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.
iPod touch Engadget reviews the new Touch!
- Thread starter rbf1138
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree that MP isn't everything, however, seeing that Apple didn't play that card with this, but instead just said it takes a certain resolution, they're in essence saying that the camera isn't any good either.
I'm just saying the event where it was unveiled, no where did they say it took high quality stills, low quality ones, or ANY pictures for that matter. They said HD video recording, nothing more or less of it. Go buy a flipHD for $200...and not be able to take stills. But you can record a video and snapshot the video. But with that you can't listen to music.
But people will never be happy. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Screen: NOT the iPhone Screen like SJ said. 
nuff said.
Back Still Cam: Just a tad better than I expected. All of their pics were taken outside in good lighting. I just wish that they would have taken a few indoor pics plus a face pic or two wouldn't hurt.
Back Video Cam: Much better than expected. Download the RAW video and see for yourself. He should have held the camera stationary and recorded objects moving by, but I still like the result.
512MB of RAM: The wait continues....
Speed of the CPU: The wait continues...
Kudos to engadget for showing the angles on the screen.
As for me, I'll probably get one soon unless I get robbed.
nuff said.
Back Still Cam: Just a tad better than I expected. All of their pics were taken outside in good lighting. I just wish that they would have taken a few indoor pics plus a face pic or two wouldn't hurt.
Back Video Cam: Much better than expected.
Download the RAW video and see for yourself. He should have held the camera stationary and recorded objects moving by, but I still like the result.512MB of RAM: The wait continues....
Speed of the CPU: The wait continues...
Kudos to engadget for showing the angles on the screen.
As for me, I'll probably get one soon unless I get robbed.
I personally think the resolution is fine. You're buying a music player, not a digital camera so I don't expect something the quality of a point and shoot. Of course, the expectation is something better than the first gen iPhone and for that reason, I'd consider slamming Apple and their low res choice, but on the other hand, most of these photos will probably only make their way to facebook or email (or some other digital form) and for those purposes, I think the resolution will be just fine.
Having just watched it fullscreen on a 1920x1200 monitor, I disagree. Download the raw video.
Having actually listened to it again, the audio recording is surprisingly good too. Actually picks up some subtle street noises that you can distinctly make out in the background, but doesn't click or clack or have apparent wind static problems.
Like I said is the camera HD. Is the front camera HD, Can you take photos with the front camera, How many pixs is the front camera, how many pixs is the back camera.
DOES IT HAVE MAP/GPS
DOES IT HAVE MAP/GPS
Completely agree with you on this. I've got Verizon, with the Samsung Juke. It has a VGA camera, something like .3MP. Its pretty bad, so i've been waiting for a Touch with a camera, cause its pretty much by multi-media device. Still debating whether or not to get one, but after seeing this review and the pics, I think its gonna be just fine for facebook, etc. Just looking forward to test it in person, and to see what the pictures are like in sub-perfect lighting.
Yup...
Underwhelming still images - and if the review is to be believed its not due to cost, its due to a desire to make the iPod thinner. What a stupid set of priorities from a company that "doesn't ship junk."
Underwhelming still images - and if the review is to be believed its not due to cost, its due to a desire to make the iPod thinner. What a stupid set of priorities from a company that "doesn't ship junk."
Crap, now I have go dig my DSLR out of the garbage.
Perhaps you should just pretend that it can't take stills at all, if it'll make you feel better.
Is anyone actually surprised?
The camera sucks for stills and is good for video. The retina display isn't IPS. Only people who believed otherwise were the entitlement junkies.
I'm a little surprised by the not-so-great FaceTime performance though, especially after the nearly flawless implementation in the iPhone 4.
The camera sucks for stills and is good for video. The retina display isn't IPS. Only people who believed otherwise were the entitlement junkies.
I'm a little surprised by the not-so-great FaceTime performance though, especially after the nearly flawless implementation in the iPhone 4.
Crap, now I have go dig my DSLR out of the garbage.
Perhaps you should just pretend that it can't take stills at all, if it'll make you feel better.
Oh goodie another "if you don't like what Apple gives you - carry around a DSLR" macho ******** response. I have more high quality digital cameras than you can shake a stick at and I do carry a DSLR around much of the time, but that doesn't mean Apple gets a pass for including a crap camera for the sake of making the iPod Touch 2 mm thinner. Steve's anorexic obsession is giving the consumer a poorer quality product. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy an iPod Touch, in fact I think you should buy dozens of them, it really helps my stock portfolio. But if you think this is the best Apple can do, think again.
Like I said is the camera HD. Is the front camera HD, Can you take photos with the front camera, How many pixs is the front camera, how many pixs is the back camera.
DOES IT HAVE MAP/GPS
it only takes hd video (that video is probably the lowest hd i ever seen though)
front cam vga
you can take pic with front cam
no one know the pixs of front cam....but it's verry low
back cam is only 0.7 mp's
it doesnt have gps
Well of course they can offer more. It's called the iPhone 4. Just $599/$699 out the door without a contract. Apple is not going to cannibalize its highest end mobile product. People who think they're ever going to literally get an iPhone minus the cell radio are completely nuts. It would almost certainly be bad for business, and as an investor I think you would appreciate that. The two products aren't even in the same market, despite the many, many similarities they share.
Well, if you believe the Engaget review (the point of this thread) the whole reason for the sub standard rear cameras is to fit the much thinner case, not for budget reasons. But it's ok with me if you think Apple deserves a pass for putting a low quality camera in an iPT just to make it 2mm thinner. Me, I think I'll pass.
Be well.
I'm actually happy with the way the pictures look. I was expecting something horrendous, but it actually takes descent looking pictures!!!!
If by "deserve a pass" you mean "it's still a great product," that would be the reasonable conclusion. The whole rear camera issue is much ado about nothing. It's a marginal feature of the product at best, and even tiny 5MP sensors don't hold a candle to anything approaching a real camera with real optics in it. It would still be a great product without any rear camera at all, just like the three generations before it. This one comes with a bonus 720p video camera. Shame on apple, I guess.
For me, I am actually disappointed. Although I'll be getting the touch for the wife and to use myself when travelling, it's not ideal and quite pricey considering that for less than $250 one can buy a POS mini notebook or whatever they're called which does a lot more. These babies havd USB slot, have a lot more storage and can also handle skype and VOIP well, unlike the touch or iphone 4 which has reportedly been said to offer choppy performance when doing video conferencing or VOIP.
Sadly, I expected more from this price standpoint. Thicker is actually preferred over thinness in my books. In any event, I anxiously wait to buy the darn thing from Costco. If it proves to be a dud or we're unhappy with it, we're returning it (within three months)....gotta luv Costco.
Sadly, I expected more from this price standpoint. Thicker is actually preferred over thinness in my books. In any event, I anxiously wait to buy the darn thing from Costco. If it proves to be a dud or we're unhappy with it, we're returning it (within three months)....gotta luv Costco.
I own a netbook and have for getting on to 2 years. It's nice to have, but the market for netbooks is starting to shrink already for a reason. They're not even remotely convenient as a handheld device. They're just little, slow laptops. The atom processors can barely run video chat in Skype, and your battery life goes right into the toilet when you do. If you or your wife are disappointed in the touch as a mobile/handheld computer, you will be devastated with a netbook. Just FYI.
Well... that's true to an extent. For the quality of a picture, by far the two most important factors (besides the photographer) are the lens quality and sensor quality. A 3MP digital SLR with an excellent lens will shoot better pictures than any point and shoot out there. But a 15MP dSLR will shoot even better pictures assuming the sensor wasn't made by morons. There is a limit to the megapixel limit - eventually you end up reaching the physical limits of what an ideal lens can capture. In that case, any increase in resolution will be worthless. Also, it is worth noting that a 3MP sensor will not produce images worth printing since typically you want 300-600dpi for a print.
The iPod touch however is not a digital SLR. It's not even on the caliber of a point and shoot. It has everything going against it. It's got a tiny sensor, with a tiny resolution, and a tiny lens. It *does* shoot better than some of the earlier cell phone cameras, like my razr v3i that was 1.3MP. But it's not going to keep up with the iPhone. If apple had to choose a .7MP sensor for the iPod touch, you know the lens is probably pretty ******. They couldn't fit a lens with decent resolving power in there, so there was no point in going with a high-res sensor. (The decision may've been the otherway around. Either way, the resolution is a good hint to PQ in this case)
Let me further clarify to say that if you would return a touch because it didn't meet your needs for handheld communications, a netbook would not be an appropriate substitute.
If you actually want a little, inexpensive, and a bit slow laptop that you navigate and use like you do your desktop or full-size laptop, they're great.