Announced in March 2021, the Snapdragon 720G-powered Samsung Galaxy A72 looks like an enticing option in the High-end ($400-599) segment, offering a comprehensive camera setup with a Quad-Bayer sensor in the primary module as well as a 3x tele, a 12 MP ultra-wide, and a dedicated macro camera. Let’s see how it fares in the DXOMARK Camera test protocol.
Key camera specifications:
- Primary: 64 MP sensor with 0.8µm pixels, f/1.8-aperture lens, OIS
- Ultra-wide: 12 MP sensor with 1.12µm pixels, f/2.2-aperture lens
- Tele: 8 MP sensor with 1.0µm pixels, f/2.4-aperture lens with 3x magnification, OIS
- Macro: 5 MP sensor with 1.12µm pixels, f/2.4-aperture lens
- Video: 2160p/30 fps
About DXOMARK Camera tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone camera reviews, DXOMARK engineers capture and evaluate over 3000 test images and more than 2.5 hours of video both in controlled lab environments and in natural indoor and outdoor scenes, using the camera’s default settings. This article is designed to highlight the most important results of our testing. For more information about the DXOMARK Camera test protocol, click here. More details on how we score smartphone cameras are available here.
Test summary
Scoring
Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.
Samsung Galaxy A72
92
camera
103
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro (123)
87
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max (125)
75
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
Best: Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ (123)
94
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro (124)
80
Honor Magic5 Pro
Best: Honor Magic5 Pro (116)
70
Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G
Best: Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G (82)
55
Honor Magic6 Pro
Best: Honor Magic6 Pro (85)
60
Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
Best: Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max (91)
45
Oppo Find X7 Ultra
Best: Oppo Find X7 Ultra (118)
88
Honor Magic6 Pro
Best: Honor Magic6 Pro (121)
68
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro (116)
71
Honor Magic6 Pro
Best: Honor Magic6 Pro (119)
73
Huawei Mate 60 Pro+
Best: Huawei Mate 60 Pro+ (119)
74
Oppo Find X6 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X6 Pro (118)
109
Oppo Find X7 Ultra
Best: Oppo Find X7 Ultra (119)
70
Xiaomi 12S Ultra
Best: Xiaomi 12S Ultra (86)
83
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro (118)
Use cases & Conditions
Use case scores indicate the product performance in specific situations. They are not included in the overall score calculations.
Outdoor
Photos & videos shot in bright light conditions (≥1000 lux)
Indoor
Photos & videos shot in good lighting conditions (≥100lux)
Lowlight
Photos & videos shot in low lighting conditions (<100 lux)
Friends & Family
Portrait and group photo & videos
Please be aware that beyond this point, we have not modified the initial test results. While data and products remain fully comparable, you might encounter mentions and references to the previous scores.
Position in Global Ranking
138
th
5. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
154
14. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
147
16. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
146
20. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
144
22. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
141
25. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
140
31. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
137
35. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
135
35. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
135
40. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
133
40. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
133
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
131
48. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
131
58. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
128
60. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
127
60. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
127
60. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
127
65. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
126
69. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
125
73. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
124
76. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
122
81. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
82. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
82. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
82. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
89. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
117
89. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
117
89. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
117
95. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
116
98. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Snapdragon)
115
98. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
115
107. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
110. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
112
112. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
111
112. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Exynos)
111
112. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
111
117. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
117. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Exynos)
108
122. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
125. Samsung Galaxy A35 5G
104
126. Motorola Edge 40 Neo
103
127. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
129. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
101
131. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
138. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
138. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
141. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
143. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
143. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
145. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
147. Samsung Galaxy A15 5G
83
149. Samsung Galaxy A15 LTE
81
150. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
151. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
154. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
75
156. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
74
158. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
70
158. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
160. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
163. Motorola moto g34 5G
67
163. Samsung Galaxy A14 5G
67
165. Motorola Moto G62 5G
66
166. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
168. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
63
172. Honor Magic4 Lite 5G
61
174. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
60
180. Xiaomi Redmi 10 2022
51
182. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
Position in High-End Ranking
21
st
7. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
8. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
12. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
15. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
16. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
17. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
23. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
23. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
25. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
Pros
- Good target exposure on evenly lit photo and video scenes
- Good dynamic range in bright light
- Consistent exposure, color, and texture across multiple images
- Low noise and neutral white balance in daylight conditions
- Effective video stabilization in static scenes
Cons
- Inaccurate skin tone rendering and frequent pink casts
- Strong noise in low light
- Ringing, ghosting, and color quantization artifacts
- Noise and lack of detail in tele shots
- Underexposed faces and strong color casts in low-light videos
- Focus instabilities in indoor video clips
With a DXOMARK overall score of 105, the Samsung Galaxy A72 cannot compete with the very best in our ranking — which is to be expected for a device in its price segment — but does rather well among its similarly priced peers. It occupies a joint 5th position in our High-end segment ranking, tying the score of the Oppo Reno4 5G and coming in 13 points behind the segment leader Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G (118). This is a noticeable improvement over its predecessor Galaxy A71 5G (88).
In good light the A72 is capable of capturing decent images, but color casts, slightly unnatural skin tones, and ghosting artifacts on moving subjects can be visible (as in the image above).
Looking closer at still image performance, the Samsung’s Photo score of 112 puts it in 5th position in the High-end segment, only one point shy of the Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro+ (113) but several points behind the category leader, the TCL 20 Pro 5G (124).
Samsung Galaxy A72, indoor scene
Samsung Galaxy A72, crop: slight loss of detail
Google Pixel 4a, indoor scene
Google Pixel 4a, crop: visible loss of detail
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G, indoor scene
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G, crop: visisble loss of detail
In photo mode the A72 delivers nice image quality in good light, with good sharpness and a wide dynamic range. Things go slightly downhill as light levels decrease, and in low light the camera has a tendency to underexpose and produce strong image noise.
Autofocus comparison at 1000 lux with 4 EV variation: the two Samsung devices achieve similar sharpness and stability as the Pixel 4a but are slower to capture.
Texture: both Samsungs capture good texture in bright light but drop off in dimmer conditions compared to the Pixel 4a.
Noise: the A72 shows lower levels of visual noise than the A52 5G but much higher noise chromaticity.
Despite offering both ultra-wide and tele lenses, something that is not yet very common in this segment, the Samsung A72 achieves only a mid-table position for Zoom, trailing one point behind the OnePlus 8T and a full 10 points behind the best device for Zoom in the High-end segment, the Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G.
The ultra-wide camera is a good option for those situations where you have to squeeze as much scene into the frame as possible, but blue or pink color casts as well as fairly strong noise are often visible. The tele camera helps if your subject is further away from the lens, but compared to the primary module, a strong loss of detail is noticeable, meaning that tele-camera images are really only suitable for small-format display.
Samsung Galaxy A72, ultra-wide
Samsung Galaxy A72, crop: strong noise
Samsung Galaxy A72, medium-range tele
Samsung Galaxy A72, crop: strong loss of detail
Results are similar for Video, where the Samsung is again middle-of-the-pack with a score of 92. This puts it 19 points behind the best High-end phone for movie recording — again, the Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G.
Samsung Galaxy A72, good face tracking and exposure but some exposure instability in the background
Compared to its stablemate A52 5G, the A72 is the better option for recording movies, thanks to more reliable autofocus. Where the A52 showed strong AF instabilities, especially in low light, the A72 does noticeably better and mostly delivers steady focus. On the downside, exposure and color performance is a little worse for the A72 in low light.
Video texture: A72 video texture is slightly lower than for the A52 5G.
Video noise: A72 noise levels are slightly lower than for the A52 5G.
DXOMARK encourages its readers to share comments on the articles. To read or post comments, Disqus cookies are required. Change your Cookies Preferences and read more about our Comment Policy.