CAT S52 smartphone review – A fancy outdoor device
At the time of writing, a new decade is just beginning and everyone has positive intentions: To be good, to learn a new language and - at the very front - to lose weight. This is relevant with our test device in several ways, because on the one hand, the CAT S52 is an outdoor phone, which you can also have with you on long walks in rough terrain or while playing sports, and that is robust enough that it doesn't break right away if you drop it or when it lands in water.
On the other hand, the Caterpillar smartphone has also become slimmer and should no longer discourage demanding customers through a rustic and very bulky design. Rather, the mobile phone should also look good on a desk, without making too many compromises when it comes to protection. Moreover, Caterpillar promises a decent camera so that lifestyle and rough working conditions no longer have to be mutually exclusive here.
In our review, we'll see if this works. The Caterpillar brand name has been promising as a manufacturer of construction machinery and engines, but the smartphone is produced under license by Bullitt Group, which has already launched smartphones for other brands, for example, the Land Rover Explore and the Kodak Ektra.
Comparison devices
Rating | Version | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77.2 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | CAT S52 Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320 | 210 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.65" | 1440x720 | |
| 77.2 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 09 / 2018 | CAT S61 SD 630, Adreno 508 | 250 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.20" | 1920x1080 | |
| 75.9 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 11 / 2019 | Gigaset GX290 Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2 | 279 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 1560x720 | |
| 79.2 % v6 (old) | v6 (old) | 05 / 2019 | RugGear RG850 430, Adreno 505 | 209 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.99" | 1440x720 | |
| 78 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 03 / 2019 | Crosscall Trekker-X4 SD 660, Adreno 512 | 250 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.50" | 1920x1080 |
Case – Scratch-resistant and stable
As it should be for a CAT Phone, the CAT S52 is also well protected against falls, water and dust: On the one hand, shatterproof Gorilla Glass 6 should prevent damage at the front. In addition, the front edge is slightly raised above the screen so that there is further protection here. On the other hand, the CAT S52 is IP68 and MIL-STD-810G certified, so environmental influences in harsh environments shouldn't be a problem either.
With a height of 9.7 millimeters, the CAT S52 is quite slim for an outdoor smartphone, and at 210 grams, it's also comparatively light. The screen has wide bezels at the top and bottom, so you can't expect a modern smartphone design, but the surrounding metal frame and the grippy, roughened back look quite high-quality. What also strikes us is that the back is not prone to scratches, despite or perhaps even because of its soft nature.
Connectivity – Dedicated microSD slot
For a smartphone that costs 499 Euros (~$557) with the manufacturer and that is now available on the Internet a little cheaper, 64 GB of storage is standard at first glance, but you can also get a Xiaomi Mi Note 10 with twice as much storage for the same price. But we're talking about an outdoor device here, and slightly different rules apply because you ultimately have to factor the numerous protective measures into the price. Even the much more expensive CAT S61 doesn't offer more storage.
Via microSD, you can further expand the storage capacity; even a standalone microSD slot is available to this end, so that you can use two SIM cards in the device at the same time.
The CAT S61 was specially equipped with an air quality sensor, a barometer and numerous other sensors. With the S52, there are no such special sensors, but there's a decent standard configuration that includes a compass.
Software – CAT S52 with bloatware
Android 9 is preinstalled on our test device; the security patches are still quite up-to-date at the time of conducting our review. CAT Phones has promised an update to Android 10.
There are no helpful special programs on the CAT S52, the Toolbox proves to be its own App Store, but it doesn't contain any apps that you can't get elsewhere. Otherwise, there are many preinstalled apps from social networks, a program to improve the user experience, which asks for very extensive permissions, and a support link, which only refers to the manufacturer's website. Most third-party apps can be completely uninstalled if you don't want them.
The manufacturer hasn't carried out a Widevine L1 certification, which is Google's copy protection system for digital content, so streaming on Netflix and other platforms will not work at HD resolution.
Communication and GPS – Little LTE, a lot of GPS
If you look at the Wi-Fi speeds of the CAT S52, it performs quite decently and meets the expectations of a device with Wi-Fi 5, even if the CAT S61 is still faster. We determine the Wi-Fi test values with our Linksys Nighthawk AX12 reference router.
It's a little disappointing that the CAT phone only supports a few LTE frequencies; this could cause connecting to the mobile Internet to become a problem when traveling.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| CAT S52 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| CAT S52 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
Outdoors, our test device locates us after minimal delay; two meters is the maximum accuracy, which is a very good value.
For our practical test, we take the CAT S52 on a bike ride, to which we also took the Garmin Edge 520, a professional navigator for cyclists. The CAT S52 determines a slightly longer distance than our reference device, but it's quite accurate in detail since it usually remains on the ridden track and only shows slight weaknesses in the roundabout at the turning point. The mobile phone also masters narrow old town streets and crossing the bridge quite confidently, so we can recommend it for navigation.
Telephone and call quality – Light buzzing
The CAT S52 uses Google's standard app for telephony.
In calls, the opposite person is reproduced loudly, but the voice makes a slight buzzing noise at high volume and is not quite clear. Our voice is transmitted well, but background noise isn't filtered out very well. The situation is similar in a telephone call via loudspeaker: The opposite person can be understood well but doesn't sound very natural, and our voice is transmitted well. However, ambient noise also reaches the other person quite clearly. So the phone is probably rather less suitable for a conversation at a noisy construction site.
Cameras – The best camera in an outdoor phone?
According to its website, Cat Phones wants to score highly here, describing the camera as the "best in its class" and the "best camera installed in a robust phone." These are strong words, and we want to verify them right away.
The image quality of the 12-megapixel main camera is effectively fine at first glance; dark areas are properly brightened, and the level of detail is okay. With blue skies, however, the artifacts that form immediately stand out, and bright areas look shiny sometimes. The brightening is decent in low-light scenarios, but generally, the sharpness that the smartphone manages to reproduce is pleasing. If you look at what other outdoor smartphones offer, the photo quality is often not particularly high here, even with fairly expensive devices such as the Crosscall Trekker-X4. If you compare the images from the CAT S52 with these devices, you actually have to attest a slightly higher quality; however, the review device can't keep up with the camera of the equally expensive Xiaomi Mi Note 10, for example, which has no outdoor ambitions.
Videos can be recorded in 1080p and 30 fps, and quality is fair.
The front-facing camera takes 8-megapixel photos. Dynamic range could be higher here, and in addition, details quickly become pixelated. Overall, the quality of the front-facing camera is at the level of the slightly cheaper mid-range.
In our test laboratory and under controlled lighting conditions, the difficult task of photography at only one lux of brightness still provides some recognizable images, which are even somewhat sharp in the case of the test chart. With perfect lighting, we even like the reproduction of the test chart quite a lot. Although there are pale colors from time to time, the sharpness is convincing.
Accessories and warranty – Extended warranty
In addition to a quick charger with up to 18 watts of charging power and a USB cable, there are no other accessories in the box. You don't need a SIM tool because the cover can be opened with your fingernail and the drawer can then be easily pulled out.
CAT seems to be convinced of its devices; it offers 24 months of warranty and even includes unintentional damage, as well as water damage and the display cracking. The smartphone is picked up at the customer's home and returned after the repair.
Input devices and handling – Usable even with wet fingers
Google's Gboard is used as a virtual keyboard; you can type reliably and quickly with it, but any other keyboard app can be installed too.
The display can be operated with wet fingers and gloves, and there is a special mode for this. In a short test, both work perfectly and very precisely. In general, the touchscreen responds quickly and accurately. It's very rare to find that a gesture needs to be repeated because it wasn't recognized.
Display – Low resolution, accurate colors
In terms of resolution, the display is at a mid-range level with 1440x720 pixels. Cheaper outdoor smartphones usually offer a similarly high resolution, and with more expensive devices, you usually find Full HD. The resolution is sufficient and the image reproduction is clean.
The brightness is unexceptional at an average of 530 cd/m²; the Gigaset GX290, for example, offers a much brighter screen, which is helpful in bright ambient light.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 521 cd/m²
Contrast: 3256:1 (Black: 0.16 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.69 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
93.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.243
| CAT S52 IPS, 1440x720, 5.7" | CAT S61 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Gigaset GX290 IPS, 1560x720, 6.1" | RugGear RG850 IPS, 1440x720, 6" | Crosscall Trekker-X4 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -109% | -157% | -206% | -130% | |
| Brightness middle | 521 | 693 33% | 635 22% | 444 -15% | 374 -28% |
| Brightness | 530 | 672 27% | 615 16% | 469 -12% | 352 -34% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 90 -1% | 91 0% | 88 -3% | 86 -5% |
| Black Level * | 0.16 | 0.77 -381% | 0.39 -144% | 0.62 -288% | 0.35 -119% |
| Contrast | 3256 | 900 -72% | 1628 -50% | 716 -78% | 1069 -67% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.69 | 5.23 -94% | 10.5 -290% | 9.75 -262% | 7.46 -177% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.07 | 10.18 -101% | 17.9 -253% | 22.4 -342% | 13.27 -162% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 6.9 -283% | 11.8 -556% | 13.5 -650% | 9.8 -444% |
| Gamma | 2.243 98% | 2.834 78% | 1.86 118% | 2.736 80% | 2.152 102% |
| CCT | 6622 98% | 7137 91% | 9570 68% | 9287 70% | 10554 62% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2500 Hz | ≤ 10 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2500 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2500 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
At 0.16 cd/m², however, the black value of the CAT S52 is remarkably low, which leads to a great contrast ratio of 3,256:1 and makes the color reproduction appear a little stronger than with other outdoor smartphones.
We also like the values from the CalMAN tests very much: Small deviations in colors and grayscales make professional work possible on the display. There's also hardly any color tint to be identified, so the manufacturer has done a good job here.
We also detected pulse width modulation at such a high frequency that it's negligible. Furthermore, the response times are probably too high for hardcore gamers.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 68 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 66 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 31 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 35 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 98 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Thanks to the IPS display, the viewing angles are in order, and even outdoors, the bright display looks quite good.
Performance – Fast processor, so-so graphics
The MediaTek Helio P35 is not a high-end chipset, but it beats most other mid-range SoCs easily. This means that the CAT S52 offers quite a lot of performance and even ranks first among the comparison devices in some benchmarks.
Multitasking shouldn't be a problem with this, and even more-demanding apps and games are likely to work well on the CAT S52.
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| CAT S52 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (4040 - 7753, n=8) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| CAT S52 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (3814 - 5794, n=11) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| CAT S52 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (9.1 - 20, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=175, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| CAT S52 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (9.8 - 12, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (12 - 502, n=175, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| CAT S52 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (6 - 14, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=175, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| CAT S52 | |
| CAT S61 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| RugGear RG850 | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (5.8 - 8.1, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=175, last 2 years) | |
When surfing the web, there are, on the other hand, much faster outdoor smartphones than the CAT S52. But performance is still okay for everyday use.
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
| CAT S61 (Chrome 68) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (23.8 - 31.3, n=5) | |
| CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
| RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=209, last 2 years) | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
| CAT S61 (Chrome 68) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (4347 - 5543, n=5) | |
| CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
| RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73) | |
| CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (9756 - 11323, n=5) | |
| CAT S61 (Chrome 68) | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
eMMC memory is the slowest flash memory currently used in smartphones. With it, the CAT S52 is, nonetheless, a bit faster than the competition. Moreover, the access rates to the reference microSD card, the Toshiba Exceria Pro M501, are done at the usual speed.
| CAT S52 | CAT S61 | Gigaset GX290 | RugGear RG850 | Crosscall Trekker-X4 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -10% | -29% | -21% | -8% | 0% | 711% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 286.2 | 284.7 -1% | 275.6 -4% | 280.1 -2% | 272.4 -5% | 274 ? -4% | 1887 ? 559% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 195.4 | 212.2 9% | 33.77 -83% | 120.7 -38% | 194.7 0% | 176.2 ? -10% | 1474 ? 654% |
| Random Read 4KB | 76.6 | 44.7 -42% | 33.33 -56% | 39 -49% | 71.5 -7% | 59.4 ? -22% | 279 ? 264% |
| Random Write 4KB | 21.3 | 15.1 -29% | 10.95 -49% | 12.64 -41% | 14.3 -33% | 32 ? 50% | 312 ? 1365% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 82.6 ? | 83.4 ? 1% | 81.1 ? -2% | 83.9 ? 2% | 83.5 ? 1% | 77.4 ? -6% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 61.8 ? | 63.3 ? 2% | 74.3 ? 20% | 63.7 ? 3% | 59.5 ? -4% | 58.3 ? -6% |
Games – Moderate gaming is possible
Playing games on the CAT S52 is possible, but Asphalt 9 is a jerky affair at the highest settings. The PowerVR GE8320 graphics card is also installed in much slower smartphones and doesn't make such a good impression. Simpler games like Angry Birds 2, on the other hand, are no problem.
Controlling games through the touchscreen and position sensor works without any issues.
Emissions – Barely heats up
Temperature
With a maximum temperature of 40.8 °C (~105 °F), heat development under load is noticeable but not critical. Furthermore, hardly any heat can be measured in idle usage.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.5 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
The mono speaker of the CAT S52 is located at the bottom edge and is similarly powerful in terms of volume as those of other mid-range smartphones. It offers slightly less deep mids than, for example, the CAT S61 and therefore doesn't sound quite as warm, but it's still at a solid level in regard to sound. Naturally, audio enthusiasts won't be satisfied with the sound, but it's definitely enough for an occasional YouTube video.
Sound transmission via Bluetooth or the 3.5 mm audio jack is smooth and offers good sound.
CAT S52 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
CAT S61 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery life – The CAT S52 needs to be charged frequently
Energy consumption
| Off / Standby |   0 / 0.2 Watt |
| Idle |  1 / 1.9 / 2.7 Watt |
| Load |
3.6 / 5.2 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| CAT S52 3100 mAh | CAT S61 4500 mAh | Gigaset GX290 6200 mAh | RugGear RG850 4000 mAh | Crosscall Trekker-X4 4400 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -8% | -3% | -5% | 8% | 6% | -20% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1 | 1.4 -40% | 0.89 11% | 1.2 -20% | 0.7 30% | 0.932 ? 7% | 0.885 ? 11% |
| Idle Average * | 1.9 | 1.9 -0% | 2.09 -10% | 1.7 11% | 1.4 26% | 1.892 ? -0% | 1.451 ? 24% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.7 | 2.6 4% | 2.15 20% | 2.6 4% | 2.2 19% | 2.23 ? 17% | 1.608 ? 40% |
| Load Average * | 3.6 | 3.5 3% | 4.49 -25% | 3.8 -6% | 4.1 -14% | 3.3 ? 8% | 6.55 ? -82% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.2 | 5.6 -8% | 5.78 -11% | 6 -15% | 6.4 -23% | 5.2 ? -0% | 9.92 ? -91% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery life
The battery can provide 3,100 mAh, and the CAT S52 shows a clear disadvantage compared to other outdoor phones here: The Gigaset GX290 offers a battery twice as powerful and therefore also consequently twice as long battery life than our test device. All other comparison devices also have at least 30% more battery capacity and last significantly longer than the 10:37 hours that the CAT S52 manages in our Wi-Fi test.
The fast charger can't display its skills properly either: 18 watts of charging power isn't bad in itself, but 2:30 hours for a full charge isn't exactly a record time, especially with such a small battery.
| CAT S52 3100 mAh | CAT S61 4500 mAh | Gigaset GX290 6200 mAh | RugGear RG850 4000 mAh | Crosscall Trekker-X4 4400 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 45% | 107% | 35% | 32% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 637 | 923 45% | 1316 107% | 857 35% | 839 32% |
| Reader / Idle | 1891 | ||||
| H.264 | 962 | ||||
| Load | 341 |
Pros
Cons
Verdict – Good and fancy outdoor phone
The CAT S52 actually keeps quite a lot of the boastful marketing promises: It offers a slim case that's still quite well protected, a good camera, a high-quality screen, and it's more compact and slightly lighter than many comparison devices. Moreover, its conservative design doesn't make it as eye-catching as other ruggedized smartphones.
Given the good performance values, the only real criticism is battery life, which is acceptable at 10:37 hours in our Wi-Fi test, but it's not quite up-to-date, especially since the charger takes quite a long time for a full charge.
The CAT S52 offers many qualities such as a good camera, a lot of performance and a color-accurate screen, but it shows weaknesses when it comes to battery life.
But if you charge your smartphone every day anyway and are looking for an accurate GPS, while not caring that much about mobile Internet abroad, you will get a good and reasonably manageable outdoor smartphone with the CAT S52.
CAT S52
- 01/02/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
