I'm currently using the mobile phone I won at last years Microsoft Convergence conference here in Copenhagen, a nice Samsung running Windows Mobile. I actually likes it a lot. I'm very easily able to receive my mail using Outlook and synchronize with my contacts and so.
I like it a lot, except that it takes lousy pictures. Only 2mega pixels and no flash.
I don't really have high requirements except the outlook/mail and the camera function.
What would you recommend? A few of my friends say IPhone, but their camera function isn't really great.
Erik, by raising such question you are seriously risking to create a "flame" thread here , as this is one of classic themes, where everybody has his subjective opinion... Worse could only be the eternal Win versus "OpenSource" or PC versus MAC
Returning to theme... Cameras in phones will ALWAYS be even worse than soap-box cameras, and problem doesn't lay in MPix count. It is LENS, that counts, and this pin-head size single peace of plastic, which pretends to be a lens in phone physically can't draw sufficiently detailed image on CCD matrix, not to speak about chromatic abberation effects - different color (read wawelength) has different reflection angles, so you get "rainbows" on contrasting color edges in image.
High quality lenses contain many optical elements, special coatings and so on, (and front lens SIZE matters, too - compare 1mm in phone back against 50-60-70mm for normal focal length lenses) - all this guarantees correct color and almost equal optical resolution both in center and sides of projected image. Only in pair with such lens usage of hi-res (here it means over 3-5 MPix) CCD matrix is reasonable. You may put even Hasselblad 260 Mpix (yes, 260 million, its not a typo) matrix behind a phone "lens" and result will be poor, as matrix resolution is far more higher than the image optical resolution such "lens" is capable to project on it...
So, phone "cameras" with more than 3-5 Mpix matrix aren't serious (though I've heard some vendors now start offering even about 12-15 Mpix). Use your phone cam to shot a schedule at city bus stop for later reference instead of rewriting it on stick of paper or similar, but for more serious imaging even soap-box camera will give better result.
Of course, as I mentioned already in first sentence, my opinion is subjective... But, I was a photographer for 3 years BC (Before Computers :), almost 30 years ago), its now turned to hobby, so I have some my own practical experience in this area.
Generally, I belong to people who keep to the opinion, that phones are for making calls, cameras (be it soap-box or a pro digital SLR) are for taking pictures, GPS units for tracing your way and so on - the all-in-one universal wonder-boxes are equally unapplicable to all different functions the happen to contain...
Thank you for your lesson into cameras. I know you're never going to have the same quality in a mobile phone camera as I had in my good old non-digital Nikon SLR. And that's not really the issue here. And then 95% of my pictures are only used on my computer (and digital picture frames) and only very seldom printed.
For me the mobile phone camera is simply supposed to be a replacement for my current 5 mpixels pocket camera, so that I only need to take the mobile, if I'm going out a day/night where I'm not feeling like taking my bigger and not very handy d-slr.
I actually like the fact that I can have everything in one, that be email, phone, camera, gps and mp3 player. But the quality of each component need to be at an acceptable level, otherwise it really doesn't matter.