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
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (130)
87
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (130)
75
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (125)
94
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro (124)
80
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (117)
70
Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G
Best: Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G (82)
55
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (85)
60
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (93)
45
Xiaomi 14 Ultra
Best: Xiaomi 14 Ultra (120)
88
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (122)
68
Apple iPhone 15 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 15 Pro (116)
71
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (120)
73
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (120)
74
Oppo Find X6 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X6 Pro (118)
109
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (120)
70
Xiaomi 12S Ultra
Best: Xiaomi 12S Ultra (86)
83
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (119)
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
159
th
4. Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max
157
9. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
154
20. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
147
23. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
146
23. Motorola Edge 50 Ultra
146
28. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
144
30. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
141
30. Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold
141
34. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
140
40. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
137
47. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
135
47. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
135
54. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6
133
54. Samsung Galaxy S24+ (Exynos)
133
54. Samsung Galaxy S24 FE
133
54. Samsung Galaxy S24 (Exynos)
133
64. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip6
132
65. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
131
65. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
131
76. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
128
78. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
127
78. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
127
78. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
127
83. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
126
87. Asus Zenfone 11 Ultra
125
87. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
125
92. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
124
95. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
122
100. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
101. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
101. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
101. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
108. Apple iPhone 12 mini
117
108. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
117
108. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
117
108. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
117
114. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
116
117. Motorola Edge 50 Neo
115
117. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Snapdragon)
115
117. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
115
127. Crosscall Stellar-X5
113
127. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
131. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
112
133. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
111
133. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Exynos)
111
133. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
111
138. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
138. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Exynos)
108
143. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
146. Samsung Galaxy A35 5G
104
147. Motorola Edge 40 Neo
103
148. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
150. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
101
152. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
159. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
159. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
163. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
165. Motorola Moto g85 5G
88
165. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
165. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
169. Motorola moto g54 5G
85
169. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
169. Samsung Galaxy A16 LTE
85
172. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
84
174. Samsung Galaxy A15 5G
83
176. Samsung Galaxy A15 LTE
81
177. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
179. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
181. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
77
183. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
75
185. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
74
187. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
188. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
191. Motorola moto g34 5G
67
191. Samsung Galaxy A14 5G
67
193. Motorola Moto G62 5G
66
194. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
196. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
63
201. Honor Magic4 Lite 5G
61
203. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
60
211. Xiaomi Redmi 10 2022
51
213. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
Position in High-End Ranking
24
th
10. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
15. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
18. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
19. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
20. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
26. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
26. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
28. 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.