Two other smartphones ended up in the hands of the DxOMark team and were subjected to the usual test of the photographic sector, these are the mid-range Samsung Galaxy A53 5G and the premium model HONOR Magic 4 Pro.
Although placed in very different categories for reasons of economic positioning, the two smartphones are comparable in terms of final judgment: both convinced DxOMark, but neither of them made a miracle cry. Let’s find out some more details about the two tests.
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G according to DxOMark: average
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is the latest representative of Samsung’s successful mid-range Galaxy A series, however so far – mainly due to a poorly focused list price of € 469.90 – it has not provided enough arguments to be advised to the detriment of its predecessors and the outcome of the DxOMark test will hardly work in its favor, indeed.
Let’s start with a summary of the photographic sector of this model, which puts on the plate: main camera from 64 MP with aperture f / 1.8 and OIS; 12 MP ultra-wide-angle camera with f / 2.2 aperture; 5 MP macro camera with f / 2.4 aperture; 5 MP depth camera with f / 2.4 aperture; 4K video recording at 30fps, 1080p at 30 / 60fps (test at 1080p / 30fps).
DxOMark awarded Samsung Galaxy A53 5G a final score of 105, the result of 111 points for the photo sector, 48 points for zoom and 93 points for videos; as for the ranking, the tenth place in the High-End ranking sounds like a half rejection since it places it between Samsung Galaxy A72 and Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G with the same exact score.
The advantages highlighted by DxOMark include good exposure and wide dynamic range in good light and indoors; good level of detail in good light and indoors; nice color rendering with good light; precise and stable video display; good color rendering in the video in good light and indoors; a quite effective video stabilization.
The list of Consist is quite long and includes: halo effects can lead to unnatural exposure of the subject; image noise and white balance in bright light conditions and indoors; inaccurate focusing, especially in poor ambient lighting; underexposure in night shots without flash; in the video, unstable focus, little detail, limited dynamic range; in videos with low light, noise and a white balance tending towards orange; video artifacts.
For the complete test and all the samples, you can visit the DxOMark official website at this link.
HONOR Magic 4 Pro according to DxOMark: it is not the Ultimate
The second smartphone discussed here is HONOR Magic4 Pro , which, with a list price of € 1,099, must clearly meet much higher expectations. The photographic sector of this model offers: 50 MP main camera, 1 / 1.56 “sensor, 1.0 μm pixel, 23 mm equivalent, f / 1.8 aperture, PDAF, Laser-AF; 50 MP ultra-wide-angle camera, 1 / 2.5 “sensor, 13 mm equivalent, f / 2.2 aperture; 64 MP tele camera, 1 / 2.0 “sensor, 0.7 μm pixel, 90 mm equivalent, f / 3.5 aperture, OIS, PDAF; LED Flash, 3D Time-of-Flight sensor, Flicker sensor; 4K video recording at 30/60 fps, 1080p 30/60 fps (test in 4K / 30fps).
HONOR Magic4 Pro obtained a final score of 131 from DxOMark, the result of 138 points in the photo sector, 82 points for zoom and 109 points for videos. Overall, it’s a solid performance, but one that doesn’t allow Magic4 Pro to keep up with the best, least of all the HONOR Magic4 Ultimate flagship.
DxOMark places among the Pros: good exposure and wide dynamic range; good detail in bright light; well-controlled noise in bright light and indoors; good exposure and texture/noise balance in night shots; good exposure and color rendering with the ultra-wide camera; very good detail in the canvas shots; in videos with intense light and indoors, precise exposure, fairly wide dynamic range, good color rendering; effective video stabilization.
Here, however, is the list of Cons: unstable exposure in consecutive shots; occasional focus errors, especially in high-contrast scenes; low light color noise; color cast; unstable resolution in medium-range telephoto shots; unstable autofocus in the video; image noise in low-light videos; loss of fine detail in the video.
For more details and samples, find the complete proof at this link.