Tech

Samsung Galaxy A33 5G review: an affordable and quite versatile smartphone

On paper, this Galaxy A33 5G has a configuration similar to that of the 2021 model. We therefore find a quadruple photo sensor consisting of a 48 megapixel wide-angle lens, whose lens opens at f/1.8, an 8 Mpx ultra-wide angle lens (f / 2.2). , a 5 Mpx (f/2.4) macro module and a 2 Mpx (f/2.4) depth sensor. That said, Samsung’s handling is much more convincing on this model.

We compared it with Realme 9 Pro+currently one of the best photophones in this price segment.

Main module: 48 MP, f/1.8, eq. 26mm

The main 48MP module captures snapshots at 12MP by default. As with most other smartphones, it uses the technology of the pixel binding which allows four pixels to be merged into one to capture more light when it runs out.



Realme 9 Pro+ (12.5 MP, 26mm eq., f/1.8, ISO 157, 1/50s)


Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (12 Mpx, equivalent 26 mm, f/1.8, ISO 40, 1/50 s)

During the day, the Galaxy A33 5G delivers a good quality recording. The treatment made in Samsung is easily recognizable, especially due to the always saturated colors (as can be seen on the test charts) and the strong contrast. However, it allows you to benefit from a clearly legible and clear photo. The Realme 9 Pro+ offers a more detailed view and makes it possible, for example, to perceive roughness on the cover of the book or the map. The colorimetry is more accurate and gives a more natural tint to the whole, but Samsung doesn’t have to be ashamed of its (very good) opponent either.



Realme 9 Pro+ (12.5 MP, 26 mm eq., f/1.8, ISO 7600, 1/15s)


Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (12 Mpx, equivalent 26 mm, f/1.8, ISO 1000, 1/10 s)

Things inevitably get complicated in the dark. On a dimly lit scene, the Galaxy A33 5G’s digital smoothing lowers the level of detail. As a result, the whole loses legibility. The Realme 9 Pro+ certainly shows more noise, but the rendering is much better. We particularly enjoy a more advanced sharpness that allows quite accurate shots even in low light.

48 MP mode

It is always possible to force the full definition by making a modification. We therefore compared the 12 Mpx recordings with those of 48 Mpx by isolating an area of ​​equal size on both. You can see the difference in definition.



Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (48 Mpx, equivalent 26 mm, f/1.8, ISO 40, 1/50 s)


Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (12 Mpx, equivalent 26 mm, f/1.8, ISO 40, 1/50 s)



Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (48 Mpx, equivalent 26 mm, f/1.8, ISO 1000, 1/10 s)


Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (12 Mpx, equivalent 26 mm, f/1.8, ISO 1000, 1/10 s)

During the day, this mode is really interesting. Without significantly lengthening the shot, you can take advantage of a higher level of detail and apply a more natural treatment than the standard mode. In the dark, on the other hand, digital smoothing is much more visible and you cannot benefit from a fundamentally better recording. This mode will therefore be reserved for shooting in bright environments.

Ultra wide angle module: 8 Mpx, f/2.2, 123°



Realme 9 Pro+ (f/2.3, ISO 155, 1/50 sec)


Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (f/2.2, ISO 80, 1/50 sec)

Unfortunately, the ultra-wide-angle module doesn’t come as a surprise. During the day, the scene is overexposed and lacks sharpness, but remains usable. The level of detail is far from optimal, but that is also the case with the Realme 9 Pro+. The latter offers a more contrasting and saturated display, but we are far from the performance of the main sensor.



Realme 9 Pro+ (f/2.3, ISO 8626, 1/20s)


Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (f/2.2, ISO 1000, 1/8 sec)

At night, neither smartphone manages to get out of the game, digital noise penetrates the image and the recordings are almost unusable. Capture is still much faster on the Realme 9 Pro+.

Front and video module

At the front we do not find the very good 32 Mpx sensor of the Galaxy A53, but a 13 Mpx module whose lens opens at f/2.2. However, the shots are reasonably successful and benefit from good sharpness, if properly exposed.

The wide angle can film up to 4K at 30 fps and in Full HD up to 60 fps. We recommend the latter. The rendering is quite correct, despite difficulties in managing the highlights. So watch out for backlight.