Home / Cameras / Camera / Samsung WB650 / Pictures

Samsung WB650 pictures

1 of 29 pictures

The 12-megapixel WB650 features a powerful but compact 15x zoom lens with 720p HD video capture.

Samsung WB650 front
Samsung WB650 front angle

29 Pictures - Samsung WB650

  • Samsung WB650 front angle
  • Samsung WB650 front
  • Samsung WB650 back
  • Samsung WB650 side
  • Samsung WB650 top
  • Samsung WB650 battery
  • Samsung WB650 specs
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • Samsung WB650 test photo
  • WB650 Point & Shoot Digital Camera - 12 Megapixel - 7.6 cm 3" Color OLED - Black (15x Optical Zoom - 5xMicrophone)


June 3, 2010, 6:28 pm

This is a camera, right?

How can it be given an overall score of 9 when its score for image quality is 7? Does that mean the other issues over and above it primary purpose makes it somewhat better.

I don't see how a camera with 7 for image quality is better than another with suitable but less features should get a higher rating than another camera with 9 for image quality but less features.

Features are a factor but they are not what I would buy a camera for.


June 4, 2010, 3:53 am

Darn! Why can't compact superzooms like this one sport a peep-through viewfinder? Even given the shortcomings noted in this review, I would have bought this camera if it had a viewfinder.

Martin Daler

June 4, 2010, 4:49 am

a medium format camera will doubtless have better image quality, if it gets the shot. Sometimes getting the shot is a function of the camera features, like zoom range, or pocketability. Getting the shot is the ultimate arbiter of image quality - no shot = zero quality. I'd give a camera extra points for features which translate into getting the shot.


June 4, 2010, 1:14 pm

I like the "GPS - For Digital Nomad" - highly amusing!

I'd consider buying this when the price drops. Although the images look a bit like an oil painted up close, thanks to the processing, I think the overall lens quality, colour reproduction and DR outweigh this. I tend to keep most of my point & shoot photos 'as shot' anyway, so this wouldn't be an issue for me. Maybe they'll release a firmware update to improve this, but its Samsung, so I wouldn't hold my breath!

Ian Porter

June 4, 2010, 11:27 pm

@ Fiqqer, Martin & Chris... I'm looking for a high quality point & shoot/travel camera in the £200 arena. As soon as I saw the 7/10 for image quality I immediately dismissed this camera, it could be voice controlled, have artificial intelligence, run battery free and double up as an emergency phone.. I still wouldn't buy it. Sorry Cliff.


June 5, 2010, 3:15 am

Totally agree with Fiqquer...how on earth can a camera that has 7/10 for image quality get a 9/10 score? If the images are no good then neither is the camera.


June 5, 2010, 5:04 am

really depend. my family hardly print any photo. and if we do, most are just 5*7. for this size, really does not matter. and we most only view photo and share with people on computer. we hardly post photo online using any size bigger than 2 or 3mp.

so that is the point. now we are judge it by its full size. but we should always ask ourself that in pratical do we need full size photo?

at least for many people they do not need at all.

Woking Wounded

June 5, 2010, 2:53 pm

When are manufacturers going to give us the option in pocket cameras of taking photos in RAW? Then we won't be dependent on their clunky in-camera processing and, given the availabilty of reasonably priced software like Photoshop Elements, the user can do his or her own processing in RAW and then save as jpeg (or whatever) as needed. In camera storage limitations are no longer an issue with huge capacity SD cards available so why insist on creating jpeg in the camera?


June 6, 2010, 2:31 pm

I have been using this camera ( WB 660, Malaysia ) for 2 months now and find it very competent and easy to use. I have no issues with the image quality as I shoot mostly in daylight. The 15X zoom & HD video are superior to the TZ7 which I had previously. It is a much better camera than TZ7 tho I have not compared it to the TZ10


August 5, 2010, 3:02 am

I have created an account just so I can comment on this thread.

Have just posted the WB650 back to the seller for a refund.

In short this camera is the DB's and much more, in reality the photos are CRAP.Some photos turn out OK but most resemble blotchy oil paintings.

A great shame as I would have liked this camera to have worked at taking great photos but it does not. The rest of the Camera functions are brill, but what is the point of brill add ons when the image quality is crap?

Just to say some photos have come out OK , so why not a mode where the image destruction can be switched off?


August 26, 2010, 1:44 am

This is a follow up from my previous comments as I wish to be fair to both Cliff's review and the Samsung technicians.

I returned WB650 then tried a host of other compact zooms and not one of them produced a better IQ. WB650 Geo tagging and mapping leads the pack, as does the build quality. Obtained another WB650 and actually read the manual (pdf file) then got excellent results.

Am now keeping this cam as an easy to carry anywhere backup to my millstone DSLR.

In short, the point score by Cliff of 9 out of 10 is spot on and the Samsung team have done a great job. I got it wrong 1st time, this is a great camera.


September 14, 2010, 4:30 pm

david,how much did samsung pay you,thats a big backtrack,i've got this camera and as has previously been said whats the point of a camera if the image quality is poor..and it is!!! my sony compact is far superior despite it lacking on a few features which are hardly used anyway..no offence intended..just my thoughts.


November 8, 2010, 12:28 pm

Yeah, no offence meant, just my thoughts, but... accusing some-one of being corrupt IS offensive. And the inference from "How can a camera be given an overall score of 9 when its score for image quality is 7?" is that a camera with an image quality of 10 is perfect for a taking on vacation - even if it's the size of a house. Why bother with the other qualities of size, ease of use etc that determine a customer's choice if "image quality" is the only consideration? The quality of these tiny cameras is incredible. I have a TZ5 and will probably upgrade to a WB650 rather than a TZ10 now that Panasonic forbid 3rd party batteries. Yes, I would like to see lower resolution sensors with bigger more sensitive pixels, and the option to switch off in-camera image massaging, but apparently that's what the customer wants. We can't really blame the manufacturer for that.

comments powered by Disqus