Camera Phones.

Just a question, but does anyone here honestly use a camera phone?

What do you think of them? Comments For/Against?

<p>

-Dan

Yes.

 

The image quality is terrible.

 

They're incredibly useful if you want to have a record of something, or if you're sitting in the airport with nothing to do.

 

They will get much better quickly.

Street photography with an eyemodule2 connected to a Palm:

 

http://www.640x480.net/album.php

I use mine at the checkout counter to collect credit card numbers............OOOOPS!! I shudn't ta told yas that!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-433.jpg>

Kind of has its own dreamy uniqueness, dont you think?

 

-Dan

I have a fear that ultimately they will get photography a bad name and/or restrictions on the the genuine use of cameras and cell phones. This is due to the potential for greater invasion of privacy that these types of cameras can produce. It will not always be obvious that what has the appearance of a cell phone is being actually being used as a camera and as such used to collect and distribute images of sensitive subjects without other's knowledge. (Eg the above poster's joking reference to gathering credit card nos, it only takes a small amount of imagination to come up with a longer list of such subjects).

I've heard there are considerable quality differences between different models. I've played with some and their really quite popular around here...the obvious good point is that you always have it with you. The drawbacks are the image quality and that phones that are more practical for you might not have a camera.

I don't even have a cell phone. I think at this point they are a status gimmick or toy for many people. There are still people who haven't caught onto the fact that these phones are a consumer commodity and having one isn't a sign of excess disposable income, etc. Also there are a number of people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time and these same people try to drive and carry on a conversation at the same time. And the consequences are greater than just swallowing your gum.

 

However, as with cable, digiphones, cameras, etc, are driving a rapid development of the infrastructure needed to support them. That's got to, for the most part, be good because it will be in place when the fad wears out. What we can't expect is for them to drive to far into replacing "real" cameras because there will be limits to performance of small lenses, data transfer, etc.

 

Likewise, the increasing minaturization of cameras and the widespread perception that individual privacy is at risk will drive restrictions on public photography.

I think they will raise the profits for companies that make little LCDs like Sharp. They are going to be the coolest gadgets around for the gadget minded. Take me Dan, I still don't know how to retrieve text messages on my cel phone (have to call on my granddaughter). I can't imagine surreptiously trying to shoot the lady with the jodphur thighs on a treadmill at my gym. I expect there will be some fractured noses and ribs over this innovation. Its a privacy thing. I think it sucks big time. Also rather intrusive:-)Not photography anymore than security cameras are videography.

There was a recent announcement somewhere that several 2MP camera phones are now or soon will be available. (How's that for specific? I didn't care enough about the subject to pay much attention at the time.)<p>As for privacy, a recent newspaper article stated that many gyms/health clubs/fitness centers/any-place-you-might-remove-your-clothes-around-others have banned the use of all cell phones on the premises, rather than police the phones to make sure they are not cameras.

<i> I think at this point they are a status gimmick or toy for many people. </i><p>

 

They have replaced home phones for many people, and in the "Third World," they are often the only phones people have owned because there is no wired infrastructure. They give you a business phone that is flexible (not tied to a location), and if you travel, they are incredibly useful. I think calling them a gimmick or toy is ridiculous, and I don't have that many gadgets, although I do have a camera in my phone.<p>

 

Here's my kitchen table taken with a Nokia 3650...<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/viz1.jpg"><br>

<i>Coffee, Copyright 2003 Jeff Spirer</i></center>

Maureen it's back asswards. I seek a port in my next Olympus camera hooked via WiFi link to the internet so I can msg for on the go help with lighting and white balance while in the outback.I mean I don't use the dinky mike on the digital camera,let's make it useful. Out of the box design, Dan. Synergy or some damn thing...GS

<i> I have a fear that ultimately they will get photography a bad name and/or

restrictions on the the genuine use of cameras and cell phones. </i><p>

 

It hasn't stopped videogames. ;-) <p>

 

<i> There was a recent announcement somewhere that several 2MP camera phones

are now or soon will be available. </i><p>

 

<u> <b> Camera-equipped mobile phones have finally entered the 2-million pixel

era. The three major mobile phone carriers in Japan - KDDI, Vodafone and NTT

DoCoMo - have all announced new models boasting about 2 megapixels. KDDI Corp

of Japan was aiming to offer the A5403CA (see Fig), manufactured by Casio Computer

Co, Ltd of Japan, from December 2003. Vodafone KK of Japan was planning to ship

the V601SH, manufactured by Sharp Corp of Japan, in the same month. And NTT

DoCoMo, Inc of Japan was planning to offer the SH505iS from Sharp, from mid-

December. <p>

 

With two megapixels and onboard electronic flash, photography with mobile phones

will make major inroads into digital camera territory. </b></u> <p>

 

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200401/conele_283397.html <p>

 

<i> I don't even have a cell phone. I think at this point they are a status gimmick or

toy ... the fad </i><p>

 

59% of American adults had cellphones in April 2003, up from 56% just a year

previously. 10% of all people living in New York City only have a cellphone. It replaces

landlines in emerging nations. It is replacing man palm devices. It includes cameras

that approach the quality of $500 camera of just a couple of years ago. That's not a

fad, it's increasing ubiquity.

In my country we have more cellphones than people. Owning a cellphone here is just about as remarkable as owning a TV. "Status gimmick" was 1991 - 13 years ago! Maybe we live on a different planet?-)

Daniel, were you discussing cellphone use or the camera aspect?. I thought the latter. The cellphone is a platform that can do multiple things while you stand in line for a cappucino 2 percent half-half. So its not surprising to see games,PDAs, and now imaging devices. I think they are probably a good thing. If I saw a lawbreaker parking in a handicapped spot, I could take a photo of the culprit and dash an e mail off to the police. The issue will be authentication though,won't it. So as a tool, it seems to be an amusement and may always be. On the other hand, it may introduce photography to the unwashed masses and get people to come to this site and ask which of two cameras to buy. The broader issue with cells is that someone may be able to track me when I don't want to be tracked. Do not read anything more into that....e.g." Hi dear,here's a photo, I really am working late in the office!:-)"

<i> were you discussing cellphone use or the camera aspect?. I thought the latter.

</i><p>

 

I believe we were both responding to someone who referred to cellphones as a fad.

Oskar specifically reffered to the popularity of cellphones. So did I.

 

<i> it may introduce photography to the unwashed masses and get people to come

to this site and ask which of two cameras to buy. </i><p>

 

When a year from now 3MP cellphone cameras become available, how many people --

given that most people never print larger than 4x6" -- would ever need a second

camera besides that cellcam? Especially if they can send the images immediately to be

printed, or to friends, or to their websites, even with annotation? The 'unwashed

masses' have long made clear what they need and like (see the popularity of

disposable cameras), so these cellcams will to a fine job for the vast majority of

consumers. If on of your unwashed already has a convenient 3MP camera in his

pocket all the time (which may or may not have cost him anything), I really doubt he's

going to be looking for another camera. A small group, perhaps, but not most. <p>

 

<i> The broader issue with cells is that someone may be able to track me when I

don't want to be tracked. </i><p>

 

That's not a broader issue; it's a tangent. Turn off your phone if you're paranoid, take

out the battery. No one will track you then. And if you're thinking about a tinfoil hat,

here's a guy who's already done you one better: <p>

 

http://www.meetluke.com/NxAlbumImageThumbnailView.asp?number=91

<i>The broader issue with cells is that someone may be able to track me when I don't want to be tracked.</i><p>

 

Yeah. Read <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001820367_track21.html">this.</a>

<i> ultimately they will get photography a bad name </i><p>

 

I doubt photography will sure over its name: <p>

 

http://www.mobileasses.com/display.php?cameraphone

Gotta love it. Hah. The mobile asses of the unwashed masses. "When a year from now 3MP cellphone cameras become available, how many people -- given that most people never print larger than 4x6" -- would ever need a second camera besides that cellcam.." Probably few. So a new door opens to the mass market. Folks who bring out the camera for birthdays,now get to flood the internet with images of the menu at the Coffee Shop,the hat selection at Macys. More. Home made porn may overtake professional porn,don't laugh,internet's best selling stuff I read in some reliable publication Economist or Readers Digest.Social behavior is mighty unpredictable. Certainly image capturing will expand to broader population. Could be the carry me everywhere camera everyone talks about on PN?... My speculation after deep thought, reflection and consulting my yoga teacher, is more clear. First reaction had been dismissive and tongue in cheek true enough.Folks, your serious photographer/aspiring serious photographer, will carry a camera that is not a multiple fnxn device. PdA cell phone combo,(check me out on this Z), has not hit its stride in sales. The phones,if you follow CR reviews this month, are already crammed to the gills with itty bitty buttons. Japanese Nationals bless em like little buttons but arent we getting too multi functional to Enjoy? Got a new Panasonic FAX/Copier/Answer Machine/WhatAll this week and it is a 200 page manual with buttons that do multiple things and I am adrift. No, I disagree that people will be using their cell phones for the birthday and bar mitzvah. A camera connotes status,seriousness,not to mention some dignity for the informed buyer and who pray will say cheese to a bloody phone?:-) Aint gonna happen. It will be a whimsy feature. Wait and see. Aloha, Gerry -or- Maybe its the old saw about specialized tools for the job that I can't get escape.Dunno. I jest about tracking by Big Brother or Spouse, but I don't know about way things are heading in D.C.

<i> I disagree that people will be using their cell phones for the birthday and bar

mitzvah. A camera connotes status </i><p>

 

Not any more, not for a long time. High school kids use their cameraphones regularly

now, emailing pics to each other. People at work use them at ... birthday parties

(gasp!) ... today, and better quality camphones will only increase the use and

momentum. The days of status and seriousness for picture-taking appliances is over,

except for status-seeking, serious amateurs, who are a distinct minority.

The status is back where it belongs.<p><center><a href="http://dougthacker.fotopic.net/p3297144.html"><img src="http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3297144&outx=240&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&" width="240" height="320"></a><p>shot with a Nokia 3650</center><p>

 

In the results.

Click on the picture.