what if your ipad is in your hands and you wanna grab a photo really quick? non issue?
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
what if your ipad is in your hands and you wanna grab a photo really quick? non issue?
People who are saying why would they use a tablet to take pics must not have any young kids or have spur of the moment pics or use their iPads that often.
I have a smartphone with a nice camera but if I'm already using my tablet (XOOM) and I see something, it takes me 2 seconds to launch and take a pic with the camera app rather than the 15-30 seconds to find my phone, turn it on, unlock it, launch the camera app and then frame the pic.
Just because the iPad2 cameras suck you may not be taking stills but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be using a tablet to take stills.
Absolutely! Glad you are figuring it out. And version after that will have retina display. Apple WANTS you to buy a new one each year and spend 600 bucks on something that costs them 200 to make.
Dear PatriotInvasion - I suspect the majority of people's purchasing decisions would not be changed if they put in a different camera, so Apple isn't going to throw tens of millions of dollars down the toilet.
Ahahahaha 'what's the difference' about A Thousand Million Dollars (do you have any idea how much this is?). You call it a 'slight hit in their margins', just so you can have a different camera. No 'financial tailspin' incurred, yet if they applied your fiscal wisdom across the board they'd have 2 cents left.
Fence sitters on this issue are literally irrelevant, so statistically insignificant it's not worth the time to calculate whether it's worth appeasing them.
and there is something wrong with that? bully to them for building a business and having products that compel their user base to for over $600-$1000 dollars every single year. I and millions of others are fine with that
You just said you didn't buy an original iPad because of camera considerations and then said that taking the cameras into consideration when buying an iPad 2 is pointless.
Whoever mentioned the video quality on the iPad 2, I'm accustomed to the video on the iPhone 4, which is superior, so I'm spoiled. There's also a flash on the iPhone 4 so lighting isn't such an issue for video.
And whoever mentioned the iPhone 4 was essentially "feature perfect" if you didn't have antenna/signal issues in your area, yes, the iPhone 4 pushed me off my 2-year upgrade cycle for iPhones, so that I upgraded to a 4 from a 3GS when I intended to wait for the 5, because the 4 was spot-on in features and quality of those features. And the point being of course the iPad 2 is not. There are tradeoffs between buying/updating and waiting -- there always are, but there are clearly noticeable ones here -- and what we're clearly discussing is, Would Apple have sold a statistically significant number more iPad 2s to new buyers and upgrades if they'd made the 2 a tiny bit thicker but with far less questionable camera quality? Obviously Apple determined the answer to that questions is: no. I tend to agree. iPad has such traction in a market it essentially created, iPad 2 will sell as well as is just as much to constant updaters and new buyers as if they'd put more component cost into the cameras.
If that pans out, Apple clearly made the right decision: keep build cost down, make more money selling at same retail price as predecessor model. The cameras suck. If the cameras sucking doesn't inhibit iPad 2 sales, then in the magical and wondrous land of capitalism, it doesn't matter one bit.
That's what he meant by next iPad, iPad 3, being the "HD iPad," that it would have superior cameras (the iPad 2 video camera is already HD) and an HD display, which would be the Retina display in next year's model, not the year after that.
It IS good for Apple to compel people to "subscribe" to mobile devices rather than own them. It's up to the individual's self-discipline not to buy into that and wait long enough to wring full value out of what they bought and so that enough new features are included one will be able to wring full value out of that. (Yes, I'm saying in most cases if you upgrade your iPhone and iPad every year, every new model, you lack self-discipline, at least in this particular area.)
Have you tried taking a really quick photo with an iPad2? They're grainy to begin with so snapping that really quick shot will make it even worse. But, using your situation, it still wouldn't be an issue for me since my phone is always at my side. The joys of jailbreaking allow me to launch my camera app with a simple gesture so, chances are, I'd still be able to snap off a shot.
I should add: Lack of self-discipline in some areas is a human trait in consumer societies. I used to buy a new freaking Mac laptop every year, and for a little while after they introduced, a new iPod. I trained myself out of it. It was just too much money spent for little real benefit. But, like everyone else, I still lack self-discipline in other areas.
Anyway, I'm out because this has become too philosophical to go on much longer since it started about camera quality. The cameras are bad. For me, right now, in the position to upgrade or not, that matters to me. It doesn't have to matter to anyone else, but for people who haven't yet had a hands-on opportunity with an iPad 2 and for whom the camera quality does matter, I thought I'd mention they probably won't be very happy with cameras.
Anyway, I'm out because this has become too philosophical to go on much longer since it started about camera quality. The cameras are bad. For me, right now, in the position to upgrade or not, that matters to me. It doesn't have to matter to anyone else, but for people who haven't yet had a hands-on opportunity with an iPad 2 and for whom the camera quality does matter, I thought I'd mention they probably won't be very happy with cameras.
Thanks. I'm aware that it is 1,000 million. But you failed to quote the rest of my post, which asks why Apple would bother putting a Retina Display on the iPhone 4 if the previous iPhone models sold just fine? And why they would pay for a 2560x1440 display in the 27" iMac when they could have just gone with the same 1080p resolution of the 21" version.
The answer is because consumers perceive those products to be better and higher quality because of that extra mile Apple went. My point is that they should not have left so many "ehhh" and questionable elements in this iPad 2 to the point we are debating it on a 40+ comment thread. Just sayin'
I think FaceTime was the reasoning behind putting two cameras in the iPad 2 in the first place. If you want to take pictures, use a proper camera.
Cameras were geared more for photobooth/facetime, not for real picture taking. To each his own but I don't ever foresee myself relying on the iPad2 camera's for any picture taking.
i agree with this....the issue for most people is that it takes really awful stills and that seems like good stills are something that is pretty easy to do in a post motorazr world.
What is the bottle neck preventing HD Facetime on the iPad like the new MBPro's? I'm guessing it's the processor and not the wifi connection right?
Me neither. I think anyone complaining about the inability to take high quality images with a tablet computer is either expecting too much, or just looking for something to complain about.
Most people won't be expecting top quality cameras in their iPad 2s.
Just because I didn't quote that part of your post doesn't mean I didn't address it. You know that's a pretty lazy argument, right?
Anyway, as for the iPhone's Retina Display, the point isn't whether the previous version sold without it, it's whether its inclusion would make a difference to the sales of the 4th generation given the market at that time. It's hard to argue a counterfactual, but if the benefits (i.e. sales) that result from Retina Display exceed the cost, and the cost is best applied to the display (rather than elsewhere in the product line), then it makes sense for Apple to do so. The same applies to the iMac. Putting the same resolution in a 21" and a 27" display when they have a very narrow model range is foolish, and not something they wasted money on - it meets demand.
Furthermore, component cost is variable on several levels, including the type of component, when Apple is looking to buy it, and the level of demand. The fact that you see higher rez on an iMac as an upspec says nothing about Apple's ability or need to put in different cameras in the iPad.
The answer to all this isn't "because consumers perceive those products to be better and higher quality because of that extra mile Apple went"; the answer is "consumers feel those products represent worthwhile value for their money". It has nothing to do with the bonus of 'going an extra mile' (the 'throw-em-a-bone' theory of consumption, perhaps?).
A different camera would make no difference to consumers' perceptions, at least not to a degree which is profitable. There are not 'so many' 'ehh' and 'questionable elements' of the iPad 2; there's a camera you don't like. It's taken 40+ comments because people are patient with you when you are mistaken.
I doubt its the either. The processor has amazing performance. Again i believe its the component cost at this point. Much easier to price a camera module like that into a $1599 laptop than a $499 iPad
My opinion is that you won't see a drastic increase in still camera MP counts until they upgrade the storage or have a decent solution for wireless syncing.
Think about it from this perspective. The file size of a 960x720 is probably 4x smaller than a 2MP photo. Without an increase of storage capacity, you'd run out of space quickly. I guess Apple determined that storing videos is of more importance to storing HQ photos.
And before someone mentions that the iPhone has a 5MP camera ... the iPhone4 also has an constant connection to the internet, so if you need more space, you could easily e-mail a bunch of photos off the phone to free up storage space.
Think about it from this perspective. The file size of a 960x720 is probably 4x smaller than a 2MP photo. Without an increase of storage capacity, you'd run out of space quickly. I guess Apple determined that storing videos is of more importance to storing HQ photos.
And before someone mentions that the iPhone has a 5MP camera ... the iPhone4 also has an constant connection to the internet, so if you need more space, you could easily e-mail a bunch of photos off the phone to free up storage space.
the macbook pro cam is a 1.3 megapixel camera as the ipad front facer is probably .3 MP
All fair points if you're an Apple Product Manager. End of the day, I don't have an iPad 2 because of the demand and not the cameras, so you're argument makes sense. However, the demand has just given me more time to fight the urge to buy one. Macrumors forums is just a breading ground for nit-picking and complaints. Not a good place to be surfing if you just bought an Apple product and are completely happy with it. These forums will make you find issues you'd never notice.
Personally, I don't see a problem with that. Anything more than a functional camera is a bonus. Aside from FaceTime or Skype, most people will not be using the cameras for anything other than a novelty or a last resort to get a quick picture.
Would it be great to have a 100MP camera on the ipad for the occasional opportunity to take a picture with a 10" lunch tray? Sure. But Apple knows that most people aren't going to be doing this. The ipad is not a camera replacement. The "other guys" basically throw everything they can find into their products in the hopes that it will impress buyers. It is a constant escalation of technology to scream "we are better". There is a similar battle between Japanese and American car makers. You can buy a GM or Ford that has nearly every tech gadget imaginable, but this bling is often added to overshadow deficiencies in quality and reliability.
It goes back to the age-old "speeds and feeds" argument between Apple and the PC world. If you strictly compare technical specs of Apple products vs. PC/Android products, Apple doesn't always look so good. But as we all know, the sum of how those parts are put together and presented to the customer can mean a lot more than the tech specs. That is where Apple gets it, and many of their competitors don't.
It goes back to the age-old "speeds and feeds" argument between Apple and the PC world. If you strictly compare technical specs of Apple products vs. PC/Android products, Apple doesn't always look so good. But as we all know, the sum of how those parts are put together and presented to the customer can mean a lot more than the tech specs. That is where Apple gets it, and many of their competitors don't.
at this point youre just making excuses. the iphone 1 had a better camera than the ipad 2 nearly 5 years later. its a step back and I completely understand the sentiments that it doesnt matter because "who is gonna take pics with it anyway" but it just seems very unApple to me to step so far back like that. That being said, it doesnt really deplete my appreciation for the device in any measurable way.
It's fine for Skype and Facetime and that's the only reason I want a camera on a tablet.
I've got my phone and a digital camera for taking still photos, and never cared about taking videos.
I mean sure, it be great to have better cameras. But I don't care much as it's at least as good as the camera on my laptop that I was using for skype before.
I've got my phone and a digital camera for taking still photos, and never cared about taking videos.
I mean sure, it be great to have better cameras. But I don't care much as it's at least as good as the camera on my laptop that I was using for skype before.