I'd use a good digicam as a basic phone instead, as I prefer taking pictures to answering phone calls.

My ATT Tilt requires rock steady support (like a wall) in most situations---not always an available option.

Many of the places I visit do not allow cameras. Cell phones with cameras have to be left with security and it is a pain. Phones are not ergonomically designed for taking pictures either. A phone should be for talking to other people, nothing else.

I could see using it if the lens was very high quality with a retractable scratch cover. 5MP is adequate for this application. Less shutter lag would be nice. Would image stabilization be asking too much? Then again, should a Nikon D3 have a Blackberry added to it?

It's great for those who only want to take an occasional "snapshot".

Nope, It's a phone. I can't think of a time when my canon is out of my reach.

If no camera, no photo. I always carry my cell phone, but not always a separate camera. Even mediocre is better than none.

I do not have a cell phone, live in a hilly rural area where cell service is not dependable. (And the freedom from annoyance and the peace and quiet is great too.)

A phone is a phone. Have never used the pic takin' portion and wouldn't even have it on the thing if I could get the phone without it.

Camera phones are for simple snap shots and for my aging eyes totally worthless. I prefer DSLR's or SLR's, but I do have an IR modified P&S for travel.

No matter what, a phone is a phone. Shall I want to take pictures then a camera I would use. If size is paramount, a small point & shoot would do but, again, I rather use my phone for placing calls. I could care less if my cell phone had a camera.

I am one of those who like tolls for specific purposes. My phone is my phone, whether digital or conventional, and my camera(s) are cameras, and used as such.

Phones are free when you sign up for a plan. Point & Shoot cameras (5MP) are under $200. Why would I buy a $500 phone? Especially one with a worthless digital zoom.

The Nokia I got when I upgraded phones for my company's plan is so mediocre that it quit sending photos within a couple weeks. Still takes good photos, but I cannot send them; it crashes. I returned it twice at first, and they all quit after a couple weeks. They refused to help me after that. Part of the blame may be due to AT&T, who sold it. It would take a lot to get me to try another Nokia!

I'd like to get a throw-in-your-pocket P&S, but I am not impressed with the image quality of any of them. When somebody comes out with one having a CMOS sensor instead of CCD, I'll take a keener look. I don't see that happening with phones for a long time.

Yeah cell camera's are compact and easy to use. Your talking two different leagues. It's funny when i see tourists from all over the world walking across the Golden Gate Bridge and their memories of San Francisco are stored on a cell phone. Ya gotta love those 125 x 125 vacation shots. Not...

I love the fact that if the quality is good enough, I may use the camera phone as a 'split second' picture taking device!! I like that idea, I just hope that they can make the quality as good.

My phone does indeed have a 3MP camera, but I've never thought to use it for capturing something of importance.

Phone picture quality is not to my standards, a little to substandard for me...I only do HIGH quality. Not a useful feature, unless you forget to take camera with you...

Snapshots with point and shoot camera, serious pics with DSLR.