Are higher end phones worth it?

My cell phone plan charges 3 cents per kilobyte as their normal data
transfer rate. Does that mean it would cost me $39 to send a 1.3 megapixel
picture to someone with my cell phone?

--
I have put junk in my email address to evade the spammers.
Please take the junk out before replying.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Jim



"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
news:vkHDd.54430$nP1.8590@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Some of the camera phones now have 1.3 megapixels which will produce very
> good prints up to about 4x6. Many camera phones produce pictures with
> lower resolutions that are still fine for emailing. One thing you can be
> sure about with cellphones is that whatever you buy today will be obsolete
> or offered for almost free within 1 year.
>
> From:majiin99@cs.com
> majiin99@cs.com
>
>> I haven't had a cellphone in a year and a half. I'll be getting one
>> soon, and I've been toying with the idea of getting a pretty nice one.
>>
>> I'm currently attracted to Sony Ericssons s710A and P800. Also, I love
>> the Motorola A600, A780, A840 & A1000s. I don't know how much these
>> are running, or where to get them. They're not on any of the provider
>> websites (T-Mobile, Cingular, AT&T). I figure one advantage of getting
>> from them is they can let you pay for it in installments. However, are
>> there places with better deals?
>>
>> As with anything technology, I'm torn. You don't want to buy something
>> that will be obsolete in six months. OTOH, you don't want to splash
>> $600 and then in two months it's selling for $375.
>>
>> I'm looking for good functionality - what's most important to me is a
>> good system of storing contacts, and yes, looks.
>>
>> OH, and on a related note, I know nothing about digital photography,
>> is the quality of pictures taken by cameraphones any good?
>
>

I see where you aee coming from Jim. But:

Megapixel definition:

"This term refers to the size of an image, usually in reference to a
photo from a digital camera or camera phone.

Megapixel means one million pixels. The resolution of digital cameras
and camera phones is often measured in megapixels. For example, a
two-megapixel camera can produce images with two million pixels.

Since pixels are usually square and form a grid, a 1-megapixel camera
will produce an image roughly 1200 pixels wide by 900 pixels high."

The pictures taken with my SE T630 are fine when viewed on the phone
screen and when viewed on the PC screen measures about 12cm high by 9.5
cm wide and looks fine, thought not as good as one taken with a
traditional camera. They also measure just 19kb approx in size so it
would cost you around 54 cents to send, which is much the same as in
the UK, generally speaking.

My problem with camera phones is one of storage. A classic case in
point is last October I was at the Nou Camp in Barcelona and Ronaldinho
appeared from the underground carpark in his X5. I ran over (leaving my
normal digital camera behind) and grabbed my camera phone. I got one
pic through the car windscreen (which was terrible) and then stood
right next to him with the camera one foot from his face I got the
dreaded "memory full" message!

I would be happy to have a phone without a camera. They are semi-useful
and may pay dividends if you used it to take a pic of a significant
event but apart from attaching pics to contacts (and even that is
limited in number with the T630's memory) that is as much as I use mine
for.

I would place a bet that the majority of picture messaging in the UK
are sent in the 9:30pm to 1:30am Friday and Saturday night slots!

Jason

Jim wrote:
> My cell phone plan charges 3 cents per kilobyte as their normal data
> transfer rate. Does that mean it would cost me $39 to send a 1.3
megapixel
> picture to someone with my cell phone?
>
> --
> I have put junk in my email address to evade the spammers.
> Please take the junk out before replying.
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
> Jim
>
>
>
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
> news:vkHDd.54430$nP1.8590@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Some of the camera phones now have 1.3 megapixels which will
produce very
> > good prints up to about 4x6. Many camera phones produce pictures
with
> > lower resolutions that are still fine for emailing. One thing you
can be
> > sure about with cellphones is that whatever you buy today will be
obsolete
> > or offered for almost free within 1 year.
> >
> > From:majiin99@cs.com
> > majiin99@cs.com
> >
> >> I haven't had a cellphone in a year and a half. I'll be getting
one
> >> soon, and I've been toying with the idea of getting a pretty nice
one.
> >>
> >> I'm currently attracted to Sony Ericssons s710A and P800. Also, I
love
> >> the Motorola A600, A780, A840 & A1000s. I don't know how much
these
> >> are running, or where to get them. They're not on any of the
provider
> >> websites (T-Mobile, Cingular, AT&T). I figure one advantage of
getting
> >> from them is they can let you pay for it in installments. However,
are
> >> there places with better deals?
> >>
> >> As with anything technology, I'm torn. You don't want to buy
something
> >> that will be obsolete in six months. OTOH, you don't want to
splash
> >> $600 and then in two months it's selling for $375.
> >>
> >> I'm looking for good functionality - what's most important to me
is a
> >> good system of storing contacts, and yes, looks.
> >>
> >> OH, and on a related note, I know nothing about digital
photography,
> >> is the quality of pictures taken by cameraphones any good?
> >
> >

[Note: US centric advice, due to our multiple technologies and lack of
inter carrier phone compatiblity.]

A handset is one small but or only interface to a much larger network
of switches A/D conversion equipment, fiber and lots and lots of copper
wire, connected to towers, central offices, microwave repeaters etc. If
our cellular handset interface can't make a connection because the
carrier lacks coverage or the call quality is comprimised due to
overloaded/lack of tower deployment, no amount of bells and whistles on
a tiny box will make much difference.Just look first at the resolution
both in technical quality of the network, coverage and human (Customer
Service) support, before deciding on which complicated, feature rich
little box is going to connect reliably and as promised....Carriers
make few promises, so a little free trial testing and current user
feedback for a specific geographically bounded (and proprietary)
cellular network is always a good place to start...before deciding on a
particular phone model.

-David

No it would be more like around $7. A 1.3 megapixel jpg picture is only
about 250KB.



From:Jim
kraskajunk@dakotacom.net

> My cell phone plan charges 3 cents per kilobyte as their normal data
> transfer rate. Does that mean it would cost me $39 to send a 1.3
> megapixel picture to someone with my cell phone?
>
> --
> I have put junk in my email address to evade the spammers.
> Please take the junk out before replying.
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
> Jim
>
>
>
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
> news:vkHDd.54430$nP1.8590@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Some of the camera phones now have 1.3 megapixels which will produce
>> very good prints up to about 4x6. Many camera phones produce
>> pictures with lower resolutions that are still fine for emailing.
>> One thing you can be sure about with cellphones is that whatever you
>> buy today will be obsolete or offered for almost free within 1 year.
>>
>> From:majiin99@cs.com
>> majiin99@cs.com
>>
>>> I haven't had a cellphone in a year and a half. I'll be getting one
>>> soon, and I've been toying with the idea of getting a pretty nice
>>> one. I'm currently attracted to Sony Ericssons s710A and P800. Also,
>>> I
>>> love the Motorola A600, A780, A840 & A1000s. I don't know how much
>>> these are running, or where to get them. They're not on any of the
>>> provider websites (T-Mobile, Cingular, AT&T). I figure one
>>> advantage of getting from them is they can let you pay for it in
>>> installments. However, are there places with better deals?
>>>
>>> As with anything technology, I'm torn. You don't want to buy
>>> something that will be obsolete in six months. OTOH, you don't want
>>> to splash $600 and then in two months it's selling for $375.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for good functionality - what's most important to me is
>>> a good system of storing contacts, and yes, looks.
>>>
>>> OH, and on a related note, I know nothing about digital photography,
>>> is the quality of pictures taken by cameraphones any good?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.motorola - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <vkHDd.54430$nP1.8590@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:12:43
GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:

>Some of the camera phones now have 1.3 megapixels which will produce
>very good prints up to about 4x6.

Not really, since the lens is poor. There's much more to image quality than
megapixels.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.motorola - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <vkHDd.54430$nP1.8590@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:12:43
>GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
>>Some of the camera phones now have 1.3 megapixels which will produce
>>very good prints up to about 4x6.
>
>Not really, since the lens is poor. There's much more to image quality than
>megapixels.

Including the lack of picture controls. They can still come in very
handy. The wife and I were in an accident on 12/31/04 and it was
helpful to be able to take a few pictures. I have a Nokia 6620 and it
takes VGA resolution pictures and it did a pretty good job. A digital
camera would have been better, but I did not have one available. For
a sample see
http://members.cox.net/jrusling/acci...s/photo_1.html.

--
Jim Rusling
Partially Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

WOW, that's quite an accident. I hope all are OK.

From:Jim Rusling
usenet@rusling.org

> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.motorola - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <vkHDd.54430$nP1.8590@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sat, 08 Jan 2005
>> 02:12:43 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of the camera phones now have 1.3 megapixels which will produce
>>> very good prints up to about 4x6.
>>
>> Not really, since the lens is poor. There's much more to image
>> quality than megapixels.
>
> Including the lack of picture controls. They can still come in very
> handy. The wife and I were in an accident on 12/31/04 and it was
> helpful to be able to take a few pictures. I have a Nokia 6620 and it
> takes VGA resolution pictures and it did a pretty good job. A digital
> camera would have been better, but I did not have one available. For
> a sample see
> http://members.cox.net/jrusling/acci...s/photo_1.html.
>
> --
> Jim Rusling
> Partially Retired
> Mustang, OK
> http://www.rusling.org

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:

>WOW, that's quite an accident. I hope all are OK.
>
The wife and I are pretty sore, but nothing serious. We were
extremely lucky.

--
Jim Rusling
Partially Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org