What’s the deal?
The Samsung Galaxy A35 5G is available on Amazon for just $299 ($100 off) during Labor Day week. That makes this already fantastic-value phone even more so.
ZDNET’s key takeaways
- Samsung’s Galaxy A35 5G<!–> is a well-rounded smartphone for $400. It’s frequently on sale for $300.
- You’ll love the two-day battery life, amazing screen quality, and four years of software updates.
- The biggest issue? Performance tends to vary from day to day and can lead to overheating.
I’m surprised how much I enjoy using the Samsung Galaxy A35 5G–>. The latest mid-range phone in Samsung’s lineup isn’t necessarily anything special — it looks like any other Galaxy phone from recent years, and there aren’t any flashy features. Still, the mission of mid-range phones is not to make waves; it’s to provide a balance between performance, quality, and price. This phone achieves that balance well. View at Amazon<!–>
Some would argue that this isn’t the best $400 phone on the market, but it’s certainly one of them, and the screen is one of the reasons why. The Galaxy A35 5G includes a Samsung signature Super AMOLED display, measuring 6.6 inches diagonally. The display has a Full HD+ resolution, a 120Hz refresh rate so everything feels smooth, and 1,000 nits of brightness, which makes it easy to see the screen in direct sunlight. Plus, it’s protected by Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+, which is a nice perk.
One of the best perks of the Galaxy A35 is the battery size. Clocking in at 5,000mAh, this thing can easily last two days on a full charge. During my testing, I only plugged in the phone three times, and that was with moderate use. Unfortunately, there are no wireless charging capabilities, and the charging speed is capped at 25W, so it might take some time to get to 100%. Still, it’s nice having multi-day battery life on any smartphone, let alone one that costs $400.
Also: Why the $799 Google Pixel 9 is the real star of this year’s Android phone lineup
Another thing I wasn’t expecting to say after spending some time with the A35: the cameras aren’t that bad. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that at least two of them are good, which is almost impossible to say for most sub-$500 Android phones.
The main 50MP camera is perfectly capable of taking some nice pictures. Colors aren’t overdone as much as on older Samsung phones, while contrast and exposure remain generally on point. You can tell that the A35 is okay with maintaining shadows, for better or for worse, while photo quality generally takes a dip when the lights get low; it’s not terrible by any means, but extra grain and noise are hard to avoid unless there’s a ton of external or natural light in the frame.
<!–>
I’ll also give some credit to the 13MP selfie camera, which is perfectly suited for selfies for Snapchat or your Instagram Stories. Unfortunately, the other cameras on the back of the device are disappointing. The 8MP may be ultra-wide thanks to its 123-degree field of view, but it’s grainy and low-quality in almost every lighting condition. Meanwhile, the 5MP macro camera is washed out, and it is impossible to capture anything usable – unless you’re in broad daylight.
Also: Forget the Pixel 8a: Nothing’s $399 Android phone may be your best budget option
You can’t buy the Galaxy A35 5G expecting Spielberg-quality videos, but at least you have the option to shoot in 4K, albeit at 30 frames per second. In addition, I like Samsung’s camera app, which is well-optimized and easy to navigate.
Some other notable features include the fast and reliable in-display fingerprint scanner, the IP67 certification for water and dust resistance, the Gorilla Glass Victus+ on the back, and the microSD card slot, so you can expand your storage whenever you want.
The A35 stumbles, however, in performance. The phone isn’t slow, but it’s not always fast either. It’s equipped with an Exynos 1380 octa-core processor that’s fast enough for everyday use, but during my testing, the phone would sometimes slow down so much that it would take several seconds to open an app or jump into multitasking.
The device would also sometimes get inexplicably hot during regular use. For example, in one instance, I was scrolling through an article with Spotify playing in the background, and the A35 became hot enough that I had to put it down.
Also: I upgrade my iPhone every year, but the iPhone 16 worries me. Here’s why
This is a known issue with Samsung’s Exynos chips, which have historically fallen behind Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors on performance and efficiency. Luckily, you can rig the A35 with 6GB, 8GB, or 12GB of RAM, so you won’t run out of memory during usage – just don’t push the phone too hard.
Samsung Galaxy A35 5G vs. Google Pixel 9
Google now offers the Pixel 9, which flaunts flagship specs at a relatively higher-than-midrange price of $799. Costing as much as $400 more than the Samsung A35 5G, I wouldn’t pit the two together as direct competitors. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if customers consider paying for the newer (and definitively better) phone.
You should still buy the Samsung phone if you’re on a budget and prefer the brand’s custom skin over Android. If you want a more competent camera phone with seven years of operating system upgrades (versus Samsung’s five), then the Pixel 9 may be worth the splurge.
ZDNET’s buying advice
It’s hard to find a mid-range device that balances the smartphone experience well, but the Samsung Galaxy A35 5G–>
does a pretty good job. While performance and camera quality fall behind in some areas, the rest of the phone is good (especially that gorgeous screen) for the price.
Of course, if you’re going to buy this phone, you’re probably also looking at phones like the Pixel 8a or the excellent OnePlus 12R, which hover around the same price. The screen quality on either isn’t as nice as the A35, and you won’t get a two-day battery life. The cameras are comparable (besides the Pixel 7a, which knocks the socks off the A35 and the 12R). All in all, I think the A35 is a good pickup. It’s not perfect, but if you can live with its quirks, I think you’ll dig it.
Featured reviews
<!–>
–>
Source: Robotics - zdnet.com
