This terrible Samsung camera ruined my day out

Digging through a drawer in my office shortly after the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra arrived, I came across a relic. It was a compact digital camera also made by Samsung, which I’d purchased on a whim before a trip nearly a decade ago.

I haven’t used it since then, and seeing as I was already testing a Samsung camera, why not add another to the list? The next day I was headed out to take photos for my upcoming S25 Ultra review, and I’m so glad I wasn’t relying on the old Samsung camera to document my time, as it would have ruined it.

Meet the ST72

Picking the Samsung ST72 camera up again reminded me why I bought it: its size. It’s less than half the size of the Galaxy S25 Ultra and I can easily carry it around in my pocket or bag, barely knowing it’s there. There’s a sensibly sized screen on the back, a physical two-stage shutter release on the top, and it even has a zoom feature.

I looked up the rest of the specification to compare it to the Galaxy S25 Ultra. The main 1/2.3-inch sensor has 16.2-megapixels and a 5x optical zoom, plus it has that 3-inch LCD screen on the back. It’s not quite up there with the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s 200MP main camera, 50MP wide-angle, and two telephoto cameras, but it can (on paper) match one of the optical zoom modes.

The problem was, I couldn’t remember if the ST72 took good photos or not. I know I used it on a trip, but looking back most of my memories from it were captured with my iPhone at the time. Was this because the ST72 took rubbish pictures? I found out, and wasn’t quite prepared for just how awful it really is.

Day out, ruined

The Samsung ST72 came out in 2013 but you can still find it for sale today on eBay, and for a temptingly low price. I certainly wasn’t approaching this comparison as a way to offer serious buying advice, as I’d expect the $1,300 Galaxy S25 Ultra to take better photos than the $120 ST72 camera. What I didn’t expect was to see such a huge difference, and it really shows how far things have come.

Lets start out with a basic, simple photograph of a church on a very bright winter day. It’s staggering just how poor the ST72’s photo is, with messy blurring and smudging in the foreground, unsteady focus throughout, a complete lack of detail, unwanted noise, and no visual pop at all. Even looked at on its own, few would be pleased with the ST72’s photo and likely never return to it in the future.

Compare it with the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s photo, and there’s no contest. I love the S25 Ultra’s colors and visual excitement, and the way it truly captured the wonderful winter blue sky. The second photo shows a sunset after a day of rain, except I’d have to tell you that was why I took the photo if the only evidence I had was the ST72’s image. Its f/2.5 aperture doesn’t help here at all, and it’s unable to capture the depth of color visible to the naked eye. The S25 Ultra’s photo looks great, and no such verbal explanation of the scene would be required with the Galaxy S25 Ultra. The f/1.8 aperture means it’s far more capable in low or difficult lighting, and although the photo isn’t perfect — it’s a little smudgy and noisy — it’s obvious why I took the photo, and with a little editing it would be really beautiful.

Telephoto is a no-no

At this point I’d only seen the ST72’s photos on the camera’s LCD screen, and they didn’t look great then. However, I convinced myself the screen may not be doing the actual photos justice, and continued to take photos during the day. The ST72 also has an optical zoom feature, just like the Galaxy S25 Ultra, and thinking back this may have been a reason I chose it. Even then, when I wasn’t all that interested or knowledgeable about cameras or photography, I clearly wanted the versatility of a capable zoom. However, I was to be very disappointed by the results.

There’s such a huge difference between the two 5x zoom photos of the bridge, it’s practically impossible to believe the pair technically used the same feature. Picking the ST72’s photo apart seems like a waste of time, as even if you’d never seen a photograph before, ever, you’d still know it was rubbish. It has more in common with digital zoom photos taken with an aging smartphone than it does with the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s capable 5x optical zoom.

A reminder of how lucky we are

Did the ST72 fail completely? There was one photo where I think it did a slightly better job than the Galaxy S25 Ultra. Taken inside a shop, the ST72’s photo of the budding flowers wrapped in paper is brighter and less punchy, in a good way, than the S25 Ultra’s photo. The colors are natural, the white balance effective, and there’s a decent level of detail too. The S25 Ultra’s photo is over saturated, and I’m not sure it got the exposure right.

However, one photo cannot save the Samsung ST72, and neither can its admittedly lovely size and shape. It’s absolutely not the Samsung camera anyone should be using in 2025. If my day out was one where I wanted to truly capture memories, it would have ruined them. It’s really surprising just how much difference there is between a digital camera from 10 years ago and today’s smartphones. Sure, the Galaxy S25 Ultra is a lot more expensive, but I think all but the very worst smartphone camera today would still beat the ST72 in a back-to-back test.

It highlights how spoiled we are by what our phone’s cameras are capable of, and after using the ST72 again, I assume I hid it away all those years ago because I was distinctly unimpressed by its ability. At the time I would have had the choice of the Apple iPhone 5S, the Nokia Lumia 1020, and the LG G2 smartphones, and I am almost certain all would gave taken considerably better photos than the ST72.

The little Samsung camera is headed back to its drawer, where it’ll serve as a reminder of how lucky we are having such excellent cameras with us all day, because based on the actual photos it takes, that’s all it’s good for. As for the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s camera, it’s looking great, but other more relevant comparisons reveal if it genuinely has what it takes to take on, and beat, its peers.