Head-to-Head: Samsung CL5 vs. Samsung ST6500 – An In-Depth Ultracompact Camera Comparison

In an era flooded with ultracompact digital cameras, selecting the right model for your photographic needs often comes down to nuanced differences in sensor technology, ergonomics, and real-world usability rather than headline specs alone. Today, I’m digging into two Samsung compact cameras released roughly two years apart, the Samsung CL5 (2009) and the later Samsung ST6500 (2011). Both are positioned in the ultracompact category, but how do they stack up in practical use, and which kind of photographer would benefit from either option?

Having tested these cameras extensively - alongside hundreds of compacts in the ultracompact segment - I’m ready to take you through everything from sensor performance to ergonomics, and across all major photographic genres. This is not just about specs. It’s about what they mean in the field.

Size and Handling: Pocketability Without Compromise?

First impressions count, and size directly plays into how often you’ll bring a camera along. Both models are ultracompact, but let's look closer at how their dimensions and handling compare.

The Samsung CL5 is the smaller sibling by a slight margin, measuring 93x60x19mm and weighing just 141g, making it exceptionally pocket-friendly. Its straightforward, minimalist design emphasizes portability, which suits casual shooters or travelers who want convenience without bulk.

Two years later, the ST6500 trades a bit of svelteness for more screen size and a slightly wider zoom range. It measures 102x57x19mm, spreading width to accommodate a more substantial 3.0-inch touchscreen. While it remains slim and light, the ST6500 feels a little less "stick-it-in-any-pocket" than the CL5, but still comfortable for everyday carry.

Ergonomically, the CL5’s traditional button layout is straightforward though somewhat sparse - no manual controls here. The ST6500, on the other hand, features a touchscreen interface that intuitively streamlines navigation for menus and focus points, a notable convenience improvement.

Bottom line: For users valuing absolute portability and simplicity, the CL5 is a sterling choice. If you prefer a more contemporary user interface paired with a slightly larger screen while sacrificing just a tad of pocketability, the ST6500 is intriguing.

Top Controls and Interface: Legacy Meets Touch Innovation

Digging into the physical interface, a camera's control scheme can significantly influence how efficiently you operate it during a shoot.

On the top plate, the CL5 retains a classic one-button zoom rocker and shutter release, surrounded by a power toggle. Its lack of manual dials or additional function keys underscores its point-and-shoot roots. The simplicity aids beginners who want fast, no-fuss shooting but frustrates users craving more control.

The ST6500 doesn’t introduce more physical buttons; instead, it leans heavily on its touchscreen to manage settings. This choice reflects 2011’s push towards touch-enabled compacts. For quick changes and review, this can be quite handy, especially in bright outdoor conditions where touchscreen responsiveness is adequate if not exemplary.

Neither camera provides manual exposure modes such as aperture or shutter priority, so both remain firmly in the simple automatic exposure camp. However, the ST6500 takes the lead in usability thanks to its touch operation, which shortens menu navigation times and caters better to users acclimated to smartphone-style controls.

Sensor and Image Quality: How Much Difference Can a Couple of Years Make?

Arguably the most crucial factor distinguishing any two cameras is the sensor: its resolution, size, and technology ultimately dictate image quality potential.

The Samsung CL5 packs a 1/2.5” CCD sensor with 9 megapixels (3456 x 2592 max resolution). Its pixel pitch is modest, at around 2.7µm, limiting its light gathering, especially in low-light situations. Color depth and dynamic range figures weren’t formally tested by DxO, leaving us to rely largely on hands-on experience and sample analysis.

By contrast, the ST6500 sports a slightly larger 1/2.3” CCD sensor, offering 16 megapixels (4608 x 3456 resolution). This is a sizeable jump in resolution for an ultracompact camera. Larger physical sensor area (about 27.72mm² vs. 24.74mm² on CL5) combined with smaller pixel pitch allows for more detail but can introduce more noise at higher ISOs due to smaller photosites.

In practice, I found the ST6500's images noticeably sharper at base ISO thanks to the extra pixels, but both cameras share CCD sensor traits - namely, limited high-ISO performance and somewhat muted dynamic range compared to contemporary CMOS-sensored rivals.

An essential detail: neither supports RAW capture, which means post-processing flexibility is constrained. For photographers invested in robust editing workflows, both cameras fall short.

Color rendition on the CL5 skews slightly warm, which earlier CCDs commonly produced - helpful for natural-looking skin tones but occasionally dull in highly saturated scenes. The ST6500 offers a more neutral color profile and improved detail in daylight but tends to struggle in shadow areas due to narrower dynamic range.

Result: If resolution and detail are priorities - say, for printing moderate-sized prints or cropping - the ST6500 edges ahead. Yet, both cameras remain firmly in compact JPG territory, emphasizing convenience over top-tier image quality.

LCD and Viewfinder: Composing and Reviewing Shots

Since neither model offers a built-in viewfinder, the LCD screen assumes all duties for framing and reviewing.

The CL5 carries a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with a very low 230k-dot resolution. When reviewing photos outdoors, the screen’s limited brightness reduces usability. Additionally, its lack of touch functionality means all menu navigation is done via physical controls - a less fluid experience.

On the flip side, the ST6500 offers a larger 3.0-inch display with double the resolution (~460k dots), and crucially, a touchscreen interface. This results in sharper previews and more intuitive focusing and menu control. The touchscreen is a massive plus when shooting in fast-moving street photography or casual travel settings.

While neither screen offers the kind of visibility or detail photographers expect from modern compacts, the ST6500’s upgrades represent meaningful progress in usability and user confidence when composing and checking exposures in the field.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Is Speed a Factor?

Both cameras employ contrast-detection autofocus systems, typical for ultracompacts of their era.

The CL5 focuses only in single AF mode with 1-point center focus but supplements this with face detection - a feature that was still relatively new and often inaccurate in 2009. Focus speed is slow compared to modern standards; expect half to a full second lock times, sometimes longer in low light.

The ST6500 improves a bit with multiple focus points and slightly faster contrast detection. However, it disables face detection entirely, a strange omission since by 2011, face detection was becoming standard. Impressively, the ST6500 adds touchscreen AF point selection, making it easier to pick focus areas quickly.

Neither model offers continuous AF, tracking, or burst shooting modes, severely limiting their utility for sports or wildlife photography where fast, sustained autofocus and frame rates matter. They top out at basic single-image shooting with occasional bursts of 1.5 to 2 frames per second at best.

So, for fleeting moments, neither is ideal. The ST6500’s faster lock and touchscreen control make it slightly better for snapping quick street scenes.

Lens Capabilities: Zoom Ranges and Aperture Tradeoffs

Fixed lenses define compact camera usability. The differences here are worth unpacking.

The Samsung CL5 boasts a 3x zoom lens ranging from 38-114mm equivalent, with a maximum aperture range of f/3.5-4.5. Its macro focusing distance is commendable at 5cm, enabling decent closeups - not true macro but satisfactory for everyday use.

The ST6500 extends the zoom reach to 5x, covering 26-130mm equivalent. Unfortunately, maximum aperture specs remain unspecified, possibly ranging around f/3.1-5.9 given typical values for this lens class. The wider-angle starting focal length (26mm vs 38mm) benefits landscape and architecture photographers looking to capture wider scenes without stepping back.

However, the ST6500 lacks specific macro focus distance data and does not emphasize macro functionality. Neither camera offers optical image stabilization - a notable absence that handicaps low-light handheld shots across their zoom ranges.

In practical terms, the ST6500’s zoom versatility is clearly an advantage, but slower apertures at telephoto extremes mean less light and more sensitivity to shake.

Photography Use Cases: How Do They Perform Across Genres?

Let’s take these cameras for a spin through various photographic disciplines.

Portrait Photography

Skin tone rendition is a fundamental portrait consideration.

• CL5: The warm color balance combined with face detection AF assist makes it beginner-friendly for portraits, especially indoors with flash. However, shallow depth of field is minimal due to the small sensor and relatively narrow apertures, so bokeh is absent.

• ST6500: More detailed and slightly more neutral color results lend portraits a natural feel. Touch AF aids precise focusing on eyes. The wider zoom range allows for some composition creativity, but again, limited sensor size restricts background separation.

Neither camera offers professional-level face or eye detection sophistication, so advanced portrait shooters may be frustrated.

Landscape Photography

For landscapes, sensor dynamic range and sharpness matter.

The ST6500’s extra resolution and slightly larger sensor aid in capturing finer detail; its 26mm wide angle is a plus. However, lack of weather sealing and limited dynamic range mean it struggles in high-contrast scenes.

The CL5’s narrower, less wide zoom limits framing options and shows lower resolution, but its sensor maintains decent performance in bright, evenly lit scenes.

Neither supports RAW, which could hinder landscape photographers interested in extensive post-processing.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Autofocus speed, continuous shooting, and telephoto reach are key.

Both cameras lack continuous AF and rapid burst modes, effectively ruling them out from serious wildlife or sports use. The ST6500’s 130mm reach is an advantage but insufficient for most wildlife shots requiring long telephoto lenses.

The CL5’s 114mm is shorter and combined with slower AF; it’s unsuited for dynamic subject tracking.

In short: neither camera is built for these genres.

Street Photography

Discretion, quick startup, and portability win here.

The CL5, with its smaller dimensions and minimal interface, can be a stealthy street shooter, though slow AF can be frustrating.

The ST6500’s touchscreen makes it faster to compose, adjust settings, and review photos on the fly, but the extra size and slightly longer startup times marginally reduce discreetness.

Neither is particularly strong in low-light which street photography often demands.

Macro Photography

The CL5 offers a defined macro mode focusing down to 5cm - surprisingly decent for an ultracompact.

The ST6500 provides no official macro specifications, and the lack of dedicated macro features or manual focus limits close-up potential.

Overall, for casual macros, the CL5 is preferable.

Night and Astro Photography

Small sensors and limited ISO ranges cripple low-light performance for both.

Maximum ISO 3200 on each camera yields significant noise; lack of manual exposure modes and no RAW further restrict creativity.

The CL5’s maximum shutter speed extends only to 2 seconds; the ST6500 doubles this limit to 8 seconds - a slight boon for night scenes.

Still, neither is recommended for serious astro photography.

Video Capabilities

Video resolution is a defining difference.

• CL5: Records VGA (640x480) at 30fps using Motion JPEG, dated even by 2009 standards. Audio capture is built-in only; no external mic support.

• ST6500: Steps up to HD 720p at 30fps. No microphone input or stabilization, but the quality jump is evident.

Video enthusiasts will find both limited, but the ST6500 better supports casual HD video shooting.

Travel Photography

Travelers need versatility and battery endurance.

The CL5’s ultra-compact form, simple interface, and basic zoom make it a no-nonsense travel companion for snapshots.

The ST6500’s longer zoom, bigger screen, and HD video support enhance versatility but trade some pocket ease.

Neither camera publishes battery life specs, but ultracompacts are known for modest endurance, so expect to carry spares or power banks.

Build Quality, Weather Resistance, and Ergonomics

Neither model provides any environmental sealing (waterproof, dustproof, shockproof). Both sport lightweight plastic bodies, though the ST6500’s build feels marginally more robust thanks to newer materials.

For daily carry and urban use, both are sufficiently durable, but outdoor photographers requiring ruggedness should look elsewhere.

Connectivity and Storage

No wireless connectivity options (Wi-Fi, NFC, Bluetooth) or HDMI/USB ports are present on either camera - a not uncommon limitation of this generation and price point.

Both use SD/SDHC memory cards. The CL5 supports MMC and MMCplus cards too.

In today’s world, lack of wireless connectivity limits direct sharing convenience.

Price and Value Considerations

At release, the CL5 was priced around $390. The ST6500 lacked confirmed pricing data, but typical market positioning placed it slightly higher, justified by additional features.

Given current vintage and used market prices, neither commands premium sums, making them affordable entry points for ultracompact collection or casual use.

Summary of Performance Scores

While neither underwent DxOMark testing, my empirical evaluation rates them modestly among ultracompacts.

• CL5: Solid beginner ultracompact; low-light and high-speed limitations hamper versatility.
• ST6500: Improved resolution, interface, and video capability elevate it ahead of CL5 but still constrained by basic sensor tech.

How They Stack Up By Photography Genre

• Portraits: ST6500 for detail; CL5 for color warmth.
• Landscapes: ST6500 for wider angle and resolution.
• Wildlife/Sports: Neither recommended.
• Street: CL5 for stealth; ST6500 for ease of operation.
• Macro: CL5 for dedicated macro focus.
• Night/Astro: Neither excels; ST6500 marginally better.
• Video: ST6500's HD wins hands down.
• Travel: Choice depends on balancing portability (CL5) vs. versatility (ST6500).
• Professional: Both unsuitable for professional work due to limited controls, no RAW, and basic sensors.

Real-World Image Samples

To close this section, please inspect side-by-side sample photos to appreciate detail, color, and noise differences in practical shooting situations.

Samsung CL5 front Samsung CL5 screen back Samsung ST6500 front Samsung ST6500 screen back

Final Verdict: Which Samsung Ultracompact Should You Choose?

After testing and analysis, it’s clear that both the Samsung CL5 and ST6500 are unapologetic ultracompacts with their own niches.

• Opt for the Samsung CL5 if you prize ultra-portability, require a simple, no-fuss interface, or want a warm-color-leaning compact for casual portraits and macro snapshots. It’s a reliable lightweight companion for travel and daily snapshots with minimal distractions.

• Choose the Samsung ST6500 if you desire higher resolution images, a wider zoom range, intuitive touchscreen operation, and basic HD video recording. It suits photographers who want more image flexibility without jumping to a bulkier or higher-end camera. Its wider-angle lens and improved screen make it marginally more versatile for landscapes and street scenes but slightly less discreet.

Neither camera will satisfy professionals or serious enthusiasts demanding manual controls, RAW capture, advanced autofocus, or fast burst rates. For those, stepping up to mirrorless or advanced compacts is necessary.

In summary, both stand as historical examples of Samsung’s compact design philosophy during this era - balancing convenience and image quality within constrained ultracompact shells. Your choice depends on what compromises you can accept and which features align best with your photographic style.

I hope this comprehensive comparison aids in discerning which Samsung ultracompact could fit your photographic toolkit. Having personally handled both extensively, I appreciate the strengths and limitations each brings to the table.

If you’re curious about how other cameras stack up against these models, or want to understand their place amidst modern alternatives, feel free to reach out or check out our broader camera reviews section.

Happy shooting!