Maybe it's just me but I don't see the camera quality as a big issue. Sure I'd like to have a decent camera for something I paid $800 for but the camera is what it is and for what it's inteded for, it works. The iPhone has a better camera because it's easy to whip out your phone and snap photos and take videos of random things when you need to. Who the hell is going to say "Wait! Let me pull out my iPad and take a picture of you." That's just insane. Yes it would be nice to have a better camera BUT don't let the quality of it push you away from buying an iPad.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Camera = Elephant In The Room
- Thread starter sanford
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah. The thing is the snapshots are wacky WITHOUT Photo Booth. FaceTime video and other video is okay under OPTIMAL lighting conditions. It's kind of weak otherwise. FaceTime chats can be pretty grainy, too.
I have never been in a situation where I thought, "Man, you know what would make taking this photo better, a 10" camera." I bought the new one for the upgraded RAM, CPU and GPU and its ability to FaceTime.
langis.elbasunu
macrumors regular
i agree but if im in my living room on my ipad and my kid or dog is doing something cute or whatever it would be nice to grab a shot with that in one motion, but no biggie.
Then why put anything but a FaceTime camera in there? The stills, and some of the video quality, do detract from the overall presentation of the iPad 2. Enough to send people scrambling for competitors, no way. Enough to keep original owners from upgrading right now, and new buyers to notice a perceptible quality issue, yes, certainly.
The cameras are BAD. That's all I wrote. I didn't write, the cameras are BAD so buy a Xoom instead for better cameras. iPad has lots over Xoom and similar. I don't think cameras are a key feature of tablets. I don't even know anyone with an iPhone 4 who uses FaceTime or would care if it's there in an iPad 2. But if the cameras ARE IN THERE I merely ask that THEY NOT BE SO BAD.
Yeah, THAT. Since it's there, anyway, make the quality acceptable. If people can't see it's even goofier than worrying about camera quality in a tablet to be like, oh, hold that pose while I put down my iPad WITH CAMERAS IN IT and go get my OTHER CAMERA so I can snap a picture of you I can actually bear to look at, I can't help them.
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 68000
^^^Exactly. Don't want to run and get my iPhone 4 to take a decent picture when using an iPad...which is essentially the same device, only bigger which is a different story all together...😛
I agree. I have a camera and cell phone with a high MP so why would I want to bring out the IPAD2 to take pictures? As long as the video is OK then I am OK with it though a better camera would have been better🙂
barnaby117
macrumors member
AirDrop is the key!
If AirDrop (new feature in Lion) makes its way into iOS 5, that could make all the difference for the utility of both iPad 2 and 1. Obviously, the camera on iPhone 4 (and whatever we get with iPhone 5) is vastly superior to iPad 2, so imagine if you could send photos/videos between the two devices with a local WIFI network.
To me, that's a way better setup than even the best camera being housed within the iPad itself. There's also the physical problem of the depth of the camera sensor and the thinness of the iPad. I'm not a photography expert, but could they ever put in a deep enough sensor and still keep the same iPad depth?
Having a camera on the iPad is convenient, but it will never be better than pointing a shooting with a smaller device like an iPhone.
If AirDrop (new feature in Lion) makes its way into iOS 5, that could make all the difference for the utility of both iPad 2 and 1. Obviously, the camera on iPhone 4 (and whatever we get with iPhone 5) is vastly superior to iPad 2, so imagine if you could send photos/videos between the two devices with a local WIFI network.
To me, that's a way better setup than even the best camera being housed within the iPad itself. There's also the physical problem of the depth of the camera sensor and the thinness of the iPad. I'm not a photography expert, but could they ever put in a deep enough sensor and still keep the same iPad depth?
Having a camera on the iPad is convenient, but it will never be better than pointing a shooting with a smaller device like an iPhone.
Some better components yes, but I an not sure I would want to sacrifice it for a better still camera, its just not essential to the device and so many other devices will do it much better. Just my 2 cents
I hate this criticism because it's so abstracted from real world use. The vast majority of people will ONLY use those cameras for FaceTime because the iPad is just too unwieldy.
My 13" MacBook Pro takes crappy still pictures too, but you don't hear me saying, "you know, I really wish it took better pictures just in case I happen to want to take a picture while it's in my lap. I mean, wouldn't it be great to not have to pick up my camera or phone if I'm already using my MBP?"
At some point (and I think it's true of the iPad) this just becomes silly.
My 13" MacBook Pro takes crappy still pictures too, but you don't hear me saying, "you know, I really wish it took better pictures just in case I happen to want to take a picture while it's in my lap. I mean, wouldn't it be great to not have to pick up my camera or phone if I'm already using my MBP?"
At some point (and I think it's true of the iPad) this just becomes silly.
Mikee.Nu
macrumors member
While I agree the still photos are CRAP on the iPad 2, taking stills is probably at the bottom of the list of priorities of what a tablet is for. "But the xoom has a good camera" - well, the xoom doesn't excel at a lot of things the iPad 2 does.
So if taking pics with a tablet is more important than having a really great os and snappy performance, then get a xoom or other competing tablet.
Honestly, who doesn't have a phone with a decent camera now a days?
Are you telling me when you are out and about and see something you wanna take a snap of, instead of grabbing your phone from your pocket, you'd rather take out an iPad and shoot it?
The iPad video cameras are meant for connecting with someone in real time. Leave the snap shots to your phones and dedicated digital cameras.
So if taking pics with a tablet is more important than having a really great os and snappy performance, then get a xoom or other competing tablet.
Honestly, who doesn't have a phone with a decent camera now a days?
Are you telling me when you are out and about and see something you wanna take a snap of, instead of grabbing your phone from your pocket, you'd rather take out an iPad and shoot it?
The iPad video cameras are meant for connecting with someone in real time. Leave the snap shots to your phones and dedicated digital cameras.
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 68000
True, but that's a stretch considering MacBooks don't have rear facing cameras designed to shoot photos and videos. Also, the new MacBooks now have HD FaceTime cameras...so if you wanted to, your new MacBook Pro can take a better picture than your portable iPad.
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 68000
Seriously, I think people would be ecstatic if Apple just matched the camera quality with the iPhone 4. All it would have taken is an extra millimeter in thickness! But no, they had to have their slide in the keynote that showed the iPad 2 was a p*ssy hair thinner than your iPhone 4.
Also, if it was a matter of cost, I'm sure people would have been willing to pay $529 for their 16GB iPad 2 over $499. Based on these forums...the asians certainly would!
Speaking off costs, god forbid Apple cuts into their $40 BILLION in cash on hand profit to include cameras with 2011 tech.
Also, if it was a matter of cost, I'm sure people would have been willing to pay $529 for their 16GB iPad 2 over $499. Based on these forums...the asians certainly would!
Speaking off costs, god forbid Apple cuts into their $40 BILLION in cash on hand profit to include cameras with 2011 tech.
You really can't compare a laptop and a tablet. Form factors are totally different. But even if you could, I'm not saying the iPad 2 camera shouldn't be inferior to numerous other options, only that it not be ATROCIOUS on its own, not even really in comparison to anything else.
The video, even for just FaceTime, is not very good either. Optimal lighting, it's okay.
But I guess I should repeat myself yet again, would the cameras stop me from buying an iPad? No. They did however seal my decision to skip upgrading this cycle. Which is probably only wise, anyway, since the performance improvements won't affect my iPad use for at least another year -- i.e., it was only a WANT nowhere near a NEED, or even a WOULD BENEFIT FROM. The other thing I liked was the SmartCover, which also turned out to be not so smart. It looks cool, and I like the idea that it actually functionally integrates with the operation of the iPad, but practically speaking Apple's case for the original iPad is a better case/cover option while still not adding much overall weight or thickness to the device.
People (not you, but other people) seem to take any criticism of their purchase like I'm calling them fools for buying it. I'm not. People can tell me my original iPad is thicker and slower than iPad 2, and has no camera or SmartCover options at all, even if there are issues with those features. That's entirely true. But I'm okay with that. I don't feel like people are calling me a fool for not upgrading.
mobilehavoc
macrumors 6502
Somebody said the XOOM so wanted to add bash it all you want, the XOOM actually has a decent 5 megapixel shooter in the back with LED flash and a 2 megapixel front facing camera. Both take very very very nice stills and great video.
I have an iPad2 on order but let's just be honest and accept that Apple could have easily put in nicer cameras but chose not too - mainly so they can upsell everyone in a year on decent cameras.
Reality hurts.
I have an iPad2 on order but let's just be honest and accept that Apple could have easily put in nicer cameras but chose not too - mainly so they can upsell everyone in a year on decent cameras.
Reality hurts.
Played but not Bought
I've played with an iPad 2, but haven't bought one. I've got an iPad 1 and am not really looking to upgrade, but was walking by the Austin pop-up store late Saturday and the line was down to 3 or 4 people so I stopped in.
The cameras are:
1. Not very good (if you want to take pictures indoors and show them full size on the iPad;
2. Acceptable (if you want to facetime);
3. probably somewhere between not-very-good and acceptable (if you're taking pictures outdoors or viewing them at less than full screen size).
I've played with an iPad 2, but haven't bought one. I've got an iPad 1 and am not really looking to upgrade, but was walking by the Austin pop-up store late Saturday and the line was down to 3 or 4 people so I stopped in.
The cameras are:
1. Not very good (if you want to take pictures indoors and show them full size on the iPad;
2. Acceptable (if you want to facetime);
3. probably somewhere between not-very-good and acceptable (if you're taking pictures outdoors or viewing them at less than full screen size).
langis.elbasunu
macrumors regular
i think 3 verys is a bit much, and I did a quick review of the xoom and the cameras and LED flash are really all theyve got going for it.
robanga
macrumors 68000
The iPhone 4 camera is expensive and they do not have carrier commissions on the iPad in the same way way they do from the phones i am guessing, and since the limited commissions have to spread out over lots of iPads including those that have no 3G radios, i bet it was a simple profit margin thing.
The camera in the Touch is probably $10-20 less as a component cost. At $499 to $899 retail that is a lot of cost.
Besides, they have to leave some runway for improvements in iPad 3. 😛
The cameras were no factor in my decision to move from an iPad 1 to iPad 2
The camera in the Touch is probably $10-20 less as a component cost. At $499 to $899 retail that is a lot of cost.
Besides, they have to leave some runway for improvements in iPad 3. 😛
The cameras were no factor in my decision to move from an iPad 1 to iPad 2
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 68000
As I said above...god forbid Apple cuts into their $40 BILLION in cash on hand profit to include cameras with 2011 tech. The iPhone 4 camera is expensive? Ok, then Apple takes the hit and has $39 Billion in cash on hand instead of $40...what's the difference? Plus...threads like this wouldn't exist and turn fence sitters away from buying the new device.
When the iPhone 4 came out, I had absolutely ZERO issues with the design or the specs. The Retina Display was a huge bonus that no one expected. Had no signal issues here in Boston either....iPhone 4 was perfect.
mobilehavoc
macrumors 6502
😀
Maybe 3 verys is too much. Still, that's just ONE of the things the Moto Xoom has going for it hardware wise. It also has no backlight bleeding at full brightness. Boom.
robanga
macrumors 68000
I understand your thought, but every product and product line has to stand on its own financial merit, if they used past success money to subsidize the present you'd have to some explaining to do come earnings time. ...uh Mr. CFO... i noticed margins have dropped by .4%...what do you attribute this to? is it a trend?
and if it does not hurt sales, well why make it too perfect.
To be honest I skipped the first iPad because I wanted one with cameras and now that I have an iPad 2 I don't use them for anything other than FaceTime. I opened photo booth once to play with it and took one picture and I also took one video. In those 6 days I've probably taken moqpre than 20 on my iPhone primarily because it is so much more convenient, I don't even think to take out my iPad when I need to take a picture so to say don't buy it because of the camera is so pointless. S
PatriotInvasion
macrumors 68000
I know, I know. But from a consumer perspective, just stinks a little. The folks over at Apple obviously know a lot more than I do about selling products. Just figured I'd point out that the added manufacturing costs and slight hit on margin wouldn't send the company into a financial tailspin.
On the same note. Why give the iPhone 4 a Retina Display? I'm sure it costs more than the one in the 3GS right? The 3GS sold well so why make the iPhone 4 "too perfect?" Same thing with my 27" iMac. Their own video said they could have simply stretched the 1920x1080 res from the 21" to fit the 27", but they went above and beyond with 2560x1440.
When buying Apple products, you want to feel like you are purchasing a premium device.
h1r0ll3r
macrumors 68040
Cameras do suck from what I've seen but, honestly, do you see yourself walking around itching to take a picture with you iPad? While I do find the performance of the cameras lacking, when in need of taking a pic, the iPad will be the last thing I'll be reaching for to do that. I have an iPhone 4 and a point and shoot camera on me always so the crappy iPad camera(s) is a non-issue to me.
I do find it quite lame that for all of Apple's hype over this thing, they'd put inferior components in it. Not asking for an 8 MP camera or anything but something that'll actually look nice instead of the grainy crap pictures the iPad2 takes.
I do find it quite lame that for all of Apple's hype over this thing, they'd put inferior components in it. Not asking for an 8 MP camera or anything but something that'll actually look nice instead of the grainy crap pictures the iPad2 takes.
See but I don't really think the iPad has "cameras designed to shoot photos and videos" either; I think the iPad has cameras designed for FaceTime that just happen to shoot photos and video... just like my MBP.
I can do all the same stuff with my MBP's camera that I can with my iPhone 4's camera, but the MBP is not designed with the same primary use as the iPhone.