Samsung S85

5x, f/2.8, 38 mm
Retailer
    Style
      Color
        You save

        Summary Samsung S85

        Prices Price
        Camera only
        $133
        all S85 prices
        Score Snapsort rank
        Within its price range
        #n/a of 1
        Among similar cameras
        #n/a of 4
        Specifications Key specs
        Zoom
        Help 5x
        Screen size
        Help 2.5"
        Aperture
        Help f/2.8
        Screen resolution
        Help Unknown
        Wide angle
        Help 38 mm
        Movie format
        Help 480p @ 30fps
        see all specifications
        Samsung S85Samsung S85

        gallery

        Explore our gallery of 15 sample photos taken by the Samsung S85.

        Pros

        Report a correction

        The Samsung S85 vs other recent compacts

        Aperture Wide aperture Help
        f/2.8
        Thickness Thin Help
        0.9"
        Size Quite small Help
        Compact (100×63×23 mm)
        Lowest price Inexpensive Help
        $133.07

        Cons

        Report a correction

        The Samsung S85 vs other recent compacts

        Movie format Low resolution movies Help
        480p @ 30fps
        Screen size Very small screen Help
        2.5"
        Light sensitivity Poor maximum light sensitivity Help
        1,600 ISO
        Screen flips out Fixed screen Help
        Less flexible
        Sensor type Sensor type Help
        CCD
        Popularity Not so popular Help
        Among snapsort users
        Wide angle Very poor wide angle lens Help
        38 mm
        Image stabilization No image stabilization Help
        Risk of blur
        True resolution Lower true resolution Help
        8 MP
        Sensor size Slightly smaller than average sensor Help
        1/2.5" 5.75x4.31mm
        Announced Old Help
        July 2007

        Appearance

        front photo of the Samsung S85back photo of the Samsung S85angle photo of the Samsung S85

        Discussion

        Samsung S85
        S85
        Samsung

        Report a correction

        Showing 0 comments