Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Communications Graphics Software Toys

Two Megapixel Cameraphone Shootout 143

Siddharth Raja writes "It's been almost exactly a year since MobileBurn published their last 'horribly un-scientific' test of 1MP cameraphones. This time, they take the latest two megapixel models from Sony Ericsson and Nokia and put them through their paces. The tests cover aspects ranging from lens distortion and contrast to exposure. Nokia's phone uses a custom lens solution from Carl-Zeiss, but it looks like the Sony Ericsson phone still has better optics. On the flip-side, the Nokia phone is better with colours and calculating the white balance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two Megapixel Cameraphone Shootout

Comments Filter:
  • by Intron ( 870560 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @10:44AM (#13896476)
    I think that this article is the perfect context for Buy Nothing Day [adbusters.org]. Talk about excess and waste.
    • Talk about excess and waste.

      How so? Now I don't need a film camera, film, or a digital camera, or batteries for either. The camera on my phone suffices. Waste is having it and not using it, and most people I know with this brand of phone do use it.

    • by shawb ( 16347 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @11:45AM (#13896922)
      I'm viscerally against large mega-corporations just as much as the next slashdotter, but protests of this form will not help out the situation. When people Boycott a huge industry for a single day, it does nothing to harm the mega-corps bottom line. As for sending a message, the difference in profits is negligable, so the message sent is that people don't care. Why is the difference negligable? Because people don't change their lifestyle, they just avoid shopping for that one day. They still need the stuff, so they just buy on different days. The only type of business that will be hurt by a "buy nothing day" is... guess what... the small mom and pop type store which most mega-corp fighters claim to support.

      Boycotts gnerally only work if you are boycotting a single product which you can replace with something else or do without for an extended period of time. The classic example of a boycott that actually does something is the grape boycott of the early 80's [wikipedia.org] which people help on to long enough to actually bring negotiations between the farmers and the workers. The only reason people were willing to boycott to this extreme is that A)this was a single product being protested B)The product was replacable and C)There was just cause to protest. The grape laborers had been figting for equal treatment for 20 years, working in dangerous conditions for extremely little pay. And it was done in America where the problems were actually visible. A boycott will simply not be large enough to make a difference if the majority of people don't agree with your cause. And most people feel that they are benefitted by our capitolistic society, so a feel good day of not shopping may at the most be a minor annoyance to the maga-global-corporations of the world, but it won't change their ways.
    • That's just silly. "Buy Nothing Day" is a cute idea, but let's face it - not only our economy, but in fact our whole society is based on consumerism, and it's neither possible to change that really nor would it be desirable (unless you *really* want to go back to a feudal "ora et labora" system where you just work on the field all day for your liege lord and hope that you'll have enough left to not starve during the next winter season).

      What would make more sense would be a "Buy Intelligently" day. Camera ph
    • What the..?

      I own a Treo 650. It has its problems, but it's the best device I've ever owned.

      One word. Convergence.

      Seriously. If you're not interested in a cameraphone, don't buy one. But don't ruin it for people who DO want one.

      Don't tell me you can't see the value of a single device that:

      - Plays MP3s (meaning I don't have to carry an iPod in addition to a phone
      - Plays video (I fly RC planes and have a collection of in-flight videos my friends like to see)
      - Has an advanced calculator with un

    • What do you think buying nothing for a day will accomplish? Anything that a person wants that day, they'll just buy in advance. Let's say I was participating. If my family drank a half-gallon of milk a day, and I normally bought that half-gallon every day, then knowing that buy-nothing day was coming, I'd just buy a full gallon the day before. Or is this "buy nothing day" actually "starve your kids day"?

      I regularly go several days without buying anything. Most of us do. Let's see... today? I bought

  • Meta post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28, 2005 @10:44AM (#13896481)
    Now taking bets on the number of 'I don't want a camera, I want a phone that functions as a phone - they should get that right!' posts..
    • I got 5 bucks on 37. What's the payout?
    • 17

      Am I disqualified from betting for adding to the count?
    • Well, they *should* get that right. I have both a digital camera and a mobile phone (without a built-in camera), and I really don't think mixing them is a smart idea. Would you like a digital camera that has a built-in mobile phone? No? Then why do people think that doing it the other way around is a good idea?

      Yes, I know, it's handy if you want to take snapshots of stuff, but, let's face it, the photos you get this way suck. Megapixels aren't anything (and 2 MP isn't even much when you want good photos), a
      • Those don't have any value really - if you look at them later on, you'll always just think "damn, I wish I had used a real camera back then".

        I don't know about you, but I'm not carrying a digital camera with me everywhere. Not yet, anyway, and I'm not excited about increasing the number of electronic gadgets I have with me all the time to three. So the choice isn't really bad shots versus good shots, it's either bad photos or no photos at all. And yes, you've got that right, it is handy to take snapshots of
      • Would you like a digital camera that has a built-in mobile phone?

        Uh... yeah. I think that all those people who want digital cameras built into their phones would also like phones built into their digital cameras.

        Actually, I'm pretty sure that I'd rather have the phone built into the digital camera, like an Elph with a phone built in? Canon is better at making sturdy designs, sensible feature sets, and good interfaces that any mobile phone company I can think of. Mobile phones are always cheap plastic c

  • What is the point? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by 6031769 ( 829845 )
    Seriously - if I want a decent camera, then that's what I will buy. If I want a camera on my phone, presumably I know that it's a phone and therefore I expect that camera to be pretty poor. Right tool for the right job, etc.
    • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @10:55AM (#13896541) Homepage Journal
      They're getting better. My V635's camera may not be as good as my old Kodak, but largely it's a resolution issue now not a "This looks like an effing webcam" problem, and at 1.2 megapixels, with expandable memory via MMC-compatable "Transflash" cards, it's "good enough" (that is, better than I'd achieve with a regular disposable film camera) quality and overall vastly more useful.

      "Aha", I pretend to hear you cry, "But if the Kodak's still better, why not use it?" Answer, because (a) the old Kodak doesn't work any more, and (b) (more importantly) I couldn't carry the Kodak around all the time, it was too big, and carrying it AND an iPod AND a phone AND a wallet is uncomfortable. So, from my point of view, despite being a cameraphone hater two weeks ago, the V635 is a vast improvement on what I had before. In addition to being a cellphone, it's a good-enough camera that goes where I go. And I'd imagine the same is true of the cameraphones reviewed here too.

      • There is no way it gets anywhere near the quality of even a disposable film camera.
        • And your basis for saying this is what exactly?

          The quality I'm getting, with reasonable consistancy, is closer to that of my old 3 megapixel Kodak than of the disposable film cameras I've had (the Kodak always beat those handsdown.) That's, obviously, at the V635's highest quality setting and with the pictures physically downloaded from the phone via USB or BT, rather than sent MMS.

          Like I said, I was a cameraphone hater two weeks ago. This thing's changed my opinion 180 degrees. A good digital camera in

      • Kodak around all the time, it was too big, and carrying it AND an iPod AND a phone AND a wallet is uncomfortable

        You don't have to carry all that stuff in your back pocket, yah know. :)

        I love the crappy camera on my Treo 600. It's a fun toy and good for getting that quick snap. If I want to take "quality" pictures, I break out my Nikon FM3 35mm camera.

    • > What is the point?

      To make money for the manufacturers of phone/cameras. I don't know if you've been paying attention but they've been making loads of money for several manufacturers for years now. Perhaps you (and the people who make the exact same comment every single time camera phones are mentioned on Slashdot) could remedy your ignorance by looking into it a little more? The answer you're apparantly after - "there's no point" - isn't ever going to turn up, is it?
      • That's not quite it, no.

        I do see the point in phone/camera combinations - it's a compromise and (almost) everyone agrees as such. Theres (almost) no argument here.

        What I do not see the point in is comparative reviews between two phones on the strengths of their cameras. A camera on a phone (to my mind, and it is only a personal opinion) is a handy bonus, and the most important thing is how it works as a phone.

        Feeping creaturism is no better in phones than elsewhere, but when it is taken to be the overriding
    • I agree, but I look like an overloaded miner's donkey with a phone, camera, mp3 player, and PDA all hanging on my belt and pockets. Not to mention the portable game, and a notebook (the right tool for email processing).

      I don't expect my 1.3Mpix phone to match my 35mm (film) SLR, but it's better than nothing if I need to capture something unexpected and I'm not carrying the real camera. And the two extra lenses. And the tripod. And the silica baggies. And the lens cleaning brush. ...

      Sure the mp3/pda/game/cam
  • Expect to see an sharp increase in the number of lockerroom and bathroom pics.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @10:51AM (#13896517) Homepage
    What I really want to see is a comparison between a 2 megapixel cameraphone and a half-decent 2 megapixel digital camera, such as were top-of-the-line just a few short years ago?

    My Canon SD110 "Digital Elph" served me very well for three or four years, until I replaced it with a 4-megapixel model. It had very pleasing color rendition. I've been quite satisfied with 8x10 enlargements from it even though they are very slightly softer than the pictures from my wife's 5-megapixel camera.

    So the question for me is: if I was happy with a good 2 megapixel "digital camera," if I bought a 2 megapixel cameraphone would I be equally happy with it?
    • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @11:03AM (#13896582)
      Being that the diameter of the lens on the camera would be an order of magnitude greater than the lens on the phone, I don't there's much question.
      • Well, there are sample images from the cameras in the article, why don't you both just look and see? IMHO that N90 [mobileburn.com] shot on the front page doesn't look half bad, especially for an indoor shot.

        Personally I use the phone on my PDA mostly for capturing text, so I do wish they had more shots of that.

      • Being that the diameter of the lens on the camera would be an order of magnitude greater than the lens on the phone, I don't there's much question.

        I'd add that the article's pictures, regardless of what was written, clearly shows that the "camera" in these phones are lousy. Lousy to the point that it doesn't matter what the diferences are.
        In a comparison to a "real" camera, just as you said, there would be no discussion. Take two pictures and post them on the web. Who cares about the details when the differ
    • Compare:
      "What I really want to see is a comparison between a 2 megapixel cameraphone and a half-decent 2 megapixel digital camera, such as were top-of-the-line just a few short years ago?"

      "What I really want to see is a comparison between a 2 megapixel cameraphone and a half-decent 2 megapixel digital camera, such as were top-of-the-line just a few short years ago."

      One of these is a statement about what you want, the other is a question-sentence. One of them makes sense, the other does not.
    • Short answer: no.

      Long answer: it depends. Megapixels aren't everything, as you point out; so if your 2 megapixel camera was otherwise a good model, you'll not be satisfied with a 2 megapixel camera phone.
    • I'm thinking the separate camera is likely to be better given that fewer compromises, such as those made to make a camera small enough to cram into a phone package. The available zoom factors w/o going to digital zoom, flash brightness, the size of the lenses, the size and type of the sensors and onboard software are all factors that affect the image.

      That said, there's always the idea that the integrated device is "good enough" and that portability is a greater concern. For example, neither the clock nor
    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday October 28, 2005 @12:48PM (#13897559) Homepage
      Right. I had that same sort of question, and I suppose the answer is no. I have yet to see a camera phone that delivers a picture as nice as my 1.3 megapixel Elph from several years ago. Then I look at how small other things are getting:
      • The RAZR is thin, in spite of being pretty feature-rich
      • The iPod nano is tiny, has 4GB of storage, color screen, etc.
      • The PSP isn't too huge, considering it has all the power of a PS2
      • There are new tiny 5-7 megapixel cameras from most major digital camera companies (like the new Elphs and the Sony DSC-T? line)

      And, stupid as I might be, I can't help but wonder, why can't someone make a good mp3/camera/phone that isn't too enormously huge? Like, just the phone parts of the RAZR, with no mp3/game/camera stuff, and how much space could that take up? How small and light of a phone can we make, if it's just a phone?

      Now, most of the parts are replicated for each device. The LCD screen, the memory, casing, battery, etc. So take those out of the equation. How small could Canon or Sony make a camera (even, lets say, a 1.3 megapixel), ignoring the LCD, casing, battery, or memory? If you took those parts, and integrated them into the just-phone-parts of the RAZR, how much space would that really take up? Now find a way to squeeze in enough parts to replicate the functionality of the nano, but again ignoring the casing, battery, duplicate functions, etc.

      Ok, so maybe it stil wouldn't be the tiniest device ever, but given how these various companies can make single-function devices that are really tiny and most of the space is taken up by elements that are common to all of these devices, I'm consistantly disappointed by the attempts to make an all-in-one device. Even the expensive ones are horrible.

      Can't someone make a decent camera-phone with mp3 functionality and 4GB of memory built in, and put it in a reasonable-sized package? Where's the culprit in preventing this? Bad engineering? Cell-phone carriers? Sony not wanting to damage their digital camera business?

    • I took some pictures of identical scenes using a Sony Ericsson W800 camera phone and an old Olympus C2000-Z 'proper' digital camera.

      I've dumped the pics here: http://www.zen86135.zen.co.uk/W800vsC2000Z/ [zen.co.uk]

      Those with filenames beginning with dsc* are from the phone and are the first in each pair.

      I think the quality of the phone camera is fine, but it's obviously still a toy compared to a 'proper' camera, even when the latter is in the hands of someone who doesn't know the first thing about photography.

  • by pieterh ( 196118 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @10:52AM (#13896526) Homepage
    Nokia has dropped the ball and are believing their own marketing fluff. No-one actually wants a Carl Zeiss lense on their phone. No-one cares how good the optics are on a phone. Optics snobs buy cameras.

    Seriously - rather than trying to turn phones into appliances, Nokia should learn from Apple and see that what people want are tiny, elegantly simple gadgets that do just one thing and do it very well. Instead of a phone costing $900, make one costing $20, and you can expect people to buy many.

    How about a phone stripped down to just:

      - GSM module
      - speaker
      - mike
      - battery
      - on/off button

    Carries a single number and dials this when it's switched on. About the size of a fat CF card. Pretty colors. Very cheap - $10-20. I wrote this idea up on: http://www.shouldexist.org/ [shouldexist.org].
    • http://www.fireflymobile.com/phone/ [fireflymobile.com]

      Basically, it's a cell phone you can give to your kids, with prepaid minutes, locked phone numbers, and big buttons (one for mom, one for dad) Small size for small hands.

      Neat idea, but i'm floored thinking about a 5 year old with his own cell phone to call me with...
      • It's close but still too large and too expensive. I'd like to be able to give out smart business cards with my number on them to my clients, random good looking ladies, aged relatives, etc.
      • I've already seen this product [target.com] at Target. Okay, it has a couple more features than that, but basically there you have it. Only includes 30 minutes of prepaid airtime, but this phone seems like it is supposed to be primarilly for emergencies anyways. Caveat, from the user reviews it seems that more minutes are fairly expensive, at 25 cents a minute. But if it is used as an emergency device rather than a "mom, I'm ready to be picked up from soccer" this shouldn't be a problem. Of course, if it's for emer
    • no way. After buying a Nokia 3650, I am obcessed with the idea of having a digital camera on my phone. It's great because it is always with you. Whenever someone forgets to bring a camera, you got a backup. For that hot girl, that awesome concert, or even to sneak picturs at the museum. what sucks the most is when you look at the pictures on your computer, the 1-megapixel just doesn't cut it. I can't wait till I got 5 mexapixels on my phone
      • I can't wait till I got 5 mexapixels on my phone

        Unless your phone gets a *lot* bigger it won't be able to accomodate a large enough lens to make good use of 5MP. I'm sure that 5MP phone cameras will be available in a few years, but I wouldn't expect the image quality to be much better than what you get from these 2MP units. And both will be inferior to a 2MP camera.

      • 1 megapixel? The 3650 only produces 0.3 megapixel pics. I *wish* it could do 1 megapixel.
      • It's great because it is always with you. Whenever someone forgets to bring a camera, you got a backup. For that hot girl, that awesome concert, or even to sneak picturs at the museum.

        Exactly. What about copying notes from a whiteboard? No need, just snap it with your camera. Want to remember the name of the fabulous wine in a restaurant and you have no pen and paper? No worries, take a picture of the label with your cell phone. I wasn't interested in phone cameras until I got one myself, then I d

    • I own
      * mobile phone
      * GPS
      * video camera
      * photo camera
      * organizer
      * small flashlight
      * radio clock
      * mp3 player

      All these things are just laying at home - except the phone. It's too much trouble to carry them around. But my K750i replaces most of them. It lacks the GPS and the video quality is really bad, but beside that it's perfect. I'm taking much more pictures now, because the camera is always available. If I have unexpectedly to wait and kill some time - I've my mp3 player and the fm radio with me. And it's
    • Just one thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @11:50AM (#13896987)
      Nokia should learn from Apple and see that what people want are tiny, elegantly simple gadgets that do just one thing and do it very well.

      The latest version of the iPod, besides playing music, will also display album art and lyrics; store contacts, text files and to-do lists; play a few arcade games; time your laps while jogging; function as an alarm clock in multiple time zones; display photo slideshows; and play video on its 2.5" screen.

      I love Apple's iPod, and it's still a superior music player, but let's do away with the "does one thing well" myth already. It's moved on quite a bit since then.
    • Um:

      1 - I have a phone with a crappy camera. Drives me nuts, since there are a lot of times I use it for snapshots of my kids or friends, and the pics generally suck worse than an old kodak 110. I have a nice camera, but I don't tote it around everywhere as slavishly as I do my phone.

      2 - After ranting about focussing on doing one job well, you suggest a phone that can only call one number. That's just stupid.

      (and yes, I scrolled down to see your reasoning: you intend it as a 'so my customers can only call
  • Summary (Score:4, Funny)

    by trentblase ( 717954 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @10:56AM (#13896543)
    "almost exactly a year"

    Brilliant! That statement almost exactly makes sense.

  • I've got the K750i, and I'm impressed.

    Thanks to network subsidies it will cost me around $10/month for the entire contract, and that includes a decent amount of calls. That, combined with a decent camera make it a good deal.

    As for quality, to my eyes it is BETTER than a Konica Minolta Z3 - it is far less grainy. However the Z3 is a 4.2mp unit with a decent zoom lens, and the actual print quality is much better. The quality isn't a touch on my old 2pm Canon A60, but the difference isn't fatal - the pictur
    • I have the d750i (same phone and camera, just different color) and it really is a fantastic phone / camera. My fuji f710 bit the dust with the purple recalled ccd earlier this year, so I've been without a camera for over 6 months. I've been eyeing a camera around the range of the Canon 20D or the unreleased Nikon D200, but I just can't afford it right now. I wanted a new phone though, so the idea of having a phone with an actual decent camera attached to it appealed to me greatly.

      Every photo on my fli [flickr.com]
    • absolutely; in britain my k750 was free with the contract. it's not as good quality as even a cheap digital camera; but having a camera with the ability to take such detail is brilliant for noting timetables, articles, and so on, and i always have it with me. best of all, the flash can be used as a very bright torch. on the down side, though, mine has already broken once in the three months i've had it, and the sony ericsson joysticks are very dodgy.
      • I'm in the UK too ;) However 90% of /. are too stupid to do the £>$ conversion, so I help them out ;)

        I have Sony's CE kit, but the SE phones have always been fantastic. Much better than Nokias (and I'm an ex-Nokia whore).
    • The k750i has also overtaken my Canon Powershot in the current flickr stakes (as I have it on me 24/7).

      The auto-focus could be a little smarter, the video function isn't too hot but in daylight I'm more than happy with it.

      Check out my k750i shots here [flickr.com]...

    • I've got a Z43 and a K750i and the Z3 is vastly superior in terms of photo quality. Maybe you're using it with ISOs of higher than 100? It gets a little noisy at 200 and unbearably so at 400. At 100 or 50 though it's pretty clean. The K750i is very noisy in poorly lit environments but quite adequate outdoors or in well lit indoor conditions with 'flash' on.
  • According to a recent survey [about-nokia.com] conducted by Parks Associates, reveals that US consumers are more interested in camera phones than music phones. According to the report 52% of US consumers intend to buy a cell phone with an integrated camera and 30% were planning to purchase a phone capable of downloading music.
    So will see more camera phones, and it is easy to carry phone, talk and take snaps. Soon we may see 2-5 MP mobile phones and they could be killer phones.
  • Warning: rant ahead (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @11:05AM (#13896598) Homepage
    Am I the only person who wants to know how, exactly, deciding which cell phone was better became deciding which camera was better?

    What does a camera have to do with a cell phone, really?

    When I went to buy a phone recently, the only thing any salesperson wanted to talk to me about was the cameras. I could not care less about the camera, but I ended up with one anyway. At the same time, a feature I really wanted to have - that my old, dying phone had - I couldn't find on any of the "better" new phones: a nested phone book, so that one name (one entry in the phone book list) could be associated with multiple numbers from which I could choose after selecting the name. Instead, every phone I saw had a strict one-number, one-listing phone book.

    I really don't care if a phone has a feature I'm not going to use, but I do care if it has that and not features I actively want. Particularly when the features I actively want actually have something to do with being a phone.
    • So you didn't get offered a Nokia, then? All Nokia phones have a 'nested' phone book, so I can store as many numbers, addresses, email address, etc per contact. And yes, Nokia also (still) do phones without cameras.
      • Yep, Nokia's got that.

        Heck, I think Samsuck has it too.

        Of course, /dev/phone (my free Nokia 6225) has a camera on it...

        I wanted a cheap phone that Sprint had unlocked for their "Vision" service (wireless web). This, along with some fugly Nokia (something in the 3000 series), was one of two free Vision-capable phones. The cheapest Vision phone without a camera was a Samsuck (the VI-660 - it's now free) for $30, and I know that model very well. There's a reason I call it Samsuck.

        So, I got this. I didn't even
    • When I went to buy a phone recently, the only thing any salesperson wanted to talk to me about was the cameras. I could not care less about the camera, but I ended up with one anyway. At the same time, a feature I really wanted to have - that my old, dying phone had - I couldn't find on any of the "better" new phones: a nested phone book, so that one name (one entry in the phone book list) could be associated with multiple numbers from which I could choose after selecting the name.

      ALL Nokia's
    • Most Nokia phones have such a nested phone book. Personally, I'd recommend the 6310i [nokia.co.uk] which doesn't have any of the camera rubbish, just a basic phone and a very long battery (>2weeks in my experience). I'm not sure how worldwidely it's available but it is certainly in the UK/Europe.


    • Posts about the unnecessary features in new phones come up every time, and there's no reason for you to complain - It's not like you _can't_ buy a phone that does what you want. The Nokia 8910 supports nested phonebooks, has no camera, a black and white screen, bluetooth, very long battery life and a nice tough titanium casing.

      I say it every time these topics come up: Basic model phones don't get news articles because they aren't interesting, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
    • Take a look at the samsung phones. most of the ones I have played with and both that I own have nested address books. My (older) a460, sgh-e105, and SGH-c225 all have nested address books. You might notice they these phones only work with tmobile... but a little shopping around should find you what you are looking for.
    • I couldn't find on any of the "better" new phones: a nested phone book, so that one name (one entry in the phone book list) could be associated with multiple numbers from which I could choose after selecting the name. Instead, every phone I saw had a strict one-number, one-listing phone book.

      Every phone I've seen in the last few years has this. The SE one in the review (and its early ancestor the T610, and I assume every intermediate version) certainly does.

    • First, THANK YOU for saying "could not care less" (and not writing "careless" instead of care less) - it's a small thing, but it made me take your comment seriously. Heh.

      Now, to answer your question - yeah, the salesguy was an idiot. If you weren't after a camera, he shouldn't have gone on about them. But the major issue here is that cameras and cellphones are both devices you want to carry around with you, and to some extent, they both "compete" even if they perform entirely unalike tasks - they compete

      • Glad you liked it. ;)

        Anyway: I won't disagree with your point. They are competing for personal real estate, and integration helps address that problem. And, as you say, with camera phones getting better every generation, they might be an adequate replacement for other types of always-carry cameras.

        Which is why I don't care that my phone has a camera - I don't use it, but it's not as though it ever gets in my way. Much like my phone's polyphonic ringtones: I don't bother them; they don't bother me.

        My only co
    • I have a 99 cent Kyocera SOHO1 and it has that feature. My last two cell phones before that had that feature as well. Are you sure you didn't buy a phone from the 90's thinking it was new?
    • You should have asked about those features. If the salesperson didn't give you a straightforward answer, walk. It's people caving in to the pressure of these annoying salespeople that keeps annoying salespeople employed and annoying you. And as a slashdotter, you probably should have done some basic research online prior to making a purchase. I bought two phones without reading reviews and got lemons or phones I really didn't like. After doing about half an hour of research, I found a phone I was comfo
    • I didn't want a camera phone either. Then someone gave me a T610. It had a camera; albeit crappy. Then I bought a K750i which came with an equally unwanted camera but it turned out to be good enough to take pictures of the scene of a minor car accident I was in. The other driver lied to his insurance company and they refused to cover the claim. I produced pictures taken by my camera phone to prove he lied to his insurance company. They fixed my truck and he doesn't have insurance anymore. Now I like c
  • which is to use the camera with the phone to do things, IE email your pix to your flicker account in realtime. for instance.

    during the london bombing, we were able to bypass the medias thanks to people keeping a low quality photostream of the events constantly updated.

    Sure, your mobile phone's not as good as your Ipod, but hey, it's here, it works... it's getting better.
    the more we'll get integration with the internet, the more the line between real life and net life is going to be blurred.
  • The other day I saw a handful of under-$20 digital cameras, most aimed at kids and most or all under 1 megapixel or they didn't state their resolution. One was a keychain-mounted camera that would be good for auto-accidents and spur-of-the-moment photographs.

    I'd love to see a comparison of these including technical as well as "fun-for-kids" features.

    Too bad I didn't have $ to buy one of each and do a review.
  • I just wanted to add to this discussion one little thing. I used to be in the avid "Just want a "phone" phone." group. However recently, my finacee was in an accident. She thought the person in front of her had gone so she started out and popped the rear of the car in front. The woman immediately jumps out of the car and starts yelling and screaming for the police. Basically, this woman was being a bitch.

    As soon as the police showed up, they looked at the woman and asked (many times) "where's the damag
    • Aside from being a "keep the devices separate" argument, there ARE people who cannot carry a camera phone. People who work in a secured area, like many military facilities or sensitive manufacturing areas, may not be ALLOWED to carry a phone with a camera. I work near an active flight line, and there are large signs stating "CAMERA PASS REQUIRED FOR ALL CAMERAS (INCLUDING CELL PHONES)". If you don't have a camera pass (and most people don't) you cannot carry a cam-phone. Other buildings nearby have "no reco
  • Sony always uses Carl Zeiss lenses, maybe they do not see a reason put a name on it this time. The Carl Zeiss lenses used for the lower end digital cameras are made in Japan. Kyocera might be the manufacturer as it has licensed the name and technology before. There has been one lens assembly that got the Carl Zeiss brand name on the Sony digital camera and the Canon name on a Canon model and there was even a third camera manufacturer using the same lens assembly. 5 MP cameras AFAIK. So no reason to selsct t
  • by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @11:33AM (#13896817)
    The single most important thing with a camera is having it with you when a photo opportunity arrives. Always carrying a camera around is normally not an option, while carrying a phone arround is perfectly fine.

    Sooner or later, camera phones will have picture quality and usability that is "good enough" for point and click purposes and low end point and click cameras will see a sales drop. Low-end camera producers should look into partnerships with mobile phone companies for this reason.

    Higher end cameras will always have a market as a combined high-end camera and phone would be a huge and complex monstrosity that noone would touch. High-end cameras you bring when you know you are going to take photographs anyway.
  • for a phone with a lens mount (for my... uh... pocket sized lenses?)!
    And when will we get cell phones that come with tripods?
  • I would rather like to see a pda with hard drive with quality camera and internal wifi. Cell-camera phones seem like gimmick than useful tools.

    It would be very cool if we/gov could set up an alternative to the cellular system , like wimax/wifi phones . We would need some spectrum so I guess we can forget it.
  • I've used 3 Sony regular megapixel cameras and the latency is horrible! Being able to get the pic I want NOW instead of a half second too late is important to me.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.