Samsung SL620 vs TL240: An Experienced Photographer’s In-Depth Comparison of Two Ultracompact Contenders

When delving into the realm of ultracompact cameras, the balance between portability, image quality, and user-friendly features often makes or breaks a model’s long-term appeal. Samsung’s SL620 and TL240 - released just under a year apart in 2009 and 2010 respectively - both vie for attention in this crowded space. But which one genuinely stands out when put through the paces of professional scrutiny and real-world photography experience? As someone who has tested thousands of cameras over 15 years across extensive genres, I’m here to give you the lowdown on these two. We’ll dig into everything from sensor prowess and autofocus quirks to ergonomics and video chops, ensuring you get a balanced take - not just the marketing hyperbole.

Let’s embark on this comparative journey with a hands-on, no-nonsense approach.

A Tale of Two Ultracompacts: First Impressions and Physical Reality

I always say: before you shoot a single pixel, hold the camera in your hands. The physical dimensions, button layout, and overall ergonomics govern the shooting experience far more than raw specs on paper.

Here’s where the SL620 and TL240 diverge in their basic footprint.

The SL620 (92x61x23mm, 168g) is slightly more compact and thick, providing a fairly comfortable grip despite its small size. The TL240 stretches a bit wider by design (104x58x20mm, 160g), trading depth for width and shedding some weight. From firsthand experience, the SL620 feels a smidge chunkier - which oddly enough I prefer for stability, especially when zoomed in. The thinner TL240 is more pocketable but treads closer to feeling fragile under sustained use.

The minimal weight difference doesn’t drastically affect hand fatigue, but those shooting for hours might favor the SL620’s more substantial form. Also worth noting: neither offers a true optical or electronic viewfinder - important for composing in bright sunlight, a common frustration in ultracompacts.

Control Layout: Where Design Meets Intuition

Physical size aside, the control scheme substantially impacts usability. Ever fumbled to change settings mid-shot because of tiny buttons or convoluted menus? I know I have.

The SL620 flaunts a straightforward top layout: a power button, shutter release surrounded by zoom toggle, and a well-positioned mode dial. Navigating menus on its fixed 2.7-inch screen is tolerable but not joyful, due mainly to the lower resolution 230k dot display and missing touchscreen support.

The TL240, boasting a larger 3.5-inch touchscreen (also 230k dots), wins points here for intuitive interaction - pinch to zoom, tap to focus, and swipe through settings make for a significantly smoother experience. The subtle haptic feedback on the touchscreen (surprisingly responsive for its era) helps reduce misses.

That said, neither camera offers manual focus rings or exposure compensation dials, reflecting their “point-and-shoot” simplicity aimed at casual enthusiasts rather than manual control aficionados.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Now, onto the raw numbers that matter to any shooter - image quality.

Both cameras utilize 1/2.3” CCD sensors, with sensor areas around 27.7mm² for SL620 and a hair larger 28.1mm² in the TL240. Resolution tips toward the TL240’s 14MP versus SL620’s 12MP, promising finer detail theoretically.

However, sensor size alone doesn’t dictate quality. CCD sensors of this class are notorious for noise at higher ISOs and limited dynamic range. Unfortunately, neither camera was reviewed by DxOMark, leaving us to rely on hands-on experience and user reports.

From my own tests:

• The SL620 delivers decent image quality at base ISO 80 and 100, with clean, natural skin tones in good lighting. However, pushing ISO above 400 quickly degrades images with pronounced noise and loss of fine detail.

• The TL240, with a higher max ISO rating up to 4800 (boosted to 6400 possible), extends low-light capabilities. Optical image stabilization (more on that soon) allows for lower ISO settings in challenging conditions. Still, noise reduction blurring and color shifts become evident past ISO 800 in my experience.

• Dynamic range on both is limited - expect clipped highlights in harsh light and muddy shadows without postprocessing.

If you prioritize crisp daylight shots with moderate ISO use, both are serviceable but not spectacular. The TL240’s higher resolution pays dividends for landscapes and detailed vistas, although these cameras won’t rival modern APS-C or full-frame offerings in image quality.

Focusing Systems and Speed: Hunting for Sharpness

Autofocus systems in ultracompacts tend to favor convenience over speed or precision. Contrast-detection AF dominates here, but how do these two Samsung models stack up?

• Samsung SL620: Single AF mode only, no continuous or tracking options. Center-weighted focusing with face detection available. My tests found the autofocus competent but noticeably sluggish, especially in low contrast or dim environments. Achieving sharp macro shots required steady hands and patience.

• Samsung TL240: Introduces AF tracking and area modes, supplemented by touchscreen AF point selection. This is a meaningful upgrade in user control. Autofocus speed is improved, likely due to closer iteration on image processing. Still, hunting remains a factor in challenging focus scenarios such as wildlife or sports.

Neither camera supports manual focusing, focus bracketing, or focus stacking - which limits creative control or technical shooting nuances like macro precision.

Optical Features and Lens Performance: What’s in the Glass?

Compact cameras often suffer from plastic kits or limited zooms, but Samsung’s ultracompacts provide respectable lens ranges.

• SL620 lens covers 35-175mm (35mm equivalent) with aperture varying from f/2.8 at the wide end to f/5.7 telephoto.

• TL240 stretches further at 31-217mm with a slightly narrower max aperture of f/3.3-5.5.

While the TL240 offers greater zoom reach, the slightly slower apertures could impact low-light ability and bokeh quality. The SL620’s faster wide aperture lets in more light, beneficial for environmental portraits and shallow depth of field.

Macro performance is another story: the TL240’s ability to focus as close as 1cm is impressive, enabling near-microscopic detail shots. The SL620 macro range of 5cm is decent but less versatile. Notably, neither camera supports raw image capture, limiting post-processing options to JPEG.

Stabilization and Low-Light Shooting: Staying Steady Matters

Nothing grinds my gears like blurry images caused by camera shake - especially at longer focal lengths or dim conditions.

• SL620 lacks optical or sensor-shift stabilization entirely. This omission hurts its low-light usability - shutter speeds must remain fast enough to avoid blur, pushing ISO up and compromising image quality.

• TL240 introduces Optical Image Stabilization (OIS), a game-changer in this category. Combined with its touchscreen AF, low-light shots are cleaner and sharper. This makes the TL240 better suited for handheld night, indoor, or telephoto scenarios.

Neither camera sports in-body stabilization nor advanced sensor-based stabilization modes, and long exposure astro/night shooting will require a tripod for best results on both.

LCD Screen and User Interface: Seeing Is Believing

How you interact with your camera’s menus can either elevate or sabotage your user experience.

The SL620’s 2.7-inch fixed LCD is small by today’s standards, with an underwhelming 230k dot resolution. It’s usable but feels cramped for composing or reviewing images.

In contrast, the TL240 boasts a much larger 3.5-inch touchscreen of identical resolution. The bigger screen real estate lets you spot focus errors and framing cues more easily. Touch controls simplify settings adjustments and quick focus shifts - bells and whistles that outshine the SL620’s archaic non-touch interface.

However, neither display offers articulating movement or protection glass, so glare and scratching remain concerns in bright or rough outdoor shoots.

Build Quality and Durability: How Tough Are They?

Neither camera claims environmental sealing, waterproofing, dustproofing, or shock resistance. They are honest ultracompacts meant for casual everyday carry rather than professional rugged conditions.

The SL620’s slightly bulkier shape feels sturdier in hand, while the TL240’s slimmer form factor edges toward feeling a bit more delicate. For travel photographers or active users, adding a protective case or pouch is advisable with both.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity: The Practical Nuts and Bolts

Both cameras lack official battery life ratings, but anecdotal testing indicates typical ultracompact ranges - somewhere around 200-300 shots per charge with moderate use.

• SL620 uses an unspecified battery type but supports standard SD/SDHC/ MMC cards plus internal memory.

• TL240 specifies the SLB-11A battery, supports MicroSD/MicroSDHC cards, and includes some internal storage.

Connectivity is limited on both: no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS. TL240 offers a rare HDMI output port for direct high definition playback on compatible TVs, whereas the SL620 does not.

USB 2.0 ports on both serve for data transfer, which is painfully slow by today’s standards but typical for their release era.

Shooting Across Genres: How Do These Cameras Perform in Practice?

This is where theory becomes reality. Having wielded both the SL620 and TL240 through diverse shooting scenarios, here’s how they hold up across popular genres.

Portrait Photography: Capturing Skin and Emotion

In portrait work, especially with skin tones, accurate autofocus and bokeh quality matter more than megapixels.

• SL620 produces pleasing, natural skin tones in good light but struggles with bokeh due to narrower aperture and lack of stabilization. Face detection autofocus works but is slow, making candid capture less reliable.

• TL240’s longer zoom and OIS allow for tighter framing and softer background separation. Touchscreen AF is handy for locking on eyes, although face detection isn’t available. The macro mode also lets you get creative with close-up texture shots.

Landscape Photography: Resolution and Range in the Great Outdoors

Landscape demands detail, dynamic range, and weather reliability.

• SL620’s 12MP sensor and limited dynamic range cap its raw scenic potential, and no weatherproofing discourages expose-it-all-day approaches.

• TL240’s 14MP sensor offers higher resolution vistas and slightly better dynamic latitude, though neither camera rivals DSLR or mirrorless mid-to-high end performers here.

Neither camera is weather sealed, so hikers or mountaineers might want to consider sturdy cases or alternative rugged compacts.

Wildlife and Sports: Fast Focus and Burst Rates

Neither camera is primarily built for speed.

• SL620’s single AF mode and no continuous shooting function mean it misses fast-moving action shots.

• TL240’s AF tracking helps a bit, but the lack of continuous shooting renders it suboptimal for birding or sports professionals.

Street Photography: Stealth and Speed

Tiny size aids street shooters.

• SL620’s compactness and unobtrusive design are assets, but slow AF and tiny screen hamper quick snaps under variable lighting.

• TL240, despite slightly bigger size, benefits from touchscreen controls and better zoom range for dynamic street framing, though it lacks a viewfinder for decisive composition.

Macro and Close-Up Work: Precision Required

TL240 clearly wins here with a 1cm macro focus distance versus SL620’s 5cm, ideal for capturing fine detail like insects or textures.

Both lack focus stacking, so depth of field is shallow and must be navigated carefully.

Night/Astro Photography: Handling Darkness

Limited high ISO capabilities and no bulb modes handicaps both cameras. The TL240’s OIS allows some handheld benefits at mildly elevated exposures, but a tripod remains essential to avoid noise or blur in both cases.

Video Capabilities: Moving Pictures on the Go

Both record in Motion JPEG format - a dated codec producing large files, but straightforward to use.

• SL620 maxes out at 640x480 at 30fps, a low resolution by any measure today.

• TL240 upgrades to 1280x720 HD at 30fps, a significant improvement offering better detail and smoother footage. HDMI output makes playback easier.

Neither has microphone or headphone jacks, limiting sound control.

Travel Photography: Versatility on the Move

Travelers want all-rounders.

• SL620’s smaller size and simplicity appeal to minimalist packing, though lack of OIS and limited zoom might frustrate.

• TL240’s enhanced zoom, touchscreen, OIS, and video capabilities present a versatile travel companion - albeit with larger footprint.

Price-to-Performance and Final Verdict

Both cameras are affordable, with TL240 generally costing around $170 and SL620 around $200 secondhand today. Given their age, new models aren’t available, but for budget-conscious buyers or collectors, these points matter.

Broadly, the TL240 edges ahead in technology (14MP sensor, OIS, touchscreen, HD video), translating to a better all-around compact for enthusiasts wanting flexibility without complexity.

For casual users prioritizing straightforward shooting and compactness, the SL620 remains a viable choice but increasingly feels dated.

No single camera shines across all disciplines - but:

• TL240 suits travel, landscapes, macro, and casual video enthusiasts best.

• SL620 might appeal to portrait shooters on a tight budget who mostly shoot in good light conditions and value simplicity.

Wrapping Up: Which Samsung Ultracompact Should You Choose?

I’ve been upfront about both cameras’ limitations imposed by their ultracompact class and release era. To summarize:

• Choose the Samsung TL240 if you want:

  • Better zoom range and macro prowess
  • Touchscreen convenience and faster autofocus
  • Optical image stabilization for steady shots
  • High definition video recording and HDMI output
  • More versatile shooting across situations

• Stick with the Samsung SL620 if you:

  • Value compactness and comfortable in-hand grip above all
  • Shoot predominantly in good light and from static positions
  • Prefer a simpler, tactile button interface
  • Shoot casual portraits and snapshots without video needs

Both cameras are charming throwbacks showing how Samsung once approached the ultracompact market with care, even if the technology now feels antiquated. For today’s photography enthusiasts wanting ultimate performance or manual control, modern mirrorless and advanced compacts clearly outperform these. But for collectors or beginners eager to experience straightforward digital photography without burns to the wallet, either could be a fun gateway.

Samsung SL620 front Samsung SL620 screen back Samsung TL240 screen back

Ultimately, like picking a favorite pair of old sneakers, your choice between the SL620 and TL240 hinges on your style and preferences. My professional advice? Test for yourself if possible, especially since design and handling often matter most in daily shooting.

If you’ve got questions or want me to cover similar camera comparisons next, drop a line! Meanwhile, get out and shoot - camera in hand is where the real learning starts.