Camera Looks Like a Phone

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I want
to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if
they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID pix of
them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those times
when payment is turned over to collections.

So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell phone,
that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the goofy
thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.

To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection to a
modern laptop. Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MilkyWhy" <milkywhy@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041208014300.21753.00001372@mb-m12.wmconnect.com...
> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing
looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted,
than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
> appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
> Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID
pix of
> them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those
times
> when payment is turned over to collections.
>
> So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell
phone,
> that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the
goofy
> thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.
>
> To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection
to a
> modern laptop.

>Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.

Buy a Google.
I think it's got exactly what you're looking for.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MilkyWhy wrote:

> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.

Why not just buy a camera phone then?

Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
- some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
so many people try to sneak in camera phones.

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MilkyWhy wrote:
> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
> appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
> Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID pix of
> them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those times
> when payment is turned over to collections.
>
> So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell phone,
> that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the goofy
> thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.
>
> To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection to a
> modern laptop. Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.


Spies-R-Us could prove helpful.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion responds:

>> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
>want
>> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
>> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
>> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than
>if
>> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.
>
>Why not just buy a camera phone then?
>
>Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
>- some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
>a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
>so many people try to sneak in camera phones.
>

Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those people
just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.

Charlie Self
"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> Matt Ion responds:
>
>
>>>I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
>>
>>want
>>
>>>to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
>>>couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing looked
>>>like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted, than
>>
>>if
>>
>>>they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.
>>
>>Why not just buy a camera phone then?
>>
>>Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
>>- some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
>>a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
>>so many people try to sneak in camera phones.
>>
>
>
> Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
> did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
> moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those people
> just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
> and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce


I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This kinda went off-topic, huh?

The only very small, very cheap, decent-quality cameras that come to
mind are those made by Argus. Check out

http/www.arguscamera.com

Their 3640 model can be found for <$100.

But if you're willing to pay more...

Sony makes some very cool small cameras, like the U30/U40/U50 line (all
about $200), and the P100/120/150 line ($350-450).

The SL400R is kinda flat and kinda big - I don't think it could be
mistaken for a cell phone. But if a "flat" camera is OK, I'd recommend
the Panasonic FX7, which has image stabilization, allowing for slower
shutterspeeds (and thus brighter shots) in poor lighting. The Sony T1,
the Casio EX-Z55 and EX-S100, the Fuji 440/450, and of course the Canon
SD200/300, are all good compact cameras as well.
More info at

http/digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com

BNM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <5yytd.457914$nl.367000@pd7tw3no>, Matt Ion
<soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote:

> Disguising a camera as a cell phone isn't much of a disguise these days
> - some establishments (such as upper-crust Hollywood eateries that draw
> a lot of celebrity clientele) are banning cel phones outright, because
> so many people try to sneak in camera phones.

In the course of my business I visit the headquarters of some very
large drug and health insurance companies. Most off them don't let
camera phones in the door (at least for visitors - maybe employees can
use their phones)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MilkyWhy wrote:

> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a
> phone. I want to carry it around with me all day and have it take
> It would be handier if the goofy thing looked like a modern cell
> phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if they
> realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.

Buy a Kyocera SL400R. It's twistable down the middle and if you don't
twist it, you can hold it at waist level and look down on the display,
while you take pictures. It's very discreet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Toke Eskildsen responds:

>MilkyWhy wrote:
>
>> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a
>> phone. I want to carry it around with me all day and have it take
>> It would be handier if the goofy thing looked like a modern cell
>> phone because folks would take it more for granted, than if they
>> realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera.
>
>Buy a Kyocera SL400R. It's twistable down the middle and if you don't
>twist it, you can hold it at waist level and look down on the display,
>while you take pictures. It's very discreet.

Of course, if you get a discreet shot and the person catches you at it, you've
upped your chances of learning what it feels like to get the snot pounded out
of you.

Charlie Self
"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.

Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.

May be coincidence, but the local Schlotzsky's, which was the only
eatery I'd ever seen with a sign on the door banning cell phones, is now
defunct. Out of business. Closed.

--
John Miller
email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer responds:

>> Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
>> did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
>> moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those
>people
>> just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
>himself
>> and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
>
>
>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.

Sanctity? More like sanity. But, then, two restaurants isn't even a good start.
I'd hope for something like 500,000. I guess we could leave out the fast food
dumps, because if you eat that "food", your ears fall off anyway.

Charlie Self
"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself
and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why don't you buy a VCR camera?

--
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"MilkyWhy" <milkywhy@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041208014300.21753.00001372@mb-m12.wmconnect.com...
> I want a camera that either is a cell phone or just looks like a phone. I
want
> to carry it around with me all day and have it take pictures, just maybe a
> couple hundred "still" shots. It would be handier if the goofy thing
looked
> like a modern cell phone because folks would take it more for granted,
than if
> they realized it was some dorky clunky typical camera. In my work as an
> appraiser, I often want to get a pix of the client and maybe their car.
> Oftentimes they skip out on paying and I could file that information (ID
pix of
> them and their vehicle) with the whole file, to try and help in those
times
> when payment is turned over to collections.
>
> So, what I basically want is a digital camera that may look like a cell
phone,
> that I can move about through the day either me taking pictures or the
goofy
> thing taking pictures on its own, at 1 minute intervals.
>
> To download my pix, I would like some sort of wireless or WiFi connection
to a
> modern laptop. Could anyone advise what to buy? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> Of course, if you get a discreet shot and the person catches you
> at it, you've upped your chances of learning what it feels like to
> get the snot pounded out of you.

My kids haven't beaten the snot out of me yet, but then again, I only
had the SL400R for a couple of months.

English isn't my native language, så I looked "appraiser" up in a
dictionary. It said "To evaluate, especially in an official capacity.",
so I assume that MilkyWhys purpose isn't to make pantyshots. But of
course he could be lying.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> Jer wrote:
> > I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> > jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>
> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.

more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Miller wrote:

> Jer wrote:
>
>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>
>
> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.

Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
appreciated by those I've met.

>
> May be coincidence, but the local Schlotzsky's, which was the only
> eatery I'd ever seen with a sign on the door banning cell phones, is now
> defunct. Out of business. Closed.

Well, if it wasn't coincidence, considering the nature of their dining
protocol, that doesn't surprise me.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> Jer responds:
>
>
>>>Now there's an idea that I'd like to see grab hold like Reaganomics never
>>>did--and trickle down. Having a meal out without having to listen to some
>>>moron's phone ring or a conversation shouted (why the hell don't those
>>
>>people
>>
>>>just buy megaphones?) to some other jerk would be a pleasure.
>>>
>>>Charlie Self
>>>"Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
>>
>>himself
>>
>>>and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce
>>
>>
>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>
>
> Sanctity? More like sanity. But, then, two restaurants isn't even a good start.
> I'd hope for something like 500,000. I guess we could leave out the fast food
> dumps, because if you eat that "food", your ears fall off anyway.
>


I don't do fast food, and I don't try to talk on a phone and dine
simultaneously. I prefer to respect my dining companions by focusing my
attention with them, and if they respond likewise, they get invited again.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Jer]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam wrote:

> In article <cp73kg$ug7$1@n4vu2.n4vu.com>, John Miller <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jer wrote:
>>
>>>I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>>jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>
>>Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>
>
> more importantly, let the fcc know. jamming and transmitting without a
> license is illegal. they'd love to learn about it.

I'm sure they would, but they're friends of mine. This may come as a
shock, but I, the owners of those venues, and their patrons care more
about privacy than the law. Besides, they've been that way for over two
years, nobody has complained, so it's really nobody's business. No
harm, no foul, and not complicated.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>John Miller wrote:
>
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
>>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
>>
>>
>> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
>
>Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
>reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
>Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
>appreciated by those I've met.

They post that they are breaking the law?
Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).
>
>>
>> May be coincidence, but the local Schlotzsky's, which was the only
>> eatery I'd ever seen with a sign on the door banning cell phones, is now
>> defunct. Out of business. Closed.
>
>Well, if it wasn't coincidence, considering the nature of their dining
>protocol, that doesn't surprise me.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:jjvfr01gsnaie0aba1einphc9g7fbk94io@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:12:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
> >John Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Jer wrote:
> >>
> >>> I happen to be aware of two restaurants in the U.S. that use cell
> >>> jammers to protect the sanctity of their patrons.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let us know what they are, so people who wish to can avoid them.
> >
> >Both places are well posted upon entering, and if necessary, the
> >reservation desk is clear about their expectations of dining protocol.
> >Their protocol is predicated on privacy, which appears to be gladly
> >appreciated by those I've met.
>
> They post that they are breaking the law?
> Such jammers are illegal in the US (and most other countries).

I understand privacy concerns, but...

....Can you IMAGINE the lawsuit that restaurant would be CRUSHED with if/when
the first heart attack victim in that establishment is unable to dial 911
with their cell phone??? There would be NO LIMIT on damages in a case like
that.

Every lawyer in the state of California would be beating their doors down to
represent them!