busb
Joined: Jan 29, 2005
Posts: 11
From: UK
PM |
I don't think that anyone will deny that this phone has a fairly amazing camera. It's not perfect - highlights tend to wash out & pictures that have been taken at full zoom show fairly horrible artifacts. I've used macro mode with zoom for work & others have been stunned to learn what was used to take the pictures & the fact that I can then email them with ease is not lost on people.
My problem (with R1A044) is that the core function of any phone - just to remind you all - is to make & receive phone calls is far from my K750i's best feature. Any damn phone ever made will make & receive intelligible calls near a mast but I want mine to work under marginal conditions, well away from urban areas. The K700i was a brilliant phone under poor RF conditions but my K750i with its release firmware is nothing short of poor. It's not the sort of story many of you want to hear & my own heart really sank when I used it for the 1st time.
So the my question is have others notice what their K750i is like under marginal conditions, particularly on the 900MHz band? If poor originally, has later firmware helped? Is there a conflict between good RF performance & battery life? I'm hoping mine is faulty but I suspect that RF performance is a very unfashionable requirement these days even most reviewers never mention it. I would remind everone that many, many people live & work in rural areas where top notch RF is the main requirement, so why have many new phones been allowed to be released with at best mediocre core performance? Cameras, games, themes & fancy ring tones are all sodding useless if we miss or can't make a call. At least my K750i isn't as bad as my T610 was - it managed to make even the T68 seem good in comparison! |
Posted: 2005-07-05 20:09
