If only the camera could do 3G. No, not that way.

If only the camera could do 3G. No, not that way.

Summary: I was reading today's news about Nokia's new 2 megapixel cameraphone.   It's not the first phone of its type.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Mobility
3
I was reading today's news about Nokia's new 2 megapixel cameraphone.   It's not the first phone of its type.   3 megapixel cameraphones are already on the market and so too is the technology from Mitsubishi to build 4 megapixel cameraphones.   Two megapixels, by the way, is plenty of resolution for 4x6 and 3x5 pictures as long as you don't plan to do much in the way of cropping (the equivalent of zooming).  One reason cameraphones may not produce the same quality image as a dedicated digital camera is because of the quality of the optical components.  But with 4 megapixel cameras on the way, and with a connection between the camera and an Internet-bound photo service like Flickr or Webshots being such an obviously killer application, what I want to know is where are the camera's with the 3G connections?  In other words, now that we have phones turning into great cameras, why not cameras that become great phones?  Why shouldn't I be able to take a shot with my Nikon D70 (which, by the way, I highly recommend) and connect directly to a 3G service from Verizon Wireless or T-Mobile and upload my photos directly to some service as opposed to needing a PC to do it for me?  Does such a beast exist?  Let me know. [Disclosure: Like ZDNet, Webshots is a CNET Networks Property.  While I also use Flickr, I mainly use Webshots because I get an employee discount].

Topic: Mobility

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

3 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Easy..

    people who buy digital SLRs are not interested in these "features." I want my camera to be just that, a camera. I don't want to upload a 6 megapixel image to Ofoto, Wolf, etc. Now, maybe they could put those into the consumer cameras, but then they would probably just price themselves out of the market. You have to remember, cell phone companies need you to want their latest phone so that they can lock you into a 2 year contract. That is how they can give you rebates on the phones. No one paying $1000 for a camera is going to want to also sign a 2 year service contract for verizon.
    Patrick Jones
  • Could Care Less...

    I could care less if my phone has a camera in it. I just wish they would come up with the same UI for the phones, at least within a brand. Or make it easier to edit numbers for stored contacts. My old StarTac used to show a person's name, then had little icons for home, work, cell, and fax. Select one, click one button and it dialed it. Selec another, and you could edit.

    My new Motorola which came with a camera, games, web, and all of the "new" bells and whistles, cannot do this simple task. Oh, you dial easily, but you can only store one number per person. To edit, you have to drill down through several menus. How about a standard 2.5 headset jack that does not cause interference with the headset? I used to use a PlanTronics Mirage, the best headset out there. Used in most call centers. However, all the new phones that I have tried cause intereference in the headset. Also, have you held up your new phone to a speaker? Try it and see what noise you get from it.

    How about customer phones? Why can't they have a set of options, just like a car? I want the phone, plus PDA, BUT I don't want the camera nor the battery draining WiFi or Bluetooth. I want world wide coverage via quad band.
    aulax@...
  • Why shouldn't DSLRs tramsmit pictures?

    Because it's impractical. I may not represent the normal user, but the results of a typical photo shoot for me using my Nikon D100 is 1GB (100+ pictures in RAW format) or more. A race or other sports event can result in up to three completely full cards per day. Transmitting them is going to take a large chunk of time. Even then, I still have the problems of service area coverage and the battery hit that adding a transmitter would require.

    It's also more expensive. The services all have a per-MB charge for service above a certain level. It's far cheaper for me to buy extra CF cards than pay ongoing service charges. Not to mention the costs of taking up multiple GB on somebody's server...

    I'd much rather Nikon spend the time and effort to improve their camera's optics and CCD than include features that, at best, I could use 5% of the time.
    OldeTimeGeek