Detailed extensive testing from NotebookCheck as always. Really appreciate this compared to spec reviewers, who just reiterate the marketing materials.
There are manufacturers who put in a lot of thought picking hardware and fine tune everything to make the most out of it, and there are manufacturers who pick hardware with big numbers and ship without optimizing. Samsung is the latter.
For SoC, they took the base design from ARM and used it as is. No 4k60 ISP upgrade, no AV1 codec. They even cut out WiFi 6. The only reason they created the Exynos 1280 is to save money. It's an in-house Dimensity 900 without having to pay Mediatek and TSMC.
For Camera they did a bad job calibrating it if at all. The color profiles of the main and ultra wide are different. No RAW or Level 3 support. Camera software loaded is all you get.
5G is again only there to check the checkbox but it is barely useful. It is non-standaline (NSA) and it on has 5 bands (out of 30 or so used around the world and 15 or so used in the US). That means it is always connected to LTE and only uses 5G for faster download if the conditions allow. You can't connect to 5G only. The only few bands it supports means it will be obsolete when carriers deploy new ones. The FCC application has all the details.
The phone gets hot, efficiency of the SoC is terrible compared to Dimensity 900.
It may look like they care about the mid range segment, Samsung does not. Their strategy can be summarized as "wow big numbers" and "it looks like our flagship". If you want a good phone without flagship pricing, looking at used ones or from another brand. If you just want a cheap phone and don't care about how it functions, the A53 is for you.