Samsung WB150F vs Samsung WB30F

Winner
Samsung WB150F

58

Samsung WB30F

54

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Samsung WB150F

Thin
Thickness
0.9"
 

Reasons to buy the Samsung WB30F

Size
Really small
Ultra compact (98×58×17 mm)
Thickness
Thin
0.7"
Weight
Light-weight
128 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 31 sample photos taken by the Samsung WB150F.
Explore our gallery of 1 sample photo taken by the Samsung WB30F.

differences

Advantages of the Samsung WB150F

Report a correction
Zoom
More zoom
18x vs 10x
Help
More than 3x more zoom
Screen resolution
Higher resolution screen
460k dots vs 230k dots
Help
2x higher resolution screen
Longest exposure
Longer exposures
16s vs 8s
Help
2x longer exposures
Lowest price
Slightly cheaper
$216.00 vs $254.33
Help
The best price we've seen is $38 cheaper (around 20% less)
Samsung WB150F Learn more about
the Samsung WB150F

Advantages of the Samsung WB30F

Report a correction
Size
Smaller
98×58×17 mm vs 107×60×23 mm
Help
Around 40% smaller
Weight
Lighter
128 g vs 188 g
Help
More than 30% lighter
Aperture
Slightly wider aperture
f/3.1 vs f/3.2
Help
Almost the same
Thickness
Thinner
0.7" vs 0.9"
Help
Around 30% thinner
Samsung WB30F Learn more about
the Samsung WB30F
vs

recommendations

Which camera do we recommend? Relative to the best recent travel zooms, and ignoring price

Snapsort Recommends
Samsung WB150F Samsung WB150F 58
Retailer
    Style
      Color
        You save
        vs
        54 Samsung WB30F Samsung WB30F
        Retailer
          Style
            Color
              You save

              similarities

              Compared to recent compacts

              Common Strengths
              Wide angle Good wide angle Help
              24 mm
              Size Fairly small Help
              WB150F107×60×23 mm
              WB30F98×58×17 mm
              Screen size Larger than average screens Help
              3"
              Image stabilization Good image stabilization Help
              1. Lens
              Panorama In-camera panoramas Help
              Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
              Thickness Thin Help
              WB150F0.9"
              WB30F0.7"
              Common Weaknesses
              Waterproof Not waterproof Help
              Stay on land
              Sensor type Lower-end sensor types Help
              CCD
              Supports RAW No RAW support Help
              Less editing fidelity
              HDR Neither has in-camera HDR Help
              You could do HDR manually
              Light sensitivity Poor maximum light sensitivity Help
              3,200 ISO
              Movie format Both shoot high resolution HD movies Help
              720p @ 30fps
              Screen flips out No flip-out screens Help
              Less flexible

              Compared to recent travel zooms

              Common Strengths

              Snapsort is not aware of any interesting strengths shared by these two products.

              Common Weaknesses
              External mic jack Neither has an external mic jack Help
              Limited to the in-camera mic
              High-speed framerate No high speed movie support Help
              Not supported

              competitors

              Shared Competitors

              Advantages

              Disadvantages

              Samsung WB35F

              Samsung WB35F

              Travel zoom

              $70 - $109

              Lowest price Is slightly less expensive
              Thickness Is thicker
              Screen size Has a significantly smaller screen
              Samsung WB350F

              Samsung WB350F

              Travel zoom

              $150 - $210

              Wide angle Has a slightly wider wide angle lens
              Movie format Records higher quality movies
              Thickness Is thicker
              Weight Is significantly heavier
              Samsung WB250F

              Samsung WB250F

              Travel zoom

              $115

              Movie format Records higher quality movies
              Touch screen Has a touch screen
              Thickness Is thicker
              Weight Is significantly heavier
              Sony CyberShot DSC-W800

              Sony CyberShot DSC-W800

              Ultra compact

              $88

              Size Is slightly smaller
              Lowest price Is slightly less expensive
              Fastest shutter speed Has a slower max shutter speed
              Thickness Is thicker
              Samsung WB200F

              Samsung WB200F

              Travel zoom

              $280

              Touch screen Has a touch screen
              Thickness Is thicker
              Weight Is significantly heavier
              Samsung ST200F

              Samsung ST200F

              Digicam

              $285

              Wide angle Has a significantly narrower wide angle lens
              Olympus Stylus SH-1

              Olympus Stylus SH-1

              Travel zoom

              $199 - $289

              Zoom Has slightly more zoom
              Movie format Records higher quality movies
              Thickness Is thicker
              Weight Is much heavier

              Samsung WB150F Competitors

              Advantages

              Disadvantages

              Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9v

              Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9v

              Travel zoom

              GPS Has a GPS
              Movie format Higher resolution movies
              Size Significantly larger
              Zoom Slightly less zoom

              Samsung WB30F Competitors

              Advantages

              Disadvantages

              No significant competitors found that are specific to the Samsung WB30F.

              appearance

              Samsung WB150F Samsung WB30F
              Samsung WB150F Samsung WB30F
              Samsung WB150F Samsung WB30F

              discussion

              Samsung WB150F
              WB150F
              Samsung

              Report a correction
              Samsung WB30F
              WB30F
              Samsung

              Report a correction

              Showing 0 comments