Slashdot Mirror


Two Megapixel Cameraphone Shootout

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."

143 comments

  1. Just what everyone needs by Intron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that this article is the perfect context for Buy Nothing Day. Talk about excess and waste.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    1. Re:Just what everyone needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant


      Waaaahhhh!

      People are buying things they want instead of putting thier money in the bank and having it loaned out to other people to buy things with!

      Please. The only way you're going to affect the economy by buying less is if you earn less. If that money is in a bank, it's being used by other people to buy stuff.

    2. Re:Just what everyone needs by zootm · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Just what everyone needs by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      People are buying things they want instead of putting thier money in the bank and having it loaned out to other people to buy things with!

      You must have been shoving pencils in your ears to gain access to juicy morsels of eargoo when the teacher explained the concept of compounded interest.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Just what everyone needs by shawb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 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.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    5. Re:Just what everyone needs by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      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 phones are a good example of stuff that people don't need and that doesn't make sense when you think about it (why not get a normal phone and a decent camera instead? it's not going to be more expensive, and you get better pictures that way), but blindly refusing anything without discrimination is not a good idea, either.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    6. Re:Just what everyone needs by GlL · · Score: 1

      Actually, a huge percentage of retail sales for the holidays occur over what is now called black friday, so if enough people do it, it will have an effect.

      You are correct in saying that our economy is based on consumption of resources, IMO overconsumption of resources. This is great for short term profits, but causes problems in the long term.

      Take food for example. Since the 1940s portion sizes in the US have increased by 700% The other statistic that has increased by 700% is obesity. This is having obvious negative long term effects on our health, the cost of healthcare, etc. This is having the positive effect of increased profits for food oriented companies and health oriented companies.

      We can very easily live without half of the stuff in our homes. The purpose of Buy Nothing Day is to give us space away from the marketing hype to more accurately define what our needs are, and to step away from the artificial hype inflated glut that is the normal state of life.

      --
      I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
    7. Re:Just what everyone needs by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1
      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 unit conversion (which no self-respecting geek should be without)
      - Has web, directory assistance (411), MSN, irc, SMS, and ssh access (meaning I can connect to servers at work when things go wrong)
      - Has GPS software (TomTom) for in-car navigation, meaning I don't have to leave an expensive unit in the car, to get stolen
      - Has a reasonably good 640x480 camera (meaning I can capture events without carrying a camera, plus photoblogging!)
      - Has an address book, day planner, alert service, and journal
      - Has an excellent (speaker)phone, with excellent call management features

      Yes, it's expensive. But so are laptops, TVs, cable, rent, and cars. We all pick our toys. None of them are vital to the survival of our race. But, these are amazing times.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    8. Re:Just what everyone needs by nine-times · · Score: 1
      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 a fricken cup of coffee. $1.25. That's it. So what do you think it'd do if I dropped that cup of coffee? It wouldn't even effect the guy I buy coffee from. Ok, I'll agree not to buy a cell-phone today. I haven't bought a cell phone for a year, and Cingular hasn't surrendered yet. Though, if I want a new cell phone, I'll need to buy one sooner or later.

      But if all of us have a day here and there where we buy nothing, or very little, who's going to care if we just all align those days to the same day? Now, if you want to organize a "buy nothing year", that might get someone's attention. But what would it accomplish? What would you do for that year?

      Or, how about we organize a "don't buy useless crap for the rest of your lifetime" movement. That would simultaneously reward those companies which are making products that you thought were good, while damaging the businesses that make crap. Of course, I'm already doing that... but, you know, whatever.

    9. Re:Just what everyone needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yes, that's money that the bank pays you in exchange for using your money.

      But the point of BND is that it "supposedly" is anti-consumerist.

      So how is it anti-consumerist to have your money loaned to someone else so they can buy shit?

      It's not. Putting your money in a bank is just as much a contribution to the "evil" consumer culture as spending it on a cellphone.

  2. Meta post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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..

    1. Re:Meta post by BushCheney08 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got 5 bucks on 37. What's the payout?

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    2. Re:Meta post by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      17

      Am I disqualified from betting for adding to the count?

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    3. Re:Meta post by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      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), and the idea that you can get good photos with a mobile phone is just seriously outlandish. And why would anyone want bad photos? 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".

      And it's not as if a decent digital camera and a camera-less phone cost more than a phone with an integrated camera, anyway.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:Meta post by moonbender · · Score: 1

      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 stuff, even if they suck.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    5. Re:Meta post by nine-times · · Score: 1
      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 crap that don't work properly and fall apart after a week. I had an Elph that stuck together for 4 years before I sold it (at which point, it was still going strong).

  3. What is the point? by 6031769 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Burns: We're building a casino!
    McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    1. Re:What is the point? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:What is the point? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      There is no way it gets anywhere near the quality of even a disposable film camera.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    3. Re:What is the point? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > 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?

    4. Re:What is the point? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      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 a cellphone is a nice extra. That's what's happening now, they're moving away from the webcams.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:What is the point? by jsveiga · · Score: 1

      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/camera/email cell phone may be bigger than a plain phone, but it's smaller than my old Nokia 2160. And if I need small, I just pull the SIM from the V800 and slap it on a T610 or C65. (no, wait, these also have cameras. A T68 then.)

    6. Re:What is the point? by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:What is the point? by 6031769 · · Score: 1

      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 plus point in which model to go for, something is wrong.

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    8. Re:What is the point? by clonmult · · Score: 1

      The V635 is a pretty good phone, and you're right, it does have a very usable camera. I've seen plenty of pics from them, and they are equal to or better than a cheapo disposable.

      The K750/W800/N90 images are better again - they are on a level with a "proper" 2 megapixel camera.

      On the V635 .... Im probably going to be getting one for my son for christmas. They're available for silly low prices now.

    9. Re:What is the point? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      No, how it works as a phone is almost irrelevant given that they all work satisfactorily. Given that, it's the other features which become more important. You can expect stuff like TV, audio (gigs worth) and far better online access to become big selling points on phones over the coming years. You can also expect whining all along the way from people saying "TV on a phone? The screen's too small! That'll never catch on!", "Music on a phone? But I've already got a mobile music player","Why would I want to bid on items on eBay when I'm out and about when I can just wait until I get home" etc etc. The manufacturers will be coining it, millions will use the features every day and yet people like you will keep the chant going!

  4. The pervs are happy by NerdBuster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Expect to see an sharp increase in the number of lockerroom and bathroom pics.

    1. Re:The pervs are happy by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Next up: SHOECAM!!!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:The pervs are happy by mattbot+5000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Expect to see an sharp increase in the number of lockerroom and bathroom pics.

      Not to mention the quality. You've never looked better in a towel than you do on a phone w/a Carl Zeiss lens.

    3. Re:The pervs are happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next up?

      Someone just needs to take the bold step and move a shoe-cam DIY kit to mass production

    4. Re:The pervs are happy by dividedsky319 · · Score: 1
      Expect to see an sharp increase in the number of lockerroom and bathroom pics.

      It's not like camera phones are new. For a long time now, cell phones haven't been allowed in locker rooms. (at least at the gyms around me)

      (besides... Girls taking pictures of girls? Guys taking pictures of guys? How often do you think that would happen? I understand it could be a "business", but I doubt it'd happen too much anyway)

    5. Re:The pervs are happy by karnal · · Score: 1

      Guys taking pictures of guys?

      Obviously, you're not familiar with the word "homosexual".

      I have a close friend who is gay, and he likes to send me some weird stuff, just to get my reaction. One was a cameraphone pic of someone's junk. Ew.

      --
      Karnal
    6. Re:The pervs are happy by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Obviously, you're not familiar with the word "homosexual".
      In that case, why not just look down your own pants?
  5. I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      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 the tuner on my clock radio are necessarily very good, but I need something that will wake me up at a certain time in the morning. A $20 clock radio is fine, I don't need a dedicated radio or an atomic clock.

    4. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Well, there are sample images from the cameras in the article, why don't you both just look and see? IMHO that N90 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.

    5. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      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 difference is that significant.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    6. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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?

    7. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by rikkus-x · · Score: 1

      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/

      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.

      Rik

    8. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 1
      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've been looking into the same area recently, and you haven't got long to wait (except if you're in North America);

      Samsung SGH-I300 announced over 6 months ago, with a 3 GB hard drive.
      Nokia N91 available very soon, with 4 GB storage.
      SonyEricsson W900i with up to 2 GB, and designed to be a 'walkman'.
      SonyEricsson P990i with a Memroy Stick Duo slot, again expandable to 2 GB. This is probably my next phone, it has the 3G video calling I want to play with, the full Symbian-based PDA functions, and enough storage to take a load a music. It also has wifi, VPN software and Blackberry functionality. This means it replaces my current phone, PDA, Blackberry, camera and MP3 player, in one unit. One charger to take way from home, one headset when I'm driving.... lovely.

      But my last couple of phones have had a Memory Stick slot and an MMC slot, as well as having decent cameras. They've even been great as phones...

    9. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by It's+the+tripnaut! · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      Neither is as good as a relatively inexpensive dedicated point and shoot digital camera, but they are "good enough" for many situations.

    10. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Camera phone/Blackberry processors are complicatd enough as it is. The processor is usually 3-4 dies stacked inside the same package. Also handling all that I/O is entirely different than PC where you don't have power requirements and the user will tolerate a substantial amount of waiting. I know nobody would want a phone where the keyboard is locked out when a picture is taken.

      Its coming though, don't you worry.

    11. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by nine-times · · Score: 1
      I know nobody would want a phone where the keyboard is locked out when a picture is taken.

      Personally, I'd be fine, I think, if you had to flip a switch to change between camera mode and phone mode, and if while working as one device, it was non-functional for the other.

      The only reason I want a two-in-one device is so that I don't need to carry around several devices. I wouldn't need to worry about keeping track of both, whether they're lost/stolen, and it'd just be easier to carry around. Being able to use my phone while I'm taking pictures, eh.... I really don't care.

      And more to the point, I'm not even interested in having the two work together. I don't want to e-mail my pictures to people over the phone. I don't need any data transmissions over my phone at all. Just voice.

    12. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by nine-times · · Score: 1
      I've been looking into the same area recently, and you haven't got long to wait (except if you're in North America);

      But of course I *am* in north america, which should explain some of my frustration. I don't think I can even get either of the two phones from 2 megapixel shootout. This was part of the reason I asked if the culprit was the carriers. I don't understand how the business works exactly, but I get the feeling sometimes like carriers here want everyone to have shitty phones that don't work properly.

    13. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, I see.

      The problem with the North American phone market is it's different to Europe in a few different ways;

      1. Huge area to cover with very low population density
      2. Mobile phone user pays to recieve calls
      3. Much higher phone prices
      4. Slow to adopt global phone standards

      1. makes it expensive for the networks to cover most people.
      2. WTF? That feels like it's designed to smother mobile phones in favour of land-line phones.
      3. The prices I see mentioned by Americans are up to 10 times the price I've ever paid for a phone here.
      4. Even when you do use GSM, it's a different frequency.

      Added up, this is why the market is different. The models of phones which sell big in Europe (GSM/3G) only have tiny areas of coverage in NA. Any phone I buy here (England) is useable in a dozens of countries, mostly with almost total coverage, and people are just used to it. I haven't had a land-line phone in over four years, and I can't imagine ever wanting one again.

      My phones have cost between zero and a hundred pounds (even a SonyEricsson 910i smartphone would cost me nothing if I wanted to upgrade to one today) - this story mentioning $900 phones is strange to me.

      The markets have been very different in the past - the only people I even knew who used pagers were Americans. I'm not interested in using wifi hotspots, as I have a 3G card for my laptop which gives my 384 kpbs in most places, dropping to 115 kbps in the sticks.

      Rambling about the international telecommunications markets while doing my Saturday night warm-up drinking.... probably silly.

    14. Re:I want a comparison with 2-megapixel CAMERAS by nine-times · · Score: 1
      My phones have cost between zero and a hundred pounds (even a SonyEricsson 910i smartphone would cost me nothing if I wanted to upgrade to one today) - this story mentioning $900 phones is strange to me.

      It seem like, around here, all phones are at least $200. Even cheap plastic, don't do anything special, aren't particularly great phones, if you buy them without a service contract, are at least $200. A good phone is going to be in the $400 range, and high-end phones will be something like $1000. It's even more if you want an unlocked phone (a phone that isn't crippled to work with only one provider).

      Now, if you sign up for a two year contract, they give you a discount-- something like $200. So those $200 phones are "free", so long as you obligate yourself to pay for their service for at least 2 years. And those phones are locked to that provider, so if after those two years, you want to switch to a different carrier, you have to buy a new phone, even if you were happy with the old one, and obligate yourself to another two years with the new provider (or spend an extra $200 to avoid obligating yourself).

      I don't really know what that's all about, why phones need to cost that much, and why it's different from... pretty much everywhere else. The extra space to cover, yes, that's an issue. The US is generally pretty sparsely populated in comparison with many other countries. However, it seems like they should be able to do something about the densely populated areas.

      So again, I'm back to wondering what, exactly, the deal is, and whether the carriers are engaging in unethical business practices.

  6. Now, *this* is the phone I want... by pieterh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/.

    1. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by rotinom · · Score: 1

      http://www.fireflymobile.com/phone/

      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...

    2. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by pieterh · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along with leading edge handsets like N90, Nokia DOES make basic phones exactly fitting your description. In fact, Nokia is the leading maker of no frill, low cost handsets in the global market. It reported to have sold 15 million 1100-series handsets, which costs less than $50, in the past quarter alone.

      Ever heard of market segmentation?

    4. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put this figure into perspective, Nokia sold 7.1 million smartphones (which includes the N-series) worldwide in Q3. And Nokia is the leader in smartphone market by a long shot.

      Source: http://www.tekrati.com/T2/Analyst_Research/Researc hAnnouncementsDetails.asp?Newsid=6002

      Source for the 1100 data:
      http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45 /b3958061.htm

    5. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by x102output · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    6. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not make them 10pcs/$1, that'd be even better! And they could be powered by gravity. I wonder why no manufacturer has done this already, after all - the idea was presented on Slashdot! If any kid can imagine one of these, why can't engineers make one?

    7. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by pieterh · · Score: 1

      No, the Nokia 1100 does not fit my description (though I agree it's a good model). I'd like to see the screen and keyboard dropped, and the size and cost reduced much further, to the point where you can buy these things by the dozen, where a two-year old can use them, where companies will literally give them away as promotional material, where people will collect them like baubles. If Nokia made such a device they would sell billions of them, and I don't think this is exaggeration.

    8. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by swillden · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by MKaufmann · · Score: 1

      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 not $900 either - I just pay for my mobile contract 10 Euro/month (for two years = 240 Euro).

    10. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by shawb · · Score: 1

      I've already seen this product 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 emergencies only, the batteries might be dead by the time it's needed.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    11. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by dabadab · · Score: 1

      "If Nokia made such a device they would sell billions of them, and I don't think this is exaggeration."

      And to whom, exactly? Basically, anyone who can afford the cost of calls (which has a lot to do with building an expensive infrastructure) can surely afford some of the basic handsets - like the 1100.
      Also, I really don't see the point of purchasing mobile phones "by the dozen" - why would anyone do that?

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    12. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by clonmult · · Score: 1

      You want an XCute DV2 ... I think thats the model number. Its got a 6megapixel camera.

    13. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by exhilaration · · Score: 1

      1 megapixel? The 3650 only produces 0.3 megapixel pics. I *wish* it could do 1 megapixel.

    14. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by pieterh · · Score: 1

      Well, it should be possible to squeeze the electronics and battery into a thing about 2"x1"x0.5". If a cheap mobile costs $50 now, then removing screen and keyboard and associated hardware should bring the cost down further. It does not a large battery, since it'll only be switched on to call the one number it's programmed to call.

      Now, if I could buy such a thing today, I'd be putting *my* number on it and handing it out as a kind of interactive business card.

    15. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/March2005/1182.htm

      It's a new camera phone (more like camera with added phone functionality) from Samsung called SCH-V770.

      From the looks of it, it's got proper optics to actually make some use of at least most of the 7MP. But then again, it looks a lot more like a proper camera than a phone.

      I think it looks rather silly, personally...

      --
      Eat the rich.
    16. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      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 discovered how useful the thing actually is.

      I don't want 10 megapixel phone cameras, or really fancy optics with zoom lenses and whatnot, if it will make the phone bulkier. Camera phones are not meant to be a replacement for regular cameras. They're useful for those times you wish you had a camera.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    17. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by Jokerz17 · · Score: 1

      " - mike" Personally I don't want mike on my phone.

    18. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Reading the comment he made, I believe he's essentially talking about a disposable cellphone, one you'd hand out like a business card. You would buy the phone with a certain number of minutes (or perhaps with airtime billed to the receiver) that dials a particular cellphone, brand them, and pass them out to people.

      I can, actually, see these being relatively popular. Aside from the uses he suggests, such as men giving them to prospective dates, and salespeople giving them to clients, employers can give their employees such phones to call work at the employer's expense, parents can give them to their children, etc.

      The big problem is I think he underestimates the costs of the things. Motorola and Nokia's cheapest, "We're targetting these at the third world", phones cost around $40 wholesale. Removing the keyboard and screen wouldn't cut that much from the price. You'd probably want to build the SIM card into the phone, a step backwards, but if cost is your issue, havinga separate SIM is going to add to the cost. Realistically, I think we're looking at a wholesale price of close to $30. That's without airtime, retailer's profit, etc. I can't see something at that price really selling, and relatively few people buying them "by the dozen".

      One alternative, that is possible today, is selling SIM cards using the same idea (SIMs can be locked by the subscriber to dial only one number), but that relies upon the receiver having an unlocked GSM or UMTS phone. That's common in much of Europe, but not the UK or US.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by pieterh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for understanding my concept. The "cost of the thing" is relative to its volume. If one can sell a billion, one can sell them *very* cheaply. I estimate as low as $7-10 for the product, and the rest for airtime and profit. It is 100% existing technology. Nothing special. Every part can be made in a factory in China, and $20 would include an indecent profit for the seller and the opco.

      Sigh. The world will continue to see gadgets made by technophiles, pushed to an unwilling public. Gadgets are fun and cool but most, most people don't go for them. Most people - at least half and probably 60-70% - have it hard just figuring out how to make toast.

    20. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by I7D · · Score: 1
      It Does Exist.

      Its at Target stores in the U.S. Its a phone for kids. It has an icon of a male and female (like restrooms) for calling either mom or dad. There is also a green yes button and a red no button. Its small and looks pretty cool. If I had kids, they'd have this phone.

      --
      Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
    21. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      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 me' tool. Clue: freebies like this are more appreciated by customers if they're not absurdly limited. Think of all the swag you've gotten: the single-use stuff (brochures/cards/treats) got used up and/or tossed, and you kept things that were generically useful: mousepads, calendars, shirts, rulers, letter-openers, calculators... and yet you think someone will carry *several* vendors' lame, busted-ass one-number business card phones around in their wallet for months or years in the odd chance they someday need to call?! What---EVER.)

    22. Re:Now, *this* is the phone I want... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      One of the reasons cameraphones are so despised by "classic geeks" and, yet, are absurdly popular, are because they are gadgets that appeal to "most people", something geeks are having difficulty understanding given they don't, at first, appear to be related things that fit together.

      It's a little like the iPod Photo. I recall seeing the first reactions to it on /., most of whom where overwhelmingly negative, and then looking over at my fiance, with pictures of her nieces on her computer, and in her purse with pictures of her and of her parents, and all over her house, and... and, well, you get the idea. A portable device that you can use to take not just your entire music collection around with you, but your entire photo collection as well? Is that useful? To me, no. To you, most probably not. To approximately 51% of the population, yes, actually.

      The big problem with a lot of geeks is that they assume too much about other people. According to the consensus, the "average" computer user is an idiot who cannot figure out how to do anything, holding up their mouse and using it to point at the screen, for example. The thing is that that's not true. The average user is not typified by, say, our mothers (my own has done the mouse thing) but by our bosses and other people who do amazingly complicated things in Excel (for example, ie have specialised in a particular technology that grabbed them at the moment) but cannot figure out how to set up a network. We assume that because we know that, for example, a web server does not serve pages from a different site when it links to one, that everyone who doesn't know this is completely ignorant of everything else. I mention that particular issue because it confuses the hell out of our tech services guy in charge of firewalls and load balancers, I've had to explain it to him several times now. You'd think he knows that. Proves "ordinary people can't get technology" right? Well, obviously not, otherwise he wouldn't be our tech services guy.

      People can and do learn how to use tech stuff as long as they see a use for them.

      I like your idea, I don't think it's a "mobile phone for the rest of us", I think it's a nice replacement for the calling card with potential for a bunch of other things. I do think the costs are more expensive than you imagine. Remember the third-world phones Nokia and Motorola are putting together for $40 are designed to sell in the tens of millions. They're the results of a huge amount of R&D into making phones cheaper and cheaper. I can imagine your idea of switching to AA batteries will reduce the cost a little more (that's the only thing I think I missed that'll make a serious difference), but I think we're still looking at a manufacturering cost of close to $20, before airtime and retailer margin's added, at that point. I'd like to be proven wrong though, it's a nice idea.

      If you changed the power supply, you could make it credit card or business card sized. That'd be interesting.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  7. Summary by trentblase · · Score: 3, Funny
    "almost exactly a year"

    Brilliant! That statement almost exactly makes sense.

  8. camera phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs this crap?

    Camera phones are always going to take shitty photos because of their ultra small optics. If you want decent pictures, spend money on a real camera. You can spend almost nothing and get better shots than with a camera phone.

    1. Re:camera phones by manojar · · Score: 1, Interesting

      we are not talking about people who would be carrying around their cameras all around (even though they might become very small to fit in the pocket), this is for people who would like to capture that interesting scene which would disappear by the time you switch on your camera and aim at that. Also, why to carry many devices when one would do the job as well?

    2. Re:camera phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have pretty much proved my point. Camera phones are for taking pictures of your buddy teabagging your other buddy. Who cares if it's 1MP or 2MP.

      You said "why carry many devices when one would do the job as well?"
      There are VERY few cases where a camera phone will "do the job as well" as a real camera.

  9. K750i Good and Cheap by WarwickRyan · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 pictures are perfectly acceptable in good lighting conditions, and will look nice printed at a standard size :)

    Camera phones with a decent camera in are a great idea for the reasons posted with the article, although they'll never be a replacement for an SLR.

    1. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by everyplace · · Score: 1

      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 flickr account in the last month has been taken with this camera, and there are some decent ones. It is a little bit tricky getting the low-light photos to come out without a lot of noise, but there are some ways around it.

      I'm by no means saying that this camera is anywhere near as good as the fuji, or even in the same league as something like the 20D. But the ability to upload somewhat decent shots to flickr anywhere I am, right when I want to (thanks, t-mobile gprs) is fantastic.

    2. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by gilesparsons · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      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).

    4. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by henele · · Score: 1
      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...

    5. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      I'm using the K3 on "Auto" mode but have the same results using manual settings with low ISOs.

      Even in excellent light the quality is not what I expect from Konica Minolta.

      However, according to their engineering department there is nothing wrong with the camera. I still have my doubts, considering the results I've seen from other Z3s are excellent.

    7. Re:K750i Good and Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Camera phones with a decent camera in are a great idea for the reasons posted with the article

      You actually read the article? You must be new here.

  10. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by technoextreme · · Score: 1

    Please. The only way you're going to affect the economy by buying less is if you earn less. If that money is in a bank, it's being used by other people to buy stuff.
    Note I am not a accountatnt. Actually, that only works if you are place your money into a savings account. The bank they has the right to go use your money and spend it as they please in turn for giving you some interest. Checking accounts probably don't work like that because it would be retarded if the bank tried to borrow my money because I could use my money in the account when the bank just used it.

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  11. Consumers are more interested in camera phones by vivekg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to a recent survey 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.

    --
    The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
    1. Re:Consumers are more interested in camera phones by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I really don't see the conflict.

      A lot of the camera phones play music too. The ROKR has an integrated camera as well, though only VGA.

      I don't see it as a problem as a phone capable of taking pictures has everything that's needed to play music.

  12. Warning: rant ahead by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [RANT]
    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.
    [/RANT]

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. Re:Warning: rant ahead by GoatSucker · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Warning: rant ahead by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      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 Series 60 phones have this feature starting from the several years old 7650 to the latest 6680 3G phone (with the dual cameras). That phonebook entry can also include email addresses and such if you want to send a text message to his or her inbox.

    3. Re:Warning: rant ahead by Simon+Woodman · · Score: 1

      Most Nokia phones have such a nested phone book. Personally, I'd recommend the 6310i 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.

      HTH.

      S.

    4. Re:Warning: rant ahead by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Warning: rant ahead by DaEMoN128 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Stop signs are only Suggestions
    6. Re:Warning: rant ahead by zootm · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Warning: rant ahead by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      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 *WANT* a camera.

      However, I find myself using it because it's there. It comes in handy for quick snapshots. And, the images aren't half bad.

      This is a pic that I took at Dawes Arboretum. Note that it was fairly foggy -that's not a problem with the image. Also, my lens is hardly clean (crud gets in on the inside, so I have to crack it open and clean it).

      http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dawespic9 vh.jpg

    8. Re:Warning: rant ahead by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      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 for pocket space.

      I have this very real problem. I have an iPod and a mobile phone. I can't justify carrying both around with me, so I tend to leave the iPod at work. I also have a camera, which is now broken, which is also something I'd carry around all the time in an ideal world, but, well, has difficulty fitting in a pocket by itself, let alone with an iPod and a cellphone. And somewhere I have an Ericsson PocketPC thing (you know, with the keyboard, a clone of the HP units), but add that to an iPod, a mobile phone, a wallet, a camera, a... well, you get the idea. I have only so many pockets. I have too many gadgets. It's a PITA to take all of them, even though they're all the type of thing whose usefulness is defined by their portability. A mobile phone is worse than a landline if kept at home. A camera that you can't carry around with you is almost as useless. A PDA is worse than a desktop computer, unless you take into account its portability. etc. etc.

      Enter "integration". As hardware gets smaller, they're able to integrate various devices into one. The first generation of camera phones were awful, but as I've said further up the thread, I recently got one that's an adequate substitute for my old 3MP Kodak and I couldn't be happier. Mobile phones with PDAs have been around for a while, and have largely not been as successful as they could have been because of the cost and they're still having difficulty getting the UIs right. The iPod Mobile Phone has yet to appear, though phones that play MP3s have started to come around (but none with the storage capacity of an iPod), but it's a matter of time. Eventually, all of these should evolve into a multipurpose device - like a computer - that's the size of a cellphone, has the capacity of an iPod, has a 2 or 3MP prosumer-quality camera, and is arbitrarily programmable. It will not be today, but it'll happen. Nokia has its prototypes for this, the latest being the 9300/9500 smartphones. But we're waiting on the size and UIs to become right.

      Now some people will be old fashioned and only want a phone. That's fine, because as long as there's a market for them, those phones will continue to sell. Motorola makes a crapload of camera phones, but it's still updating the V18X series, identical to most of their other high-end phones, but without the camera. Nokia's still producing ultrabasic phones like the 6010, which doesn't even have USB or Bluetooth. Most of the phones made for the US prepaid market are cameraless, and I don't see that changing soon.

      But, yeah, there's a good reason for camera phones, as long as the cameras are decent quality. They're a replacement for something you wanted to carry around with you like your cellphone, but just couldn't. And as time goes on, we'll see more and more of that. And that's a great thing.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Warning: rant ahead by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      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 complaint is when obvious features - features that help the device be a better phone - are left out, while exraneous features are crammed in. It's not the existence of the (to me) extraneous bits that bothers me, it's the lack of relevant bits.

      But perhaps I'm working from too narrow an experience on this one. A lot of people have commented (enough that I'm not replying to all of them, here's hoping they read this) that Nokia phones provide the nested phone book feature I mentioned. I'm sure they're right, and perhaps it's a result of me not doing enough internet research before making a purchase, BUT: I had already decided on a carrier, Cingular (for a variety of reasons, at least one of which was a show-stopper for other carriers), and I based my comment on my experiences in the two Cingular stores in my area.

      I looked at literally every sub-$300 (net) phone they carried, and not a single one of them had this feature, though every one of them (past the most basic brick) had a camera. I don't recall whether or not they carried Nokia phones. I only specifically remember LG, Motorola, and Samsung as brand names I looked at (this was ~11 months ago, so this may be different at those very stores now).

      I can accept that the problem is the way phones are marketed, distributed, or sold, but from my POV, it doesn't matter. The camera phone feature has become so dominant in the marketing or distribution phases that I was unable to discriminate on other features important to me.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    10. Re:Warning: rant ahead by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      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?

    11. Re:Warning: rant ahead by shawb · · Score: 1

      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 comfortable with (a basic Nokia) and have had it for the last two years (well, 23 months, I got it thanksgiving weekend 2003) I plan on getting a similar one (after some more research of course) in a month when my contract is up. I'm starting to get some memory on the battery, which is pretty much expected after two years.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    12. Re:Warning: rant ahead by nblender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 camera phones.

    13. Re:Warning: rant ahead by anethema · · Score: 1

      My GF is a customer service rep in a call center here in canada and she has one thing to say to you.

      RUN.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    14. Re:Warning: rant ahead by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      hmmm, but without a decent flash it still won't help you when you crash in the dark, I guess? anyway, concerning GP's post, I recently bought a new LG phone without camera, pretty classy looking, and with nested phonebook and a decent calender function. While I was looking for this thing, there was a costumer asking the saleswoman for a phone 'just to call with' after which the saleswoman laughed a bit saying "don't we all" and continuing to try and sell them a phone with camera and lots of useless features. Just look around in every shop and don't ask the salespersons, and you'll find your no-nonsense phone. tip of the day: to use the nested phonebook, your phone should be configured to save on the phone memory, not on the sim-card. sim-card entries only accept one name - one number input.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  13. Meta post by oldmacdonald · · Score: 2, Funny

    A two-megapixel cameraphone?

  14. You guys are missing the point by air1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

    --
    if the sites slashdot links to get slashdoted, how come slashdot itself never gets slashdoted??
  15. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    Actually... they do that on checking accounts, too.

    If you don't want them to do that, don't sign up for free checking.

  16. Expand your idea of the right job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many practical uses. My girlfriend was parking her car and the only available spot was next to a cheap vehicle covered in dings. The owner clearly wasn't a careful person. He'd parked badly, so she couldn't get her car far enough away from his that he'd be able to open his door easily.

    She used her camera phone to record his license plate in case he damaged her car with his door when he left.

    Her camera phone didn't have very good resolution, so she could only take a picture of the back of the dirty car. Had it been a 2MP phone, she could have taken a picture of both vehicles next to each other and still had the license plate be clear. Much better evidence.

    "The right tool for the right job" is a fine mantra, but it betrays a lack of imagination. Often a new tool implies new capabilities.

    I've used my camera phone extensively when shopping. "Which kind of shoes did you want me to wear at that party? Picture one or picture two?" It's useful also when telling someone where to pick you up. "I'm at this bench," is better than "Ok, you'll get there, there's a big door on the left side under the sign, about twenty feet to the right there's a bench."

    Seriously, if you can't see why having the ability to instantly communicate a visual image wirelessly to anybody at any time is important, the failure is yours.

  17. OT: under-$20 digicams by davidwr · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:OT: under-$20 digicams by radja · · Score: 1

      hmm.. interesting... might get one and mod it for IR photography...

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    2. Re:OT: under-$20 digicams by RandomPrecision · · Score: 1
      I've got one. Needless to say, it's not a very high-quality device. I don't have the model or company as I don't have it with me at the moment. The battery, an AAA, tends to die within a day or so of being put in the camera, even if I don't use it, and I can't carry it in my pocket because it will take pictures to all of its capacity in my pocket, and I don't recall if I can even delete individual pictures. The resolution is sometimes good enough that you can make out what the camera was aimed at when the picture was taken, provided that there was plenty of light on the subject, since the camera has no flash.

      I really wouldn't recommend it for keychain-mounting, auto accidents, or any spur-of-the-moment photographs, but I suppose there may be better models in existence.

  18. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by air1 · · Score: 0

    a bit of macroeconomics wouldn't hurt here.

    any money that is put in an account at the bank is coming out the other, being lent to people, through credit card, loans, overdraft.
    a certain liquidity ration is required but most of the money in the economy is virtual (computer money).

    --
    if the sites slashdot links to get slashdoted, how come slashdot itself never gets slashdoted??
  19. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a checking account? Oooh you mean a current account, now I understand.

    And it's a Cheque. A 'Check' is something you do to see if an item or process has passed a defined criteria.

    Of all the US-isms, 'Checking Account' irks me the most. To make it worse, you all still do monthly bills by writing out by hand these damn 'checks' !!! Has your country not heard of direct debits???

  20. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't even a good troll.

  21. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    I'll feed the UK-troll...

    Actually, we DO have direct deposits here.

    And, there's paying online. Yep, almost everybody has online bill-pay.

    The only reason for paper checks for your checking account is to pay someone who can't accept credit or direct deposit, like an individual, without using cash.

  22. Camera Phones DO Prove useful... at times.... by hcob$ · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 damage". As soon as my finacee took out the camera phone and started documenting the accident, everything settled down and the bitch^H^H^H^H^H^H Lady finally left.

    I basically just wanted to say, camera phones do serve(rarely) a purpose and I'm glad I have one now.

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    1. Re:Camera Phones DO Prove useful... at times.... by Goldenhawk · · Score: 1

      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 recording devices" restrictions - a PDA may be okay but not if it has a microphone or camera. So for that reason, I MUST purchase a phone with no camera. Talk about a limitation - it's very hard to find a decent phone without a camera anymore. So sometimes it really is good to have a simple device, Luddite or not.

      --
      --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  23. Do you? by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  24. Sony usually has Zeiss lenses too by Alkind · · Score: 1

    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 the Nokia for its lens.

    1. Re:Sony usually has Zeiss lenses too by harmic · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm. "Sony Ericsson" != "Sony" Sony Ericsson is a joint venture company between Sony and Ericsson. Which means just because Sony chooses to use Zeiss lenses on their cameras, that may not translate to S-E using the same supplier.

  25. Phones will take over low cost point and shoot by GauteL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Phones will take over low cost point and shoot by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Of course always carrying a camera is an option. :) It might not be if you want to carry around an SLR with a big flash and an even bigger lens, but most non-SLR digicams aren't that much bigger than a mobile phone.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Phones will take over low cost point and shoot by Itanshi · · Score: 1

      perhaps auto emailing a photo on the new phones you speak of will conserve space?

  26. I am the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "3. I am the world. Example: I don't listen to country music. Therfore, country music is not popular."

    Scott Adams

    1. Re:I am the world by pieterh · · Score: 1

      "Example: I don't like the sound of nails being scratched over a blackboard. Therefore, nails on board is not popular".

      It's a poor way to discuss my idea. I actually like all-in-one phones. Mine takes pictures, has a full keyboard, and lots of little gadgets. Still, if I had the capital, I'd be making and selling these little phones myself.

  27. Just one thing? by mblase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. I'm still waiting... by MrFlannel · · Score: 1

    for a phone with a lens mount (for my... uh... pocket sized lenses?)!
    And when will we get cell phones that come with tripods?

    --
    Clones are people two.
  29. Re:Actually, it may not be used for profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of spellings in English are a little strange, but "cheque" is blatantly stupid. You don't pronounce it "chee-kwee", do you?

  30. for those who complain about carrying too much by jred · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I think you bitches need to go ahead and get a purse.

    --

    jred
    I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  31. Camera phones are better than cameras because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the best camera is the one you have with you. I almost never carry my camera, but I always have my phone. That said, the phone's camera (Treo 650) bugs me because all the pictures look pink. I would definitely be in favor of improvements in this area.

  32. a keypad would be nice by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    so I can dial numbers and such

  33. *yawn* OLD story... by evangellydonut · · Score: 0, Redundant

    what's with slashdot? posting months old stories about N90 review earlier this week, another 'bout phone-cams today? for some up-to-date reviews on phones, go to http://www.gsmarena.com/ and knock yourself out...

  34. Your write! by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    It transpires that to completely be write is the a goal that I aspire to?

  35. Wov! I wonder how they'll compare to my by lalleglad · · Score: 1

    Hasselblad camera?

    I'll have to admit that it's just an old 500 C/M, but with a Provia 100 ASA (and I really liked Velvia 50 ASA) I get pretty good colour and resolution.

    It is, however, rather troublesome with 100MB TIFF per frame, and not very useful on the web. In any case least my mother with just a modem complains about it :-)

    So, I thought a good camera-phone would be useful, and with N90 having a Carl Zeiss lens, though probably not in the same league as a Tessar (T*), it should be a compelling choice.

    At least for snapshots, it ought to be easier to handle, eh?

    My biggest worry is actually the ruggedness of these cameras. Even there, the Hasselblad is pretty good, but I have always had to admit, that there isn't much 'spy-camera' to it.

    Am I totally off? (line) :-)

    1. Re:Wov! I wonder how they'll compare to my by clbell · · Score: 1

      Why is it not very useful on the web? Scan in the photo and resize for web display and compress to jpeg. What's the issue other than the time to scan in? I think most developers these days can do the scanning for you and burn to CD. "It is, however, rather troublesome with 100MB TIFF per frame, and not very useful on the web."

  36. does one thing well? by johnty · · Score: 1

    well, the thing is that the iPod still manages to do _one thing well_, whereas in these cellphones, i'm starting to feel like they're becoming 'jack of all trades and master of none' devices

    my SE phone, granted it was on an early firmware, had many problems that actually hindered the ability to use it as a _phone_. sure it had a camera, calendar, media player and whatnot, but if it does a bad job at everything, and subtract from the actual calling functionality, its not a good thing

    --
    I am unique, just like you, and you, and you...
  37. Umm? by ad0gg · · Score: 1

    So the new cell phones don't make phone calls well?

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    1. Re:Umm? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      So the new cell phones don't make phone calls well?

      That's correct, many of them don't.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Umm? by johnty · · Score: 1

      this was my experience: it would often crash while using some of the 'extra features', or else for no reason at all. if it doesn't crash, it sometimes manages to make things excruciatingly slow... either way it seriously affects the way i could make and receive calls.

      --
      I am unique, just like you, and you, and you...
  38. Bad review by archonon · · Score: 1

    Kind of bad review in my opinion. It completely lacks macromode (where N90 clearly beats K750) analysis and only have one users opinions.

    Check mobile-review's review of there two phones: N90 & K750

    --

    http://archonon.sytes.net/
  39. Don't like cell-camera phones. by zymano · · Score: 1

    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.

  40. This is the shootout I wanna see by Phatmanotoo · · Score: 1

    Forget the stupid camera, the shootout I wanna see is on Bluetooh-enabled GPRS/UMTS phones which will work fine under Linux, as a modem and for just backing-up/modifying the contacts on them.

    Seriously folks, what phone can a Linux user get that satisfies these humble needs in the most hassle-free manner?

  41. What's the latency on these bad boys? by objekt · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  42. But does it run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NetBSD?