Samsung fans hoping the Galaxy S27 Pro would be a mini Ultra might want to pump the brakes. According to a fresh report, the company has dialed back the Pro model’s camera ambitions, creating clearer separation between the different phones in the S27 lineup.
Naver blogger Lanzuk, who’s been spot-on with several past leaks, says Samsung has reworked the camera setup for the Galaxy S27 Pro. Instead of giving it near-identical imaging hardware to the flagship Ultra (as some earlier rumors suggested), the Pro is now shaping up as the sensible middle child: stronger than the regular S27 but not quite the photography beast the Ultra will be.
Now it looks like the Pro will share only some camera components with the Ultra and borrow more specs from the base S27 and S27+ models. In other words, the S27 Pro could end up filling the exact spot many enthusiasts have wanted the base model to occupy: compact, but noticeably more capable.
That said, broader leaks point to some meaningful camera upgrades across the board. Both the Pro and Ultra are rumored to finally get a 16MP front camera, Samsung’s first selfie sensor jump in years, moving on from that old 12MP unit.
On the back, both the Pro and Ultra are still expected to feature a 200MP main sensor. However, their telephoto setups will likely differ quite a bit. Samsung is reportedly dropping the dedicated 3x telephoto lens on the Ultra, relying instead on digital zoom and AI to cover focal lengths from 1x up to around 5x before switching to its periscope telephoto. Details are still scarce, but the Pro is unlikely to get the Ultra’s higher-end 5x periscope. This difference should help clearly justify the Ultra’s premium price and top-tier positioning.
Of course, take all this with a big grain of salt. These are early development leaks, and Samsung’s plans could evolve as the launch gets closer.
Don’t miss a thing! Join our Telegram community for instant updates and grab our free daily newsletter for the best tech stories!
For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.
(Source)
Comments