Camera cell phones, what the heck is the point?
Steven C (Doktersteve)
A television commercial.
The setting, a mountain resort. Friends in a nice cozy cabin at a party,
drinks being served, pretty girls having a good time with pretty boys, and
an anonymous photographer is snapping photos, getting all these amazing
shots from every angle to capture the great time they are having.
And then you realize you are watching a commercial for a cell phone
camera/phone combo.
So what would be the freaking POINT of bringing a cell phone camera up in
the first place. What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
(most of the time anyways), and who will just think its "cool" to have.
I just don't get it. 2mp is quite low, and that is still considered "high"
res for these types of devices (like the sony clie that has a 2mp image
sensor, but terrible plastic lens).
Perhaps in five years it would be feasible to have a camera phone and
actually you know... use it for anything. period.
But for now? just more junk we don't need I guess.
Steven M. Scharf
news:UUgVb.9730$Qa3.8267@edtnps89...
> What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
> sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
> (most of the time anyways), and who will just think its "cool" to have.
Selling more air time is the point.
Charlie Self
>
>A television commercial.
>The setting, a mountain resort. Friends in a nice cozy cabin at a party,
>drinks being served, pretty girls having a good time with pretty boys, and
>an anonymous photographer is snapping photos, getting all these amazing
>shots from every angle to capture the great time they are having.
>
>And then you realize you are watching a commercial for a cell phone
>camera/phone combo.
>
>So what would be the freaking POINT of bringing a cell phone camera up in
>the first place. What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
>sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
>(most of the time anyways), and who will just think its "cool" to have.
Same point there is in those Nextel walkie-talkie commericals. None.
Charlie Self
"Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.comnotforme> wrote in message
news:20040207220013...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> Steven C asks:
>
> >
> >A television commercial.
> >The setting, a mountain resort. Friends in a nice cozy cabin at a party,
> >drinks being served, pretty girls having a good time with pretty boys,
and
> >an anonymous photographer is snapping photos, getting all these amazing
> >shots from every angle to capture the great time they are having.
> >
> >And then you realize you are watching a commercial for a cell phone
> >camera/phone combo.
> >
> >So what would be the freaking POINT of bringing a cell phone camera up in
> >the first place. What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than
to
> >sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
> >(most of the time anyways), and who will just think its "cool" to have.
>
> Same point there is in those Nextel walkie-talkie commericals. None.
>
Actually the Motorola walk-walkie type phones are great.
You can talk on a 2 way radio anywhere in north America with the right sort
of account. Someone in Alaska can talk to someone in Tampa Florida, and the
rates are better than cellular if you are big enough to warrant it.
But I see what you are saying.
Steven M. Scharf
> > Same point there is in those Nextel walkie-talkie commericals. None.
>
> Actually the Motorola walk-walkie type phones are great.
> You can talk on a 2 way radio anywhere in north America with the right
sort
> of account. Someone in Alaska can talk to someone in Tampa Florida, and
the
> rates are better than cellular if you are big enough to warrant it.
Bad example, since Nextel has no coverage at all in Alaska. Alaska has no
iDEN network at all, and virtually no GSM aside from a very small area (not
the cities). If you want to make any calls at all in Alaska you need a TDMA
or CDMA phone, and if you want good coverage throughout Alaska then you need
a phone that still supports the analog AMPS network. While there is PTT
available on Sprint PCS and Verizon, it won't work in Alaska, because you'll
be roaming on other carriers that don't support PTT.
When I was on vacation in Alaska last year, I ran into a very upset Nextel
user at the Anchorage airport!
Nextel's system does have a point, if you're a business that needs to
communicate with a bunch of your people at once; it's a good two way radio
replacement. But it's a lousy substitute for a cell phone if you ever go
outside of urban areas. I can't imagine any non-business user paying extra
money for PTT on a real cellular or PCS carrier.
LLutton
>the first place.
My daughter and her husband have cell phones with cameras and they get a lot of
use out of them. She might be in a store and calls her husband and a picture
of a product she is looking at appears on his phone. He can tell her if that
is what he needs. She was across the country visiting her son in the military
and sent us pictures she took of him at our email address using only her cell
phone. I thought it was great. I'm more into high resolution pictures and
probably won't go that route myself.
Lynn
Steven C (Doktersteve)
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:1piVb.19090$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FeiVb.11149
>
> > > Same point there is in those Nextel walkie-talkie commericals. None.
> >
> > Actually the Motorola walk-walkie type phones are great.
> > You can talk on a 2 way radio anywhere in north America with the right
> sort
> > of account. Someone in Alaska can talk to someone in Tampa Florida, and
> the
> > rates are better than cellular if you are big enough to warrant it.
>
> Bad example, since Nextel has no coverage at all in Alaska. Alaska has no
> iDEN network at all, and virtually no GSM aside from a very small area
(not
> the cities). If you want to make any calls at all in Alaska you need a
TDMA
> or CDMA phone, and if you want good coverage throughout Alaska then you
need
> a phone that still supports the analog AMPS network. While there is PTT
> available on Sprint PCS and Verizon, it won't work in Alaska, because
you'll
> be roaming on other carriers that don't support PTT.
>
Cool, cool.
thanks for pointing that out.
> When I was on vacation in Alaska last year, I ran into a very upset Nextel
> user at the Anchorage airport!
>
> Nextel's system does have a point, if you're a business that needs to
> communicate with a bunch of your people at once; it's a good two way radio
> replacement. But it's a lousy substitute for a cell phone if you ever go
> outside of urban areas. I can't imagine any non-business user paying extra
> money for PTT on a real cellular or PCS carrier.
>
>
www.telus.com has partnered with Nextel just last year to provide the 2 way
radio service in pretty much every major urban center in Canada and the
lower 48 states.
Its a keen technology, although a little dated.
If they offered this on an affordable consumer level package, people would
eat it up. Pay for only small amounts of airtime? Works almost anywhere in
almost any large city?
But they don't make money like that, do they ;-)
CaptainKrunch
sharing service as opposed to being charged for air time. Cell phone plans
are different than they used to be and the web service/camera service
doesn't generally subtract minutes from your regular plan.
The phone companies know that parents are stupid enough to buy a cellphone
for their kids and pay for this ridiculous service. In addition to the
service the other little add-ons are different ring tones that cost a buck
on up. Games and screensavers that cost up to three or four dollars and
many times expire after a month or two or three. That is where the phone
companies are making their money.
As far as the picture quality goes my Sanyo8100 sucks but even the entry
level phones these days have cameras in them. I bought it because it is a
nice phone. I utilized my free two months of service but cancelled it before
they charged me. The only use I can see for sending pics is perhaps if you
are at a store and you see something you might want to buy so you send a pic
to your wife or whoever and let them see the furniture or picture or
whatever before you buy it. Otherwise sending pics is for teenagers and
Japanese people. They love that shit.
CaptainKrunch
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:q1hVb.18838$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Steven M. Scharf
> www.telus.com has partnered with Nextel just last year to provide the 2
way
> radio service in pretty much every major urban center in Canada and the
> lower 48 states.
I have a Canadian colleague at work that kept his Nextel service from his
last job (where I also worked with him) solely because of the Telus
partnership. But his wife has a non-Nextel phone for when they go outside
Nextel coverage.
> If they offered this on an affordable consumer level package, people would
> eat it up. Pay for only small amounts of airtime? Works almost anywhere in
> almost any large city?
>
> But they don't make money like that, do they ;-)
Verizon now offers unlimited mobile to mobile calling between Verizon users.
I don't know where you are in the U.S., but in the SF Bay Area, Verizon is
the dominant carrier by far. Nearly every person I work with or am friends
with, or related to, in the area, has Verizon. With mobile to mobile being
free, I essentially pay for only small amounts of air time now. I have never
gone over my 300 peak minutes, even though I use more than 300 minutes
during peak time. With nights and weekends free no matter who you're calling
(and 8:01 p.m. nights), I can't imagine paying more for Nextel service.
Interestingly enough, Verizon has what appear to be highest base rates
(other than Nextel), but the lowest average revenue per user of any of the
six national carriers. So you're right--they don't make money like that! But
Verizon goes for the the volume, and the low churn.
Verizon is not the best carrier in all areas, though it was number one in
every area surveyed by Consumer Reports.
Marty
phone will not be allowed in the building. Lawyers and detectives
should be aware that they will not be able to use their phones, even
in vibrate mode, in such locales.
Alfred Molon
send a picture to somebody, just in case. But it's also true that some
companies are banning these phones from their sites for fear of
industrial espionage.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405060/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Ron Hunter
While a phone/camera combination may not be the appropriate tool for a
professional photographer, it IS quite useful for many people who want
to capture the moment. First, because it is small, light, and ON HAND.
Second, because it is set up to send the photo to someone else easily,
and third, because it is always available.
Not everyone is Ansel Adams. Many of us use a camera for purpose more
mundane than studio photography. I heard of a teen who had just been
accosted by a person who tried to drag him into a van, and who got a
picture of the person, and the van (with license plate visible) on his
phone. You may not find that useful, but HE did.
Do I have such a phone/camera? Nope, it's not what I need, but I can
see why people want them.
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>So what would be the freaking POINT of bringing a cell phone camera up in
>the first place. What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
>sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
>(most of the time anyways), and who will just think its "cool" to have.
Hi,
These camera-phones are for fun for everyday folks...and generating
more revenue for the phone industry! And if people believe that's
what they want then so be it. Phones with MP3s, cameras, PDAs,
etc...progress.
In terms of marketing, camera-phones are being snapped up (I'm in the
UK), and more camera-phone models are being introduced all the time.
A few days ago, there was a car accident...a significant proportion
of passerbys got their camera-phones out and took photos.
I have a digital SLR, but I don't carry that around with me all day.
My camera-phone is with me always and so is fun to send pictures to
someone, or sometimes could be useful record something. I actually
bought the phone for its PDA functionality and the camera-phone
didn't figure in the purchase but it has turned out to be a fun thing
to use.
Different strokes, as they say. Don't sweat it.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
Charlie Self
>While a phone/camera combination may not be the appropriate tool for a
>professional photographer, it IS quite useful for many people who want
>to capture the moment.
Fair enough. But I've always wondered if those who are so engrossed in
capturing the moment activity they miss the main point of the "moment" being
captured.
Azzz1588
<real_dok...@hotmail.com> writes:
>What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
>sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
That is exactly the point !!
Each little picture snapped and sent with that phone carries a
charge with it (verizion wanted over $1.00 per pic before)
and thats what they are hpoing for. Lots of idiots snapping pic's
and sending over the phone. They make money that way :)
"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
Ron Hunter
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:11:00 GMT, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
> <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>So what would be the freaking POINT of bringing a cell phone camera up in
>>the first place. What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
>>sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
>>(most of the time anyways), and who will just think its "cool" to have.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> These camera-phones are for fun for everyday folks...and generating
> more revenue for the phone industry! And if people believe that's
> what they want then so be it. Phones with MP3s, cameras, PDAs,
> etc...progress.
>
> In terms of marketing, camera-phones are being snapped up (I'm in the
> UK), and more camera-phone models are being introduced all the time.
>
> A few days ago, there was a car accident...a significant proportion
> of passerbys got their camera-phones out and took photos.
>
> I have a digital SLR, but I don't carry that around with me all day.
> My camera-phone is with me always and so is fun to send pictures to
> someone, or sometimes could be useful record something. I actually
> bought the phone for its PDA functionality and the camera-phone
> didn't figure in the purchase but it has turned out to be a fun thing
> to use.
>
> Different strokes, as they say. Don't sweat it.
>
There are a lot of 'camera snobs' here who think if equipment isn't
studio quality, it's 'useless', because they don't have need for a
camera for 'mundane' uses. We can't all be Ansel Adams, but most us
fine uses for our cameras, and enjoy them, and capture the moment, and
that's what photography really is.
Ron Hunter
Only if they have to spend several minutes per picture setting exposure,
focusing, and resetting the tripod. See, shoot, enjoy, and share.
One can certainly go TOO far trying to capture ALL the moments.
Some of them can only be recorded in the 'wetware'.
Ron Hunter
> In article <UUgVb.9730$Qa3.8267@edtnps89>, "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)"
> <real_dok...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>What is the point of the cell phone camera, other than to
>>sell more useless gadgetry to sixteen year olds who don't know any better
>
>
>
>
> That is exactly the point !!
>
> Each little picture snapped and sent with that phone carries a
> charge with it (verizion wanted over $1.00 per pic before)
> and thats what they are hpoing for. Lots of idiots snapping pic's
> and sending over the phone. They make money that way :)
>
And there is something wrong with making a profit, right?
Sigh.
Chris
phones in everything else, so it's logical to assume someone would come up
with it, even if for no other reason to have built it.
I guess for convenience's sake. Micro-technology is alot more than a
lifestyle for some people, they literally "HAVE" to have every little gadget
they can cram into a purse or pocket. Pens with flashlights on them, swiss
tool-knives with pens AND flashlights AND clocks on them, pagers that shoot
pepper spray...
It's not about what's "needed", it's become about how much stuff they can
cram into a 2 or 3 inch casing. I remember when I thought my Nokia 2120 was
"smallish", and now they make full-function zoom lens digicams smaller than
my tv remote.
"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UUgVb.9730$Qa3.8267@edtnps89...
Ron Hunter
> Well, seems like these days they want to put cameras in everything, or
> phones in everything else, so it's logical to assume someone would come up
> with it, even if for no other reason to have built it.
>
> I guess for convenience's sake. Micro-technology is alot more than a
> lifestyle for some people, they literally "HAVE" to have every little gadget
> they can cram into a purse or pocket. Pens with flashlights on them, swiss
> tool-knives with pens AND flashlights AND clocks on them, pagers that shoot
> pepper spray...
>
> It's not about what's "needed", it's become about how much stuff they can
> cram into a 2 or 3 inch casing. I remember when I thought my Nokia 2120 was
> "smallish", and now they make full-function zoom lens digicams smaller than
> my tv remote.
>
The point is that all those devices are things people find USEFUL. If
not, then they would have little interest in paying extra for them. I
really wish my phone had a flashlight function and a weather radio built
in, rather than games... NOW THOSE don't do anything for me, but others
do seem to find them useful, so do you hear me complaining? HOW can
people so 'self centered' that anything not useful to THEM is 'silly',
'useless', or 'a fad'?
Chris
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:102d5vn...@corp.supernews.com...
> The point is that all those devices are things people find USEFUL. If
> not, then they would have little interest in paying extra for them. I
> really wish my phone had a flashlight function and a weather radio built
> in, rather than games... NOW THOSE don't do anything for me, but others
> do seem to find them useful, so do you hear me complaining? HOW can
> people so 'self centered' that anything not useful to THEM is 'silly',
> 'useless', or 'a fad'?
Not always so. Think of all the gadget-hungry people who every year buy
things which have no useful purpose, or atleast no purpose for them. People
buy these toys for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they have uses, and
sometimes they just got talked into the purchase by watching a commercial,
or listening to a sales pitch. It happens every day.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
I am in canada actually. The big carriers here are Telus, Rogers, Fido, and
Bell.
I may find myself in San Diego though, relocating there. My uncle who is
there now is on T Mobile, and says it is decent. He had an account with
nextel, but that did NOT go well, trust me ;-)
> Interestingly enough, Verizon has what appear to be highest base rates
> (other than Nextel), but the lowest average revenue per user of any of the
> six national carriers. So you're right--they don't make money like that!
But
> Verizon goes for the the volume, and the low churn.
>
> Verizon is not the best carrier in all areas, though it was number one in
> every area surveyed by Consumer Reports.
>
>
I was watching Tech TV (based in SF) and they were basically blasting
verizon, and talking about moving to anyone but.
*shrugs* It is all subjective, isn't it?
Alot of good info, thank you very much.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
Nope
If it is such a tiny resolution that 8x10 prints arent do-able though, you
can count me out.
I love my 2mp canon powershot a40, and my 5mp sony dsc-f717 equally.
I cant afford a DSLR, but if i could i would just go with a canon 6mp model,
because i understand the megapixel myth.
The same reason sony can't woo me with their 8mp F828.
You make some other relevant points, but I snipped them for bandwidth
reasons.
Thanks,
Steve.
Ron Hunter
some people buy things they don't need. DO you NEED a computer? Do you
NEED a cell phone? Do you NEED food? If you don't need a computer or
cell phone as much as you need to eat, then the truth is you WANT a
computer, and you WANT a cell phone, and that is just FINE. For many
people toys are what makes life worth their time.
Ron Hunter
I have made, maybe 3 8 x 10 prints in the past 10 years. So what do I
care if a camera won't go that far? True, resolution on the current
crop of camera-phones is more suited to the screen size of the phone
display, and the speed of transmission. Perhaps larger sensors will
make sense when faster transmission is possible, and better displays can
show the pictures.
Azzz1588
<rphu...@charter.net> writes:
>And there is something wrong with making a profit, right?
>Sigh.
No not at all to me !!
I just think it's a waste, but if someone is willing to pay for it, than
by all means. If it takes off bigtime, we all benifit from it in the long run.
Roger Halstead
<not...@nobody.com> wrote:
>As far as airtime goes there is usually just a charge to utilize the picture
>sharing service as opposed to being charged for air time. Cell phone plans
>are different than they used to be and the web service/camera service
>doesn't generally subtract minutes from your regular plan.
>
>The phone companies know that parents are stupid enough to buy a cellphone
>for their kids and pay for this ridiculous service. In addition to the
>service the other little add-ons are different ring tones that cost a buck
>on up. Games and screensavers that cost up to three or four dollars and
>many times expire after a month or two or three. That is where the phone
>companies are making their money.
>
>As far as the picture quality goes my Sanyo8100 sucks but even the entry
>level phones these days have cameras in them. I bought it because it is a
>nice phone. I utilized my free two months of service but cancelled it before
>they charged me. The only use I can see for sending pics is perhaps if you
>are at a store and you see something you might want to buy so you send a pic
>to your wife or whoever and let them see the furniture or picture or
>whatever before you buy it. Otherwise sending pics is for teenagers and
>Japanese people. They love that shit.
Aparently Americans as a whole don't, as the photo phones are not
doing at all well. Hence all the adds and push to sell them.
There was an AP story within the last three weeks on how poorly they
are being accepted in the USA compared to Japan and Europe. The
Europe part really suprised me.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Ron Hunter
cheese, for instance, but many people would disagree, and all are very
important to the world economy even though we would probably be better
off without them all.
Ron Hunter
The Japanese have embraced then with characteristic enthusiasm. In the
US, there are a lot of competing technologies, and a vastly different
landscape. I suspect that geography has much to do with the difference.
Canopus
I seem to remember that some of the first footage coming out of Iraq at the
commencement of the war was being done so using a camera cell phone
covertly. I'm sure there is a use for them, but, I wouldn't bother buying
one, I'm still trying to figure out the functions of my simple one.
Rob
Juan R. Pollo
> I love my 2mp canon powershot a40, and my 5mp sony dsc-f717 equally.
>
> I cant afford a DSLR, but if i could i would just go with a canon 6mp
model,
> because i understand the megapixel myth.
> The same reason sony can't woo me with their 8mp F828.
>
Hold on, not so fast. I also love my A40 but I liked the F828 reviews enough
to consider it an alternative to the DRebel. What do you mean by your F828
comment?
Juan
Ron Hunter
Fortunately, they don't cost me anything if I don't USE them...
For most, I suspect the picture feature is not used much. Others may
find it useful for special purposes.
I don't think I would pay extra to get a phone with the current level of
digital camera function.
Larry
jrp...@worldnet.att.net says...
Probably all impressed by the noise being made about the noise in its
pictures.
For myself, I dont see the problem.
They made a camera with 3 million more pixels and put them on the same
size sensor as the 717...did anyone (even the engineers at Sony) expect
it not to be noisier???
I'll probably buy one as a companion for my 717 (not as a replacement)
for those shots where I'de need to crop a little more, or I could get
the picture without cropping with the increased zoom on the 828.
If Im going to shoot in circumstances where I think the faults of the
828 are going to cause degradation in my picture. I'll use film, or the
717.
I dont think the price of the 828 is justified, and I think if Sony
wants to move a bunch of 'em they will lower the price. (Ive already
seen 'em with a $100 (US) discount)
If I can get a refurb, or get one for < 800 I'll go for it, its a good
camera, and can do some stuff the 717 cant do. It just, for my money
cant do a $1000 worth.
Larry
Mystic
Bob Salomon
Larry <sl...@slide.net> wrote:
> I'll probably buy one as a companion for my 717 (not as a replacement)
> for those shots where I'de need to crop a little more, or I could get
> the picture without cropping with the increased zoom on the 828.
I have purchased one as a replacement for my 717 and love it! And yes I
have compared results between them and no, I have no complaints with
image quality or noise and, no, I do not have a problem with purple
colors at any focal length.
And, when I am shooting medium format, large format or 35mm, I use the
slowest films I can find. So I have not used either the 717 or the 828
or my earlier 5700 at high ISO speeds.
So for my purposes it suits me fine. Perhaps for yours you will find it
does not. That doesn't bother me. But then if you haven't shot and
compared results yourself then how would you really know?
--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Larry
east.ash.giganews.com>, bob_s...@mindspring.com says...
> I have purchased one as a replacement for my 717 and love it! And yes I
> have compared results between them and no, I have no complaints with
> image quality or noise and, no, I do not have a problem with purple
> colors at any focal length.
>
> And, when I am shooting medium format, large format or 35mm, I use the
> slowest films I can find. So I have not used either the 717 or the 828
> or my earlier 5700 at high ISO speeds.
>
> So for my purposes it suits me fine. Perhaps for yours you will find it
> does not. That doesn't bother me. But then if you haven't shot and
> compared results yourself then how would you really know?
>
> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
>
Actually I have used my brother-in-laws 828, and I was quite pleased
with it. As I said, it just isnt a $1000 worth of upgrade over the 717
(for my purposes) If, on the other hand I didn't have the 717, I
wouldn't hesitate for a moment to get the 828. If I need more than it
can give me I can still (for now) use the film cameras that I have.
Thats the issue with me. I only use film for 10% of my work and I
probably could use the 828 for ALL of that 10%. So for now Im content to
wait for a price break.
Larry
Mystic
Bob Salomon
Larry <sl...@slide.net> wrote:
I don't see it as a $1000.00 replacement. I sold my 717 for $400.00
after seeinig what the 828 could do.
Larry
east.ash.giganews.com>, bob_s...@mindspring.com says...
>
> after seeinig what the 828 could do.
>
> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
>
My resistance is partially sentimental I think.. The 717 has taken well
over 3000 good usable shots for me, sometimes under unbelievably bad
conditions.
Larry
Mystic
IOW I dont really want to sell it (even if I wont use it much.