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.
iPad 2 Facetime Camera is .69mp? What is Apple Thinking?!?!?!
- Thread starter urkel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Every iSight, except the original FireWire one, is 1.3Mp they are just limited by the software. Ubuntu Linux sees and uses the full 1.3Mp.
When will you realize that Xoom costs $600 on contract, and $600 for WiFi-only 32 GB, no contract?
I love Apple as much as the next MacRumors member, but stop drinking the fruity kool-aid..
I don't agree that this was a "half-assed" camera implementation for the sake of saving money or R&D time. I would agree that it was done as a conscious choice.
I really don't think we'll people holding up these tablets to use as still cameras. Sure they can bump up specs, but that's not always a good thing.
I have a Moto Droid with a 5MP camera. The camera is such a POS it isn't even funny. Quality is atrocious, and in low light, forget about it.
I would rather have a VGA sensor that output a quality video stream and a 720P rear cam capable of decent stills and video than a POS 2,3,5MP sensor.
The cameras will likely be minimally usable, but this will be enough for most users who will also be carrying a smartphone or cam-equipped media phone with them anyways.
I really don't think we'll people holding up these tablets to use as still cameras. Sure they can bump up specs, but that's not always a good thing.
I have a Moto Droid with a 5MP camera. The camera is such a POS it isn't even funny. Quality is atrocious, and in low light, forget about it.
I would rather have a VGA sensor that output a quality video stream and a 720P rear cam capable of decent stills and video than a POS 2,3,5MP sensor.
The cameras will likely be minimally usable, but this will be enough for most users who will also be carrying a smartphone or cam-equipped media phone with them anyways.
But what happens when you see the product breakdowns that reveal the cost of a $499 iPad is only $180?
Also, what about the cost of a 16GB to 32GB memory upgrade? Apple charges $100 which is far above the actual cost so why not offer more to the middle/high end iPads with.... an 82cent 3MP Autofocus Camera that allows the same app compatibility of the iPhone 4?
I dont think requesting a passable camera in a $500-800 device is that unreasonable. Especially when consumers are affected by losing functionality in specific apps due to Apple choosing not to put premium parts in a premium priced device.
Then it leaves door for competition to undercut Apple and sell similar products for $300 and attract a ton of customers, an excellent opportunity for them, no?
Apple is very stingy about this stuff and cut corners in specs. Yet others still cannot beat Apple's pricing. A good case in point is Samsung selling the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Players at higher prices than the Apple equivalents.
Just for reference. These are shots from the iPod Touch. I know some people can't discern the difference between 1MP or 12MP or claim photography doesnt belong on the iPad. But for anyone who wants to use the iPad to "create" then lets hope Apple didnt use the Touch camera system in our $700 iPads because this quality is straight out of 1999.
![110307-IMG_1293iPod-1.jpg]()
![110307-IMG_1298iPod.jpg]()
![110307-IMG_1299iPod.jpg]()
I've seen a lot better photos than that from the iPod's camera. Also I have seen pictures that look just as awful as those from the iPhone 4 camera. I am not saying the iPod's camera is great (it's not), but it's far from "1999" quality. Real photographers will tell you that it's not about megapixels, it's about the person behind the camera taking the picture. A camera is just a light box, all the other features it has are just additional "tools" in a toolbox for the photographer to use. They don't automatically make better pictures, but they can help a photographer in other ways. They are nice to have but not required unless you are obsessed with specs, which is sounds like you are.
Also why did you mention $700 iPads? As if they would put a higher end camera in the more expensive models? It's a $500 iPad with additional build options for people who want storage or connectivity, so call it a $500 iPad. Meanwhile the iPhone 4 is subsidized, so it's not $200, the actual price is $600, and thats what Apple makes on each iPhone 4 16gb sale. Is it really that hard to understand why a $600 iPhone might have a better camera than a $500 iPad?
But then I have to tell you, that I don't care if Steve Jobs and his board of directors make 500 million each in a year for themselves instead of 550 million. Greedy pigs.
Steve Jobs actually only makes $1 dollar a year from Apple. All the money he earns from investing and making money off the stock market. I am not talking about Apple stock either, because he hasn't sold any of that.
I think the rest of the board of directors don't make much from Apple either, though they might make some. The point is that they make these decisions not to fill their bank accounts, but to help the company grow to new heights. That is what every company wants, so I guess all companies are greedy huh? Big surprise, this is capitalism.
But go ahead, insult some of the smartest people in the industry, they clearly are just greedy pigs.
Unless I can buy the parts and build one (and program iOS) myself for that price, the component costs are pretty much irrelevant. All that matters is that the price is reasonable in an absolute sense and relative to the competition.
Exactly, I can't believe people think that all that it costs to make a single iPad is $180. There is way more investment and development going on here, but it doesn't matter anyway because it's about the competition as you say.
Do apps like scanning codes or the bank ones absolutely require autofocus, or is it just more difficult to get it to work without it?
I didnt care about the resolution for the video/picture taking, I just wanted the ability to use all possible apps.. always annoying when I couldn't do things on my touch (3g).
Quite disappointing if so. Maybe not so much for the 500 dollar version, but it seems like the profit margin would have been there on the others, we all know 48 gigs of flash memory doesn't cost 200 dollars. Though they probably didn't want to create more compatibility differences.
Anyway its not a dealbreaker, but it seems like a very reasonable thing to expect a higher quality camera. Noones asking for 10 mp or 120 fps slow mo video capture.
I didnt care about the resolution for the video/picture taking, I just wanted the ability to use all possible apps.. always annoying when I couldn't do things on my touch (3g).
Quite disappointing if so. Maybe not so much for the 500 dollar version, but it seems like the profit margin would have been there on the others, we all know 48 gigs of flash memory doesn't cost 200 dollars. Though they probably didn't want to create more compatibility differences.
Anyway its not a dealbreaker, but it seems like a very reasonable thing to expect a higher quality camera. Noones asking for 10 mp or 120 fps slow mo video capture.
Why not? is the price difference for 16GB vs 32GB memory really $100? It isnt a bad idea to add more feature value the higher up the ladder you go in pricing. So if $500 buys you a base model with VGA camera then would it really be bad for the $700 model to offer a 3MP camera?
So its okay reference the highest priced $800 Xoom when comparing to the iPad. But when comparing the iPad to anything else then we're supposed to only use the base $500 as the reference? Interesting.
And as for my reasoning on saying $700 iPad? Its the same reason I didnt say $829 iPad or $599 iPad. The $700 version is the one I'm buying.
You might not care, but I bet the millions of people who own and profit from Apple stock do. Steve Jobs is the CEO of a company. His one and only job is to make money for the company and its shareholders (and make sure it can continue to do so long into the future). If another company is making less money on their gadgets than Apple is, I assure you it's not out of the goodness of their hearts. They are just doing it wrong.
But when 2 of Apple's selling features are the presence of front and back cameras, doesn't the fact that they are not as good a camera as those in the $199 iPhone 4 give you pause? JMHO, but price of the cameras is a red herring. Built in obsolescence is the objective, but shorting the cameras this badly kind of stick out like a sore thumb. Look, I thought the cameras(especially the back camera) was dumb, but if you're going to put them in at least put one in that will do a good job.
Last edited:
The iPhone 4 is not $199, it is $599. You only pay $199 because your provider is paying the other $400.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Got to consider thickness of the device, Apple likely went with a sensor that is as small as possible.
Got to consider thickness of the device, Apple likely went with a sensor that is as small as possible.
Oh come on people, it's called trickling technology. This is NOT new. Every company is doing this, especially consumer electronics, since the beginning of time. Just look at car companies. They have to have something to ensure people buying their products on a yearly basis.
If you think it's not worth the asking price, don't buy it, just wait until you see the spec you want with the price you want. It's simple.
If you think it's not worth the asking price, don't buy it, just wait until you see the spec you want with the price you want. It's simple.
Since when is 960x720 720p?
1280x720 = 720p. And that is still only 921,600 pixels; so less than 1mp.
Either way I'm not really bothered about either camera as I don't use FaceTime on my iPhone or macs.
1280x720 = 720p. And that is still only 921,600 pixels; so less than 1mp.
Either way I'm not really bothered about either camera as I don't use FaceTime on my iPhone or macs.
this makes no sense. I think what he was trying to say to you was that, if you're going to be throwing numbers and making a comparison, use fair and equal prices. The base xoom wifi is $500 or 550, and so is the Ipad 2. The cameras are all the same in all the models no matter what the cost. You mentioning the Xoom costs $800 to make a point isn't exactly fair.
Give or take like $50, the xoom and ipad2 are competitively priced.
There is no denying that the resolution of the cameras are atrocious for 2011.
Luckily I wouldn't rely on them for anything, as most people, that are serious about photography should have a dedicated camera with a much more functional form factor than lugging the 9.7" iPad around.
Luckily I wouldn't rely on them for anything, as most people, that are serious about photography should have a dedicated camera with a much more functional form factor than lugging the 9.7" iPad around.
Watching the keynote again.
They never refer to the rear camera as a stills camera. It's repeatedly referee quite clearly as a 720p 'video camera'.
In which case 720p max capture is ok as it can't capture anything more than that anyway. I also suspect that the camera application may actually restrict the rear camera to only capturing 'video' and hence this desire for 5-8mp stills is mute because it simply does not shoot stills. This also explains why it does not list any still resolution on it's tech spec sheet for rear camera only it's video format.
They never refer to the rear camera as a stills camera. It's repeatedly referee quite clearly as a 720p 'video camera'.
In which case 720p max capture is ok as it can't capture anything more than that anyway. I also suspect that the camera application may actually restrict the rear camera to only capturing 'video' and hence this desire for 5-8mp stills is mute because it simply does not shoot stills. This also explains why it does not list any still resolution on it's tech spec sheet for rear camera only it's video format.
"Back camera: Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still camera with 5x digital zoom"
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
It shoots 1280x720 video, but photos are cropped to 4:3 from 16:9, resulting in a photo res of 960x720.