The compact camera market is fascinating: on one side it’s being savagely attacked by smartphones and their ever-improving cameras, and on the other by affordable DSLRs and hybrids.

But there’s still a place for compacts – taking snaps indoors in low light being one obvious example – and companies such as Samsung continue to deliver fresh ideas.

For example, there’s Mobile Link: a way to wirelessly transmit photos from your camera to any Wi-Fi equipped phone, tablet or computer.

Admittedly, wireless in itself isn’t new. We saw this in the SH100, which I blogged about from last year’s CES. However, Samsung says that it’s “doubling down” on wireless, and there are now five wireless-enabled cameras and camcorders in its line-up.

What else can you do with them? Here’s a video from a Samsung spokesperson who I spoke to at CES:

So, you don’t need to upload photos to your PC and then to Facebook (and other social-networking sites); you do it straight from the camera. That’s convenient if you’re at home, but even better if you’re abroad and at a wireless hotspot.

There’s also a nice little feature where you can use your Android smartphone or tablet as a viewfinder for the camera; with a remote control shutter, that could be a real boon.

Then there’s the capability of backing up to SkyDrive; with 25GB of free storage, it’s a potentially brilliant feature.

I’m less convinced by the ability to wirelessly back up photos to your PC – it’s simpler to remove the card and place it in your computer’s media slot, surely – and the idea of emailing photos to friends directly from a phone seems an unnecessary hassle.

But that’s just me. I’m curious what other people think. Will your next camera be wireless, or will you simply cut out the middle man – and accept some loss of quality – and use your smartphone’s camera instead?

Should it? We tend to review the Wi-Fi-only models of tablets, because that’s what we’re usually sent. We’ll mention the 3G options in the review, but it’s up to manufacturers to decide whether to offer them or not, and up to consumers to buy them.

It started a debate, one which began in the office and spilled over to the PC Pro podcast as well. Then I posed the question – to 3G or not to 3G? – on Twitter, and it generated an unexpected level of response.

Obviously, it does all depend on what you’ll use it for, and plenty of you said you’d buy with or without 3G depending on that. But just as many came out firmly on one side or the other, with no clear winner.

In the 3G corner…

Led by @bazzacollins.

Senior staff writer @mikejjennings: “A supposedly “mobile” device without constant (network-dependent) net access? No thanks.”

Contributing editor @PaulOckenden: “Huge yes from me. What if you’re out of Wi-Fi range?”

Contributing editor @JonHoneyball: “I wouldn’t buy a tablet unless it had a 3G socket/modem built in. I might not buy a sim immediately, but…”

Plenty of readers agreed with those sentiments.

@allpointsnorth: “3G for me, but only cos I’m on the go a lot - replaces dongle. Cloud/Openzone not always that reliable either.”

@MarkTechArc72: “3G is a must – for a mainly information consumption device, what’s the point if you have no internet when you’re out?”

@the_pc_doc: “Manufacturers not offering 3G as an option will go the same way as the dinosaur or the dodo…”

And a few picked up the travel theme too:

@mikehamer: “iPad 3G was very useful on our holiday in Italy (with Italian SIM). Google Maps on its big screen was fab.”

@smithsocksimon: “3G is handy if you travel, cause you can buy a local SIM for each country.”

It was left to Mr Honeyball to offer some sensible advice: “Buy it with 3G but without SIM. Buy a monthly contract SIM like 3 for 15 quid. Try it both ways. You’ll hate Wi-Fi-only mode.”

In the Wi-Fi corner…

Led by @Bayonnaise:

@tomaszrykala: “3G isn’t a must, as the research confirms, majority of tablets don’t ever leave the house.”

If you do leave the house, a huge number of people suggested different ways to get data…

@chatanm: “I’d recommend a Mi-Fi and Wi-Fi tablet instead of 3G tablet. More flexible and the battery life would be better on your tablet without 3G.”

@MerseyMal: “For the rare occasions away from Wi-Fi would use phone. Don’t want two 3G contracts.”

@alanjrobertson: “It’s a no from me – seems to add about £100 + extra contract to cost. Happy with Android Wi-Fi hotspot function instead.”

@jim_herd: “Big issue for me is only paying for one data contract. Makes Mi-Fi or mobile tethering the way to go.”

And several people came up with the same response regarding their experiences with 3G tablets.

@johnny_winter: “I bought 3G iPad last year. It wasn’t necessary so cancelled 3G SIM. Can use personal hotspot on iPhone if required now.”

@itf: “Got a 3G iPad, never used the 3G.”

The judges’ decision

Those are just a few of the tweets we got, but the result is hardly surprising: some people want 3G in a tablet, some people don’t, and it’s entirely dependent on where you are and how you use it.

We even got a response from @MattJEgan, editor of (boo hiss) rival PC Advisor, supporting both sides: “Yes [to 3G]! Commuter, etc. That said, the PC Advisor Reviews Ed has a Wi-Fi iPad and carries a 3G MiFi dongle for all his toys.”

All of which I suppose vindicates Barry on his original argument: it is a bit short-sighted of Asus not to give the option.

Boris Johnson made headlines today after appearing on BBC London radio saying that he hopes to roll-out WiFi coverage to the entire city. What a noble aim, considering the importance of the internet today and the fact that not everyone can afford the cost of home connections. It’s precisely the sort of thing that can win support in the short term, but it’s never going to happen.

“They’ve done it in other parts of the world; why on earth can’t we do it?” he asked.

Because it will cost a fortune, Boris, that’s why. An investment in infrastructure that big would cost millions, hundreds of millions. There’s little point in it, either, as 3G mobile broadband continues to fall in price. Londoners won’t be happy paying for a costly organised network in extra taxes when £10 per month per person could solve the problem instantly. Just look at the animosity towards the ever-increasing Olympic budget if you need proof.

Nonetheless, the problem remains; there are hundreds of thousands of people in the capital without internet access, and it’s vital that this is rectified. It’s just that Wi-Fi is not the answer.

Not to mention the problem that would arise if Boris does splash free Wi-Fi all over London; a handful of livid companies marching to City Hall to ask who’s going to refund their considerable investment in commercial hotspots.

Gordon Brown is tackling the subject in another way with his £300 million voucher scheme, but Johnson has criticised this as being “a bit like a desperate bribe by the Prime Minister.” As opposed to a desperate bribe from the Mayor, eh, Boris?

I see Brown’s plan as an honest gesture and an important step in slowing the halt of the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots in this country. Internet access is now so important that it needs to be available to everyone, and the scheme seems like a reasonably sensible way to go about it – by paying for broadband connections and home PCs.

Personally I think that the money would be better spent in extra funding for libraries, where internet access can be had for free by anyone motivated enough to seek it out, but I’d rather see Brown’s plan implemented than Johnson’s.