4 ms·

On the Quality of the iPad 2 Camera

3 points by solipsist 16y ago

ilamont 16y ago
The iPod touch camera (apparently the same as the iPad, says Gruber) is great for video and adequate for facebook and twitter. I think having a better quality camera would be a far greater benefit to touch owners than iPad owners, owing to the form factor of the iPad -- it doesn't fit in your pocket, and is awkward to hold up to frame photos.
mcav 16y ago
Many people who have an iPad will also have an iPhone, at which point they'd be more likely to use the iPhone for photos. (Many, not all, maybe not even most. But many.)
high5ths 16y ago
It reminds me of the iPad (original) not having as much RAM as the iPhone 4. Does it make the iPad (original) impossible to use? No. But it's a shame in a new product to have a less-than-stellar component.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Seems like yet more evidence that Apple's supply chain is less "magical" than people would like to believe. Leaving things out, or using the bare minimum specs necessary for adequate functionality is a smart thing to do if you're trying to hit a price point or keep your device thin. But it falls far short of "magic", nor does it create an unbreachable defence against competition (which I believe is the subtext for people believing this somewhat far-fetched myth in the face of evidence like the Nook Color).
cskau 16y ago
It seems to me that the main difference between the two is the ISO setting. The iPad2 photo is rather grainy, but rather clear. The iPhone4 photo is less grainy, but instead it's blurred because of shaking hands. You can imitate this by setting your camera at a low and then a high ISO setting - same result. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the hardware.
bradleyland 16y ago
On one hand, I feel like these are all just excuses, but then I have to ask myself the question: outside of FaceTime, what use cases do I see for the camera on my iPad? I'm certainly not going to walk around snapping photos with something the size of a small dinner tray. I'm even struggling with the concept that I'd even use the camera for FaceTime. I've got ready access to video chat on my iPhone and laptop through Skype, yet I rarely use it outside of introductions. I get the whole "see your kids" thing, but in most contexts, I just don't want to see the person. The only use case I have much interest in is the virtual overlay possibilities. I've used a couple of demo apps on my iPhone, and while it's cool, the screen is too small to capture much of field of view. I'm hoping the iPad will remedy this a bit. This is all speaking from my own perspective. Everyone is different, so priorities will vary. I definitely acknowledge that to the person that really wants a camera, all this sounds like a bunch of excuses.

3 points by solipsist 16y ago

The iPod touch camera (apparently the same as the iPad, says Gruber) is great for video and adequate for facebook and twitter. I think having a better quality camera would be a far greater benefit to touch owners than iPad owners, owing to the form factor of the iPad -- it doesn't fit in your pocket, and is awkward to hold up to frame photos.

mcav 16y ago

Many people who have an iPad will also have an iPhone, at which point they'd be more likely to use the iPhone for photos. (Many, not all, maybe not even most. But many.)

high5ths 16y ago

It reminds me of the iPad (original) not having as much RAM as the iPhone 4. Does it make the iPad (original) impossible to use? No. But it's a shame in a new product to have a less-than-stellar component.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Seems like yet more evidence that Apple's supply chain is less "magical" than people would like to believe. Leaving things out, or using the bare minimum specs necessary for adequate functionality is a smart thing to do if you're trying to hit a price point or keep your device thin. But it falls far short of "magic", nor does it create an unbreachable defence against competition (which I believe is the subtext for people believing this somewhat far-fetched myth in the face of evidence like the Nook Color).

cskau 16y ago

It seems to me that the main difference between the two is the ISO setting. The iPad2 photo is rather grainy, but rather clear. The iPhone4 photo is less grainy, but instead it's blurred because of shaking hands. You can imitate this by setting your camera at a low and then a high ISO setting - same result. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the hardware.

bradleyland 16y ago

On one hand, I feel like these are all just excuses, but then I have to ask myself the question: outside of FaceTime, what use cases do I see for the camera on my iPad? I'm certainly not going to walk around snapping photos with something the size of a small dinner tray. I'm even struggling with the concept that I'd even use the camera for FaceTime. I've got ready access to video chat on my iPhone and laptop through Skype, yet I rarely use it outside of introductions. I get the whole "see your kids" thing, but in most contexts, I just don't want to see the person. The only use case I have much interest in is the virtual overlay possibilities. I've used a couple of demo apps on my iPhone, and while it's cool, the screen is too small to capture much of field of view. I'm hoping the iPad will remedy this a bit. This is all speaking from my own perspective. Everyone is different, so priorities will vary. I definitely acknowledge that to the person that really wants a camera, all this sounds like a bunch of excuses.