PDA

View Full Version : Touch 4G - 0.7 megapixel camera??




Pages : [1] 2

pizz
Sep 1, 2010, 07:59 PM
Dont throw out your Sony Cybershot's just yet!

The new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720.

Even Sony's first Cybershot camera produced over 10 years ago was 1.5 megapixels!



Blackened
Sep 1, 2010, 08:01 PM
http://a.imageshack.us/img15/7350/1912newspaperrmstitanic.jpg

EricNau
Sep 1, 2010, 08:02 PM
Correct. The cameras used in the iPod touch are best suited for video. Just like the camera used by the (former) iPod nano.

Cameras capable of high-quality still images are significantly thicker, and would have increased the thickness of the iPod touch rather than decreasing it.

Peterson8765
Sep 1, 2010, 08:08 PM
That resolution is fine for shooting quick pics to FaceBook or whatever. Who knows, maybe the quality of the photos might be good.

InTheUnion
Sep 1, 2010, 08:11 PM
What resolution are the flip video recorders, just for a comparison?

That resolution is fine for shooting quick pics to FaceBook or whatever. Who knows, maybe the quality of the photos might be good.

No resizing at least...

mosx
Sep 1, 2010, 08:28 PM
Dont throw out your Sony Cybershot's just yet!

The new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720.

Even Sony's first Cybershot camera produced over 10 years ago was 1.5 megapixels!

I'll be the first to say that Apple should have increased the thickness of the iPod touch and put in the same camera as the iPhone 4.

But people need to realize that pixel count means absolutely nothing. A 10MP camera won't necessarily take better pictures than a 5MP camera. It will just have MORE pixels, not better ones. Case in point, look at Canon's G series. They actually DECREASED the pixel count to use a better sensor. The resulting camera took far better pictures at 11MP than the previous one did at 14MP.

The iPod touch camera will be fine for quick video shoots and pictures for Facebook.

kenypowa
Sep 1, 2010, 08:29 PM
I'll be the first to say that Apple should have increased the thickness of the iPod touch and put in the same camera as the iPhone 4.

But people need to realize that pixel count means absolutely nothing. A 10MP camera won't necessarily take better pictures than a 5MP camera. It will just have MORE pixels, not better ones. Case in point, look at Canon's G series. They actually DECREASED the pixel count to use a better sensor. The resulting camera took far better pictures at 11MP than the previous one did at 14MP.

The iPod touch camera will be fine for quick video shoots and pictures for Facebook.

Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!

mosx
Sep 1, 2010, 08:33 PM
Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!

Wrong. The amount of pixels DOES NOT MATTER in the face of quality. My iPhone 4 at 5MP takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP digital camera. Canon's G series is better now with several million fewer pixels than it had in the previous generation.

I do agree that Apple should have put a better camera in the iPod touch.

But the NUMBER of pixels does NOT mean BAD QUALITY. It just means smaller pictures.

Edit: If you want to see what the smaller number of pixels means, take a picture at full resolution on your iPhone or favorite digital camera. Open the picture in your favorite photo editing software. Resize the picture down to 960x720. Notice how the SIZE of the picture decreases but the QUALITY does not? Exactly.

cmvsm
Sep 1, 2010, 08:42 PM
Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!

For the average user, no it doesn't. Sounds like you are one of those that went hook line and sinker on the MP myth. The only time that it matters is when one needs to heavily crop their images, and needs to retain detail.

However, I would agree that a .7MP camera is certainly nothing to roost about. Apple is so caught up in making something thinner, that they sometimes lose touch in terms of what it takes to enhance the user experience.

I think that we all would have loved to have had a 5MP camera, especially when it already does video, at the expense of a body that might be a little thicker. With every release, Apple always seems to step on their 3rd leg with a key feature that would have been insignificant to add, yet expand the user experience greatly.

With the last iPod Touch, it was a camera period. The Nano comes out with video capability, when the much more expensive sibling did without. Then comes the iPad with a limited amount of RAM, as the iPhone 4 was released 6 weeks later with hardware intact. Now its the iPod Touch again, but this time, without a decent camera, as Apple is for some reason infatuated with video.

Do it right the first time Apple and move on.

tsinvest
Sep 1, 2010, 08:42 PM
Wrong. The amount of pixels DOES NOT MATTER in the face of quality. My iPhone 4 at 5MP takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP digital camera. Canon's G series is better now with several million fewer pixels than it had in the previous generation.

I do agree that Apple should have put a better camera in the iPod touch.

But the NUMBER of pixels does NOT mean BAD QUALITY. It just means smaller pictures.

To some extent you are correct...the difference between 5 and 6 is not that great and depending on other things the 5 could produce nicer pictures than the 6. Nevertheless a 0.7mp camera won't give you a photo you can use for much more than a large thumbnail...anything bigger will probably be grainy. 0.7mp is like ancient history...shame on Mr. Jobs! Also, Apple knows it is a weak feature as they don't mention the megapixel count in the specs on their website.

Ipodize
Sep 1, 2010, 08:48 PM
0.7mp is like ancient history...

no, actually ancient history is more like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MFYZ20MKRUI/SxmC0x4PTkI/AAAAAAAAADc/I4ETDhTPgpg/s640/cave%2520painting.jpg

Phil In Idaho
Sep 1, 2010, 08:51 PM
Wrong. The amount of pixels DOES NOT MATTER in the face of quality. My iPhone 4 at 5MP takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP digital camera. Canon's G series is better now with several million fewer pixels than it had in the previous generation.

I do agree that Apple should have put a better camera in the iPod touch.

But the NUMBER of pixels does NOT mean BAD QUALITY. It just means smaller pictures.

Edit: If you want to see what the smaller number of pixels means, take a picture at full resolution on your iPhone or favorite digital camera. Open the picture in your favorite photo editing software. Resize the picture down to 960x720. Notice how the SIZE of the picture decreases but the QUALITY does not? Exactly.

I understand what you are trying to say but to say the number of pixels count does not matter is absurd on it's face. For starters, you can forget ever making a print much bigger than a postage stamp from .7mp and as you look at the images on increasingly larger and higher definition monitors the pictures will display smaller and smaller.

As every woman knows, size matters.

mosx
Sep 1, 2010, 09:04 PM
To some extent you are correct...the difference between 5 and 6 is not that great and depending on other things the 5 could produce nicer pictures than the 6. Nevertheless a 0.7mp camera won't give you a photo you can use for much more than a large thumbnail...anything bigger will probably be grainy. 0.7mp is like ancient history...shame on Mr. Jobs! Also, Apple knows it is a weak feature as they don't mention the megapixel count in the specs on their website.

960x720 is more than enough for your average Facebook or Twitter upload.

I mean, honestly, who prints pictures any more? I've had a dedicated photo printer for years. It's literally been more than 2 and a half years since I have printed a picture.

If you're worried about printing pictures, a modern dedicated digital camera would be a better choice. Cameras on mobile devices like cellphones and the iPod touch are meant for quick fun shots and thats it.

Though I do agree, Apple should have included a higher resolution camera.

However, my entire point is that number of pixels doesn't equal quality.

I understand what you are trying to say but to say the number of pixels count does not matter is absurd on it's face. For starters, you can forget ever making a print much bigger than a postage stamp from .7mp and as you look at the images on increasingly larger and higher definition monitors the pictures will display smaller and smaller.

As every woman knows, size matters.

As I said above, cameras on things like cellphones or the iPod touch are meant for fun quick shots and to be uploaded to social networking sites. Not for prints. If you're worried about prints, a modern dedicated digital camera is something you should have.

But you're missing my point. My point is that the number of pixels doesn't equal higher quality. You could have a 20MP camera that doesn't take pictures as good as a 5MP camera because the sensor is terrible.

pizz
Sep 1, 2010, 09:05 PM
Well in defense of Apple, the camera was mainly touted for video recording. And it seems to do a good job of that.

While I agree the megapixel count isnt a huge factor, we are in the age of 10mp+ cameras. 0.7 is pathetic at best.

But then again, mp only matter if you plan to print your pictures or crop and enlarge your images on screen. I'd say for most people, the camera will do just fine for quick snapshots. It's all in the quality of the camer lens etc.

ftr: this is a 960x720 image. (about 10"x13")

Blackened
Sep 1, 2010, 09:16 PM
Digital camera resolution chart - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

Ipodize
Sep 1, 2010, 09:24 PM
ftr: this is a 960x720 image. (10"x13")

Looks big enough for me! :D

Besides, if i'm wanting to do photography, I'll just take along my Canon EOS 450D.

ericinboston
Sep 1, 2010, 09:27 PM
Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!

I agree about rolling out a 0.7MP camera in LATE 2010! Effing ridiculous.

And for those of you who claim MP have ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO BEARING on picture quality, you are poorly mistaken.

MP is not everything. Just like how much RAM is in your computer is not everything. We know (or most of us do) that optics/lenses/sensors/MP all have their role.

Please don't try to convince me that a 1MP camera takes the same quality pictures as a 5MP...or 10MP...or 90MP.


I was at Amazon tonight looking to throw 2 of these into my shopping cart when I noticed the folks screaming about the crappy camera.

Shame on Apple...now I am convinced this is the worst iPod convention/rollout/speech ever. Total disappointment on all 4 models. Apple must be getting trillions of hate emails.

-Eric

Ace134blue
Sep 1, 2010, 09:34 PM
You got a camera and now your complaining?...... sad

bembol
Sep 1, 2010, 09:34 PM
Why are most surprised?!?!

Jobs/Apple will NEVER give you everything iPhone 4 has on their $299+ iPod touch.

MaCamZa
Sep 1, 2010, 09:36 PM
.....

ftr: this is a 960x720 image. (about 10"x13")

Honestly, if the pics are that quality, its looking to be a pretty good start for the introducing of cameras to iPods'.

I mean comon' guys, do you really think Apple will dive into a 5MP still camera first?

mosx
Sep 1, 2010, 09:36 PM
I agree about rolling out a 0.7MP camera in LATE 2010! Effing ridiculous.

And for those of you who claim MP have ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO BEARING on picture quality, you are poorly mistaken.

MP is not everything. Just like how much RAM is in your computer is not everything. We know (or most of us do) that optics/lenses/sensors/MP all have their role.

Please don't try to convince me that a 1MP camera takes the same quality pictures as a 5MP...or 10MP...or 90MP.


I was at Amazon tonight looking to throw 2 of these into my shopping cart when I noticed the folks screaming about the crappy camera.

Shame on Apple...now I am convinced this is the worst iPod convention/rollout/speech ever. Total disappointment on all 4 models. Apple must be getting trillions of hate emails.

-Eric

As I said before, just because the iPod touch only has a "0.7MP" camera doesn't mean the pictures will be bad. They'll just be SMALL. But perfect for social networking, which is exactly what it was meant for.

And, again, I do agree that Apple should have used a higher resolution sensor. But at the same time, saying the pictures will be BAD because of pixel count is silly.

MaCamZa
Sep 1, 2010, 09:39 PM
As I said before, just because the iPod touch only has a "0.7MP" camera doesn't mean the pictures will be bad. They'll just be SMALL. But perfect for social networking, which is exactly what it was meant for.

And, again, I do agree that Apple should have used a higher resolution sensor. But at the same time, saying the pictures will be BAD because of pixel count is silly.

The pictures aren't that small! 960x720 is fairly average for handheld devices! Well, big enough to see a bloody picture! I don't know why everyone is complaining! Apple upgraded more than what i expected! I didn't believe they were going to go into HD recording immediately, but hey did!

britybritbrit
Sep 1, 2010, 09:46 PM
I didn't watch the speech, but I followed a lot of what was coming out through twitter (foxnews scitech) ...so how else was it a bad conference?
Personally, I like the new touch, (except for the mps) and the new nano is awesome. Besides, apple tv, I don't know what else we could be expecting?

MaCamZa
Sep 1, 2010, 09:54 PM
I didn't watch the speech, but I followed a lot of what was coming out through twitter (foxnews scitech) ...so how else was it a bad conference?
Personally, I like the new touch, (except for the mps) and the new nano is awesome. Besides, apple tv, I don't know what else we could be expecting?

I thought it was amazing! Great Conference, everyone just disappointed because they very very high speculations didn't come true. :)

uberamd
Sep 1, 2010, 10:01 PM
Dont throw out your Sony Cybershot's just yet!

The new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720.

Even Sony's first Cybershot camera produced over 10 years ago was 1.5 megapixels!

IMO, its good enough for an iPod. Chances are adults have a better dedicated camera for serious shots or a phone with a better camera. Younger kids with the iPod Touch will be able to take fun facebook shots with their friends and upload them. This wasn't intended to replace anyones P&S camera. Also, if the iPod Touch rolled out the equivalent MP cams as the iP4 with the retina display, whats the incentive to go with an iP4 over iPT? Sure there is 3G and can make calls, but is that enough to justify the massive price difference?

Vesuvio Cat
Sep 1, 2010, 10:02 PM
no, actually ancient history is more like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MFYZ20MKRUI/SxmC0x4PTkI/AAAAAAAAADc/I4ETDhTPgpg/s640/cave%2520painting.jpg

Actually, that's prehistory.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 1, 2010, 10:23 PM
snip...

But you're missing my point. My point is that the number of pixels doesn't equal higher quality. You could have a 20MP camera that doesn't take pictures as good as a 5MP camera because the sensor is terrible.

No I get your point, and to a degree I'm with you. But here's a little thought experiment. Is Steve real proud of his .7 mp camera's performance and quality of the small images it creates? He didn't even bother to mention the iPod takes still photos....

Old Blue
Sep 1, 2010, 10:41 PM
Actually, that's prehistory.

Is that the class right before history?

Neebee
Sep 1, 2010, 11:27 PM
Correct. The cameras used in the iPod touch are best suited for video. Just like the camera used by the (former) iPod nano.

Cameras capable of high-quality still images are significantly thicker, and would have increased the thickness of the iPod touch rather than decreasing it.

How can a 0.6/0.7 MP lens produce a 720p HD video? if that's indeed accurate then people will be videoing instead of taking a pic since the video would be better than the still??

The General
Sep 1, 2010, 11:42 PM
How can a 0.6/0.7 MP lens produce a 720p HD video? if that's indeed accurate then people will be videoing instead of taking a pic since the video would be better than the still??

megapixels has nothing to do with the lens. 720p is 1280x720, which is 0.91 megapixels.

"high definition" video really isn't that amazing of a technology

the camera's sensor is probably exactly 1280x720 pixels, but for stills it crops in a bit so that it produces a standard still photo aspect ratio.

dwarnecke11
Sep 1, 2010, 11:46 PM
It's still a backside illuminated sensor, so I'm expecting decent quality. Pixel count isn't everything. I have an S90 and 30D for my serious shots...

Peterson8765
Sep 1, 2010, 11:53 PM
Heck maybe the new iPod touches 0.7MP camera is low res, but maybe it takes pretty good pictures. Who knows?

7even
Sep 2, 2010, 12:05 AM
Yeah, that sucks, but I'm pretty sure most/all of you have cellphones with cameras on them anyway..

Neebee
Sep 2, 2010, 12:11 AM
Yeah, that sucks, but I'm pretty sure most/all of you have cellphones with cameras on them anyway..
And every cell phone on the market now and over the last few years is over 1 MP.It would be nice considering the price it would've had a decent camera though.

In any event, i need a decent portable wifi device so I'll be getting the iTouch. i guess i'll be using the video mode instead of the camera mode.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 12:16 AM
But people need to realize that pixel count means absolutely nothing. A 10MP camera won't necessarily take better pictures than a 5MP camera.

True, so why doesn't Apple use the touch's cam for the iPhone?

Blackened
Sep 2, 2010, 12:20 AM
Is that the class right before history?

No that's Revisionist History.

Scarlet Fever
Sep 2, 2010, 12:20 AM
Please don't try to convince me that a 1MP camera takes the same quality pictures as a 5MP...or 10MP...or 90MP.

it won't. For the same sensor size, the 90MP sensor will be horrifically noisy unless cooled by liquid helium :rolleyes:

As stated before, pixels DO NOT dictate quality, merely image size. However, there does seem to be an inverse relationship between the number of pixels and the image quality (more pixels on an otherwise identical sensor generally means lower image quality)

mosx
Sep 2, 2010, 12:22 AM
No I get your point, and to a degree I'm with you. But here's a little thought experiment. Is Steve real proud of his .7 mp camera's performance and quality of the small images it creates? He didn't even bother to mention the iPod takes still photos....

Steve doesn't care. In fact, Apple as a whole doesn't care. They're all about profit margins. They wouldn't even have put a camera in if not for the fact that the media would have had a field day with it and it would have hurt their stock price and margins.

Everyone expected an iPod with a camera last year but they didn't do it.

I'm not defending Apple's move. I'm just here because so many people are obsessed with the Megapixel Myth.

True, so why doesn't Apple use the touch's cam for the iPhone?

Profit margins. As I said, I'm not defending their choice. I'm just here because people are obsessed with the Megapixel Myth and are saying the pictures will be bad simply because its "low MP" and no other reason.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 12:44 AM
Profit margins.

How so? They could shove the touch's cam into the iPhone, save money in the process, and still not lose any sales. People would still buy the iPhone and still pay the same price for it.

Blackened
Sep 2, 2010, 12:48 AM
it won't. For the same sensor size, the 90MP sensor will be horrifically noisy unless cooled by liquid helium :rolleyes:

As stated before, pixels DO NOT dictate quality, merely image size. However, there does seem to be an inverse relationship between the number of pixels and the image quality (more pixels on an otherwise identical sensor generally means lower image quality)

Here's a question, say I was going to post a picture on a forum or attach one to an email, taken with an iPod Touch 4. How big would it be before it started to lose quality? 960 X 720? Because I usually resize my Pic's to 800 X 600 and that's pretty good size.

Pixellated
Sep 2, 2010, 01:18 AM
It is an iPod - Not a DSLR

Seems like some of you would be happier if there was no camera there at all instead.

Also, megapixels don't mean anything after 1 or 2. If you disagree, I will send you some photos taken on my DSLR at 4MP (it has settings) and compare them to a gazillion megapixel P&S.

nyprospect
Sep 2, 2010, 01:22 AM
Well in defense of Apple, the camera was mainly touted for video recording. And it seems to do a good job of that.

While I agree the megapixel count isnt a huge factor, we are in the age of 10mp+ cameras. 0.7 is pathetic at best.

But then again, mp only matter if you plan to print your pictures or crop and enlarge your images on screen. I'd say for most people, the camera will do just fine for quick snapshots. It's all in the quality of the camer lens etc.

ftr: this is a 960x720 image. (about 10"x13")

Not bad at all.I can clearly see the donk.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 01:23 AM
It is an iPod - Not a DSLR

Seems like some of you would be happier if there was no camera there at all instead.

Given the one they shoved in; yes, they should've left it out. What was wrong with using the same one they put in the iPhone 4?

Abscissa
Sep 2, 2010, 01:24 AM
Given the one they shoved in; yes, they should've left it out. What was wrong with using the same one they put in the iPhone 4?

I think you missed all of the previous posts about how the camera would have to be a lot bigger.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 01:27 AM
I think you missed all of the previous posts about how the camera would have to be a lot bigger.

I missed nothing. Why did Apple have to make the new touch thinner? What's wrong with the iPhone 4's dimensions?

vanzantapple
Sep 2, 2010, 03:12 AM
Here are two 640 x 480 pics that I took a few minutes ago with my two cameras. Both on the lowest setting, 640 x 480, and both with flash off.

Polaroid i1037
http://i55.tinypic.com/2wm3ok5.jpg

FujiFilm 2650
http://i55.tinypic.com/167paig.jpg

These two cameras are not high quality. Ofcourse they take much better pictures in perfect light out doors.

I don't know what to expect with the iPod camera but I hope the pictures that it takes are closer to the quality of the previous posted ones and not mine.

PS. Yeah, I know the resolution is lower in my pics. It is as close as I could get. If it's no help. :(

7even
Sep 2, 2010, 03:38 AM
And every cell phone on the market now and over the last few years is over 1 MP.It would be nice considering the price it would've had a decent camera though.

In any event, i need a decent portable wifi device so I'll be getting the iTouch. i guess i'll be using the video mode instead of the camera mode.

Yeah, but we're talking about an iPod, not a cellphone :p I'm just saying that for most people it'll be redundant anyway. If it can take really good 0.7 megapixel photos, that will be worth something... I do wish the camera was better than 0.7 megapixels - there's only so much detail you can capture with so few pixels - but whatever, it's something, right? :D

J&JPolangin
Sep 2, 2010, 03:49 AM
...combined camera devices usually aren't that good... I wish they had put 3G into the touch instead of these cameras... I'll use my Canon TX-1 when I need a compact P&S camera to take good distance shots...

The size of the true optical lens makes good pictures, not mega pixel count:eek:

7even
Sep 2, 2010, 03:51 AM
...combined camera devices usually aren't that good... I wish they had put 3G into the touch instead of these cameras... I'll use my Canon TX-1 when I need a compact P&S camera to take good distance shots...

The size of the true optical lens makes good pictures, not mega pixel count:eek:

I don't think it's the size as much as the optical properties of the lens that make good pictures :D

unr1
Sep 2, 2010, 04:08 AM
is the "backside illumination sensor" to adjust for low-light on the Touch a new feature?

WordLife565
Sep 2, 2010, 05:25 AM
I think the whole anger that people have is stupid.

It's an iPod, why is it that important for you to have a super high quality iPod camera. The cheapest of digital cameras can take better pictures then 90% of cellular phones, so if you really cared that much about photos, then you'd not only have a digital camera, but you'd know that very few things can replace it in terms of portability and quality.

pavinder
Sep 2, 2010, 05:34 AM
I was all set to buy until I saw the ridiculous camera spec.

Many people are arguing that if one wants better quality photos one should use a dedicated digital camera, but that's completely missing the point.

The iPhone has a great camera, from which many semi-pro photographers are making reasonable sized prints, and regular folks are doing fantastic creative work with some of the photo apps available. As many people have pointed out, almost all devices nowdays with cameras take reasonable sized images. It's obvious that this new "mini camera" in the iPod Touch is intentionally meant to cripple the functionality of the device.

I, like many others, was hoping for a device that could play movies, music, run apps and take great photos - in other words a single device which does everything one needs (other than make phone calls).

The fact that the iPhone does all these things is great, but one is forced to pay a substantial cost (not to Apple, but to a network) for a long-term data plan. Many of us have no need for a new phone or expensive data plan, but do look for such an "all-in-one" device. The technology is already out there, and the new iPod Touch has all that except it also has a single incredibly compromised function which therefore prevents it from being the device it could be. It leaves a huge hole in the market.

I would love to use all these great photo apps from the Apple store, but now see that I have no choice but to subscribe to a 2 year data plan and buy an iPhone to get that functionality? WTF??

MaCamZa
Sep 2, 2010, 06:10 AM
I would love to use all these great photo apps from the Apple store, but now see that I have no choice but to subscribe to a 2 year data plan and buy an iPhone to get that functionality? WTF??

^^ Well that's exactly what Apple wanted you to do! Buy the iPhone because of the bad (even tho we don't even know what the quality is like yet, until the product is fully released) camera facility on the iPod Touch!

Apple have to cripple the iPod Touch, so sales will continue on the iPhone. However, the phone feature is now easily able on the iPod Touch by the various hacks out there so why not wait until the full reviews mate! As long as you can bloody see what you took, its not like you want to upload to the best company in the world and have it feature in a top porn mag, huh?

All im saying is that it's better to wait until you see what the camera quality of stills are when people are unboxing/reviewing them, and then you can decide yourself! But you can't judge the camera when you don't even know what the quality is like yet!

Also, It's your fault that you wanted such high expectations from such a *cheap* device for what it can do!

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 06:42 AM
I think the whole anger that people have is stupid.

It's an iPod, why is it that important for you to have a super high quality iPod camera. The cheapest of digital cameras can take better pictures then 90% of cellular phones, so if you really cared that much about photos, then you'd not only have a digital camera, but you'd know that very few things can replace it in terms of portability and quality.

The iPhone has it, so why not the touch?

PlatinuM195
Sep 2, 2010, 06:43 AM
Basically what people wanted was the same (or better) specs than the iP4 so that they could somehow feel better about their purchase compared to people who shelled out significantly more for the iP4.

skiltrip
Sep 2, 2010, 07:14 AM
Digital camera resolution chart - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

Good link! This kind of lays it all out for everyone.

skiltrip
Sep 2, 2010, 07:17 AM
True, so why doesn't Apple use the touch's cam for the iPhone?

'Cause the iPhone is already thick enough to put a higher rez cam in it.

M-5
Sep 2, 2010, 07:18 AM
The camera isn't meant for stills. I'm sure it's meant primarily for FaceTime and switching between the front and back camera to display things during a video session. The resolution is high enough for HD video, but since people would like to upload photos to a social network or for use in other apps, the ability to take stills is also there.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 07:24 AM
'Cause the iPhone is already thick enough to put a higher rez cam in it.

The touch could be just as large. There was no reason for them to shrink it.

skiltrip
Sep 2, 2010, 07:26 AM
I've taken some really nice pictures on my Samsung Mantra prepaid phone with a VGA camera. And that's a $29 POS phone. It's all about available light. If conditions are good, there's no reason this iPod touch cam won't deliver.

For what it's worth, all 5MP of the iPhone's camera doesn't make it a good one. It's grainy in anything but really good natural light. Or you can use it's little flash to unevenly light your subject. And if your frame is dominated by any particular color, like.. too much blue when shooting people in a pool for example, your whole image has a blue hue to it.

Point is, the iPhone 4's cam is great for fun, point and click, post to Facebook kind of shots. Maybe now and then you'll snag a printable picture. But not usually. There's no image stabilization on it either, so good luck getting a pic without some smearing unless you're in nice bright sunlight.

On the same token, the iPod touch's cam will be great for point and click, post to Facebook kind of shots as well. Only difference is I never have to resize anything because they are already a good size for posting to Facebook, web forums, digital photo albums, etc.

I can't believe people are bitching about this. lol.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 07:37 AM
Point is, the iPhone 4's cam is great for fun, point and click, post to Facebook kind of shots. Maybe now and then you'll snag a printable picture. But not usually. There's no image stabilization on it either, so good luck getting a pic without some smearing unless you're in nice bright sunlight.

Yeah, Apple really screwed up by putting such a lousy camera in the iPhone, when they could've put the touch's fabulous camera inside. ;)

iThinkergoiMac
Sep 2, 2010, 07:38 AM
I was at Amazon tonight looking to throw 2 of these into my shopping cart when I noticed the folks screaming about the crappy camera.

Shame on Apple...now I am convinced this is the worst iPod convention/rollout/speech ever. Total disappointment on all 4 models. Apple must be getting trillions of hate emails.

So... you saw a bunch of people complaining about a product they have yet to use and that swayed your opinion? Even if they went into an Apple Store to test it out, those are hardly ideal conditions for testing the camera.

And thus the Touch getting a retina display, built-in mic, two cameras, and the A4 processor is the worst rollout ever?! What would it take to make the best rollout ever?

Also, on the MP vs quality argument: The number of MP has no bearing on the quality of the photograph (as long as "quality" doesn't include size, just the clarity, color parity, etc). I've seen 10 MP cameras churn out far worse pictures than my 5 MP camera does in the same conditions. The biggest thing is low-light performance. Assuming the sensor size is the same, a 5 MP sensor will out-perform a 10 MP sensor in low-light conditions.

uberamd
Sep 2, 2010, 07:47 AM
Given the one they shoved in; yes, they should've left it out. What was wrong with using the same one they put in the iPhone 4?

Alright, maybe you should head over to the Apple campus and teach those stupid engineers a thing or two about cameras!

My ********** god people! Are you serious right now? The iPod Touch is $229.... thats it! The iPhone 4 is $599! Are you trying to tell me that the ONLY difference between the $229 price tag and the $599 price tag should be the 3G chip in the phones? Seriously? There NEEDS to be differentiation between a higher end product like the iPhone and the lower-end product like the iPod Touch.

This was NEVER intended to replace your digital camera.

I was all set to buy until I saw the ridiculous camera spec.

Many people are arguing that if one wants better quality photos one should use a dedicated digital camera, but that's completely missing the point.

The iPhone has a great camera, from which many semi-pro photographers are making reasonable sized prints, and regular folks are doing fantastic creative work with some of the photo apps available. As many people have pointed out, almost all devices nowdays with cameras take reasonable sized images. It's obvious that this new "mini camera" in the iPod Touch is intentionally meant to cripple the functionality of the device.

I, like many others, was hoping for a device that could play movies, music, run apps and take great photos - in other words a single device which does everything one needs (other than make phone calls).

The fact that the iPhone does all these things is great, but one is forced to pay a substantial cost (not to Apple, but to a network) for a long-term data plan. Many of us have no need for a new phone or expensive data plan, but do look for such an "all-in-one" device. The technology is already out there, and the new iPod Touch has all that except it also has a single incredibly compromised function which therefore prevents it from being the device it could be. It leaves a huge hole in the market.

I would love to use all these great photo apps from the Apple store, but now see that I have no choice but to subscribe to a 2 year data plan and buy an iPhone to get that functionality? WTF??

Are you freaking kidding me? The new iPod Touches added dual cameras, a much faster chip, and an amazing display and that isn't good enough for you? Are you serious right now? I paid $300 for my original iPod Touch (the 1G) that had NO speaker, NO volume buttons, NO cameras, NO retina display, and NO A4 chip all while being $71 more. And you're complaining over a less expensive device with many more features?

I feel like I'm at a toy store listening to all the kids whining to their parents about how all the toys there suck. Grow the heck up.

So... you saw a bunch of people complaining about a product they have yet to use and that swayed your opinion? Even if they went into an Apple Store to test it out, those are hardly ideal conditions for testing the camera.

And thus the Touch getting a retina display, built-in mic, two cameras, and the A4 processor is the worst rollout ever?! What would it take to make the best rollout ever?

Also, on the MP vs quality argument: The number of MP has no bearing on the quality of the photograph (as long as "quality" doesn't include size, just the clarity, color parity, etc). I've seen 10 MP cameras churn out far worse pictures than my 5 MP camera does in the same conditions. The biggest thing is low-light performance. Assuming the sensor size is the same, a 5 MP sensor will out-perform a 10 MP sensor in low-light conditions.

+1. These people are pathetic. It is impossible to please so many people here it just makes me lose faith in a lot of Apple fans. I mean seriously, the iPod Touch is the best yet and all people do is cry for MOAR!!! Whats happening to this place?

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 08:00 AM
My ********** god people! Are you serious right now? The iPod Touch is $229.... thats it! The iPhone 4 is $599! Are you trying to tell me that the ONLY difference between the $229 price tag and the $599 price tag should be the 3G chip in the phones? Seriously? There NEEDS to be differentiation between a higher end product like the iPhone and the lower-end product like the iPod Touch.

I'm saying a $299 iPod touch 32Gb should have the same features as a $299 iPhone 32GB.

uberamd
Sep 2, 2010, 08:02 AM
I'm saying a $299 iPod touch 32Gb should have the same features as a $299 iPhone 32GB.

But the $299 iPhone 32GB is actually $699, so your point is entirely moot. BLNT.

puffnstuff
Sep 2, 2010, 08:04 AM
I'm saying a $299 iPod touch 32Gb should have the same features as a $299 iPhone 32GB.

The iPhone is $299 w/ a contract. If it was $299 without nobody would get an iPod touch

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 08:08 AM
But the $299 iPhone 32GB is actually $699, so your point is entirely moot. BLNT.

A phone that costs Apple around $200 to make is deserving of a $400-500 profit? :eek:

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 08:09 AM
The iPhone is $299 w/ a contract. If it was $299 without nobody would get an iPod touch

Exactly.:D

uberamd
Sep 2, 2010, 08:17 AM
A phone that costs Apple around $200 to make is deserving of a $400-500 profit? :eek:

Where does it say, out of curiosity, that the iPhone 4 32GB costs $200 to make? And really, nobody is making you buy it. If the iPod touch is so terrible, go buy a Zune HD.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 08:27 AM
Where does it say, out of curiosity, that the iPhone 4 32GB costs $200 to make? And really, nobody is making you buy it. If the iPod touch is so terrible, go buy a Zune HD.

I said around $200. iSuppli did a teardown (http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns-Manufacturing-and-Pricing/News/Pages/iPhone-4-Carries-Bill-of-Materials-of-187-51-According-to-iSuppli.aspx) on a 16GB iPhone 4 and placed the costs at $187.51 ($27.00 for 16GB flash). I'm estimating for the additional 16GB of flash.

And the Zune is even more crippled than the touch. :D

goobot
Sep 2, 2010, 08:41 AM
it shouldn't even have a back camera. so you shouldn't complain.

uberamd
Sep 2, 2010, 08:41 AM
I said around $200. iSuppli did a teardown (http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns-Manufacturing-and-Pricing/News/Pages/iPhone-4-Carries-Bill-of-Materials-of-187-51-According-to-iSuppli.aspx) on a 16GB iPhone 4 and placed the costs at $187.51 ($27.00 for 16GB flash). I'm estimating for the additional 16GB of flash.

And the Zune is even more crippled than the touch. :D

First off, device cost doesn't include R&D which is very expensive. So maybe these devices aren't whats cripped? Maybe whats crippled is your expectations of a $229 piece of equipment?

As I said before, and I'll say again: my 8GB iPod Touch 1G was $300 with no speaker, no volume rocker, no retina display, no cameras, no microphone, and no A4 chip. In my eyes the iPod Touch is an amazing value, some of you are just way to picky and need to get over the "I WANT I WANT I WANT" stage.

ingraman
Sep 2, 2010, 08:42 AM
I would guess that the "pictures" are just video stills, which aren't the greatest of quality by any measure. But I'm glad they added the cameras, since the 5G will probably get higher resolution sensors.

br0adband
Sep 2, 2010, 08:55 AM
The rear camera ain't for professional level stuff, folks, this is just too obvious. This is a consumer grade "Oh lemme record that for YouTube with my iPod touch" kinda stuff, not the kind of things that would be used in broadcast work.

I mean really, I'll be the first to chew Apple a new one when they screw up (far more often than the majority of this forum would dare admit - for example, Jobs claimed the iPod touch(s) have outsold PSPs/Nintendo portables/etc and it's simply not true, not by a long shot but, Jobs says it and people believe it) but this time they really haven't done much of anything wrong that I can tell.

As noted by uberamd, it's a significant difference with the iPt 4G than the previous models whether people like it or not. If you accept that the hardware improvements in the iPhone 4 blow away the previous iterations, then you should be thinking the same thing about the iPod touch 4G.

Don't like it? Too bad, but Apple doesn't give a damn what you like or don't like - they make what they want to make and then use marketing to get people to want the same things.

Hell, Steve Jobs outright declared the audio CD dead for all intents and purpose when he stood on that stage on Wednesday. If not exactly today, soon enough, but since HE said it, people attach significance to it, entirely too much in my opinion but, that's what happens.

While the iPt 4G is nice, I'll still be getting an Archos 43 soon instead. It's got what I'm interested in (overall) and that's really all there is to it. Each of us is different... Apple doesn't care, of course, but we are. ;)

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 09:10 AM
First off, device cost doesn't include R&D which is very expensive. So maybe these devices aren't whats cripped? Maybe whats crippled is your expectations of a $229 piece of equipment?

Subtracting what's missing and what's lower spec'd, it appears that Apple is doing about a 100% markup on the touch. Why is the markup on an unlocked iPhone over 300%?

bmms8
Sep 2, 2010, 09:22 AM
Subtracting what's missing and what's lower spec'd, it appears that Apple is doing about a 100% markup on the touch. Why is the markup on an unlocked iPhone over 300%?

what are you talking about??? you make no sense!

TorontoLRT
Sep 2, 2010, 09:26 AM
Agreed. I think Tubemonkey is doing a little bit too much of that tube, if you know what I mean.

br0adband
Sep 2, 2010, 09:35 AM
Subtracting what's missing and what's lower spec'd, it appears that Apple is doing about a 100% markup on the touch. Why is the markup on an unlocked iPhone over 300%?

Because it's Apple, and they are Apple products.

Didn't you get the memo? :D

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 09:40 AM
what are you talking about??? you make no sense!

Nothing.

uberamd
Sep 2, 2010, 09:44 AM
Subtracting what's missing and what's lower spec'd, it appears that Apple is doing about a 100% markup on the touch. Why is the markup on an unlocked iPhone over 300%?

R&D = Research and Development. You do realize that there are teams of people who design these devices as well as iOS which runs on them, right? And those teams of people do indeed get paid for their work, right? The money to pay these people comes from the profit made from selling these devices. These devices don't suddenly make themselves which is why none of them are sold at cost.

Ex: Netbooks are sold with very thin margins and thus the lower quality of the $300 models, as well as the fact that the manufacturers are making nearly no money from selling them. Thats bad business.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 09:57 AM
You do realize that there are teams of people who design these devices as well as iOS which runs on them, right?

Right.

BaldiMac
Sep 2, 2010, 10:27 AM
Subtracting what's missing and what's lower spec'd, it appears that Apple is doing about a 100% markup on the touch. Why is the markup on an unlocked iPhone over 300%?

Why is the markup on a retail version of Windows 7 Ultimate 50,000%? Could it be that the price of a product has very little to do with the cost of the materials used to create it?

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 10:37 AM
Why is the markup on a retail version of Windows 7 Ultimate 50,000%? Could it be that the price of a product has very little to do with the cost of the materials used to create it?

The question was why the huge discrepancy in markups for two very similar devices.

Outrun1986
Sep 2, 2010, 10:40 AM
Nintendo DSi has a 0.3 megapixel camera, 2 of them. The new model 3DS will have the same. Nintendo's camera doesn't do video either, at least right now. Apple is not the only company rolling out a low quality camera in 2010, besides Apple's camera should be good for video.

BaldiMac
Sep 2, 2010, 10:45 AM
The question was why the huge discrepancy in markups for two very similar devices.

And the answer is that people are willing to pay a higher price for an unlocked iPhone than an iPod touch at a sales volume that is acceptable to Apple. It has nothing to do with the bill of materials.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 10:51 AM
And the answer is that people are willing to pay a higher price for an unlocked iPhone than an iPod touch at a sales volume that is acceptable to Apple. It has nothing to do with the bill of materials.

Agreed.

Outrun1986
Sep 2, 2010, 10:55 AM
I don't think we should be complaining about the camera here unless we know for a fact that the quality will be atrocious, which we don't know and I don't think apple would put out an atrocious quality camera that barely works.

Guys, we could have gotten another iPod touch with NO cameras and just hardware upgrades and retina display and it would have sold just as well because people will buy anything new that apple puts out. Instead we got TWO cameras, which is a huge huge upgrade from last year's model and not to mention the 32GB and 64GB's stayed the same price. You are getting a device that is worlds better than the previous model for the same price as last year's model. I think we should be very thankful that apple put 2 cameras in this thing and kept the price the same aside from the 8GB model which was only raised slightly in price. I plan on buying the 32GB so I get the same price as last year.

I have no cellphone with a camera, so I am extremely thankful for this, as this will be my first truly mobile camera.

tadad1
Sep 2, 2010, 11:40 AM
I don't think we should be complaining about the camera here unless we know for a fact that the quality will be atrocious, which we don't know and I don't think apple would put out an atrocious quality camera that barely works.

Guys, we could have gotten another iPod touch with NO cameras and just hardware upgrades and retina display and it would have sold just as well because people will buy anything new that apple puts out. Instead we got TWO cameras, which is a huge huge upgrade from last year's model and not to mention the 32GB and 64GB's stayed the same price. You are getting a device that is worlds better than the previous model for the same price as last year's model. I think we should be very thankful that apple put 2 cameras in this thing and kept the price the same aside from the 8GB model which was only raised slightly in price. I plan on buying the 32GB so I get the same price as last year.

I have no cellphone with a camera, so I am extremely thankful for this, as this will be my first truly mobile camera.


I agree, it uses a backlit sensor which puts it ahead of most lower resolution cheap phone cameras, provide the lens is a fair quality it may well take quite respectable photos for its size and 960x720 is a pretty good resolution for uploading and printing.

giantapple
Sep 2, 2010, 01:07 PM
hey forum members, my 1st post! :apple:

to begin with, allow me to thank you for calling my attention to this question around the outward-facing camera on the new iPOD Touch. the current Apple spec sheet at this time does indeed appear CONFUSING with regard to photo quality, and upon reflection, I figured it must be misstated/misleading.

so, i just spent about 30 minutes with the Apple Tech support for iPODS/Touch, and after they checked at length with several experts at their end, they were able to ASSURE ME that the OUTWARD-FACING camera is indeed a 5MP sensor! YEAH! :D

what i think is happening is that someone in charge of mktg communications (incl spec sheets) is confusing the two cameras on the Touch, and also confusing video vs photo/still resolutions.

eg, the reference to "VGA quality" is terminology usually applied to video quality. in this case, i believe it is meant to describe only the video quality of the forward-facing camera. This camera is used by Facetime, which is bandwidth-limited to operate only over wi-fi at this time - not a 3G connection. I believe Facetime can only process VGA quality (correct me if that is wrong).

on the other hand, the outward-facing camera claims "720p-HD video." and what i struggled with here is how a sensor that is capable of HD video can only capture a 0.7MP photo, as some have suggested here. that does not make sense to me.

now overlay this issue with the new iOS version announced yesterday which builds in the HDR feature - an image capture and algorithm technique intended to boost image quality. this feature suggests a dedication to image quality, which would be at odds with supplying only a 0.7MP sensor for the outward-facing camera! a cheap sensor would produce horrible results and undermine Apple's messaging around the Touch's emphasis on image quality (eg, HD video, retina display, etc).

therefore, I am convinced that the Apple techs are correct in assuring me that this is a 5MP sensor (outward-facing camera).

Lastly, i encouraged them to ask their contacts in the mktg communications dept to clearly rewrite the specs sheet on video/photo resolutions, distinguishing between the outward-facing and inward-facing cameras.

hope this helps everyone!;)

yustas
Sep 2, 2010, 01:11 PM
A little bit off topic, but I am new to the iPod Touch and I do not have iPhone, my question is: What is the zoom on the camera? Does it have a zoom at all, and if it does, is it an optical or a digital zoom? Thanks.

Blackened
Sep 2, 2010, 01:49 PM
A little bit off topic, but I am new to the iPod Touch and I do not have iPhone, my question is: What is the zoom on the camera? Does it have a zoom at all, and if it does, is it an optical or a digital zoom? Thanks.

No zoom or flash.

freeme007
Sep 2, 2010, 01:55 PM
The moment I heard there are two cameras on the ipod touch, I went straight to apple online store and ordered a 32BG ipod touch. Why are people complaining about the camera quality, No one is forcing you to buy an ipod touch. NO ONE! I'm not an Apple fanboy, if Microsoft Zune HD is better than iPod Touch, I would buy it right away.

AttentiveReader
Sep 2, 2010, 02:08 PM
Yes, believe it or not, this is a deal-breaker for some of us. The camera on an iPhone 4 makes carrying a point-and-shoot redundant. .7mp doesn't.

I own no Apple products but I was looking forward to this after seeing the great images coming off iPhones. I figured the new Touch could act as a media player, PDA, and point-and-shoot camera without having to get a data plan or deal with AT&T. As it is, I'll pick up a Canon s90 once the prices drop (with the introduction of the s95) and stick with the media player I have.

skiltrip
Sep 2, 2010, 02:18 PM
The camera on an iPhone 4 makes carrying a point-and-shoot redundant.

No, it doesn't.

My 5 yr. old Kodak 6.1mp camera blew the doors off the camera on my iPhone 4 every time. I spent a couple days taking pictures with the iPhone when I first got it, and I wished I'd been taking the pictures with my Kodak, because it's a LOT better. Not even comparable. Clarity, and color accuracy are far superior.

Cameras on portable devices have a long, long way to go before they can realistically even begin to compete with real cameras.

AttentiveReader
Sep 2, 2010, 02:30 PM
Cameras on portable devices have a long, long way to go before they can realistically even begin to compete with real cameras.

It all depends on your definition of "real camera", but if you compare the photos from the iPhone 4 to those of other camera phones, it is leaps and bounds ahead of them. Is it similar to a micro 4/3 or 1.6x crop chip? No, but it is a great leap forward. The Touch's camera is... well, it's a video camera, but it ain't much else.

Plutonius
Sep 2, 2010, 02:35 PM
so, i just spent about 30 minutes with the Apple Tech support for iPODS/Touch, and after they checked at length with several experts at their end, they were able to ASSURE ME that the OUTWARD-FACING camera is indeed a 5MP sensor! YEAH! :D

I would trust the posted spec sheets before I trusted someone on the phone :).

The spec sheets indicate that the still photo resolution is 960x720. Multiply the numbers together and you get a number much less then 5 million (5 MP).

Another thing to think about is that the Touch is much thinner then the iPhone and that the camera detector in the iPhone 4 does not remotely fit in the new Touch. Even if the people on the phone were correct that it is a 5 MP camera (though it conflicts with the printed specs), it is definitely not the same camera that is in the iPhone 4. Someone will publish a teardown of the Touch in a few days and you will get a true answer on the back camera.

Brradley
Sep 2, 2010, 03:03 PM
I have no problem with the camera, I don't really see why a few are complaining.

The camera is pretty much perfect spec for teens, just like me. Most of us only want to maybe record a few videos and take a few quick shots for YouTube or Facebook or whatever, just having it in 720p is a bonus, most people my age wouldn't even know what it means. I'm no expert, but I would say that Apple's age market is around mine mainly, seeing about a 1/3 of every class I'm in have an iPod touch. My family has a 12mp camera, with all the flashy features, that I don't need, and is hopeless for social networking sites: having to resize everything just so it'll upload.

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 2, 2010, 03:29 PM
The only pictures I took with the optics on my iPhone 3G were those of whiteboard sketches in my office that I wanted to "save" for future reference. The pictures were simply horrid for almost any other purpose, especially with the famous iPhone 'halo' effect that showed up in every shot.

For years, I've carried one of a number of Canon pocket digicams. The most recent traveling companion is a PowerShot 870. The pictures I'd take were most often used as photoshop overlays for combining 'before' pictures of existing architecture with 'to-be' sketches and drawings....it would give us the ability to show a customer what their requested changes would look like when we were done. So the source image quality had to be good enough for a lot of resizing efforts and other manipulation efforts. I had migrated to the 870 from an older 5MP model.

That 870, or its 5MP sibling, still take better pictures than my iPhone 4. But I have to say that for casual use, the iPhone 4 is actually a very serviceable camera for snapshots and the like. I have found the pictures it takes are more than usable for the purposes I _USED_ to require a stand-alone 'real' digicam.

To me thats why having a camera of any decent quality on a multi-purpose device is so handy. Having a camera that takes really crappy photo's that are only usable in "optimal lighting" and serviceable only for Facebook postings all but necessitates carrying a secondary, real camera with me. With the iPhone 4, I now have a choice and that choice has very few tradeoffs.

When the camera is of lesser quality than that found in your average childrens toy digicam...why the hell did Apple even bother with including it? I'd rather they included something like a real GPS chip as a useful swapout instead.

tablo13
Sep 2, 2010, 05:22 PM
so, i just spent about 30 minutes with the Apple Tech support for iPODS/Touch, and after they checked at length with several experts at their end, they were able to ASSURE ME that the OUTWARD-FACING camera is indeed a 5MP sensor! YEAH! :D


I think the tech specs would be more accurate than the tech support.. like how come iPhone 4's tech spec clearly says "5MP still camera" and iPod touch says 960x720? Unless the still pics' resolution are downgraded... Well, we'll have to see it a week after ;)

Peterson8765
Sep 2, 2010, 06:00 PM
The cam is fine for a quick little snapshot to FaceBook or whatever, just the idea of a still camera on the touch is pretty cool, who knows maybe the quality is pretty good!

Outrun1986
Sep 2, 2010, 06:24 PM
Yeah I think different cameras for different purposes, if you want to take a real picture use a real digital camera (I won't be selling mine anytime soon just cause I am getting this device) and if you want a quick pic for facebook or twitter then the iPod's camera should suffice. As mentioned before its a pain to upload a huge image from a real camera to facebook or twitter since you have to edit and resize the images.

Even if the competitors cameras (on multi use devices) boast higher pixel counts that does not mean image quality will be much better.

madmaxmedia
Sep 2, 2010, 06:55 PM
The still photo capability sucks, end of story. I think the resolution is not much better than my old Motorola RAZR (although I am guess image quality will be better than the RAZR.)

Yeah we all know you can take better photos with a real digicam. But everyone was raving about the iPhone 4 camera for a reason too. The camera in the new iPhone is good enough to substitute for one of those little pocket cameras you bring along for casual snapshots. This camera, eh not so much...

It's obviously a lot better camera than the last iPod Touch had, but people were hoping for the 3MP with AF camera from the iPhone 3GS. Oh well, maybe next year. Overall this was still a great update for the iPod Touch.

tadad1
Sep 2, 2010, 06:58 PM
now overlay this issue with the new iOS version announced yesterday which builds in the HDR feature - an image capture and algorithm technique intended to boost image quality. this feature suggests a dedication to image quality, which would be at odds with supplying only a 0.7MP sensor for the outward-facing camera! a cheap sensor would produce horrible results and undermine Apple's messaging around the Touch's emphasis on image quality (eg, HD video, retina display, etc).



As much as I would love the HDR feature on the touch I don't think the touch is going to get it with the iOS 4.1 update. If you look at the iOS 4.1 Software Update page for the iPhone it is a photo featured part of the update information however for go to the same information for iOS 4.1 and the touch and it is not only is it not featured but it is not even mentioned.

With the camera being a new and desired feature to the new touch line-up and one with such huge potential to encourage more punters to part with more cash I am sure that Apple would not be making the mistake of downplaying such features if it was indeed using the same 5MP sensor as the iPhone 4.

KameronBriggs
Sep 2, 2010, 07:05 PM
Why do people complain about every single thing?

Phil In Idaho
Sep 2, 2010, 07:36 PM
Why are people willing to settle for garbage when Apple has proven its capable of much much more?

gta50419
Sep 2, 2010, 08:08 PM
hey forum members, my 1st post! :apple:

to begin with, allow me to thank you for calling my attention to this question around the outward-facing camera on the new iPOD Touch. the current Apple spec sheet at this time does indeed appear CONFUSING with regard to photo quality, and upon reflection, I figured it must be misstated/misleading.

so, i just spent about 30 minutes with the Apple Tech support for iPODS/Touch, and after they checked at length with several experts at their end, they were able to ASSURE ME that the OUTWARD-FACING camera is indeed a 5MP sensor! YEAH! :D
so basically the still pics will be in 5mp but it'll only come out in the size of 960 x 720??
that's great news if true

in that case thee pics will look amazing like these (960x720 pics) :eek:

http://www.ra.ethz.ch/WWW/www2005/images/2005-05-06_60_tokyo-asakusa-sensoji.jpg

http://www.segundamanoocasion.es/ventas/BULL%20AMERICANO%20SCOTT%202.jpg


http://i47.tinypic.com/iyljiv.jpg

uberamd
Sep 2, 2010, 08:45 PM
Why are people willing to settle for garbage when Apple has proven its capable of much much more?

Show me another company with a $229 MP3 player with 8GB of flash storage, a retina-resolution display, dual cameras, wifi, and a speaker. Please, I'm dying to see the competition in this market. The Zune HD?

Canon Rock
Sep 2, 2010, 09:10 PM
Why doesn't a mod just close this thread...people and their mp myth.

I assure you that WHEN you take a photo on the touch, the photo will be displayed as your "HD" photo that YOU GUYS ALL WANTED. As mega pixels doesn't take a whole count in photos (as several posts by a lot). It will look good on the touch itself but when you resize it, it will look bad <_<

However, if you got a photoshop program like myself, you can retain the quality of the image, even when resizing the image.

There problem solved, now yall go download photoshop and stop complaining.

bmb012
Sep 2, 2010, 09:11 PM
Thought experiment: I take a picture with my D80 and downsize it to 960x720. You take a picture with your iPhone 5 at full resolution.

Which looks better?

Obviously the lens and sensor size isn't going to be as big as an DSLR's, but you guys are complaining that images larger than the display aren't big enough?

With the tiny lens, you're not going to be seeing more pixels, you'd be seeing higher resolution blur.

Canon Rock
Sep 2, 2010, 09:14 PM
Well from looking at the face time call (photo) on the new ipod touch. From the Apple site, look at the quality, it looks good... GOOD ENOUGH FOR A FKN PHOTO.

I'm sure most of you aren't a photography so stop complaining, just go buy the damm thing and use it.

Canon Rock
Sep 2, 2010, 09:16 PM
Thought experiment: I take a picture with my D80 and downsize it to 960x720. You take a picture with your iPhone 5 at full resolution.

Which looks better?

Obviously the lens and sensor size isn't going to be as big as an DSLR's, but you guys are complaining that images larger than the display aren't big enough?

With the tiny lens, you're not going to be seeing more pixels, you'd be seeing higher resolution blur.
Depends, what program did you use to resize it? If you used photoshop, the images will retain its original quality, (unless you make it so small)

If you didn't use photoshop and use like paint or something, the photo you took with your better camera will indeed look better than iphone.

Outrun1986
Sep 2, 2010, 09:24 PM
Show me another company with a $229 MP3 player with 8GB of flash storage, a retina-resolution display, dual cameras, wifi, and a speaker. Please, I'm dying to see the competition in this market. The Zune HD?

Exactly, there is simply nothing that compares, I am not even aware of another MP3 player that has a camera other than this one. I heard samsung might produce one under the android platform but I can't imagine it having the support and resale value of an apple device. Not that resale value is something to mention but Apple devices simply have a very high resale value and if a product is unheard of, it basically gets swept under the rug and no one cares about it so it will be harder to sell when you want to get rid of it.

The issue with any competitor is going to be support. I mean look at Microsoft's support with the Zune HD, it gets nearly no support, no good apps and no good games. Apple has all that and more. I never hear anyone talking about it, its basically dead and people spent just as much on it as an iPod touch costs. I would take a chance on a new device from another manufacturer however it would have to be much lower priced than Apple's and have more features which is extremely unlikely.

I cannot go on just promises anymore, sure microsoft promised the Zune would be everything and more and those that purchased it got basically none of that. Companies like to deliver false promises just so you will buy their product and that is something I learned over the years.

I am a really picky consumer too, I am not brand loyal and I don't even own any apple products, and I think the touch 4 is a good product. It will be my first apple product and its totally worth it.

Fulaeetoy
Sep 2, 2010, 09:56 PM
I thinks it's been capped. a hack or modd should do it.

seanickson
Sep 2, 2010, 10:02 PM
will this camera be sufficient to use camera-based apps such as ones that scan documents?

vanzantapple
Sep 2, 2010, 10:15 PM
I hope it does end up being a higher resolution camera but I think it is what they say it is now.

iMichaela
Sep 2, 2010, 11:31 PM
Am I the only one wondering what the pictures will look like on the retina display?

gta50419
Sep 2, 2010, 11:36 PM
Am I the only one wondering what the pictures will look like on the retina display?

most likely it'll look pretty good on any ipod screen..because it's small
but it'll look horrible if you put in on a computer screen/take it off the ipod

joepunk
Sep 3, 2010, 01:35 AM
I managed to get an ok 4x6 print from a 640x480 image I took. It is ok because I had the camera on the small image setting by accident and the subject was a band playing at my University in the dark.

So, for really basic stuff and as long as there is enough light I see nothing really wrong with the image size offered on the Touch. In todays world of 2, 3, 4, 5mp etc cell phone cameras I get by just fine with my 1.2mp for quick shots of really basic things.

Peterson8765
Sep 3, 2010, 07:44 AM
It's all about quality guys, not resolution.

WiseDuck
Sep 3, 2010, 08:03 AM
If they gave the iTouch everything that iPhone has then there would be no reason to get one. You'd pay another 200 bucks + subscription costs for 3G.

I'm fine with this. Hell, I had no idea it could take still photos until now. I didn't even expect it to have HD video recording so it was a pleasant surprise. Definitely getting one of these asap.

ViViDboarder
Sep 3, 2010, 08:33 AM
You guys who say resolution doesn't matter are full of it.

Hate to go to extremes here but show me a 10 pixel picture that looks better than a 10MP picture.

There needs to be a balance between Quality and Quantity. If the iTouch takes a FANTASTIC quality THUMBNAIL SIZED image it's absolutely worthless to me.

I often like putting pictures up full screen on my 21.5" iMac or using them as a wallpaper. A lot of times it's after cropping photos too. This resolution is a big issue to me.

I'm not a fool who's thinking it's going to replace anything either (I have an EVO 4G and a Nikon D3000), but I'd at least like it to be useful. If it turns out the pictures have enough pixels to comfortably be viewed full screen, then I'll eat my words about the iTouch in particular, but resolution DOES matter and so does sensor quality.

battlekid
Sep 3, 2010, 08:46 AM
To the guy who called apple, they know nothing. They told me that the new iPT has "128mb" of ram. LOL! Apple needs to train their sales staff better.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 3, 2010, 10:33 AM
Show me another company with a $229 MP3 player with 8GB of flash storage, a retina-resolution display, dual cameras, wifi, and a speaker. Please, I'm dying to see the competition in this market. The Zune HD?

Perhaps you missed the part where this thread is about the camera. Apple set itself up here. This camera under performs the first iPhone camera, heck it under performs a Fischer Price toy digital camera. If people are pissed, and they are, Apple only has itself to blame.

kernkraft
Sep 3, 2010, 10:40 AM
This resolution is an insult. The obvious reason why Apple sticked an unnecessarily low resolution unit in there was to keep the iPod Touch away from damaging iPhone sales, especially following Antenna-gate.

It's not just about resolution, of course. The chip matters, but most importantly, you need a good lens. Of course, hopes shouldn't be high about these in a mobile device - that's why AT LEAST the resolution should be better than a 6 years old budget phone's.

Honestly, this thing with Apple that you just cannot get what you reasonably expect for a lot less is getting tiring.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 3, 2010, 10:46 AM
Hum... It seems not to bad, doesn't it?

Again, these photos do look great! But they were taken with a camera that has a much higher resolution, much larger sensor and a very sophisticated lens and then down-sampled to meet the pixel dimensions. This is not - repeat - not the same as shooting a photo with a super tiny sensor and lens.

In fact these photos look better than what's possible off of the iPhone 5mp sensor. I think we have to be careful here to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Fact is none of us really knows what the photos will look like - but we can make a few guesses based on current camera technology and the fact that Apple has gone out of its way to "bury the news" on its iPod Touch still camera.

DrawnToLife
Sep 3, 2010, 11:33 AM
Not sure if this has been posted, I just skimmed though, but if it only takes stills at 960x720, but records at 1280x720, does that mean they aren't pushing the camera to take it's best stills, or is the 720p stretched from 960x720. >.>

cfs123
Sep 3, 2010, 11:40 AM
Apple should have just had video on the new ipod touch, then nobody would be upset... actually, then everybody would wonder why they couldn't even have included a camera with a low resolution for social networks.

ecualegacy
Sep 3, 2010, 11:52 AM
Why are most surprised?!?!

Jobs/Apple will NEVER give you everything iPhone 4 has on their $299+ iPod touch.

I do feel pretty suckered. I'm wiser now. :(

gta50419
Sep 3, 2010, 11:57 AM
Not sure if this has been posted, I just skimmed though, but if it only takes stills at 960x720, but records at 1280x720, does that mean they aren't pushing the camera to take it's best stills, or is the 720p stretched from 960x720. >.>

i want to know this also...because apple never said the cam was 0.7mp they said it took stills at 960x720 (that doesn't means it has a 0.7 cam) maybe maybe we're just assuming it's a 0.7 camera.it probably really a 3mp-5mp camera there that takes amazing hd pics the same quality as iphone 4...apple probably just set the pictures to come out a smaller size which is 960x720.

either it takes some of the most horrible pictures in the world since 1999 (which would be a total disrespect/spit in the face to they're customers) or it takes iphone 4 pic quality but at a smaller size

Salacion
Sep 3, 2010, 11:59 AM
Well you have to remember, the Touch has a newer, thinner form factor. Because of this, it cannot support a larger sensor. Therefore, it now has a crappy 0.7 MP camera.

You know, people can exclaim "it's better than nothing", but in this case, nothing is better.

Just give me the front-facing camera if you won't include a 3MP back camera. Jesus, the iPhone is as thin as I need any device to be. And besides, a 0.35" (0.02 less than the iPhone) is plenty to support a 3MP sensor.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 3, 2010, 12:10 PM
i want to know this also...because apple never said the cam was 0.7mp they said it took stills at 960x720 (that doesn't means it has a 0.7 cam) maybe maybe we're just assuming it's a 0.7 camera.it probably really a 3mp-5mp camera there that takes amazing hd pics the same quality as iphone 4...apple probably just set the pictures to come out a smaller size which is 960x720.

either it takes some of the most horrible pictures in the world since 1999 (which would be a total disrespect/spit in the face to they're customers) or it takes iphone 4 pic quality but at a smaller size

Here are the specs for the iPhone 4:

Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio
5-megapixel still camera

Here are the specs for the iPod Touch 4

Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio;
still photos (960 x 720) with back camera

I hope you are right, but I don't see how.

SoraLimit
Sep 3, 2010, 12:27 PM
i want to know this also...because apple never said the cam was 0.7mp they said it took stills at 960x720 (that doesn't means it has a 0.7 cam) maybe maybe we're just assuming it's a 0.7 camera.it probably really a 3mp-5mp camera there that takes amazing hd pics the same quality as iphone 4...apple probably just set the pictures to come out a smaller size which is 960x720.

either it takes some of the most horrible pictures in the world since 1999 (which would be a total disrespect/spit in the face to they're customers) or it takes iphone 4 pic quality but at a smaller size


Do the math. 960 x 720 = 691200 pixels / 1000000 = 0.69 megapixels.

We didn't just pull 0.7 MP out of nowhere.

However, MP doesn't speak much about the quality of the pictures. It could be good, or crap.

thedarkhorse
Sep 3, 2010, 12:32 PM
Not sure if this has been posted, I just skimmed though, but if it only takes stills at 960x720, but records at 1280x720, does that mean they aren't pushing the camera to take it's best stills, or is the 720p stretched from 960x720. >.>

I'm guessing it's a native 1280x720 sensor with the photo part just cropping 320 px off. It looks like it has a fixed focus lens (like orig &3g iPhone) with no 'tap to focus' feature like iphone4, as the form factor is to slim for an autofocus lens system.

rohit6060
Sep 3, 2010, 12:50 PM
Wow!So we r arguing for missing pixel on an mp3 player!Gr8 goin guys.Well first thing first...
I presume most of u guys r from US or other countries where iphone is sold on an contract.If u look at other countries where they r sold without contract(where apple charges customers at once)you'll find apple charges around $700 for an iphone 4 basic model.Don't trust me?You can check out the international stores and can try converting it into dollars.
Had the price of itouch been more by 50-100$ with addition of a better camera,flash and may be a glass back,I think it would have been too much for a music player.Then people could have argued why to pay so much for a music player.
Secondly,how many of u actually click on ur phones/mp3 players and print them.Do u actually count on ur phone while on vacations?I don't think so.even for a picnic i guess we use a digi cam.
0.7 MP definitely is lesser,in fact i sold my 1st gen 8gb 3 days back planning to buy the new 1.Now I'm waiting for more detailed reviews.
Its a music oriented device and no one pointed out the launch of itunes 10.I guess camera on a music player will only be good for uploading pics on facebook etc.
No one points out absence of A4,Camera,retina etc. on iPad.I dunno why!
I think 32gb model is a gr8 device considering its a music oriented device.Had they given an OLED or a lesser quality display I think that could have been really an issue.In fact last year itouch 32gb was priced at $299 and look at this year's 32gb with the same price.With 1gh processor its comparable to probably more than half the lot of tablets.
And with so much,ITS JUST A MP3 PLAYER!
I love :apple:

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 3, 2010, 12:55 PM
Wow!So we r arguing for missing pixel on an mp3 player!Gr8 goin guys.Well first thing first...
I presume most of u guys r from US or other countries where iphone is sold on an contract.If u look at other countries where they r sold without contract(where apple charges customers at once)you'll find apple charges around $700 for an iphone 4 basic model.Don't trust me?You can check out the international stores and can try converting it into dollars.
Had the price of itouch been more by 50-100$ with addition of a better camera,flash and may be a glass back,I think it would have been too much for a music player.Then people could have argued why to pay so much for a music player.
Secondly,how many of u actually click on ur phones/mp3 players and print them.Do u actually count on ur phone while on vacations?I don't think so.even for a picnic i guess we use a digi cam.
0.7 MP definitely is lesser,in fact i sold my 1st gen 8gb 3 days back planning to buy the new 1.Now I'm waiting for more detailed reviews.
Its a music oriented device and no one pointed out the launch of itunes 10.I guess camera on a music player will only be good for uploading pics on facebook etc.
No one points out absence of A4,Camera,retina etc. on iPad.I dunno why!
I think 32gb model is a gr8 device considering its a music oriented device.Had they given an OLED or a lesser quality display I think that could have been really an issue.In fact last year itouch 32gb was priced at $299 and look at this year's 32gb with the same price.With 1gh processor its comparable to probably more than half the lot of tablets.
And with so much,ITS JUST A MP3 PLAYER!
I love :apple:

Where's the gibberish-to-english translation button when you need it????

rohit6060
Sep 3, 2010, 12:58 PM
Where's the gibberish-to-english translation button when you need it????

I guess the point made is more important...

Salacion
Sep 3, 2010, 01:02 PM
I guess the point made is more important...

Wait, you had a point? Huh...

ingraman
Sep 3, 2010, 01:12 PM
Had the price of itouch been more by 50-100$ with addition of a better camera,flash and may be a glass back,I think it would have been too much for a music player.Then people could have argued why to pay so much for a music player.

I don't consider the touch a music player any more than I consider the ipad a music player. If I wanted a pure music player I would get a Walkman (which, by all audiophile measures, is the better music player). The Touch is a computer, plain and simple, and I'm sure most people would pay extra for a better camera and/or flash. Never heard anyone asking for a glassback or complaining about the form factor. In fact, I think it might be TOO thin.


Secondly,how many of u actually click on ur phones/mp3 players and print them.Do u actually count on ur phone while on vacations?I don't think so.even for a picnic i guess we use a digi cam.

For vacations or occasions I would bring my good camera. For daily use, it's nice to carry around something with a decent camera function. That is, unless you carry around your dedicated digicam every day.

rohit6060
Sep 3, 2010, 01:14 PM
Wait, you had a point? Huh...

I just wrote what I felt.
U got a problem?

DrawnToLife
Sep 3, 2010, 01:15 PM
Removed.

DrawnToLife
Sep 3, 2010, 01:16 PM
I just wrote what I felt.
U got a problem?

He didn't understand.

Anyways;
If the iPod doesn't record true720p, I'm gonna hold off till next year.
For the downtime, I might get a pocket camcorder because that's essentially what the iPod is. If the quality is the same as an iPhone 4, then I might consider as it seems like the iPhone 4 has a really great 720p camera o_O.

rohit6060
Sep 3, 2010, 01:18 PM
I don't consider the touch a music player any more than I consider the ipad a music player. If I wanted a pure music player I would get a Walkman (which, by all audiophile measures, is the better music player). The Touch is a computer, plain and simple, and I'm sure most people would pay extra for a better camera and/or flash. Never heard anyone asking for a glassback or complaining about the form factor. In fact, I think it might be TOO thin.



For vacations or occasions I would bring my good camera. For daily use, it's nice to carry around something with a decent camera function. That is, unless you carry around your dedicated digicam every day.

I would agree on that.
Just to confirm,has there been a official word that its a 0.7MP camera or is it just we r speculating based on the resolution???

rohit6060
Sep 3, 2010, 01:24 PM
He didn't understand.

Anyways;
If the iPod doesn't record true720p, I'm gonna hold off till next year.
For the downtime, I might get a pocket camcorder because that's essentially what the iPod is. If the quality is the same as an iPhone 4, then I might consider as it seems like the iPhone 4 has a really great 720p camera o_O.

Agreed...
I was just going through the apple site and there they have uploaded a video which says that it has been shot by ipod touch and has not been modified in any form...Here's the link:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/hd-video-recording.html

DrawnToLife
Sep 3, 2010, 01:28 PM
I already watched that video but that's not good enough for me.
I'm waiting for consumer videos before I make my decision.

uberamd
Sep 3, 2010, 01:28 PM
Perhaps you missed the part where this thread is about the camera. Apple set itself up here. This camera under performs the first iPhone camera, heck it under performs a Fischer Price toy digital camera. If people are pissed, and they are, Apple only has itself to blame.

There is a difference between the image sensors used in a toy digital camera and the ones used in the iPod Touch's. Your comment holds no ground until you get one HANDS ON to test and compare to the Fischer Price toys.

gta50419
Sep 3, 2010, 01:30 PM
I would agree on that.
Just to confirm,has there been a official word that its a 0.7MP camera or is it just we r speculating based on the resolution???

nope, the only thing we know about the Carma is that "still photos 960 x 720 with back cam". so we're basically guessing that's it's 0.7 from internet charts.

apple needs to clear this up and put the # of mp on their site before they lose sales or rip people off

Beric
Sep 3, 2010, 01:33 PM
Agreed...
I was just going through the apple site and there they have uploaded a video which says that it has been shot by ipod touch and has not been modified in any form...Here's the link:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/hd-video-recording.html

Heh. Notice there is no link for "Camera", and it's only a footnote un video recording. No evidence of what the photos look like either. Clearly they're embarrassed about the lack of a good camera and are trying to not make a big deal about it.

I'll be getting a touch 4G, and I'll give the camera a try. We'll see how it performs.

MisturSrs
Sep 3, 2010, 01:36 PM
Oh DARN, and here I was thinking this would replace my DSLR :(!

CURSE YOU APPLE, YOU HAVE FOILED ME YET AGAIN:apple:

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 01:41 PM
Perhaps you missed the part where this thread is about the camera. Apple set itself up here. This camera under performs the first iPhone camera, heck it under performs a Fischer Price toy digital camera. If people are pissed, and they are, Apple only has itself to blame.

Good point - now can you show me a camera, and price point, that can do everything a iPod Touch can do?

I'm still waiting for a camera that I can use at night to allow me to star gaze, read news, read a book, sketch a drawing, take notes, and the what not...

ingraman
Sep 3, 2010, 01:42 PM
nope, the only thing we know about the Carma is that "still photos 960 x 720 with back cam". so we're basically guessing that's it's 0.7 from internet charts.

apple needs to clear this up and put the # of mp on their site before they lose sales or rip people off

I have a hunch that's it's not even a real camera, just video freeze frames like on the Flip HD. It's sort of a moot point to give a MP listing in that case.

SoraLimit
Sep 3, 2010, 01:44 PM
nope, the only thing we know about the Carma is that "still photos 960 x 720 with back cam". so we're basically guessing that's it's 0.7 from internet charts.

apple needs to clear this up and put the # of mp on their site before they lose sales or rip people off

We're not guessing. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megapixels#Megapixel

Now do the math.

The only real question is that, is this camera capable of doing 1280 x 720 pictures, or is it capped at 960 x 720?

gta50419
Sep 3, 2010, 01:49 PM
Good point - now can you show me a camera, and price point, that can do everything a iPod Touch can do?

I'm still waiting for a camera that I can use at night to allow me to star gaze, read news, read a book, sketch a drawing, take notes, and the what not...

as much as i HATE Microsoft.. im sure they won't **** up by putting a .7mp in the zune hd2....in the year of 2010 lmao
it will probably have 3-5mp still, hd-720 cam (like the one in ipod 4g), and oled display for a cheaper price

it will lack apps or have horrible but i barely use apps/games on my ipod...if it does have all this all i need is it for support macs lol

7even
Sep 3, 2010, 01:50 PM
Good point - now can you show me a camera, and price point, that can do everything a iPod Touch can do?

I'm still waiting for a camera that I can use at night to allow me to star gaze, read news, read a book, sketch a drawing, take notes, and the what not...

Hey, me too! I wish my Nikon DSLR could do that.

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 01:58 PM
it will lack apps or have horrible but i barely use apps/games on my ipod...all i need is it for support macs

So, to you, having a device w/ lesser functionality makes it equal or better as long as the camera is better?

gta50419
Sep 3, 2010, 02:06 PM
So, to you, having a device w/ lesser functionality makes it equal or better as long as the camera is better?
i understands why it's important to others

but for me personally? hell YES!
i'll be perfectly happy and pay twice as much for a ipod touch with just the mp3 player,browser, a 5mp camera and 720 video capture (i know it has hd vid cap btw) by itself

minus the retina, facetime, gyro,multitouch, gamecenter, games/shows, maps,i books, social networks, ect...all that nice but i can care less about it

nixiemaiden
Sep 3, 2010, 02:09 PM
as much as i HATE Microsoft.. im sure they won't **** up by putting a .7mp in the zune hd2....in the year of 2010 lmao
it will probably have 3-5mp still, hd-720 cam (like the one in ipod 4g), and oled display for a cheaper price

it will lack apps or have horrible but i barely use apps/games on my ipod...if it does have all this all i need is it for support macs lol

I don't even see why microsoft would put a camera on their zune in the first place. The zune is absolutely amazing for music and watching movies. I don't really see a need for them to change and add a camera. Everything it can do is to try and get you to buy from the zune marketplace or subscribe and a camera isn't going to get anyone to buy anything.

7even
Sep 3, 2010, 02:10 PM
i understands why it's important to others

for me personally? hell YES!
i'll be perfectly happy and pay twice as much for a ipod touch with just the mp3 player, a 5mp camera and 720 video capture (i know it has hd vid cap btw) by itself

minus the retina, facetime, gyro, gamecenter, games/shows, maps,i books, social networks, ect

Twice as much for < 50% functionality? You're not making sense :p Get a real camera for the extra $$ you'd pay for an iPod to have those features :cool:

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 02:20 PM
i'll be perfectly happy and pay twice as much for a ipod touch with just the mp3 player,browser, a 5mp camera and 720 video capture (i know it has hd vid cap btw) by itself


Cool beans - so if I ducted taped a good camera to a touch you would pay me $600 - I'm in! :)

You bring up a good point though - the touch's capabilities and requirements will vary based on the user - I think too many people are imposing their wishes as the de facto standard that must be accepted by all - which is just utter crap ;)

Don't get me wrong, based on the info available now, I am a little disappointed - but the main thing I wanted the camera is for quick scanning so I'm ok w/ it.

Matty-p
Sep 3, 2010, 02:26 PM
I have a hunch that's it's not even a real camera, just video freeze frames like on the Flip HD.

a frame of vidio from it would be 1280*720 not the 960*720 that the pictures are . its posible is capures a frame and crops it but with tap to focus zoom ect is more tikely it dose actually take a picture but the sensor only has 1280*720 pixels on it giving it a maximum 3:2 picture size of 960*720

67 It's sort of a moot point to give a MP listing in that case.

apple didn't give it a MP rating the thread starter did and its actual MP "listing" is 0.691 200 megapixels;) besides vga cameras are very often refered to by both consumers and manufactures as 0.3 megapixels and megapixels is the simple industry standerd way to measure camera resolution but yea i see your point

Link2999
Sep 3, 2010, 02:29 PM
Here's Apple's picture on their website, probably a little beefed up in terms of quality, but still. To everyone that's worried, you shouldn't be. Expect the pictures to have no grain.

http://images.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/images/hd_video_snapshot20100901.png

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 3, 2010, 02:44 PM
Here's Apple's picture on their website, probably a little beefed up in terms of quality, but still. To everyone that's worried, you shouldn't be. Expect the pictures to have no grain.

http://images.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/images/hd_video_snapshot20100901.png

Ever heard of this nifty cool app called "PhotoShop?"

I've news for you...that image is 'simulated.'

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 02:55 PM
I've news for you...that image is 'simulated.'

Evidence - sorry had to ask...

Link2999
Sep 3, 2010, 03:50 PM
Evidence - sorry had to ask...

This is a general purpose picture. Of course it is going to look a little worse than the picture, but you can tell that there isn't going to be any grain if that is what Apple is advertising. Apple is usually good to delivering things like this.
For example: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/hd-video-recording.html

That's almost exactly what the iPod HD Recording is going to look like. Except that video was taking at near-perfect conditions (lighting, weather, etc.).

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 04:12 PM
This is a general purpose picture. Of course it is going to look a little worse than the picture, but you can tell that there isn't going to be any grain if that is what Apple is advertising. Apple is usually good to delivering things like this.
For example: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/hd-video-recording.html

That's almost exactly what the iPod HD Recording is going to look like. Except that video was taking at near-perfect conditions (lighting, weather, etc.).

I totally agree - just wondering where the 'photoshopped simulation' came into the picture :D

To clarify, for me, when using the term photoshopped, it is to create a fake/enchantment of the actual reality of the photo. Which would be misrepresentation.

Brien
Sep 3, 2010, 04:18 PM
Apple doesn't use real products for their photos. They're all renders, so I wouldn't trust that photo at all.

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 04:23 PM
Apple doesn't use real products for their photos. They're all renders, so I wouldn't trust that photo at all.

Mahalos :)

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 3, 2010, 04:47 PM
Evidence - sorry had to ask...

Fair enough. Although they aren't obligated to tell you whether or not the screen images are real or enhanced, they have set a precedent for pointing out when they aren't.

When Apple posts an unretouched photograph, they call it out with a specific disclaimer:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/camera.html (disclaimer midway down page...says they are unretouched)

Clearly if the feature is something to crow about, as it is and was with the iP4, then you'd expect to see something similar for the iPod Touch 4, right?

Unless they don't really want to draw attention to the fact...which I'm betting is clearly the case here. It's a "gimme" feature and one I think will end up being just a frame grab from the video stream, EXACTLY how it works on the last-gen iPod Nano.

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 04:55 PM
Mahalos for the info and for your time answering it :)

jacquesrk
Sep 3, 2010, 05:45 PM
Are megapixels what determine picture quality? No.
Is it possible for a .7 MP camera to take better pictures than a 5 MP camera? I'm sure it's possible. But if you have two cameras that take the same quality photos, one producing a .7 MP picture, the other producing a 5 MP picture, I'll take the latter. A .7 MP is definitely a step backward. My cheapo Verizon LG phone produces a 2 MP picture.

The question that people are raising: is the .7 MP camera in the new iPod touch as good a camera as the one in the current iPhone? I am willing to bet that the answer is no. Go to the iPhone page at apple.com and read their publicity blurb on the iPhone still camera, then do the same for the iPod touch. Apple sure seems more enthusiastic about the iPhone still camera. But we won't know for sure until people get the iPod touch in their hands and do comparisons.

Is the iPod touch still worth buying, despite the still camera? Well, I think so. I've been carrying around my old iPod video (64 MB) for years, because I don't replace stuff very often. This year I finally took the plunge to iOS and my wife and I are both getting an iPod touch. I would be willing to put up with a thicker iPod touch and get a better camera.

Would I have been happier if the iPod touch had the iPhone camera? Yes. People will say that megapixels don't matter, but when you read articles discussing megapixel counts in a still camera, the articles say "6 MP is good enough for almost anybody." They don't say ".7 MP is good enough for almost anybody." Why do I care about MP? Because I don't always frame my photos very carefully and have to crop stuff out.

For better quality photos, I see people saying that I should have a "real" digital camera. Well, yes, I have one. The thing is, I don't have it in my pocket all the time, because it doesn't fit in my pocket. When I'm out with the kids, there are many timere when I don't bring my camera with me. In that case, I'll use the one in my pocket if I want to take a photo. As a photographer told me once, "the best camera is ... the one you have with you." : no camera means no picture at all. If the iPod touch had a better quality camera, I for one would be very happy. In my case, I'm glad that there is a decent back video camera, but I don't see myself using Facetime all that much (you need a wireless network for that, right?), and I would gladly trade in the Facetime forward video camera for a better-quality still camera.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 3, 2010, 06:02 PM
Sadly we are left to guess and guess until someone actually gets their hands on a new iPT and shares the results. By now there are plenty of educated guesses and informed opinions on this thread and many others like it across the web. Some day soon we will know the answer and everyone can decide if the photo quality works for them. Sadly, Apple set itself up for some cranky customers needlessly. This device is about 2 mm thinner than the iPhone? Many are saying a better camera couldn't fit in the case since the case is too thin. So Apple gives us all a super low resolution camera so they can claim the case is 2 mm thinner? Really? How absurd.

Some will say hey, the camera will be fine, and it may be. But given a choice between a .7mp camera and the iPhone's 5 mp camera with touch focus lens, which would you choose?

Apple has no one to blame but themselves.

tablo13
Sep 3, 2010, 06:03 PM
Agreed...
I was just going through the apple site and there they have uploaded a video which says that it has been shot by ipod touch and has not been modified in any form...Here's the link:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/hd-video-recording.html

So the video on Apple site isn't compressed? It says "unedited" so it probably is compressed for web...
Oh DARN, and here I was thinking this would replace my DSLR :(!

CURSE YOU APPLE, YOU HAVE FOILED ME YET AGAIN:apple:

Does the iPhone 4 camera replace DSLR? I don't think so...

And it probably looks better than the dumbphones 5 years ago, because of the better censor and stuff. More pixels doesn't mean more quality, I have a point-and-shoot that looks grainy when zoomed in the picture that was taken at highest resolution for the camera.

ct95
Sep 3, 2010, 06:05 PM
The solution to these complaints is simple - if you don't like it, don't buy it.

For my part, I think Apple has done a nice job with these upgrades. It's an iPhone without a phone, 3G, GPS and inferior still picture taking.

You get superior Retina display, front camera with Facetime, HD rear videocam, faster A4 CPU, 2X ram (probably), gyro, Wireless-N, and microphone, all for the same price as last year's model. It's a fantastic upgrade.

ct95
Sep 3, 2010, 06:09 PM
i understands why it's important to others

but for me personally? hell YES!
i'll be perfectly happy and pay twice as much for a ipod touch with just the mp3 player,browser, a 5mp camera and 720 video capture (i know it has hd vid cap btw) by itself

minus the retina, facetime, gyro,multitouch, gamecenter, games/shows, maps,i books, social networks, ect...all that nice but i can care less about it

Simple, Apple has a product for you too. It's called the iPhone 4. Supposedly you can buy without a contract for 2X the iPod touch:

http://www.iphonefaq.org/archives/971037

DrawnToLife
Sep 3, 2010, 06:17 PM
Does the iPhone 4 camera replace DSLR? I don't think so...

And it probably looks better than the dumbphones 5 years ago, because of the better censor and stuff. More pixels doesn't mean more quality, I have a point-and-shoot that looks grainy when zoomed in the picture that was taken at highest resolution for the camera.

I do believe he was being sarcastic.

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 06:18 PM
Some will say hey, the camera will be fine, and it may be. But given a choice between a .7mp camera and the iPhone's 5 mp camera with touch focus lens, which would you choose?

Apple has no one to blame but themselves.

Then get an iPhone and stop crying...the camera is what it is... :rolleyes:

Phil In Idaho
Sep 3, 2010, 06:37 PM
Then get an iPhone and stop crying...the camera is what it is... :rolleyes:

Stop drinking the koolaid, Apple can do better and you know it.

By the way, I bought plenty of Apple stock at $15 a share back in the day so the only place I'm crying is all the way to the bank.

iThinkergoiMac
Sep 3, 2010, 06:43 PM
Can someone explain why the sensor in the new camera has to be .7 MP? I understand how the number was arrived at, but I think there's a good chance the actual sensor is higher resolution and it's just sizing it down to the final resolution. For one thing, the sensor is obviously capable of higher resolution than 960x720. Most cameras that take HD video have native resolution much higher. My 1080p camcorder has a 3 MP sensor in it, but it doesn't need a sensor that high just to record 1080p.

I'm betting that the camera in the touch is higher resolution than .7 MP but Apple is sizing it down. Apple has been known to do such things before.

Old Blue
Sep 3, 2010, 06:49 PM
Stop drinking the koolaid

only if you lay off the Poitín ;)

Phil In Idaho
Sep 3, 2010, 07:07 PM
only if you lay off the Poitín ;)

Ok, :D you got a deal, I hope you have a great weekend!

Be Well.

DrawnToLife
Sep 3, 2010, 07:12 PM
Can someone explain why the sensor in the new camera has to be .7 MP? I understand how the number was arrived at, but I think there's a good chance the actual sensor is higher resolution and it's just sizing it down to the final resolution. For one thing, the sensor is obviously capable of higher resolution than 960x720. Most cameras that take HD video have native resolution much higher. My 1080p camcorder has a 3 MP sensor in it, but it doesn't need a sensor that high just to record 1080p.

I'm betting that the camera in the touch is higher resolution than .7 MP but Apple is sizing it down. Apple has been known to do such things before.

Someone's thinking (:

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 07:26 PM
True I think this is another example of apple intentionally holding back the potential of a product, so that many consumers, esp the mactards, will "upgrade" to the latest version the following year. Its pretty annoying the tactics that jobs pulls... I bet next years touch has a 5mp camera, while the iphone has 8mp camera :rolleyes:

This resolution is an insult. The obvious reason why Apple sticked an unnecessarily low resolution unit in there was to keep the iPod Touch away from damaging iPhone sales, especially following Antenna-gate.

It's not just about resolution, of course. The chip matters, but most importantly, you need a good lens. Of course, hopes shouldn't be high about these in a mobile device - that's why AT LEAST the resolution should be better than a 6 years old budget phone's.

Honestly, this thing with Apple that you just cannot get what you reasonably expect for a lot less is getting tiring.

ReallyBigFeet
Sep 3, 2010, 07:27 PM
So the video on Apple site isn't compressed? It says "unedited" so it probably is compressed for web...


Well, lets say it is totally uncompressed, just for arguments' sake. You can use that link to actually perform a little experiment.

Now pause the video during playback...I just did. Do a screen grab of the image that is paused. Easy enough right?

Now look at that screen grab. In the native size you just viewed it, looks pretty good, right? Small, but still works fine for a Facebook posting or whatever. The video looks great, but the picture looks OK as long as you don't try to size it up any.

Now go ahead and zoom in just a little bit. See all those squares? Yeah...don't do that. Its very easy to take a hi-MP count picture and scale it down and retain quality. Its very difficult to upscale a low-MP count picture and not get the jaggies.

It is what it is....a really decent little Flip-video replacement device that has pause and screen grab features that they call a "camera." As long as you don't plan on needing the picture to be larger than native resolution (and native resolution is fine for Facebook posts and such), you'll not be disappointed.

Just re-set your expectations...it's not a camera for archival purposes. Its a really good little video recorder with pause and screen grab functions. End of story.

Examples below.....I'm far too lazy to post at relative sizes, just did this quickly for example purposes. But you can download that sample video and play around with pausing and screen grabbing yourself to get an idea of what the pictures will look like.

The first attachment is screen grab of Apples 'unretouched' iPod Touch 4 video playing while paused. Not too bad. Second is blown up a bit. In the attachment 'window' below you can't discern the difference easily. But when you click them individually...you'll see.

Beric
Sep 3, 2010, 08:18 PM
Can someone explain why the sensor in the new camera has to be .7 MP? I understand how the number was arrived at, but I think there's a good chance the actual sensor is higher resolution and it's just sizing it down to the final resolution. For one thing, the sensor is obviously capable of higher resolution than 960x720. Most cameras that take HD video have native resolution much higher. My 1080p camcorder has a 3 MP sensor in it, but it doesn't need a sensor that high just to record 1080p.

I'm betting that the camera in the touch is higher resolution than .7 MP but Apple is sizing it down. Apple has been known to do such things before.

Oooh... Apple's asking for a jailbreak to "unlock" more resolution here.

Link2999
Sep 3, 2010, 08:23 PM
Well, lets say it is totally uncompressed, just for arguments' sake. You can use that link to actually perform a little experiment.

Now pause the video during playback...I just did. Do a screen grab of the image that is paused. Easy enough right?

Now look at that screen grab. In the native size you just viewed it, looks pretty good, right? Small, but still works fine for a Facebook posting or whatever. The video looks great, but the picture looks OK as long as you don't try to size it up any.

Now go ahead and zoom in just a little bit. See all those squares? Yeah...don't do that. Its very easy to take a hi-MP count picture and scale it down and retain quality. Its very difficult to upscale a low-MP count picture and not get the jaggies.

It is what it is....a really decent little Flip-video replacement device that has pause and screen grab features that they call a "camera." As long as you don't plan on needing the picture to be larger than native resolution (and native resolution is fine for Facebook posts and such), you'll not be disappointed.

Just re-set your expectations...it's not a camera for archival purposes. Its a really good little video recorder with pause and screen grab functions. End of story.

Examples below.....I'm far too lazy to post at relative sizes, just did this quickly for example purposes. But you can download that sample video and play around with pausing and screen grabbing yourself to get an idea of what the pictures will look like.

The first attachment is screen grab of Apples 'unretouched' iPod Touch 4 video playing while paused. Not too bad. Second is blown up a bit. In the attachment 'window' below you can't discern the difference easily. But when you click them individually...you'll see.

Yup, was also thinking of this work around. We'll see how it works out.

ImaVeggie
Sep 3, 2010, 10:00 PM
ReallyBigFeet... Thanks so much for your post. I think you're absolutely right. The "camera" is basically is using the video camera to take a still image. It's why Apple makes no mention of MPs. Thinking of the new iPod Touch having a .7 MP Camera is incorrect, IMHO. The photos will be of a much higher quality than that.

My 1st generation iPod Touch is now completely sure that it's getting a new Big Sister :)

MythicFrost
Sep 3, 2010, 11:01 PM
So, what's the deal here?

Does a video camera and still camera require separate lenses? Or are they the same thing?
Also, why is the iPod Touch's camera only able to take small photos, but the video camera is capable of HD 720p video?

Just looking for information, thanks.

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 11:12 PM
OK...but the question still remains: why didn't apple put a 5mp camera in the touch as they did with the iphone, esp in this day and age? It may have been cheaper for apple to use the same lens that way they could order in larger quantities for a better discount. I won't be shocked to see if next years touch have a 5mp camera.

BTW I plan to upgrade my refurbished 1st gen touch as well :cool:

Thinking of the new iPod Touch having a .7 MP Camera is incorrect, IMHO. The photos will be of a much higher quality than that.

My 1st generation iPod Touch is now completely sure that it's getting a new Big Sister :)

AppleWizard
Sep 3, 2010, 11:16 PM
People are not realizing that 960 by 720 is a pretty decent quality despite the low mp. Sure, you would not use this for professional photography, but I think it would be fun for me to take oils on the go without lugging around my panasonic lumix with the big lens.

Neebee
Sep 4, 2010, 03:11 AM
I think people are easily and understanderbly misled into believing that the Touch is just like the iPhone (4) except it lacks a few features. If they're p***ed about the Touch's camera they have every reason to be because for one reason or another, they're led to believe and expect the Touch is just like the iPhone.

People need to remember that there are more than a few features that sets it apart from the iPhone 4. It lacks a GPS, 3G, and a camera that is the same as the iPhone 4. Regardless of what you may think of MP and resolution, any device with such a low MP count really raises flags among many people who are bombared about MPs.

The question I would like to raise is how much more would an Touch actually cost if had a 3G and GPS chip plus the same camera? Is it really close to $400 more like an unlocked Iphone 4 sells in Canada? How much more would it really cost to add those components and leave the phone component out?

pimjai
Sep 4, 2010, 03:12 AM
if you don`t want to use the pictures you make as a poster, i think the quality will be fine. also, i think the reason that they don`t put in the same camera as in the iphone, is that they make much more profit on the iphone, so the don`t want to make the ipod pick to much sales from the iphone.

ct95
Sep 4, 2010, 04:11 AM
I think people are easily and understanderbly misled into believing that the Touch is just like the iPhone (4) except it lacks a few features. If they're p***ed about the Touch's camera they have every reason to be because for one reason or another, they're led to believe and expect the Touch is just like the iPhone.

People need to remember that there are more than a few features that sets it apart from the iPhone 4. It lacks a GPS, 3G, and a camera that is the same as the iPhone 4. Regardless of what you may think of MP and resolution, any device with such a low MP count really raises flags among many people who are bombared about MPs.

The question I would like to raise is how much more would an Touch actually cost if had a 3G and GPS chip plus the same camera? Is it really close to $400 more like an unlocked Iphone 4 sells in Canada? How much more would it really cost to add those components and leave the phone component out?

It would cost Apple big time in terms of revenue and profits, since people would just buy the iPod touch instead of the iPhone. They will lose momentum in the high growth smartphone market and gain in the declining mp3/PMP market. Their stock price will take a big hit. The touch will always be a step behind the iPhone. It's a business decision, and a smart one at that. In my opinion, they've given us a good value and upgrades with the new touch, while balancing its capabilities with respect to the iPhone.

Jelsoft
Sep 4, 2010, 09:04 AM
OK...but the question still remains: why didn't apple put a 5mp camera in the touch as they did with the iphone, esp in this day and age? It may have been cheaper for apple to use the same lens that way they could order in larger quantities for a better discount. I won't be shocked to see if next years touch have a 5mp camera.

BTW I plan to upgrade my refurbished 1st gen touch as well :cool:

Because it's too thick. Christ.

pimjai
Sep 4, 2010, 10:17 AM
Because it's too thick. Christ.

actualy i think they put a different camera on it so people buy the iphone 4, and not the ipod. i think if they wanted to put a good camera in it, they wouldn´t have made the ipod that thin.

ademuth93
Sep 4, 2010, 10:36 AM
... The touch will always be a step behind the iPhone. It's a business decision, and a smart one at that. In my opinion, they've given us a good value and upgrades with the new touch, while balancing its capabilities with respect to the iPhone.

I 100% agree with this post.:D

I got the retina and two cameras. That's all I wanted.:cool:

Jelsoft
Sep 4, 2010, 10:53 AM
actualy i think they put a different camera on it so people buy the iphone 4, and not the ipod. i think if they wanted to put a good camera in it, they wouldn´t have made the ipod that thin.

People don't buy an iphone instead of an ipod because of the camera. They buy it because they want a phone.
Apple feel they'll sell more thin ipod touches than thicker ipod touches.. Apple know that most consumers want thinness over camera quality in their ipod.
It has nothing to do with the iphone.
It has nothing to do with them not wanting to put in a 5mp camera.
It is all to do with aesthetics.
You are stupid.
Good night.

axboi87
Sep 4, 2010, 10:55 AM
and buy an iPhone

pimjai
Sep 4, 2010, 11:12 AM
People don't buy an iphone instead of an ipod because of the camera. They buy it because they want a phone.
Apple feel they'll sell more thin ipod touches than thicker ipod touches.. Apple know that most consumers want thinness over camera quality in their ipod.
It has nothing to do with the iphone.
It has nothing to do with them not wanting to put in a 5mp camera.
It is all to do with aesthetics.
You are stupid.
Good night.

i don´t see why you feel the need to insult people? don´t you think that if the touch did everything the iphone did (except making phone calls), for half the price, many people will buy the ipod, and not the iphone?

mgmusicman94
Sep 4, 2010, 11:17 AM
Stop complaining and buy an iPhone

Well put.

ntrigue
Sep 4, 2010, 11:24 AM
While I agree that installing a 5.0 megapixel (rear-illuminating) camera in the iPod Touch 4 would have resulted in a Droid X-esque profile. 0.7 megapixel?!

They just restricted the consumer to ever printing acceptable quality (http://flyingsamphoto.com/digital-photo-printing-megapixels-200.shtml) 4 x 6 photos!

Here they are, positioned to make the perfect iPod Touch (it took four generations) and they blow it on a $12 camera vs. a $14 camera module.

dwarnecke11
Sep 4, 2010, 11:25 AM
One point some keep missing is that the iPhone's 5 MP unit is significantly larger and more expensive than the one used in the touch. The raw parts cost of the 16 GB iPhone 4 is about $190, and of course that doesn't include the tremendous R&D costs. Apple has to turn a profit with these iPod touches, guys. A superbly thin iPod touch with a low res but still capable camera (its still above the resolution of the fantastic Retina display) seems like a good combination. I just sold my 5.5th Gen 80 GB iPod as well as the 8 GB 2G iPod touch that came with my new iMac. This covers most of the cost of a new 32 GB iPod touch for me.

And unlike my $400 Canon S90, this thing shoots 720p video :D

ntrigue
Sep 4, 2010, 11:27 AM
Stop complaining - and buy an iPhone

I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.

iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $799

iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899

cripplerking
Sep 4, 2010, 11:29 AM
I'm amazed just how much people are whining about this. It's got a great video camera and the still-photo thing was just tossed in as a little bonus, hardly the emphasis by any means.

All Apple really wanted to give it was a video camera, like a souped-up Nano. But if it hadn't included still photo capability, people would be whining just as much about that. Regardless, they've still practically doubled the Touch's capabilities with this update, so you should be grateful. And if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Just get an iPhone or something.

ntrigue
Sep 4, 2010, 11:30 AM
In order to play devil's advocate:

Evidently, Apple is transition the consumer to the digital/cloud/touch era. In this era, we no longer print photos, we store them and manipulate them with fingertips. In lieu of that I prefer thinner and video-oriented.

maril1111
Sep 4, 2010, 11:32 AM
While I agree that installing a 5.0 megapixel (rear-illuminating) camera in the iPod Touch 4 would have resulted in a Droid X-esque profile. 0.7 megapixel?!

They just restricted the consumer to ever printing acceptable quality (http://flyingsamphoto.com/digital-photo-printing-megapixels-200.shtml) 4 x 6 photos!

Here they are, positioned to make the perfect iPod Touch (it took four generations) and they blow it on a $12 camera vs. a $14 camera module.

While I agree with you on the other hand if you need professional printing quality you will always use a DSLR or similar camera with a photo printer. The touch is mostly for entertaining purposes like gaming,music etc not photo taking and for an app like the barcode scanner this camera is more than enough

Bytor65
Sep 4, 2010, 11:51 AM
One point some keep missing is that the iPhone's 5 MP unit is significantly larger and more expensive than the one used in the touch.

This 1000x.

This is clearly a cost reduction move. You don't take a ~ $600 phone and sell it for ~$200 by simply removing the phone bits.

You cost reduce anywhere you can to try to get down to that price point. Get rid of the IPS screen, use a cheap simple vid camera instead of a really good still + vid cameara, reduce battery size a bit.

I will start complaining about Apple after Dell, takes the phone out of the Streak and starts selling it for ~$200 (IOW never).

ct95
Sep 4, 2010, 12:22 PM
Do a search on Google - "iPhone 4 without contract". You can supposedly buy the iPhone 4 for $599 and $699 without a contract at a physical AT&T store (not online). So, yes - quit whining.

I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.

iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $799

iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899

tablo13
Sep 4, 2010, 12:45 PM
720p video... hmm, is it 960x720 stretched, or is the still picture resolution downgraded?

Link2999
Sep 4, 2010, 07:03 PM
Engadget pic of a pic:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/09/ipodtouch2010hands8.jpg

Doesn't look horrible.

MaCamZa
Sep 4, 2010, 07:07 PM
720p video... hmm, is it 960x720 stretched, or is the still picture resolution downgraded?

Most proberly downgraded... Apple don't stretch things, although they dont normally put a camera of less than a megapixel in anything. :P

Jelsoft
Sep 4, 2010, 07:12 PM
First of all, it's not a real camera. It's a video camera that takes stills. Much thinner component.

Secondly, Apple aren't worried about cannibalising the iPhone. That isn't why they didn't put in a 5MP camera lens. As has been pointed out, it's for aesthetics and cost. It has nothing to do with the iPhone, unless you honestly think that they would make an iPhone without the phone part as their iPod.

The camera isn't going to be great, but it's better than nothing. The video will be pretty good. The screen will be fine.

ViViDboarder
Sep 4, 2010, 07:40 PM
Engadget pic of a pic:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/09/ipodtouch2010hands8.jpg

Doesn't look horrible.

Hahaha!

But yea... In case you were serious, that in no way helps anyone determine end resolution quality...

I think what we'd (or at least I'd) like to know is if Apple is limiting/cropping images to .7MP or if that's really the max the sensor can capture.

If it's just being cropped then I'm sure/hope we'll see some apps for jailbroken phones that allow full resolution images.

J&JPolangin
Sep 4, 2010, 09:18 PM
Do a search on Google - "iPhone 4 without contract". You can supposedly buy the iPhone 4 for $599 and $699 without a contract at a physical AT&T store (not online). So, yes - quit whining.

...if AT&T is the only USA carrier, why would that do you any good to have an iPhone with out a contract?

Now if you could use the 3G iPad data plan, that may be a decent deal but the network probably sees the unit as an actual iPhone vise an iPad due to the sim card...

Beric
Sep 4, 2010, 09:20 PM
Hahaha!

But yea... In case you were serious, that in no way helps anyone determine end resolution quality...

I think what we'd (or at least I'd) like to know is if Apple is limiting/cropping images to .7MP or if that's really the max the sensor can capture.

If it's just being cropped then I'm sure/hope we'll see some apps for jailbroken phones that allow full resolution images.

Exactly.

I'll be getting one regardless. But there may very well be some good camera unlocks out there.

skiltrip
Sep 4, 2010, 09:38 PM
...if AT&T is the only USA carrier, why would that do you any good to have an iPhone with out a contract?

Now if you could use the 3G iPad data plan, that may be a decent deal but the network probably sees the unit as an actual iPhone vise an iPad due to the sim card...

If someone were hell bent on getting an iPod touch with exactly the same specs as an iPhone 4 (minus the phone), they could get a contract-free iPhone and just use it as a touch.

brent0saurus
Sep 4, 2010, 10:19 PM
can someone please answer me this..
Is the video quality worse than iPhone 4 or is it just the still image quality that's worse? 720 is 720 is 720, right? or wrong?

tubemonkey
Sep 5, 2010, 04:36 AM
One point some keep missing is that the iPhone's 5 MP unit is significantly larger and more expensive than the one used in the touch.

The iPhone's 5MP cam costs Apple $9.75 and they pay $1.00 for the front VGA cam. So the touch's rear cam is somewhere between $1.00 and $9.75. The cost difference is quite minor.

ct95
Sep 5, 2010, 04:49 AM
can someone please answer me this..
Is the video quality worse than iPhone 4 or is it just the still image quality that's worse? 720 is 720 is 720, right? or wrong?

I'm dying to know the same thing. I don't think we'll really know until the iPod touch is out. I think the big difference in the optics is that the iPod touch has a fixed focus lens, while iPhone 4 has autofocus lens. I don't know how much that matters for video. According to Apple website, iPhone 4 has tap-to-focus for video, while the touch will not have it.

J&JPolangin
Sep 5, 2010, 07:01 AM
If someone were hell bent on getting an iPod touch with exactly the same specs as an iPhone 4 (minus the phone), they could get a contract-free iPhone and just use it as a touch.

...the iPod Touch is already a good chunk of change, I couldn't imagine using an iPhone 4 just as a "Touch"...

tubemonkey
Sep 5, 2010, 08:35 AM
...the iPod Touch is already a good chunk of change, I couldn't imagine using an iPhone 4 just as a "Touch"...

I could since it has the features the touch is missing.

skiltrip
Sep 5, 2010, 09:45 AM
...the iPod Touch is already a good chunk of change, I couldn't imagine using an iPhone 4 just as a "Touch"...

Nor could I. But if one had the money, and wanted that, that would be a reason to buy an unsubsidized, contract-free iPhone 4 for top dollar.

Bytor65
Sep 5, 2010, 10:03 AM
The iPhone's 5MP cam costs Apple $9.75 and they pay $1.00 for the front VGA cam. So the touch's rear cam is somewhere between $1.00 and $9.75. The cost difference is quite minor.

Based on guesswork that Apple has laughed off.

Apple has to cost reduce to sell a touch $400 less than an iPhone. It will be a few dollars here, there and everywhere.

tubemonkey
Sep 5, 2010, 10:11 AM
Apple has to cost reduce to sell a touch $400 less than an iPhone. It will be a few dollars here, there and everywhere.

A dollar here and a dollar there doesn't add up to $400. The only reason Apple charges so much for unsubsidized phones is because they can get away with it.

tablo13
Sep 5, 2010, 10:56 AM
I'm dying to know the same thing. I don't think we'll really know until the iPod touch is out. I think the big difference in the optics is that the iPod touch has a fixed focus lens, while iPhone 4 has autofocus lens. I don't know how much that matters for video. According to Apple website, iPhone 4 has tap-to-focus for video, while the touch will not have it.

Fixed focus? That doesn't sound too good... :(

Bytor65
Sep 5, 2010, 11:01 AM
A dollar here and a dollar there doesn't add up to $400. The only reason Apple charges so much for unsubsidized phones is because they can get away with it.

More than you think. Naturally it isn't the whole story. Apples gross margin is 36%. Some product will have fatter margins (iPhone) and some the will have to accept slimmer margins( Touch).

But on a slimmer margin product like the Touch, saving $10 dollars on a camera is a huge savings. Another $10 on not having an IPS screen, another $2 on a weaker battery. It all ads up. Apple has a minimum margin which they will accept from a product. These cuts help them make that mark.

So it is a combination of lower margin, removing all Cell phone parts, and cost reductions on all other parts that gets them to a target that lets this device even exist.

Touch is very successful, do you notice that none of Apples competitors seems to be stripping the cell parts out of their cells and offering a competing device? Likely because the margins are very tight.

ntrigue
Sep 5, 2010, 12:41 PM
Do a search on Google - "iPhone 4 without contract". You can supposedly buy the iPhone 4 for $599 and $699 without a contract at a physical AT&T store (not online). So, yes - quit whining.

Originally Posted by ntrigue
I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.

iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $699

iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899

Adjusted for imbecile that is still wrong.

Leon575
Sep 5, 2010, 04:21 PM
Please don't try to convince me that a 1MP camera takes the same quality pictures as a 5MP...or 10MP...or 90MP.

Depends on the camera. Nikon D1 (1999) has a 2MP sensor, and can take better pictures than any mobile device today.

Megapixels has to do with size and size only!

Of course, the sensors have developed in quality (ISO-capabilities and stuff) along side the megapixel-mania... so certain cameras today may take better pictures than old cameras... but that is not because they have more megapixels.

ct95
Sep 5, 2010, 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by ntrigue
I think you'll discover a little item called a contract makes your arguement null, void, and stupid.

iPod Touch 32GB = $299
iPhone 4 32GB = $699

iPhone 4 32GB = $399 + $2500 = $2899

Adjusted for imbecile that is still wrong.

More on using iPhone as iPod touch: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3406.
This works for iPhone 3G and 3GS. I do not know what happens with iPhone 4 if you pull out the SIM. Can anybody try and report back? Will it work as a touch?

Neebee
Sep 6, 2010, 03:46 PM
I could since it has the features the touch is missing.
Most definitely. the standalone gps once you jailbreak the iphone is a definite attraction for me. Having data 24/7 is a "nice to have" but not absolutely necessary considering wifi free and paid hot spots are available everywhere.

Neebee
Sep 6, 2010, 03:50 PM
More than you think. Naturally it isn't the whole story. Apples gross margin is 36%. Some product will have fatter margins (iPhone) and some the will have to accept slimmer margins( Touch).

But on a slimmer margin product like the Touch, saving $10 dollars on a camera is a huge savings. Another $10 on not having an IPS screen, another $2 on a weaker battery. It all ads up. Apple has a minimum margin which they will accept from a product. These cuts help them make that mark.

So it is a combination of lower margin, removing all Cell phone parts, and cost reductions on all other parts that gets them to a target that lets this device even exist.

Touch is very successful, do you notice that none of Apples competitors seems to be stripping the cell parts out of their cells and offering a competing device? Likely because the margins are very tight.
I dont believe most money conscious consumers care about this. the bottom line is that Apple is gouging the consumer. No amount of defending or rationalizing Apple's actions are going to change this or make it easier to swallow. :)

uberamd
Sep 6, 2010, 03:52 PM
I dont believe most money conscious consumers care about this. the bottom line is that Apple is gouging the consumer. No amount of defending or rationalizing Apple's actions are going to change this or make it easier to swallow. :)

Customers buy what customers like. If a different company wanted to make an equivalent featured product for less money they would buy it. The thing is that no equivalent exists.

Neebee
Sep 6, 2010, 03:57 PM
Very true. That's why I'll get an iPod touch for the wife when available which of course I'll use and next year I'll be getting the iPhone 5, not so much for the phone (it's not that good anyways imo) but it'll be at least it'll have the antenna issue resolved unlike the 4th gen model with Apple's bandaid solution.

astrosinmyeyes
Sep 6, 2010, 04:20 PM
Man oh man.............. .7MP.......... its an IPOD for goodness sakes, you want to take top quality photos, buy a DSLR!!!!!!! I am happy enough with HD video, retina display, A4 chip, Facetime camera et al.
Really some people are just never happy.
"If you don´t like the touch don't buy one, leaves more for those of us who do!!!!!!"
By the way quick question will skype ever be allowed to use the facetime camera for their calls?

Neebee
Sep 6, 2010, 04:28 PM
Man oh man.............. .7MP.......... its an IPOD for goodness sakes, you want to take top quality photos, buy a DSLR!!!!!!! I am happy enough with HD video, retina display, A4 chip, Facetime camera et al.
Really some people are just never happy.
"If you don´t like the touch don't buy one, leaves more for those of us who do!!!!!!"
By the way quick question will skype ever be allowed to use the facetime camera for their calls?

lol. some people will never get it....everyone is entitled to their opinion. if you dont want to read the posts you don't like, dont tell people what to do. time to move on. 'nuff said. :p

fertilized-egg
Sep 6, 2010, 05:13 PM
What I'm really interested is in whether it does autofocus and how good its low light performance is. The 720p resolution is bad but probably good enough for most of the stuff people usually do with camera phones. Somehow I don't feel too good about autofocus though. :(

tubemonkey
Sep 6, 2010, 07:21 PM
By the way quick question will skype ever be allowed to use the facetime camera for their calls?

Man oh man, Skype? It's an iPod for goodness sake. If you wish to make Skype video calls, then buy a webcam for your computer!!!

Jimmy James
Sep 6, 2010, 07:26 PM
Man oh man, Skype? It's an iPod for goodness sake. If you wish to make Skype video calls, then buy a webcam for your computer!!!

It's an ipod that already contains a camera for this very function.

I didn't take my computer on my six week international vacation. I took my ipod. Skype got a lot of usage. Enabling this now existing hardware for Skype would be very nice.

tubemonkey
Sep 6, 2010, 07:51 PM
It's an ipod that already contains a camera for this very function.

I didn't take my computer on my six week international vacation. I took my ipod. Skype got a lot of usage. Enabling this now existing hardware for Skype would be very nice.

It contains a cam for FaceTime with other compatible iOS devices.

Take a netbook next time. My son doesn't like to carry his digital camera with him on a daily basis. Placing existing hardware from the iPhone into the touch would have been nice.

MythicFrost
Sep 6, 2010, 07:56 PM
Skype would be great for iPod Touch, I'm sure they'll get one out soon.

tadad1
Sep 6, 2010, 08:03 PM
What I'm really interested is in whether it does autofocus and how good its low light performance is. The 720p resolution is bad but probably good enough for most of the stuff people usually do with camera phones. Somehow I don't feel too good about autofocus though. :(


As it is advertised as having "tap to set exposure" rather than the iPhones "Tap to Focus" I would say it will use a fixed focus lens, it is also using a backside illumination sensor so it should perform better in low light than your average phone camera.

Neebee
Sep 7, 2010, 12:02 AM
It's an ipod that already contains a camera for this very function.

I didn't take my computer on my six week international vacation. I took my ipod. Skype got a lot of usage. Enabling this now existing hardware for Skype would be very nice.

Isnt Skype already working on the Touch? It's available at the App Store and it says Touch and iPhone.

The Touch contains an A4 cpu and it is robust enough to handle video and VOIP calling. Although I am not a fan of the .6 MP camera, it's more than adequate for video calling. I dunno why so many people in this thread are beligerant or defensive while posting their opinions. :confused:

sandslashh
Sep 7, 2010, 02:46 AM
http://www.ipodtouchfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309291

Stop complaining about the prices of Apple products. It's nothing new. This is how the market works. The reason Apple sells their products at these set prices? Because they know people will buy it, and they definitely do.

sandslashh
Sep 7, 2010, 02:49 AM
...if AT&T is the only USA carrier, why would that do you any good to have an iPhone with out a contract?

Now if you could use the 3G iPad data plan, that may be a decent deal but the network probably sees the unit as an actual iPhone vise an iPad due to the sim card...

Unlocking. You do know that unlocking the iPhone allows people to use it on Tmobile, right?

Jimmy James
Sep 7, 2010, 02:13 PM
It contains a cam for FaceTime with other compatible iOS devices.

Take a netbook next time. My son doesn't like to carry his digital camera with him on a daily basis. Placing existing hardware from the iPhone into the touch would have been nice.

It contains a cam for video conferencing. FaceTime happens to be the implementation, currently to the unnecessary exclusion of other more common methods and devices. And that is too bad.

The arrival of Skype to iOS devices already often eliminates the need for bringing a netbook in the first place. That is a very good thing. I am thankful that I didn't need to bring anything more than my ipod on my travels.

In any case, video conferencing is really of inconsequential importance to me.

And shouldn't we be getting an iPad instead of a netbook? Oh, wait...

Jimmy James
Sep 7, 2010, 02:15 PM
Isnt Skype already working on the Touch? It's available at the App Store and it says Touch and iPhone.

The Touch contains an A4 cpu and it is robust enough to handle video and VOIP calling. Although I am not a fan of the .6 MP camera, it's more than adequate for video calling. I dunno why so many people in this thread are beligerant or defensive while posting their opinions. :confused:

I believe you have misunderstood my post.

Yes, skype works for iOS devices. Thankfully. The new camera on the ipod touch 4 currently does not allow for skype video conferencing. That is too bad but not a big deal (for me).

freeme007
Sep 7, 2010, 08:22 PM
Looks like the still images from the new iPod touch wasn't that bad at all according to engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/ipod-touch-review-2010/).

Alkyrian
Sep 7, 2010, 08:29 PM
There is a review by endgadget that show the quality of the camera.

It's sure not the iphone 4 quality or resolution but quite good for my point of view for quick shoot and facebook pics.

Here is the review

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/i...h-review-2010/

And a pic sample of the review :

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/09/touchcam2.jpg

I love it :)

fertilized-egg
Sep 7, 2010, 08:47 PM
Good exposure and DR for still pictures but otherwise they look very unimpressive. Coarse resolution and noisy not to mention the lack of AF. On the other hand that 720p video is surprisingly good and looks like it can compete with more expensive smartphones.

earth.razer
Sep 7, 2010, 09:02 PM
Check out the noise.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/09/touchcam1.jpg

I fail to see what there is to love.

Neebee
Sep 7, 2010, 11:16 PM
I believe you have misunderstood my post.

Yes, skype works for iOS devices. Thankfully. The new camera on the ipod touch 4 currently does not allow for skype video conferencing. That is too bad but not a big deal (for me).
thanks for clarifying. i wonder why it doesnt allow for video conferencing? For me, it's a non issue too but even the .7 MP lens should be able to handle it? I thought I read engadget's review that even with the iphone 4, the new touch with facetime was choppy at times. I suspect this may be an issue with the CPU as they wrote their wifi signal was great. I do suspect Cydia will have an app that allows skype video conferencing.

There is a review by endgadget that show the quality of the camera.

It's sure not the iphone 4 quality or resolution but quite good for my point of view for quick shoot and facebook pics.

Here is the review

And a pic sample of the review :

I love it :)
I wouldnt go as far as saying, "I love it" but I think the pic is acceptable. My older BlackBerry takes better pics. lol.

Alkyrian
Sep 7, 2010, 11:16 PM
I love it for what it is : An ipod which do many thing like listening music and videos, playing games, using apps and make funny pics and videos.

You know it's been more than 3 days than i see post of people whining about the bad pics of the touch and all but i think the "haters" have completly missed the point of the device.

So for my opinion :

1) I agree that a 5. megapixel camera would be nice but i dont think apple wants is iphone being cannibalized by the touch so we have to live with it for now.

2) If you want the 5 megapixel camera, the GPS and all the bells and whistle apple will sell you the ipod touch which doing it : The iphone 4, yes the price is different, 799 $ without contract but if you want it go for it.

3) I think that for the price/feature apple offers, the ipod touch 4th is a great deal and the price is right balanced the only thing i loved to have is 3G like the Ipad but i can live without it.

I think that , the real question each one have to ask themselve is : Do i want to pay between 229 and 399 for the touch (8 to 64 g) and dont have the GPS, 5 megapixel camera IPS display and 3G or do i want to pay 799 $ and have the iphone 4 with all the missing features.

At the end you can chose so dont need to whine anymore :)

PS : Sorry for my english its not my native language :D