Samsung WB5000 video review



Read the full Samsung WB5000 review

For a first attempt at a superzoom camera the WB5000 is a very good camera. Design and build quality are excellent, it a list of features comparable with its market rivals, and like most Samsung cameras it is competitively priced. Its only weak points are its overall performance and its mediocre image quality.

More Camera Videos


March 2, 2010, 5:17 am

A photograph of children outside a primary school?! How dare you, I'm off to form an angry mob right now! We'll be looking for you outside Exeter Cathedral's West Window tomorrow, complete with flaming torches and misspelt placards..

More seriously though Cliff, are you sure that "Samsung has never made a superzoom camera" before? What about the (quite good) 15X Zoom Pro815 you reviewed in August 2006?


March 2, 2010, 7:03 am

I saw samsung just announced the HZ50W in the PMA 2010 which should be the successor of this model I think.


March 2, 2010, 9:51 pm

... err does it have a viewfinder? Another thing it seems there are no super superzooms as image quality is often around the "7" mark...? Going back awhile I remember that fixed focus lenses were considered way better quality than zoom lenses... Nevertheless superzoom cameras are fun and capable of some really good photos.

Cliff Smith

March 5, 2010, 8:30 pm

Noodles - Your memory is clearly better than mine, I'd forgotten all about the Pro815. What a bizarre contraption that was; two LCD monitors, one of them 3.8 inches, a 15x zoom with no stabilisation and the slowest AF ever. Pretty decent picture quality for the time though.

Kai - Yes, you're probably correct. The photos I've seen of the HZ50W do look a lot like the WB5000, and the speed with which Samsung has been updating its camera range recently make it likely that an updated 14MP version will appear soon.

Terry - 3rd paragraph, page 2. It has an electronic viewfinder, although not a particularly good one.


March 6, 2010, 12:14 am

Terry - Another thing it seems there are no super superzooms as image quality is often around the "7"

my thougths too, until I remembered this:



March 6, 2010, 12:45 am

@Cliff: Hah, the only reason I remembered it existed was because of it's complete and utter breeze-block like weirdness. Almost bought one once, but ended up being boring and got an S9500 instead..


March 6, 2010, 8:41 pm

Thanks for the link Splogbust... and another thing!... why do electronic "viewfinders" have to be such a shoddy compromise on an instrument where optics take prime place...? A camera is all about the "view" before your eyes surely? I have a superzoom that has an awful electronic viewfinder...


March 7, 2010, 5:48 am

I struggle with the review.

Why award the camera 8/10 overall when the thing that is most important - the image quality - is so poor I wouldn't change my Fuji S602 (now 6 years old) for it as the images look at least as good as the Samsung, if not better!

I can't even understand how it got 7/10 for image quality when the test shots are clearly poor by any standard, especially the ISO tests - mottling at 64ISO???

If that was me it'd be marked down a couple of points on image quality alone and at the price I'd say it was pretty poor value for money.


March 7, 2010, 8:08 pm

The price is very good actually, consider the feature it offers. Many other superzooms are more expensive than this one.

For image quality, I'd mark down one point to 6. but 7 is still fair. We should understand the score is relative. When u look at the score of compact camera, u are comparing to other compact camera. When u look at score of entry-level DSL, U are comparing to other entry-level DSL. as well as superzooms, When u look at the score, it is comparing with other superzooms. The score is not a absolute value for all kinds of camera.

And most superzooms have lower image quality. So the standard is also lower.


March 9, 2010, 4:08 am

... time to find your 35mm SLRs, buy a roll of film, put your fixed focus 28mm or 50mm on the front and take some quality photos...?!

comments powered by Disqus