StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm debating upgrading my cellphone and I am between a phone without a camera and for $100 more a phone that comes with a built in digital camera. Does anyone have one of these or have seen on in action and tell me whether its worth it or not? I already have a digital camera so its not an issue of that, its just that I like shiny new stuff when I upgrade and wondered whether this was really worth an extra $100. I use Sprint BTW as my provider.

I use my phone to talk to people.

Take that as you will.

I don't even have a cellphone and I get along fine.

there is a great deal of litigation in Australia about phones in cameras. they are banned from rest rooms and some events. Don't get one with a camera if you want to use it everywhere. If you don't already have such laws, I don't imagine it will take long for them to come in place.

In Quebec these thing would`nt be illegal you can film whatever you want as long as it does`nt record the sound.

No, they're overpriced, not common enough unless you're a Japanese techno posse and they're pretty useless.

Gimmick in every sense of the word. If you, like my bro, have to have the latest tech, at least wait until a British company implements cameras that use piezoelectric mechanisms to allow the cameras to zoom and focus, that may be some time though (could use servo motors but mobile price would sky rocket).

My mobile is only ever used for texting anyway, it's a Nokia 3310.

Admiral Valdemar wrote: My mobile is only ever used for texting anyway, it's a Nokia 3310.

Text messaging always seemed very pointless to me, if you're not able to speak then just maybe there's something else you ought to be doing/paying attention to?

Everyone in Japan had one.

I'd say no. For one thing what concievable use would you have for it? Surely there's something better you can do with 100 bucks! Buy some a DVDs, CDs, or whatever. But why waste it for a costly, redundant gadget?

Stravo wrote:I'm debating upgrading my cellphone and I am between a phone without a camera and for $100 more a phone that comes with a built in digital camera. Does anyone have one of these or have seen on in action and tell me whether its worth it or not? I already have a digital camera so its not an issue of that, its just that I like shiny new stuff when I upgrade and wondered whether this was really worth an extra $100. I use Sprint BTW as my provider.

No, it's not quite worth it yet. From what I've been told, the digital cameras on cellphones tend to be really slow and mostly useless unless the target is well lit and is standing perfectly still, insofar as there isn't a lot of computing power available to capture the image, and the camera isn't very high-quality and generally has no flash.

Stravo wrote:I'm debating upgrading my cellphone and I am between a phone without a camera and for $100 more a phone that comes with a built in digital camera. Does anyone have one of these or have seen on in action and tell me whether its worth it or not? I already have a digital camera so its not an issue of that, its just that I like shiny new stuff when I upgrade and wondered whether this was really worth an extra $100. I use Sprint BTW as my provider.

I'm waiting for the release of the Handspring Treo 600, which will have a camera, among many other niceties.

Everyone in Japan had one.

Everyone in Japan also has purple hair and an average height of about 5' 6". I don't really see the point of camera phones, and text-messaging seems stupid.

You have a phone! Talk to the person!

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote: My mobile is only ever used for texting anyway, it's a Nokia 3310.

Text messaging always seemed very pointless to me, if you're not able to speak then just maybe there's something else you ought to be doing/paying attention to?

It really depends on your situation. For some it is a way to waste time when they should be paying attention to someone else. But it can come in handy when you need to send a message out to someone who is in an area with scratchy coverage. Or if you are in a room full of servers and air conditioning all humming at once, and a UPS going BEEEEP BEEEP BEEEP. With that said, I dont use it. I just know there are times when it is useful.

As for Stravo's question. No, I think you should save your money and use a regular phone.

HemlockGrey wrote: Everyone in Japan also has purple hair and an average height of about 5' 6".

There wasn't a single person I saw with purple hair. Sorry.

Stravo wrote:I'm debating upgrading my cellphone and I am between a phone without a camera and for $100 more a phone that comes with a built in digital camera. Does anyone have one of these or have seen on in action and tell me whether its worth it or not? I already have a digital camera so its not an issue of that, its just that I like shiny new stuff when I upgrade and wondered whether this was really worth an extra $100. I use Sprint BTW as my provider.

all i have to say is there have been hundreds of times where ive been standing around and something funny or strange has happened that iwould like to have shared with my friends. Im left around standing there thinking ... " damn, i sure wish i had one of those camera phones "

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote: My mobile is only ever used for texting anyway, it's a Nokia 3310.

Text messaging always seemed very pointless to me, if you're not able to speak then just maybe there's something else you ought to be doing/paying attention to?

SMS were *the* killer application for cell phones here in Germany. Currently, there are several billions of text messages sent in Germany...

And currently you can only buy photo-handies, basically. All to push MMS...

Cell phones in general seem like a waste of money unless you're on the road often or you need it for business. Cell phones, if you do use them, really don't need the extra hundred dollars of useless crap you can pile onto them that'll make you think "cool!" and use if for a month or so before you get bored of it.

There's a lot more productive things you can do with a hundred dollars. Incidently, I am now excepting donations of $100 or more to the Save the Sloths foundation. PM me for details!

Camera phones can be fun, but I'd not spend the extra cash. My basic Nokia 3390B GSM phone does all I need.

I text to arrange meetings with friends or contact them if they're not online, it's not a substitute for phoning them, but they only cost 10p and I only ever get calls off my parents when at uni since my Dad's mobile bill is company paid.

Until I went to uni I hated mobiles but I find mine useful for the text feature if nothing else.

Heh, it was funny when some American students on a bus to town were looking at what phone to buy in the UK and kept saying "This No-kia is good."

It's pronounced knock-ia.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Heh, it was funny when some American students on a bus to town were looking at what phone to buy in the UK and kept saying "This No-kia is good."

It's pronounced knock-ia.

Was this "it's pronounced knocki-ia" a joke?

Here's something I shamelessly stole from one newsgroup post.


Finnish is a quantity language, which means that stress cannot trigger
lengthening of the syllable as you have hypothesized (Finnish cab have
both long and short vowels in stressed as well as unstressed syllables),
but rather is a matter of pitch and intensity.

All Finnish words have their main stress on the initial syllable, thus
(using the IPA ['nokia] (and not ['no:kia]) is the proper pronunciation.
The vowel in the first syllable is extremely short, but it is pronounced
at a higher pitch and slightly louder than the subsequent syllables. The
correct pronunciation can also be indicated this way:

High NO
Medium ki
Low a



That's the way to prounounce Nokia (there is no hyphen) correctly.



To get back to Stravo's question:

If you can afford to pay few bucks more for a camera phone then go for it. The picture quality varies a lot depending on the make, but my brother and mother both have Nokia camera phones, and I have to admit that the picture quality has surpised me a few times. It's far from anything phenomenal, lighting conditions must be good and there must not be any movement, but you'll be surprised to find out how fun (and sometimes useful) it can be to have a camera "always" with you.

It'd be good if you knew some one who had one too. If not they're kinda useless. My aunt has one and she reckons it is a waster of money. I'll keep my black and white Nokia 8310 thank you.

On the subject of text messages. Text messages are handy for when you in a public place and you don't wanna look like a yuppie dick bawling away on the phone, yet you still need to contact someone. Also i do use my phone for work too. Sometimes i have to visit the homes of victims with one of the "listeners". By our charter all teams that go out to a hom must be boy/girl combos and we don't have many male volunteers for some reason.

I just got my phone today and I went with the consensus that a camera phone would be a bit too much. I'm very happy with my new cell, everything sounds crisp and clear and I'm pretty sure I made the right choice. Thanks for everyone's input you guys really put things in persepctive for me.

Oberleutnant wrote:*SNIP*

Now I shall use this newfound knowledge for good.

a friend of mine has one. in my oppinion it´s not worth the extra money since the resolution is like 4 X 4 pixels. if it was a normal digi cam, now that would be pretty cool. but a cam with a crapy resolution like that. naaah.

Generally, a device that tries to be many things at once will suck at at least one of them, unless the technology has been around for a while. Computers, for example, can do tons of different things, but that's after years of trial-and-error. Camera phones are fairly recent, so I wouldn't expect too much of them.