Time to stop flying?

In message , at
09:59:32 on Tue, 8 Apr 2008, erilar
remarked:
Somehow I can't imagine a camera phone offering quality comparable to
even the lowest-quality setting on my camera, but some people don't care.

Having spent several years taking photos with a $1000 range digital
camera that had a 1MP 1024*768 resolution (the same as my laptop
screen, ands as much as I really need) I upgraded to another $1000 2MP
1600*1200 SLR-style digital camera. Imagine my surprise a couple of
years later when my phone came with a "free" 2MP 1632*1224 camera built
in. Not so good in low light, though.
--
Roland Perry

"Mike....." wrote in message
...
Following up to erilar

What will make me happy is [...] the ability to use my
camera-phone to take pictures out of the window.

Wouldn't any ol' camera do?

Somehow I can't imagine a camera phone offering quality comparable to
even the lowest-quality setting on my camera, but some people don't care.

as a picture through a window from train/plane etc is mostly rubbish
anyway........

One of the best photos I've ever taken (the bar is not high there,
admittedly) is over my shoulder through a tour bus window at high speed on a
Cathy-n-Bill special in 1978. Schloss Vaduz. Sheer fluke, though. It's a
slide and I must get hold of it and make a print somehow.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore

Martin wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:37:33 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:13:25 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

This will still be very expensive.

It will be affordable for many business travellers, although I daresay
it will not be welcome.

I've been on a number of domestic flights in the US where there were
plenty of business travellers on board, and there were air phones. I
don't remember them being used much. It will all depend largely on the
pricing. What I suspect will be more useful, if provided, will be mobile
data services. I would pay 10 times as much for data on a flight,
compared to use on the ground, as it would still be fairly cheap for
email (without attachments.)

You might be within McD wifi range for some parts of the journey. )

If you were allowed to use your computer or PDA!

If I wanted to hump my desktop around with me )

Ah- my laptop is my desktop!

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

Following up to Roland Perry

I upgraded to another $1000 2MP
1600*1200 SLR-style digital camera. Imagine my surprise a couple of
years later when my phone came with a "free" 2MP 1632*1224 camera built
in. Not so good in low light, though.

people get hung up on megapixels, thats only the "film". Have a look at the
lens on an SLR and the lens on a phone and guess which one gets better
shots!
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email

In article , grusl
writes

One of the best photos I've ever taken (the bar is not high there,
admittedly) is over my shoulder through a tour bus window at high speed on a
Cathy-n-Bill special in 1978. Schloss Vaduz. Sheer fluke, though. It's a
slide and I must get hold of it and make a print somehow.

One of my favourites I took through a car rear window. I woke up, looked
out and grabbed the camera (a Pentax MX bought second hand in 1979,
loaded with Kodak Ektachrome 64 ISO slide film).

http://www.congokid.demon.co.uk/gallery/usa/usa03/index.htm
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

In message , at 16:37:05 on
Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked:
as a picture through a window from train/plane etc is mostly rubbish
anyway........

Rubbish for what purpose? If it's "look, here is Mt St Helens erupting,
viewed from 30K feet", it's a good holiday snap.

This is one of my favourite "through a train window" pictures, I used a
wider version as wallpaper for a couple of years:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/9210792
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:27:11 on
Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Mike..... remarked:
I upgraded to another $1000 2MP
1600*1200 SLR-style digital camera. Imagine my surprise a couple of
years later when my phone came with a "free" 2MP 1632*1224 camera built
in. Not so good in low light, though.

people get hung up on megapixels, thats only the "film". Have a look at the
lens on an SLR and the lens on a phone and guess which one gets better
shots!

I've agreed that the smaller lens is not so good in poor light (no flash
either). As for other aspects, if all you want is a 1MP wallpaper or a
postcard sized print, the better camera phones can give adequate
results. The other disadvantage is the shutter lag, so it helps if the
subject isn't moving!
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:29:38 on Tue, 8 Apr
2008, "tim (not at home)" remarked:
The ones I had were in-ear. Panasonic RP-HC50. Rubbish.

Like the reviewer here, I paid about £40 which wasn't cheap.

Don't the Bose ones have an extra zero on the price.

Perhaps that makes them wok better

A Lear Jet probably "works better" too. I don't have that kind of money.

That's a stupid statement. You do have the kind of money to buy a Bose.
Whether you think it vfm is another matter.

tim

In article ,
"Mike....." wrote:

Following up to Roland Perry

I upgraded to another $1000 2MP
1600*1200 SLR-style digital camera. Imagine my surprise a couple of
years later when my phone came with a "free" 2MP 1632*1224 camera built
in. Not so good in low light, though.

people get hung up on megapixels, thats only the "film". Have a look at the
lens on an SLR and the lens on a phone and guess which one gets better
shots!

People do tend to forget about the lens in these megapixel days, don't
they? 8-)

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:47:56 on Mon, 7
Apr 2008, Gerald Oliver Swift remarked:
The decision means that mobiles could be used once a plane has reached an
altitude of 3,000m or more.

What will make me happy is not so much the ability to phone home and say
"I'm going to be an hour late because we've just sat at the end of the
runway waiting for a takeoff slot" but the ability to use my
camera-phone to take pictures out of the window.

Why not use a regular camera?