Oct 04 AT 3:18 PM Dustin Earley 27 Comments

Samsung Galaxy Camera coming to AT&T, pricing still not available


Just over a month ago at IFA 2012 in Berlin, Samsung announced the Galaxy Camera: a full-on 16-megapixel digital camera powered by Android 4.1, Jelly Bean. At the time of its unveiling, it was made clear that the Galaxy Camera would be stocked by carriers, but specifics on pricing, contracts and data plans were not discussed. Today, some of the fog surrounding the release details of the Galaxy Camera has been lifted.

AT&T has sent out a press release announcing it will be carrying the Samsung Galaxy Camera. AT&T didn’t reveal much in the way of release information, saying, “pricing for the Galaxy Camera will be announced when it goes on sale in the coming weeks.” The release did mention, however, that the Galaxy Camera would come with access to AT&T’s 4G (HSPA+?) network. Which we can only assume means it will be available at some sort of discount on contract.

As for the camera itself, nothing seems to have changed. The Samsung Galaxy Camera comes with a 21x optical zoom lens, 16-megapixel backside illuminated CMOS sensor, 1280×720 4.8-inch “HD Super Clear LCD,” quad-core 1GHz processor, WiFi, 3G and 4G radios. AT&T may have their way with the software powering the Galaxy Camera, but it will still be powered by Android 4.1 and feature full access to the Google Play store. The Galaxy Camera also comes with some Samsung-provided applications like Photo Wizard and Movie Wizard.

We’re pretty excited to see what Samsung has done with the Galaxy Camera. Even without the camera, it has respectable hardware. But throw a 16-megapixel CMOS digital camera on the back, and you’ve got one of the more fascinating devices to come out this year. What do you think of the Galaxy Camera?

Dustin Earley: Tech enthusiast; avid gamer; all around jolly guy.

    Most Tweeted This Week

  • Zagrash

    I’d hope with a product like this, they’d want to get it out in front of as many potential customers as possible…a product like this isn’t going to take off if it’s not very accessible…

    For the right price, I’d certainly be interested too, but not with a contract from AT&T.

  • kwills88

    Am I missing something here, it’s like every new product is going to at&t with the exception of about 3.

    • http://www.jaxidian.org/update/ jaxidian

      Could be that AT&T’s traditional bread & butter, the iPhone, didn’t sell as well as they expected so they’re trying to make up for it with other exclusives.

      • 666

        The iPhone 5 sold out. Kind of don’t think that’s the case.

    • uzunoff

      I think you are on to something.
      The thing is that no phone, camera or tablet are good enough for me to lose reason and common sense and sign a contract with AT&T.

  • Tangent

    So is this thing supposed to be a phone/mini tablet with a greatly improved camera, or is it a full-featured camera with mini tablet functionality built-in? If I’m shopping for something like this I’m less interested in it having a 1GHz quad core processor and more interested in it being able to shoot in burst mode, having good HDR baked in, easy to access and use aperture priority and shutter priority modes, etc…

    • http://www.jaxidian.org/update/ jaxidian

      What if it took RAW photos and did instant/immediate photo processing of those RAW images (not an easy task) to produce ~10 resulting photos before uploading them to a centralized server with software to make it easy to shuffle through the resulting photographs? I could definitely think of some very cool ways to use such a camera if I were a photograph and had the time to develop the software. I’m hoping Samsung has thought of these things. Otherwise, yes, you’re probably very right!

  • Raptor

    The larger zoom…
    - the smaller sensor
    - the larger noise
    - the smaller dynamic range
    the shittier camera

    Make just 4x zoom and increase sensor size 5 times (25x pixel size) then it will be really good camera. All manufacturers do everything to NOT to give you and me DSLR quality in pocketable body. They afraid for their profit. That is hidden indirect price fixing EU should look at more precisely.

  • Zagrash

    Engadget has a quick hands on, and a few sample photos (though they only had a few minutes, so their sample photos are probably not a very good indication of much of anything)


  • MoSDeeb

    Said it before and I’ll say it again, not a fan of this exclusive ish. Especially for a camera…

    • Dustin Earley

      It should be available from more carriers, and as an unsubsidized device from Best Buy and etc.

  • Jorge Vieira

    I would love it this would be treated as a tablet of mbb hot spots and only be an add on to an existing share plan and not and thing more that 20 extra a month.

  • Johnathan Prochaska

    I really wanted to get this as a gift for my gf. But there is no way in hell I’m going to buy this with a contract. Wifi only or not deal Samsung.

  • Nathan D.

    Camera lovers rejoices, you got best of both worlds.

  • http://sean-the-electrofreak.blogspot.com/ Sean the Electrofreak

    My fiancee would love that as her next phone… she is sick of her Blackberry. Here’s hoping it hits Sprint!

  • jamal adam

    It seems to me that AT&T has a new business model: Hoard all incoming smartphones.

  • h0ruza

    If only the Samsung Camera division designed and built there phones as well…


  • Tom Peterson

    I was disappointed to learn that its sensor is half the size of the Pureview 808 sensor at 1/2.3″ vs 1/1.2″. I mean, is Samsung even serious about this? I hope it doesn’t just use a scaled-up phone camera in there.

    I also hope they start using larger sensors and OIS in their phones soon.

  • Jac Pz

    From the user point of view I think this will be one of the future regrets from Samsung, I would really not buy a camera/pad it’s not handy, so right know what you want it’s a really cool camera as the CANON EOS or Sony NEX, and from there to send it across the web, but not a camera that it’s a mixture of phone and Big camera integrated.

    if HTC One X+ or Samsung SIII or even S4 will have a really good camera (small) and HD, i do not see the purpose of having this as part of your electronics.

    (maybe for a Kid) and if they target the market for KIDS then it would sell like pancakes, as right now not all the kids are alllowed (from their parent point of view) to own a smartphone, so givinig them a camera that has android integrated will be useful maybe for even teenagers,

  • 94wolfpack

    One of my growing frustrations with smart phones is that there is very little place to handle the screen side of the device with out inadvertently launching something or changing the screen.

    In this case it seems like the “grip” they intended for this would never get used when taking a picture, unless they modify the screen so that its not touch sensitive if in camera mode. Obviously I haven’t had hands on…but it was one of the first things to jump out at me.

  • ChrisLH

    A contract with AT&T for a camera…no thanks.

    The concept is alright…I think there probably is some demand for a high quality camera running Android, but not if it requires another contract for data. The thing is, it better be a pretty damn big improvement over what people can get from their phones because the cameras on the GS3/iPHone/Nokia phones are typically good enough for most people making this a luxury item instead of a must-have.

    Also, it seems to me that Samsung is basically giving in to AT&T here when Samsung really should be the company running the show. Their products are in demand while people’s satisfaction with carriers is continuing to degrade.

    Furthermore, they are limiting their potential customer base by a huge amount – Nobody who isn’t already on AT&T is going to switch providers (or add a completely separate data plan) just to get a phone.

    Requiring an additional data plan for a device which doesn’t need it which will further limit the number of people – Samsung must know this, so why even bother with a data plan. Just allow it to auto-upload to Dropbox or whatever via wifi and have easy syncing options with other Android devices and this is a much more desirable device for a cheaper price so customers wouldn’t have to depend on the AT&T subsidy. People would just buy it outright – it would just replace a traditional point and shoot purchase.

    I see this as being a pretty big flop the way its currently structured. The potential to be successful is there, but not crippled like this. They are also further diluting the “Galaxy” brand, especially if the article above is correct that it will be running some sort of AT&T software mod on top of JellyBean. Amazing that Samsung would allow another party to dictate the user performance on a Galaxy product.

    • Zagrash

      NO idea why I didn’t think of this until I saw your “easy syncing options”…

      1 – Throw NFC into camera
      2 – Establish connection to phone using NFC
      3 – Transfer photos to phone (which already has data plan)
      4 – Profit?

      Admittedly, that’s a few extra steps versus just connecting the camera to a carrier, but I’d rather have that option than be required to have a separate data plan for a camera.

      • ChrisLH

        Exactly, there’s no reason to set up a completely new/separate data plan just for the camera. I just don’t understand this strategy at all and all it does is limit the number of potential buyers to current AT&T customers, for the most part. It’s a crazy move and I think its going to really bog down what could be a great alternative for someone looking for a point-and-shoot camera. You’ve just taken a $200-300 device and added $120-180/year for a data plan. Only an idiot would go for this as its currently packaged.

        Of course, the world has no shortage of those, so maybe it will be successful.

  • NeoJesus

    Spring Rumors! In 2013, Samsung will release the all new, SAMSUNG GALAXY SHOE!


  • Nathan J.

    Yes! This is the droid we’re looking for. I saw another Android-powered camera, and everything about it was wrong. For starters, it ran Gingerbread. To add insult to injury, it cost more than $50. For running Jelly Bean and having a 16MP lens, this deserves to cost a bit more. Without a cell phone contract subsidy I imagine it would be quite expensive, but so was the other one I saw. This just looks amazing.

  • Googenhiem

    Its really an attractive device, my girlfriend would love one……..that wasn’t attached to an ATT contract. LOL in a roundabout way this could be considered Samsung’s answer to Nokia’s PureView, just not marketed as a phone. Any word on bluetooth connectivity?