Camera+ Comes to the iPad with iCloud Sync Support

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Camera+, the top-selling non-game app for the iPhone, has made its way to the iPad.

    The app, which has sold more than 9 million copies, is a full-featured replacement for the standard Camera app that comes with the iPhone. It includes a plethora of options for editing and sharing pictures, as well as a variety of different shooting modes.

    The new version of Camera+ adds support for iCloud, as well as the new iPad app that will sync photos between the iPhone and iPad versions of the app to make editing easier.
    [​IMG]


    The New York Times spoke with the developers behind Camera+, hearing how difficult it was to make iCloud work the way they wanted it to. They said Apple's iCloud API's were inadequate and that it took their developers "twice as long as it should because of the problems with it."

    Regardless of the difficulties in developing it, Camera+ is now available on the both the iPhone and iPad for $0.99 each. [Direct Links: iPhone, iPad]

    Article Link: Camera+ Comes to the iPad with iCloud Sync Support
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    kirky29

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Location:
    Lincolnshire, England
    #2
    Ahh it's a separate app for the iPad...this explains a lot :)

    Been waiting a long time for this!
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    dwman

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Location:
    DC
    #3
    Not to sound like a troll, but do folks really take a lot of pictures with the iPad? I have an iPad 2 and the camera on the back is lousy.
     
  4. macrumors demi-god

    Staindsoul

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    I think it's mainly for taking pics with your iPhone and then being able to edit them on the iPad. Am I missing something?
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Sneakz

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #5
    The third gen iPad takes pictures comparable to the iPhone 4 or maybe even slightly better.
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    #6
    I posed this question in another thread, but I feel like I might get an answer more quickly here . . .

    With the recent update, I'm thinking of using camera+ as my primary camera app on iPhone 5 . . .can anyone who has made the switch previously comment on the benefits/drawbacks of one versus the other. Is there any loss of quality or functionality in taking photos directly from camera+?

    I've used camera+ primarily as an editing tool, but it seems to launch faster than the stock app on the 5, so I'm considering it as my go-to camera.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    somethingelsefl

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #7
    Apple REALLY needs to streamline their iCloud API, especially since much of so much of their future depends on developers integrating iCloud
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #8
    The iPad 3's is much better.

    However, with iCloud support for Camera+ and PhotoStream you don't ever need to take the pics with the iPad itself. I would just use my iPhone.

    Camera+ is also a nice little editor. It's not just for taking pics. Editing, for me, is nicer on the iPad than iPhone.




    Michael
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #9
    Yep...... I have taken photos with my new iPad, and the results are pretty good. Especially so for stylized shots, like Hipstamatic. The iPad may be a bit bulky, but having the large screen as a viewfinder is kinda nice.

    The Camera+ app is a great deal for $0.99. There are a lot of editing options. Not a Photoshop replacement by any means, but as far as iOS photo editing apps go, it's quite useful.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    #10
    I use the lock screen shortcut to access my iPhone's Camera app almost always. Even if the phone is unlocked, I will lock it and access Camera through the lock screen because it's faster. Not having lock screen access to Camera+ would probably keep me from using it as my primary camera app. So that's one disadvantage I can think of immediately.
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    D.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Location:
    Vilano Beach, FL
    #11
    I've been using Camera+ over the stock camera app, though some reasons aren't valid anymore with the last couple of iOS updates ...

    The camera control is better: more pre-shot adjustments, a timer (this is the original reason I picked it up), multi-shot

    Editing with color/balance correction, filters

    Finally, the sharing options are terrific and there's even an automated sharing setting so you can just shoot pics and they're uploaded automatically!

    Now with stock camera and the current OS, you can share much much better, the volume works as a shutter, it's available directly from the lock screen (and it also shoots video). I'd still love some better white balance control and a timer, a few other small details I prefer in Camera +, but it's getting closer.

    In fact, many of my fave 3rd party apps are getting used a little less as the stock apps improve (camera, podcast)

    Today I actually edited then posted to Flickr using Snapseed which is also a good editing tool (and handles sharing to way more services).
     
  12. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    #12
    iCloud API blows!

    You are sooooo right, I've had to abandon planned functionality because the codebase was dominated by recovery code - too many exceptions and not enough reliability. I think the API must work because Apple's apps work but the sample app and the provided docs blows beyond belief.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Blomkvist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #13
    I actually shoot a lot of my pics with my Nikon SLR and use the "camera kit" to transfer them to my iPad 2 for editing (Snapseed, Sketchbook). For $0.99 I may have to give this a try as well.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    kirky29

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Location:
    Lincolnshire, England
    #14
    Like others have said, I take photos with my iPhone then via iCloud they sync over, edit them on the iPad and they save back to the iPhone via iCloud - then upload to Facebook & the World! :)
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #15
    The main drawbacks for me are (1) lock screen access and (2) lack of video.

    The first drawback applies to all third party apps, but it is just so much more convenient to launch Camera app from the lock screen that I rarely shoot photos with anything but built-in Camera app (exceptions are when I need burst or timer).

    As for the second drawback, I have two young kids so switching apps to shoot video and photos increases the risk of losing precious moments.

    Other missing functionalities include HDR and panorama (Camera+ has a fake HDR mode that simulates HDR during post processing).
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    #16
    Thanks for the input, everyone!

    Based on the feedback, my plan is to use camera.app for spontaneous video ops, which require quick access from the lockscreen, and use camera+ for taking pictures. I've always found taking a video rarely works out b/c even if I open the camera app from the lock screen, I almost always end up having to wait for the switch from picture to video. With this setup, I can quickly access video (which apparently allows you to capture still images w/ iPhone 5 anyway), while taking advantage of extra features of camera+.

    As an aside, I've always wondered about the difference between stock HDR and the post-capture HDR through 3rd party apps. I've never really cared much for the iPhone's HDR images, but I guess that's a product of me not knowing much about photography.

    Thanks Again!
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #17
    Video/photo toggle, at least on iPhone 5, is much quicker than switching apps (even from the task manager).
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    #18
    No HDR, no Panorama, no video recording.

    You gain separate focus, exposure and white balance locks. Self-timer.

    Stay away from the digital zoom, it adds some weird artifacts occasionally and it slows down shooting.
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #19
    iOS 6 Camera has them as standard features.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    #20
    FYI, if you enable iCloud sync it will upload over cellular connection if you're not on wifi. I upgraded earlier and turned it on... now my iPhone 5 battery is draining at a steady clip while all my pics are uploading over LTE. The phone is pretty warm too.
     
  21. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    #21
    Newbie loking for iCloud help

    So as a newer iOS user, I'm looking for some guidance on how this app and others work with iCloud. I've activated both, but I'm confused on the functionality of iCloud. Am I correct that photos will only synch with each device and not be available online in the cloud itself?
     
  22. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #22
    Settings | General | Cellular | (scroll down to "Use Celullar data for" section) iCloud Documents -> OFF
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #23
    It seems iOS 6's Camera app takes different looking picture than third party apps.

    According to Gruber's Flickr stream, the built-in app has wider ISO range (up to 3200), whereas third party apps are restricted to 800. ISO 800 might be a plus to some (less noisy), but it is a difference worth noting.

    From Gruber:
    I posted three photos taken with an iPhone 5: one using the built-in Camera app, and two taken with third party apps (Camera Plus Pro and VSCO Cam). I included one taken with the built-in Camera app on an iPhone 4S.

    Looking at the EXIF data, the big difference is that the photo shot with the built-in Camera app on the iPhone 5 had an ISO speed of 2500; the other three all maxed out at 800. It appears the iPhone 5 can go up to ISO 3200. That’s the two-stop difference Apple is promoting.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    #24
    No, the iPhone 5 takes a different looking picture than third party apps that were made for the iPhone 4S; in other words, the iPhone 4S had a maximum ISO of 800, so third party camera apps were made to take advantage of that. Now with the iPhone 5, the max is 3200 ISO, so third party apps simply need to be updated; Camera+ was updated today (not to be confused with Camera Plus Pro which is a completely different app/company.)
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #25
    I've tried taking several photos in low light and I couldn't get Camera+ (3.5, which is the version released today) to take photos with ISO higher than 800.

    Here's one comparison.

    Camera+ (blocked out maps):
    [​IMG]

    Built-in Camera app:
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page