Camera = Elephant In The Room

Discussion in 'iPad' started by sanford, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. sanford macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #1
    Read things about the cameras, didn't think they'd be as bad some of the reviews mentioned, but I got my hands on an iPad 2: Cameras are AWFUL. There's no way to mitigate it. The stills look like a 1988 demo of "The Future of Photography (Except In The Future The Pictures Won't Make You Cringe)." Not just the pixel count, but the optics are terrible. A TINY bit of mitigation: Since you can use both cameras for FaceTime, I'd say the video quality on both cameras is acceptable for FaceTime.
     
  2. PatriotInvasion macrumors 65816

    PatriotInvasion

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #2
    ughhh...for someone who is still on the fence about whether it's worth getting an iPad 2, these posts don't give me much motivation.:(

    On the bright side, passing on it will free up money for the iPhone upgrade in a few months.
     
  3. jbg232 macrumors 65816

    jbg232

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    #3
    Completely agree. I waited for iPad 2 so that I could facetime with our family (wife's parents and my parents are 1000s of miles away). Everyone now has iPads and it is great to see them but the quality is terrible and really unacceptable. I have a feeling they will purposely put in low res cameras so that the next iPad can be advertised as having HD cameras and screen being the "HD iPad." Just my 2 cents.
     
  4. dacreativeguy macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    #4
    Don't worry. If you don't buy, your ipads will be snatched up in a nano second by someone else.
     
  5. langis.elbasunu macrumors regular

    langis.elbasunu

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    the cameras are good for facetime and skype IMO. not really great photos but the vid quality is fine. seems like they should have thrown a 3mp cam in there for good measure but i know the thickness of the device probably prevented that. ask me if i think the device should have been a millimeter thicker to accomodate a better camera and I would probably say yes.
     
  6. logandzwon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #6
    They are geared for video. They shoot video well. The still picture ability is an afterthought.
     
  7. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #7
    I think I'm in the same Camp with you.

    I'm attracting by the better processor performance and more RAM, but put off a little by the camera quality.

    If we had an increased screen resolution with the iPad 2, it would be more tempting, too.

    I'm having a hard time holding off upgrading my 3G + 64GB iPad first generation...and they did a good job with upgrading the iPad 2...but I think I'll manage to hang onto my iPad first generation for a while longer.

    By some miracle, I've also been able to resist upgrading to the new MacBook Pro line, too. :)
     
  8. gloss macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
    #8
    Let's be honest, the only reason the cameras were included in the first place was for Facetime/Skype use. The usage model for any higher-quality camera on a 10-inch tablet is just not worth the expense of including them.

    I think If Apple had just labeled them 'Facetime Cameras' people wouldn't be complaining so much.
     
  9. PatriotInvasion macrumors 65816

    PatriotInvasion

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #9
    Dear Apple - "Thinner and lighter" is great and all, but I suspect the majority of people can deal with a little extra thickness if it means you can cram in better components.
     
  10. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #10
    You know, I hate to say this and get stoned by the mob or something, but the fact of the matter is that if optics is that much a motivating factor for you, the hardware of the Nokia N8 is impossible to beat.

    The Nokia N8 is decidedly second class to the iPhone 4 in so many ways, but if you really want the best camera you can possibly get in this kind of device, the fact is that it is the best out there right now. 12 mp, with the Zeiss optics to complement it.
     
  11. PatriotInvasion macrumors 65816

    PatriotInvasion

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #11
    I don't think anyone wants a 12MP camera on the iPad. I think they just want the quality to not feel cheap and dated on a new, $500+ device.
     
  12. sanford thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #12
    Tough call. I have an original iPad and of course had that awful upgrade fever when the iPad 2 was announced. Actually using an iPad 2 cured me. I'm waiting for next year, no doubt, without regret. (I prefer these things be announced and launched at a time, like around the kids' birthdays or Christmas or summer vacation, when I can't afford them, anyway. That way I can want all I wish, but I can't practically consider buying. I suppose Apple psychics determine launch dates by when they know I could actually afford the new product and still pay the mortgage on time.)

    On the other hand, if you don't have an iPad, really want one, don't want to wait a year, if you ignore the cameras, the iPad 2 is essentially a faster, thinner original iPad (two tenths of a pound lighter is not really lighter unless you're shipping half a million of them). The screen glass is definitely thinner than the original iPad, and the internals are glued together instead of screwed together. Obviously I'm going to have to put up with that eventually, probably in the iPad 3 to get the iPad version of the retina display, but for me -- for argumentative types: like I said, FOR ME -- the performance improvements alone are not worth the money. Here's hoping for decent cameras in the iPad 3. I don't expect Nikon D-SLR quality, no, but something I can bear to look at, please.
     
  13. langis.elbasunu macrumors regular

    langis.elbasunu

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #13
    i find it hard to believe that the deciding factor in ones purchasing of an ipad is the quality of the photos it takes.


    FWIW i have not taken any photos yet
     
  14. sanford thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #14
    Oh I totally agree. Problem is, if the stills are THIS bad, then just don't enable a stills function. Other problem is, they really don't shoot video well. The video is weak, it's just not atrocious like the stills.

    Whoever said "a little thicker, better components and build quality," yeah, THAT.

    Don't. You already own an iPad 2 and are probably happy with it in general. Why depress yourself?
     
  15. IceMacMac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    #15
    Exactly.

    Send yours back. Good luck with your Xoom. Camera complaints are like farts in the wind. Who cares.

    Who buys an iPad for it's camera quality, LOL! The elephant in the room? No, it's the elephant in Africa that is utterly irrelevant to my life.
     
  16. vincenz macrumors 601

    vincenz

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #16
    The cameras are a disappointment indeed. It doesn't help that the screen size shows off its awfulness in full glory.
     
  17. jbg232 macrumors 65816

    jbg232

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    #17
    True, maybe I should have made my post more clear. We didn't get the iPads ONLY for the facetime, we got the iPad 2 instead of iPad 1 only for the facetime. We all wanted iPads to begin with (for the many reasons people want iPads) but held out.
     
  18. sanford thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #18
    Who cares? Anyone who wants decent quality in their expensive consumer electronics devices, that's who.

    And who said anything about Xoom? I mean, besides you. Even if I thought Xoom were spectacular, I'd still prefer an iPad. My point was the component quality level of the iPad 2 combined with the new features isn't worth the upgrade cost from the original iPad FOR ME. FOR ME, I'll wait. Please note I also indicated for first-time buyers who don't want to wait, unless the garbage camera quality is going to eat you up, then definitely get an iPad 2.
     
  19. DS3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    #19
    I didn't care at all that it took poor stills inititally, however after playing with some photo apps quick/easy on the go photo manip on a nice screen makes me wish it took better ones. I'll probably end up buying the camera connection kit.
     
  20. langis.elbasunu macrumors regular

    langis.elbasunu

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #20

    yeah i have seen some stills and they are the suck.




    its pretty funny that people are so butthurt about others saying the cameras are bad for stills and saying enjoy your xoom and stuff. the camera in the ipad 2 is really terrible for still photos. this isnt really debatable.

    That being said, i dont really care and I think the ipad 2 is the coolest and best piece of tech I have ever bought. Something like a bad still cam does nothing to overshadow the awesomeness that ipad 2 oozes. The thing really is in a league of its own even if my motorazr took better photos. :eek:
     
  21. sanford thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #21
    That being my point: terrible cameras, but if I'd held out on the original iPad and wait for the iPad 2, I'd be all over it. I think the cameras only matter in the sense that, if you're going to put them in there, and you're going to enable stills, then at least make them something more than truly hideous. If they don't change the cameras in iPad 3, but add the iPad version of the Retina display, I'll probably get the iPad 3 and ignore the cameras. But I'm still hoping for better cameras. Not almost stellar cameras, like the Nokia phone, just acceptable.

    I sync photos off my Mac so I'm already there. But the connection kit will do the same thing without the sync. The thing I think would be nice is being able to frame portraits or landscapes with that large screen, for which a better camera will be required.
     
  22. langis.elbasunu macrumors regular

    langis.elbasunu

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22

    i remember jobs saying somewhere that the part needed to record video was basically paper thin and that for a camera its much bigger because of the shutter which is why you see the variance in ipod touch and iphone 4.
     
  23. sanford thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, USA
    #23
    That's actually true. I think the stills are just quick video captures. There's no still camera per se in the iPad 2 (I think). Ignoring the fact the video optics could have been better, still camera capture components get smaller and thinner over time, so hopefully they can wedge something better into an iPad 3. But of course like I said, there are features upgrades they can put in the iPad 3 that will make me willing to ignore the weak cameras.
     
  24. logandzwon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #24
    They basically did. Look at the features page. They go on about facetime and video, then add "And you can take wacky snapshots in Photo Booth."
    http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
     
  25. logandzwon macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #25
    I'm sorry you unsatisfied with the video performance, I don't have one myself, so I don't have any first hand experience, but all of the reviews I've read said it was good at video.
     

Share This Page