed-in' 31mm (35m system equivalent) focal length of the lens makes getting close-up photos pretty easy.

Buy Now at Amazon.com from $207

For reference, the Sony Xperia Z1 lens is equivalent to 27mm, the HTC One M8 28mm and the iPhone 5S lens a shade under 30mm. The longer the focal length, the easier it will be to take close-ups, assuming parity in minimum focal distance. Phone makers try to sell wide angle focal lengths as a good thing, but for rear cameras they are not beneficial.

This is the place where we really miss the manual focusing mode we talked about in the camera app section – thanks to the excellent screen your eyes can be a better judge of focus than the Galaxy S5's reticule when shooting close-ups.

S5 screens 15

S5 screens 16

S5 screens 17

S5 screens 18

Samsung Galaxy S5: Video Capture

The Galaxy S5 shoots video at up to 4K resolution, but in this mode you lose some of the video modes you can use when shooting at 1080p. These include video stabilisation, HDR and stills capture during video.

The phone defaults to 1080p, and we recommend you stick with it for this reason. You can also shoot at various speeds. It maxes out and 8x slower (120fps capture) and 8x faster. However, when shooting in slow motion capture quality is limited to 720p resolution, and owing to the lesser light retrieval per frame, image quality takes a significant hit too.

Samsung Galaxy S5: Front-Facing Camera

Galaxy S5 photo 17Last of all in the camera section we come to the front-facing camera. It is nothing special.

It uses a 2-megapixel sensor, and it does not seem much of an upgrade – if an upgrade at all – over the Galaxy S4's front camera. It's pretty noisy with anything but perfect light conditions, and produces much worse selfies (and video calls) than the HTC One M8. The new HTC phone has a much better 5-megapixel front camera, offering better detail, less noise and much better colour reproduction.


April 8, 2014, 7:36 am

Its a keeper.


April 8, 2014, 8:50 am

According to PA, loudspeaker of S5 is louder than HTC One(M8) hmm...


April 8, 2014, 8:56 am

Louder doesn't necessarily mean better. You've also got to consider location and actual quality. S5 loses on both points.


April 8, 2014, 10:04 am

Location of speakers, your review of One(M8) stated that "As your thumbs move directly over the drivers, your digits' movements do (slightly) alter the tonality of the sound" Indeed I found this noticeably annoying whilst playing a game and etc.

It seems like the location has cons and pros, don't you think? Of course you are entitled your opinion, but I'm just saying people don't think the location of speaker as an outright winning factor.


April 8, 2014, 10:27 am

I'm a different Andy (Yes, I appreciate the confusion), and yes you have a point. We still think the HTC's are better overall, though.


April 8, 2014, 2:20 pm

Im a big fan of Samsung products but why oh why would they have a protruding camera lens which detracts from the look/ feel.


April 8, 2014, 6:35 pm

I won't be buying it for one reason. It's a Samsung.


April 8, 2014, 7:52 pm

Water resistant :)

looks really Nice :)


April 8, 2014, 10:26 pm

I was able to hold one in a Voda shop today.
So like the Note 3 I recently did a deal on but more pocketable.
I wish I'd waited. Sighs.

PS, some sites claim it uses a nano sim?


April 9, 2014, 6:29 am

And the reason I won't buy it: Knox!

Tim Sutton

April 11, 2014, 10:53 am

I held one of these yesterday.

It actually looks worse than the S4.Those bezels are HUGE.

It feels nasty and cheap.

The interface design is awful. You've got Touchwiz, Tizen and Android all looking and handling differently and all fighting for space on one handset. There are FOUR texting apps and THREE music players. The settings page is SIX SCREENS long. It's insanely cluttered and impossible to enjoy.

I can't see how anyone would look at this handset and choose it over even an S4. Physically the S4 is the better looking of the two (they're both ugly) and the S4s software isn't quite so schizophrenic.

I'm.. how is this a 9/10 handset guys? How? It's actually less good than the phone it's replacing.


April 11, 2014, 3:58 pm

Totally agree, This is a piece of overpriced plastic!

And how did they decide the price is £499, I can only see offers for £569?


April 11, 2014, 4:28 pm

I have some of the same criticisms. I think the HTC One M8 is a much 'nicer' phone, and I rate the Sense software more highly than TouchWiz.

However, the excellent screen quality and very good camera quality won us round.

The display in particular is a lot better this time around. It surprised me quite how good it is in various conditions - I've always been an LCD rather than OLED fan in phones (plasma in TVs, natch). But the S5 has won be around.

The camera too is a big improvement in certain conditions. I've heard some criticisms of the new 'faux stabilisation' feature. However, the way it is effectively built into the Auto mode means it'll result in better pictures for a whole load of people.

For me, though, the screen is the biggest winner here. And SOME of the S5's bad bits can be patched away with customisations either supplied directly by Samsung or Android.


April 11, 2014, 5:29 pm

The comment about the display being so much better than the one in the M8 is a bit strange, as Samsung's displays still have obvious issues : lower brightness than LCD and fuzziness due to the pentile arrangement. It really is a matter of preference. I sense a bit of ''fanboyism'' here. Shouldn't happen in a professional review.


April 11, 2014, 6:09 pm

I can smell a flop from Samsung's top model this time. Why Samsung decided they can have the highest priced flagship phone while they are making it out of plastic? In the UK it is £569 SIM free, which is more than the Sony Z2 £549, the HTC One M8 £529 and the iPhone 5S £549!
It's not surprising they announced a drop in profits.


April 11, 2014, 10:57 pm

What is wrong with 'plastic'? What better material is there? Robust. Light weight. Impact absorbing. RF-transparent. Engineers to fine tolerances. I can't readily think of another material which fits the purpose so well. Quality is fitness for purpose, not bling.


April 11, 2014, 11:00 pm

Sheesh - they missed that in the review, it's a Samsung?


April 11, 2014, 11:07 pm

"Samsung's displays still have obvious issues.."
So why even bother reading a review - you already know that all Samsung displays are the same hence this one is necessarily the same as its predecessors.


April 11, 2014, 11:55 pm

Plastic is unpleasant to the touch, gets static charge, lacks reasuring weight, flexes, creaks, poor aesthetics.
I agree it has many great uses, but not in a TOP OF THE LINE product. Don't forget you are buying the most expensive smart phone out there and what you get a rubish bin plastic shell.

An Droid

April 12, 2014, 2:19 am

I actually have a S5, so my comments are based on interaction with the phone and not hearsay.
The good:
- a really amazing screen, and rated the best by everyone who has tested it. It really IS that good
- a huge improvement in the camera
- scaled down TW (works and looks better)
- dimpled soft touch back cover is a pleasure to hold
- ultra power saving mode (I travel a lot, and often used to run out of juice after a long day of normal use)
- heart rate monitor and S-Health (I had a 3rd party HR monitor on my S3 as I do exercise regularly)
- it's water resistant
- lightning fast download (10% faster than S3 over same wi-fi

The bad:
- the square shape (I preferred the more curvy shape of my S3
- the chrome look plastic surround ( satin fining on S3 was classier)


April 12, 2014, 8:16 am

Why do you feel the need to up-vote all your own comments?

Tim Sutton

April 12, 2014, 1:16 pm

I really like the M8 (except for the name) too.

I went in to have a look at the S5 because my work will have a look at it for employees and had my Lumia 1520 with me, and the difference between the two in terms of quality is, to my eyes, enormous.

The Lumia feels and looks like £500 worth of electronics, the S5 doesn't. And then you try and actually use the S5 and its WEIRD mish mash of three OS's and the gap just gets wider.

It really seems odd to me to give such high marks to a handset that is, as delivered by Samsung, mediocre both to look at and to use.


April 12, 2014, 6:18 pm

Because the designers at Disqus decided posters should have this option and I am using it - as designed.


April 13, 2014, 7:09 pm

i have a galaxy phone and i'm telling you apple is way better than his piece of crap i have right now


April 13, 2014, 7:49 pm

For the life of me, I just cannot understand why people hate on the samsung products because they are not some aluminum unibody design. Polycarbonate is rather durable, resistant to scratches and reduces the overall weight of the phone. The texturing of the polycarbonate is the only thing I have issue with (See S4).... smooth PC is a fingerprint magnet.

comments powered by Disqus