So, some issues i have with the CR test. Not that i doubt their good intentions, and i am not defending Samsung, BUT if you intend to conduct a test of a product, and intend to be perceived as a credible source, then scientifically reproduceable standards and procedures should be followed.
Please be aware that to properly test ANY device, ALL of the following criterion SHOULD be met to ensure correct scientific testing methods. Frankly i was disappointed in what they showed vs what they had to say.
Firstly, they used a pressurized chamber test vs depth test; air compresses much more evenly; water does not compress as such, but pressure increases with weight as a function of depth (assuming gravity is present). A 1.5m (or more) clear tube filled with clean fresh water would have been the proper way to test design specifications.
Secondly, no time lapse, single shot was performed (or at least shown); this would further prove their point; instead its a cutaway.
Thirdly, lack of standardization in testing; typically some adherence to STP laws (standard temperature and pressure, or deviations thereof) are used in a truly scientific study.
Fourthly, no concurrent test with 'passing' S7 and S7 Edge in the same chamber at the same time (and their videos on the S7 and S7 Edge show the same glaring faults in the scientific method).
And lastly, no static timer present that is clearly visible, which combined with the above methods, would clearly indicate either a passing or failing grade in the hardware.
I'm not saying i dont trust their results, but i am saying my 6th grade science teacher would have flunked them immediately, and for such a large organization that purports to represent consumers, i was appalled at the lack of professionalism, and the suggested 'scientific' manner in which the test was conducted.
I have conducted more scientific tests on used spark plugs to analyze lubrication effects vs carbon deposit efficiency on various spark plugs for my RX-7's and RX-8's, accounted for and adjusted for variables far more accurately than CR; let alone DAYS of testing sensors and lenses for various camera systems and issues such as 'jello'/CMOS line read speeds, dynamic range, ISO noise vs sensitivity, etc etc, and i am not a scientist by any means.