How serious are camera phones?

What are some of the phones with good camera features?

Motorola V400 is a camera phone, but I wonder if it can take some
really helpful shots when I really need it, like in a car accident.

---

› See More: How serious are camera phones?

"BobWho" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What are some of the phones with good camera features?
>
> Motorola V400 is a camera phone, but I wonder if it can take some
> really helpful shots when I really need it, like in a car accident.

There are some megapixel cameras coming out in the near future, but right
now, if you want a camera, get a camera.

Mark


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.645 / Virus Database: 413 - Release Date: 3/28/2004

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark W. Oots" <mark_ctc@(delete this)ameritech.net> wrote:

>
> "BobWho" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What are some of the phones with good camera features?
> >
> > Motorola V400 is a camera phone, but I wonder if it can take some
> > really helpful shots when I really need it, like in a car accident.
>
> There are some megapixel cameras coming out in the near future, but right
> now, if you want a camera, get a camera.

Three megapixel true cameras are below $200 and will be less by
the time 1 megapixel camera phones hit the street.

"BobWho" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What are some of the phones with good camera features?
>
> Motorola V400 is a camera phone, but I wonder if it can take some
> really helpful shots when I really need it, like in a car accident.

Gimmick. Now and forever. If you want a camera, then get a camera.

"BobWho" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What are some of the phones with good camera features?
>
> Motorola V400 is a camera phone, but I wonder if it can take some
> really helpful shots when I really need it, like in a car accident.

They will work fine for things like a car accident as long as there is good
light. They don't have autofocus so closeups are not too good.

>Gimmick. Now and forever. If you want a camera, then get a camera.
And if you want a camera to send live images to another person
you should perhaps get a TV station?

They take lousy pics with bad resolution. Get a real camera if you want
quality pics instead of a toy camera phone.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:02:51 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>>Gimmick. Now and forever. If you want a camera, then get a camera.
> And if you want a camera to send live images to another person
>you should perhaps get a TV station?

That's what a laptop and a cable are for.

"Rock" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> They take lousy pics with bad resolution. Get a real camera if you want
> quality pics instead of a toy camera phone.

True, to a point. While certainly not my camera of choice, my Nokia
3650 is ALWAYS with me, my Nikon Coolpix isn't. 640x480 certainly
isn't Kodachrome, but it's acceptable for non-critical applications,
like quick shots of the kids doing something cute. I read an
interesting article recently that called them the new Polaroids- a low
quality method for capturing a moment.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
<snip>
| I read an
| interesting article recently that called them the new Polaroids- a low
| quality method for capturing a moment.

Excellent analogy

I wouldn't give them that much credit.

| I read an
| interesting article recently that called them the new Polaroids- a low
| quality method for capturing a moment.

>I wouldn't give them that much credit.

Wait until they're tightly integrated with other applications. It
shouldn't take long for someone to realize, for example, that it would
be easy to automatically filter *lots* of responses to "Amber Alerts"
if they came in the form of messages from camera phones that include
a (low-res) photo, location (GPS), and ID of the sender. That's
largely possible right now.

From there it gets scarier.

--kyler

In article <[email protected]>,
Kyler Laird <[email protected]> wrote:

> Wait until they're tightly integrated with other applications. It
> shouldn't take long for someone to realize, for example, that it would
> be easy to automatically filter *lots* of responses to "Amber Alerts"
> if they came in the form of messages from camera phones that include
> a (low-res) photo, location (GPS), and ID of the sender. That's
> largely possible right now.
>
> From there it gets scarier.

and what makes you think any extant email app can include your GPS
location?

"Robert M." <[email protected]> writes:

>> if they came in the form of messages from camera phones that include
>> a (low-res) photo, location (GPS), and ID of the sender. That's
>> largely possible right now.
>>
>> From there it gets scarier.

>and what makes you think any extant email app can include your GPS
>location?

Nothing does, hence my omission of any claim that there is such
an app.

I do know that the hardware is in place and the capability exists
on some phones though. The only barrier is flipping some bits.

--kyler

Rock wrote:
> They take lousy pics with bad resolution. Get a real camera if you want
> quality pics instead of a toy camera phone.

Just to pass this along, here are two pics from two different Sanyo
Sprint phones:

http://www.twodogsfarm.com/pictures/sprint_compare.html