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
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b651a/b651a73c7681911c49585a355545d7ac3b231b79" alt=""
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
Oppo Find X8 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X8 Pro (116)
71
Oppo Find X8 Pro
Best: Oppo Find X8 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
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/43dc9/43dc98a402f748117778ae7965f49ecd851fc28b" alt=""
164
th
4. Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max
157
10. Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
154
21. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
147
24. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
146
24. Motorola Edge 50 Ultra
146
29. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
144
31. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
141
31. Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold
141
35. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
140
41. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
137
48. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
135
48. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
135
55. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6
133
55. Samsung Galaxy S24+ (Exynos)
133
55. Samsung Galaxy S24 FE
133
55. Samsung Galaxy S24 (Exynos)
133
65. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip6
132
66. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
131
66. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
131
77. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
128
79. Asus Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders
127
79. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip5
127
79. Samsung Galaxy S23 FE
127
84. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
126
88. Asus Zenfone 11 Ultra
125
88. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
125
93. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
124
96. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
122
101. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
102. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
120
102. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
120
102. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro 5G
120
107. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro+ 5G
118
110. Apple iPhone 12 mini
117
110. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
117
110. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
117
110. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Snapdragon)
117
116. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
116
119. Motorola Edge 50 Neo
115
119. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Snapdragon)
115
119. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
115
129. Crosscall Stellar-X5
113
129. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
133. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
112
135. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
111
135. Samsung Galaxy S21+ 5G (Exynos)
111
135. Samsung Galaxy S21 5G (Exynos)
111
140. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
140. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Exynos)
108
145. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
146. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro 5G
106
149. Samsung Galaxy A35 5G
104
150. Motorola Edge 40 Neo
103
150. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G
103
152. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
102
154. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
101
156. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
158. Motorola Moto g75 5G
96
164. Samsung Galaxy A34 5G
92
164. Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
92
168. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G
91
170. Motorola Moto g85 5G
88
170. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
170. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
174. Motorola moto g54 5G
85
174. Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
85
174. Samsung Galaxy A16 LTE
85
177. Honor Magic6 Lite (5300 mAh)
84
177. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14
84
180. Samsung Galaxy A15 5G
83
182. Samsung Galaxy A15 LTE
81
183. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
79
185. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro 5G
78
187. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G
77
189. Motorola Moto G35 5G
75
189. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13
75
192. Honor Magic5 Lite 5G
74
194. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
70
195. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G
69
198. Motorola moto g34 5G
67
198. Samsung Galaxy A14 5G
67
200. Motorola Moto G62 5G
66
201. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G
65
203. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12
63
208. Honor Magic4 Lite 5G
61
210. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
60
212. Crosscall Stellar-M6
59
219. Xiaomi Redmi 10 2022
51
221. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
48
Position in High-End Ranking
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/43dc9/43dc98a402f748117778ae7965f49ecd851fc28b" alt=""
25
th
10. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 Pro Plus 5G
121
11. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro+ 5G
118
16. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro+ 5G
113
19. Samsung Galaxy A55 5G
108
20. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
107
21. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
100
27. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
88
27. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
88
29. 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.