The Samsung Galaxy A22 5G is a smartphone aimed at budget-minded users and competes against other devices in the Advanced segment ($200 to 399). General specs include an octa-core processor, a 6.6-inch TFT display with FHD+ resolution, 64 GB of internal memory, and a large 5000 mAh battery.
The rear camera comprises a primary module with a 48 MP sensor, a 5 MP ultra-wide, and a depth sensor. Let’s see how this combo does in the DXOMARK Camera tests.
Key camera specifications:
- Primary: 48 MP sensor, f/1.8-aperture lens, AF
- Ultra-wide: 5 MP sensor, f/2.2-aperture lens
- Depth: 2 MP sensor, f/2.4-aperture lens
- LED flash
- Video: 2048 x 1152/30 fps, 720p/120 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 A22 5G
48
camera
74
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (130)
59
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (130)
86
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (125)
70
Xiaomi 15 Ultra
Best: Xiaomi 15 Ultra (125)
82
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (117)
67
Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G
Best: Xiaomi Redmi 12 5G (82)
50
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (85)
48
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (93)
27
Xiaomi 15 Ultra
Best: Xiaomi 15 Ultra (128)
40
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (122)
60
Oppo Find X8 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X8 Pro (116)
56
Oppo Find X8 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X8 Pro (120)
4
Huawei Pura 70 Ultra
Best: Huawei Pura 70 Ultra (120)
57
Oppo Find X6 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X6 Pro (118)
93
Apple iPhone 16 Pro
Best: Apple iPhone 16 Pro (120)
77
Xiaomi 12S Ultra
Best: Xiaomi 12S Ultra (86)
78
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
225
th
4. Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max
157
10. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
154
22. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
147
26. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
146
26. Motorola Edge 50 Ultra
146
26. Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra
146
32. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
144
34. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
141
34. Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold
141
38. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
140
43. Tecno Camon 40 Pro 5G
138
45. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
137
52. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
135
52. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
135
59. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S24+ (Exynos)
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S24 FE
133
59. Samsung Galaxy S24 (Exynos)
133
69. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip6
132
70. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
131
70. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
131
81. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
128
83. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
127
83. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
127
83. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
127
88. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
126
92. Asus Zenfone 11 Ultra
125
92. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
125
97. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
124
100. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
122
105. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
106. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
106. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
106. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
111. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro+ 5G
118
114. Apple iPhone 12 mini
117
114. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
117
114. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
117
114. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
117
120. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
116
123. Motorola Edge 50 Neo
115
123. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Snapdragon)
115
123. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
115
133. Crosscall Stellar-X5
113
133. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
137. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
112
139. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
111
139. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Exynos)
111
139. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
111
144. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
144. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Exynos)
108
149. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
150. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro 5G
106
153. Samsung Galaxy A35 5G
104
154. Motorola Edge 40 Neo
103
154. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G
103
156. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
158. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
101
160. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
162. Motorola Moto g75 5G
96
168. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
168. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
172. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
174. Motorola Moto g85 5G
88
174. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
174. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
178. Motorola moto g54 5G
85
178. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
178. Samsung Galaxy A16 LTE
85
181. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
84
181. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14
84
184. Samsung Galaxy A15 5G
83
186. Samsung Galaxy A15 LTE
81
187. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
189. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
191. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
77
193. Motorola Moto G35 5G
75
193. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
75
196. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
74
198. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
199. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
202. Motorola moto g34 5G
67
202. Samsung Galaxy A14 5G
67
204. Motorola Moto G62 5G
66
205. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
207. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
63
212. Honor Magic4 Lite 5G
61
214. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
60
216. Crosscall Stellar-M6
59
223. Xiaomi Redmi 10 2022
51
225. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
Position in Advanced Ranking
40
th
2. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
4. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro 5G
106
6. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G
103
8. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
12. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
12. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
14. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
17. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
19. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
84
23. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
24. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
77
29. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
30. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
33. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
40. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
Pros
- Acceptable target exposure and mostly accurate focus outdoors
- Fairly good detail outdoors, especially on portraits
- Well-controlled noise in low light
- Accurate white balance in video
- Low noise in outdoor and indoor videos
Cons
- Strong exposure instabilities in photos and videos
- White balance casts and color instabilities in photos
- Shutter delay in all conditions, focus failures in low light
- Strong video autofocus instabilities
- Limited dynamic range in videos
- Low levels of detail in videos
With a DXOMARK Camera overall score of 89, the Samsung Galaxy A22 5G is located in the bottom half of the advanced segment and is hard to recommend to photo-centric users. The device earns itself a Photo score of 99 for its still image quality. Target exposure is good as long as there’s not too much contrast in the scene, but our testers observed very noticeable exposure instabilities across consecutive shots and quite intrusive highlight clipping in more challenging scenes.
Detail in outdoor portraits is decent, but our testers observed exposure and autofocus instabilities, among other issues.
The Samsung also has some room for improvement in terms of color. White balance and color rendering are often inaccurate, especially in low light, and white balance is also unstable across a series of shots. The autofocus system is mostly accurate in bright light and under indoor shooting conditions, but there is noticeable shutter lag in all conditions and overall focus is less accurate and repeatable than for many competitors in the segment.
On the upside, the Samsung manages the texture/noise compromise pretty well. Texture is decent in most shooting conditions, with fairly well-preserved detail in outdoor portrait scenes. At the same time, noise is mostly well under control even in low light, which is unusual in this segment. You’d have to live with some image artifacts such as ghosting, aliasing, and ringing, though.
Night (flash-auto mode): the A22 performs poorly in terms of exposure and dynamic range in low-light scenes.
Bokeh mode: pleasantly strong
blur but depth estimation artifacts on the grid
Zooming in general is not one of the Samsung’s strengths, and users who zoom in or out a lot will find better options in this price bracket. The level of detail is generally low on the ultra-wide camera, and when using the tele-zoom, the loss of detail is akin to an oil painting effect.
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G, ultra-wide
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G, crop: Strong lack of detail
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G, long-range tele
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G, crop: Strong lack of detail, oil-painting effect
The video score of 75 puts the A22 5G in the bottom half of this ranking, too. Although the Samsung can record video at a slightly higher 2048 x 1152 resolution, image stabilization is not available at this setting, so we recorded test samples at 1080p resolution to maximize overall video quality. While white balance is generally accurate, pictures sometimes lack saturation. Dynamic range is limited, resulting in highlight and shadow clipping, and exposure is often unstable when recording. The same is true for the autofocus. Unlike still images, detail is low in videos, but noise is well under control as long as you record in bright light or indoors. Stabilization could be better. Residual motion and sharpness differences between frames are often visible.
Strong autofocus instabilities are visible in A22 video clips.
English
中文
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.