As for w00t's comments: while mp may not be the only benchmark worth noting it does say something for the company's commitment to the camera itself. Sony & Nokia are using 5 (or soon 8 for SE) but they'd not be doing this if the optics & software were in place to back it up.
Have you guys seen how thin the iPhone is? All the iPhone's competitors with better cameras are thicker, in some cases twice as thick. Which laws of physics would you suggest Apple break to get a better camera into the iPhone?
Also, 2 megapixel is 1600 x 1200. That's way WAY more than enough for anything you're going to post on the web. If you want to take good pictures, might I suggest using an actual camera to do it, and not a phone?
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
is it still a 2 mp camera...? or hoppfully 5mp
Judging a camera based on the pixel count is like buying a processor based on the clock speed.
You'd get a Pentium 4 and look an idiot :)
Sorry, dude. 2mp. 5 w/ no flash would be useless.
As for w00t's comments: while mp may not be the only benchmark worth noting it does say something for the company's commitment to the camera itself. Sony & Nokia are using 5 (or soon 8 for SE) but they'd not be doing this if the optics & software were in place to back it up.
but its not a camera its a phone and i want better camera features...
Yeah well, ANY CPU at 300Mhz wont be effective in a modern PC.
You have to draw the line somewhere.
Have you guys seen how thin the iPhone is? All the iPhone's competitors with better cameras are thicker, in some cases twice as thick. Which laws of physics would you suggest Apple break to get a better camera into the iPhone?
Also, 2 megapixel is 1600 x 1200. That's way WAY more than enough for anything you're going to post on the web. If you want to take good pictures, might I suggest using an actual camera to do it, and not a phone?