How the Camera Phone Changed the World

theodp writes "Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera to capture the birth of daughter Sophie, Slate takes a look at the impact of the camera phone, the gadget that perverts, vigilantes, and celebrity stalkers can all agree on. 'With this kind of device,' Kahn told Wired, 'you're going to see the best and the worst of things.'"

Comments

you F4il It?

[Anonymous Coward]

right now. I tr]ied, is dYing.Things problem; a few What provides the

Re:Camera Phones Suck

[jlarocco]

I don't know what camera phones you've been using, but take a look at this photo I took with a camera phone. I think the quality is rather better than you might suggest (3 mega pixel).

You should see the pictures I take with my camera. (12 mega pixel!!1!)

If I want to take pictures, I'll bring my fuckin' camera. 99.999% of the time, when I don't want to take pictures, I'd prefer to have a phone that works well. It wouldn't piss me off so much if phones were actually really good besides the camera, but last I checked most phones still drop calls, lose reception, have poor voice quality, only allow a limited number of phone book entries, only save a limited number of sent/received calls, etc. It's nice to know that instead of fixing their shit, they're working on a better camera. Idiots.

Cameras within phones aren't yet perfect; the optical zoom hasn't yet been perfected and there's still the small issue of having to hold it quite still, but the camera phone is still good at the job it's intended for. If I'm going on vacation, then sure I'll take my proper digital camera with me. If I'm at a party or even out and about and see a photo opportunity, the phone is an ideal tool to take a quick snap.

No. It's not. You can get a very decent 5 or 6 megapixel camera for $85-$150 and the quality is several orders of magnitude better than a camera phone. If you really find yourself constantly saying "OMG! I need to take a picture!", maybe you should spend the $100.