Considering that there are 3.5G phones around now, not supporting 3G seems a bit backwards. I've been suffering with 2.5G in my HTC Elfin, and while it's certainly convenient being able to get email just about anywhere, the data speed is so slow that I get connection errors as often as not. Makes actually receiving all my new mail quite a chore sometimes. And forget browsing. Unless there's something I absolutely MUST read while away from Wi-Fi, 2.5G is just ridiculously slow for opening a web page. For a bells and whistles included sort of phone like this, such an omission seems odd.
I watched a video jkk put on YouTube the other day, shot with this phone. Very impressive framerate for such high resolution video, from a phone! I'm used to phone video being choppy at around 4 to 10 fps, but this one seems to shoot a lot more smoothly and with minimal artifacting. Based on that video, I'd suggest the camera criticism is a bit harsh here. Otherwise an excellent review, thanks.
Thanks for the feedback on the review. I'm not surprised that you're so pleased with the phone... I know I'll hate to send my review unit back!
I don't really know what to tell you about your question regarding a 3G upgrade for the unlocked phone. I'm not aware of anything like that happening before, but I guess you never know. I'm also quite interested in seeing what the AT&T versions of both the TP2 and TD2 look like. Hopefully they won't stray too far from the designs of the versions that have been released before them.
Thanks for the kind words on the review. I can't guess what the factors are that leads HTC to omit 3G on "international" phones. Perhaps they figure that carrier specific versions of the phone will be available in places like the US that will include the missing feature.
As for the camera, there's nothing wrong with it for what it is. I'm not really down on the TP2's camera in particular... rather, I'm really not a fan of camera phones in general because from the viewpoint of an ambitious amateur photographer, the form factor is too limiting. Much like your stance that a phone without 3G seems a bit backwards, I contend that a camera without a zoom lens and a flash is functionally backwards when compared to just about every dedicated digital camera available today (yes, the TP2 has digital zoom, but that doesn't cut it). Without those features, the camera isn't suited for much more than the most undiscerning casual snapshot duty, IMO. Canon, for example, no longer sells any consumer cameras without a zoom lens.
In addition to a 3x optical zoom and a flash, the least expensive Canon ELPH has a long list of additional features that are missing on the TP2, many of which I consider essential to successful photography. Examples include optical image stabilization, evaluative metering and special condition settings (like night snapshots, kids and pets, etc.). All of these features contribute greatly in your quest for good photos.
I realize that features that I require on a good camera are at odds with the design goals of what's first and foremost a phone. For example, an optical zoom lens adds size, weight and mechanical complexity and a flash would tax the phone's small battery more than would be desirable. Since the camera is always a secondary component on a device that's primarily a phone, such cameras will probably never be able to include the essential features that I mentioned above, barring some major advances in technology. And while a dedicated camera is an additional device to carry, the resulting photos have the potential of being far superior to those from a camera phone, so I think the slight additional inconvenience pays off handsomely.
And if you think my comments on the camera were harsh, they were like a love letter compared to the comments in the GSM Arena review. They severely criticized the image quality for both photos and videos.
The strange part of your camera criticisms, whether regarding this particular camera phone or camera phones in general, is that you seem to answer your own criticisms and yet somehow not realise it at the same time. This is NOT a dedicated camera, it is a cellular phone with web access via a couple of radio types, running an OS capable of using thousands and thousands of third party applications. Complaining about the camera offering only snapshot quality is like complaining that a Nikon Coolpix can only play the demo level of Doom, and not Quake III for cryin' out loud, I want to have my Quake III on my dang phone and what the heck is wrong with Nikon for not enabling that... See what I'm getting at? Just as a dedicated, decent camera (okay, I hate the Nikon, but for the sake of argument it's not all that bad - and truth be told I can't even remember if it was a Nikon where someone managed to get it to run Doom, or some other camera) should not be expected to play games, so it seems we should not really expect dedicated camera quality/performance from a dedicated phone.
But here HTC has offered a device with a camera delivering fairly acceptable shots, some of which should be printable to 4" x 6". My humble HTC Elfin has only a 2Mp fixed focus camera with a crappy little lens and no flash. Still, it grabs pictures in even fairly bad low light when I don't happen to have my Sanyo VPC-CA65 handy to get a better picture. I'd taken hundreds of pictures of my kid's first three years using the Elfin and before that my old O2 Atom. Thousands with my Sanyo and previous HD2 Sanyo (got too much dust leakage into the lens barrel with that one though), but those cameras are too bulky to have on me all the time, so the phone has been handy. A camera in a phone is a handy thing, not a dedicated tool for an ambitious amatuer photographer (such as I once was, having gone to art school for that very purpose, before realising I wanted to be a violinmaker - oddly though, my admiration of the work of Cartier-Bresson would perhaps blend nicely with a discrete phone camera these days...). Why would one expect anything more? Sure, if a camera phone cost $1000 or more then expectations might rise to that level for me too, but this thing costs considerably less than most dedicated cameras doesn't it? When I'm documenting my work, I use a somewhat serious camera, though not a DSLR as I just find them too clunky these days. Used to use Leicas, for the quiet operation, compact size of the old rangefinder models, and the exquisite optics. If I wanted to get that serious again I'd undoubtedly buy something with Leica optics, maybe one of the larger Lumix models. But so long as more utilitarian purposes fill the bill, a modest megapixel count and convenient, always-in-pocket handiness will suit just fine.
Being long-winded again, sorry. It's just that this sort of argument against camera phones always bugs me for exactly this reason. Seems a red herring. And again, check out jkkmobile's sample video from this camera, then tell me it's not good enough for a camera phone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN0qSmAoIwU
Interesting viewpoint and one that I know some others share, but it doesn't change mine. The reason that I "answer my own criticisms" is that I recognize and freely admit that there are other ways of looking at things and I accept that. There are clearly different schools of thought driven by different priorities and preferences. And the fact that you look at things differently than I do doesn't bug me... I'll always respect someone else's viewpoint. I could spend a lot of time and bandwidth describing why I disagree with you, but I've made my point and I don't want to turn this into a debate about the merits of cameras in cell phones, so let's just agree to disagree.
Of course there is no absolutely 'correct' perspective in this sort of debate. But what I am suggesting has more to do with averages, namely the needs of the average potential consumer for a given product. This phone is plainly not aimed at a corporate market, as few corporations allow camera phones within their walls for fear of espionage. Equally plain is that the phone is not being aimed at the entry level smartphone buyer, as the pricetag is too high and the features too dense for most of these. The target market is similar to that for the iPhone, with some obvious crossover into Blackberry or Android territory. That sort of consumer, on average, is not seeking a miraculous device which provided publication quality imaging, super-computer level performance, and 10GB/sec bandwidth. Expectations do not, yet, run that high. Give it a few more years, then sure, we'll all expect a high end Windows Mobile phone to take 10Mp images and 60fps video at VGA resolution. And of course we'll expect an SDHC slot and a $30, 256GB card to pop into it. We'll demand wicked high speed internet via cellular broadcast so as to watch streaming HD video with high quality audio. But for today, this seems just a bit unrealistic.
I'm not saying that your desired camera quality is out of place, only a bit ahead of schedule where consumer electronics are concerned. Been there, done that. In 2001 I was testing full length movies on a Casio EG-800 for a media promoter, who was seeking arrangements with the studios for distribution of content to handheld users in the US and Canada. I watched three movies on that Casio with my kid, using an external 6GB hard drive from Accurite, while on a plane and then road trip to Northern Saskatchewan. Brought a few batteries with me, obviously, and a 4xD cell battery charger to boot as we were camping away from power. I was also shooting pictures and videos on that trip, using a Casio JK210-DC CF camera card, and dumping those to the external HDD often. Even tried once, using an available landline and CF modem, to connect through a calling card to my local ISP and check email... but that didn't quite work thanks to dialing string limitations in the device. On the same trip I grabbed a few hours here and there to test half a dozen media softwares for the PPC and wrote a full review of those programs for pocketnow.com, including illustrating an animated GIF with one of them. Used a folding Stowaway keyboard to do the writing and the HTML. In short, I asked A LOT from that machine which very few users would even imagine possible of such a humble machine. And I wanted more. A 2Mp camera card would have been awesome, as the 0.3Mp one was a bit limiting... but I had a neat software from Malaysia to make it perform better, written by a fellow Casio enthusiast called Marauderz, rendering higher quality stills than the native Casio program and with more shooting controls. I pushed, and I wrote online about that effort and complained to the right people besides, pushing to get better machines made.
Was I right? Yes, and no. Yes in terms of what a device might one day do. No in terms of economic viability for the times. Few would have paid for such a device as the one I was 'designing' with my daydreams. Heck, the Casio EG-800 alone cost me over $1000, and with all my accessories for it that went close to $2000. Know a lot of consumers, even today 8 years later, who would pay that much for a PDA? I don't think so. But that's about what it'd cost, in 2009, to deliver an 8Mp+ cellphone camera with sufficiently fast processor (1000MHz+) and enough native RAM (minimum 256MB) and storage capacity (expanded or not, minimum 4GB) to take advantage of that camera properly while also providing all the basics of our communications-obsessed age. Would I buy it? Sure, of course. Maybe you'd buy it too at such a price. Do you think we comprise more than 1% of the potential market? I doubt it. In a time when playing catchup to the iPhone seems to be the major consumer goods OEM obsession it would seem a bit off course to make such a device. Look to the past if you doubt it; Toshiba tried really hard with the e800 and e830, pushing the envelope in memory, screen size and resolution, and expansion potential with dual slots and USB hosting. Where did that laudable effort get Toshiba? A dead end, and several years dropped out of the market because these devices were simply more machine and cost more money than the average consumer wished to have and to pay for. And that average, sad to say, is EVERYTHING when it comes to marketing personal electronics. Push a little, as the iPhone certainly does, and win a big bag of cash and a load of credibility. Push a lot, and vanish like so many visionaries before you. Toshiba returned, but with a device decidedly less spectacularly ahead of its time. They continue to push, just a little, with their most recent models... but I doubt the sting of the e830 is forgotten, and that'll continue to influence their decisions for a long while yet.
So HTC has come out with a very solid entry here. The model you've reviewed is quite capable in a lot of ways, but limited in others by the nature of the rest of the pack, which in turn is limited by current spending habits of end users. A bit depressing for a gadget freak, I know. But realistic for a company to succeed in such a constrained market. So from that perspective, my only real criticism is with the radio version for cellular data... and we don't know yet how that'll work out once it hits local carriers. Might have 3G or even 3.5G in the next few months! Okay, I'm not optimistic about that, but one can hope.
Right now i'm planning on getting this phone when Expansys has 'em pre-loaded with WM 6.5 -- My TYTN II will then go into the drawer as a back-up phone.
Unless, of course, something better comes along -- I have my eye on you, Acer
Just got my T-Mobile TP2 set up today. So far I am really enjoying the experience.
As far as the 3G on AT&T... Yea, you're not going to get that I don't think. The 3G radio in the unlocked version uses the 900MHz and 2100MHz bands. AT&T uses 850MHz and 1900MHz. I've never seen a firmware update that changes the bands of the radios, and I'm not even sure such a thing is possible. Just for reference, T-Mobile USA uses 1700MHz and 2100MHz.
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
