iPad 2 Facetime Camera is .69mp? What is Apple Thinking?!?!?!

[Amazing Iceman]

Yeah the lack of AF is a major disappointment and the quality of the camera will be terrible. It's OK for Facetime and that's about it. The video quality is passable in good lighting but photos? urg. It's probably something Apple gladly sacrificed to get the thin profile while maintaining the margin since they get double bonus from using the same cameras for the iPod as well.

There's not enough space to add the autofocus feature. It would require the iPad to be thicker, as the lens assembly would have to expand and contract to accomplish this. Also, without optical zoom, there's no real camera functionality, except as a last resort quick snap.
Digital Zoom stinks, unless the sensor has enough resolution to act as a 'zoom'; this is something that is usually useful with video only (which is relatively taken at a lower resolution), as most of us take photos at the highest resolution available.
Any other software based digital zoom would render an image with noise artifacts in it.

 

[runtohell121]

I wouldn't care too much about the camera. Are you really going to be carrying a 10" iPad around to use it as a camera? I rather carry a pocket size Canon point and shoot camera for photos or even bring a giant DSLR for photos. Mobile devices camera are still no match against regular P&S or DSLR. If you're going for quality pictures, please just bring your cameras with you instead of counting on an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch. Since you can afford a $500 iPad 2, I think you would be able to afford a $100-$200 P&S.

 

[Merthyrboy]

With less resolution though you can send the picture faster through the internet so maybe they're keeping it low so more people with low internet speed can facetime with a more fluid video rather than crisp and stuttered. Just a thought like

 

[Chupa Chupa]

As was adroitly said on TWIT last week, one reviewer was not overwhelmed by the new iPad, but was not underwhelmed either, just simply whelmed.

This update is a "just enough" update. Make no mistake Apple will sell tons more than the iPad w/o a camera. I know some do not like to admit it but the Apple brain trust is smarter than the MR brain trust by 100x. They know what they are doing. It might be cynical, but it's $ smart, and ultimately, Apple is not a technology co-op or commune, it's a full-on for-profit, NASDAQ listed corporation.

 

[number9]

Xoom has 2mp front and 5mp rear with dual led flash I believe.

Which I'd say is about on par for what people would reasonably expect in 2011

You can imagine if Apple had 2mp and 5mp and the Xoom was launched with the iPad2 camera unit. Apple fans would be ripping the hell out of the xoom for it's rotten camera's.

Except in actual use, as most reviews have found, the camera's are actually pretty subpar. Once again, it's not all about the megapixels.

 

[tdmac]

To add, that component cost for the xoom doesnt include the free hardware upgrade that is coming for 4g LTE. nice try buddy.

.

Oh you mean the upgrade that requires you to send your device back, for 6 days, so they can swap the radio out? No thanks.

You are basing your argument on a technology that won't be fully rolled out and implemented for long time to come.

Maybe in the major cities this will be a benefit but won't help you out in the rest of the country for long long time coming.

Also, you mentioned Samsung's tablet and they have already pulled the device before its release citing the iPad2 as a game changer requiring them to re-think the specs. So the pricing of a device that is vaporware is not realistic as well.

The camera's on the iPad are an aside and will perform the function(s) intended. The selling features of the iPad2 are the thinner and lighter aspects, the processing and graphic speed and not the camera's. This is what will drive the sales. The only people that I can see that would care about still image quality on an iPad are those that do not have type of camera phone. And today who doesn't.

That is the device you carry around in your pocket and is always at your disposal. If I really want to take pics I use my Canon 20D. If I am somewhere and want to grab a candid shot, I will use my iPhone. I would never think to whip out an ipad for this purpose. Not to mention its size and where you would have to press to take the shot would be awkward at best.

 

[Michael CM1]

Is it possible to wait until you actually use the device to complain about how awful the video quality is? I watched a 480p video at fullscreen on my 21.5" iMac last night. It was hardly crappy. The iPad display is half that size, so I think it'll be more than fine.

 

[lilo777]

I was told that Apple did try better camera. Steve Jobs tested it and decided that he did not look good with it hence the downgrade.

 

[dgree03]

Except in actual use, as most reviews have found, the camera's are actually pretty subpar. Once again, it's not all about the megapixels.

From anandtech:

"Image quality is surprisingly good. Photos don’t always come out as saturated as they should, particularly on cloudy days but sharpness and detail are both there. Increase the focus distance and the image quickly loses its sharpness/exposure:"

 

[bossxii]

Before I begin let me declare I'm buying two iPad 2's so I'm not trying to hate, but IF what we see on paper is really what we get here then the camera choices made in the iPad 2 because this just doesnt make sense.

Front Camera - VGA (640 x 480 pixels or .69MP)
Back Camera - 720p (960 x 720 pixels or 1.3MP)

The defenders will say "A camera is stupid on here anyway" but lets spit out the kool-aid for a few seconds and just consider the world in 2011.

- The Original 2007 iPhone had a 2.0MP camera. The 2011 iPad has 1.3MP

- The 2.2" Motorola Razr in 07 had a VGA camera. The 2011 9.7" iPad has a VGA camera

- Facetime was rebadged as Facetime HD and sold for $1 for HD calling yet the Face forward camera is only VGA (not even 1MP)

- The iPod Touch camera (which seems to be the one shared with iPad 2) is so low res that there is no touch Auto-Focus, only Auto-Exposure.

- No Auto-Focus is a big deal for many apps. Auto-Focus is required for scanning barcodes (barcodes exist in more places than groceries), scanning QR codes, scanning checks to do app-deposits (Chase, BoA etc) and taking clear artistic pictures.

- The latest Macbook Pro uses 1.3MP Facetime Cameras which makes FT look fantastic. These sensors ARE NOT big and would easily fit in the iPad 2 casing.

I know I'm overreacting on this but I absolutely love the iPad and that Facetime Camera is one of my big reasons for wanting to upgrade. But as it stands now then this may be yet another product that Apple intentionally crippled just so they can make a new slide next year saying "10x better than last years camera"


<end rant and apologies to those offended>

Streaming video, via Facetime, lower resolution = less bandwidth, less lag. Based on the screen resolution if it looks clear picture that is probably all they cared about. Most likely they put in a camera that records in the iPad native resolution so their is very little compression and still streams over Wifi/3g.

I'll reserve my "I can't believe they put in a crappy camera" comment for after I actually use it for whatever I find the need for and then decide based on the quality of the results decide.

 

[gloss]

Your assuming that a 5mp camera on competitor tablets is "janky" when we KNOW the ipad camera(if it uses the same exact one on the Ipod touch) is terrible.

I'm just going by the reviews. Video recording has issues with skipping.

 

[Rafterman]

I think the answer why a low rez camera is obvious. Most people do NOT want to see all your ugly grills close up in hi def

 

[Sjmarcy]

Lack of autofocus? It doesn't matter. The sensor/lens combo renders everything beyond some close distance out to infinity in focus.

 

[urkel]

Lack of autofocus? It doesn't matter. The sensor/lens combo renders everything beyond some close distance out to infinity in focus.

But isnt that the problem? Using an onboard camera to scan documents (evernote, check depositing, QR scans) requires autofocus.

Just as an example, this is a fairly large coupon photo taken with the back 1MP iPod Touch camera. The text is illegible and (i dont have an autofocus phone to check) I presume the barcode isn't clear enough for scanning.

I know people have reasons for not using the iPad camera for pictures of people. But there are many practical applications where a better camera would drastically improve overall iPad productivity and usefullness.

 

[smithrh]

So, you really think you're going to lug your iPad 2 around to take pictures of barcodes?

What are you thinking!!!?

 

[gloss]

But isnt that the problem? Using an onboard camera to scan documents (evernote, check depositing, QR scans) requires autofocus.

Just as an example, this is a fairly large coupon photo taken with the front 1MP iPod Touch camera. The text is illegible and (i dont have an autofocus phone to check) I presume the barcode isn't clear enough for scanning.

I know people have reasons for not using the iPad camera for pictures of people. But there are many practical applications where a better camera would drastically improve overall iPad productivity and usefullness.

Try using the back camera and positioning the bar code at the focal point of the lens.

 

[urkel]

So, you really think you're going to lug your iPad 2 around to take pictures of barcodes?

What are you thinking!!!?

Obviously you didnt read anything I wrote and just wanted to focus on impractical uses of the camera. But I gave an EXAMPLE of a photo taken with the iPod Touch which is presumed to be the same camera system used in the iPad 2.

And as for barcode scanning. It's easy to find reasons for why its stupid to carry an iPad at the groceries or carry a 10" screen to snap a photo. But considering that Apple is gaining so much momentum in the business market then how can anyone dismiss the endless possibilities for use on the other side of the counter? Apple Stores equip their employees with iPads that are used as cash registers so why couldnt store clerks or logistic work be done the same way? Why couldn't the UPS guy use an iPad instead of his big chunky green screen scanner? The App Store is proving that there are brilliant people with practical ideas out there so any limitation on the hardware translates to limitations on future software.

 

[PracticalMac]

Before I begin let me declare I'm buying two iPad 2's so I'm not trying to hate, but IF what we see on paper is really what we get here then the camera choices made in the iPad 2 because this just doesnt make sense.

Front Camera - VGA (640 x 480 pixels or .69MP)
Back Camera - 720p (960 x 720 pixels or 1.3MP)

Do you REALLY want your friends to see the pores and zits on your face??

The camera will be about 2 feet away, you don't need a high resolution.
(Unless you want to show off that scar)

 

[kenypowa]

Two words: Built-in Obsolescence. Apple is a master at that. Don't worry, iPad 3 will feature 1MP front facing camera and it will be featured as HD Facetime.

 

[ecschwarz]

Streaming video, via Facetime, lower resolution = less bandwidth, less lag. Based on the screen resolution if it looks clear picture that is probably all they cared about. Most likely they put in a camera that records in the iPad native resolution so their is very little compression and still streams over Wifi/3g.

I'll reserve my "I can't believe they put in a crappy camera" comment for after I actually use it for whatever I find the need for and then decide based on the quality of the results decide.

I suspect this was the reasoning, too. Smaller images initially means less to re-process/compress for streaming video. The cameras on both the iPad, iPod touch, front of the iPhone, and Macs are now being marketed as "FaceTime Cameras", so it only makes sense that Apple would choose the best part for this purpose. Although the iPhone 4 seems to handle the 5MP camera on the back pretty well with FaceTime, there could be some technical considerations that are different on the iPad (256MB RAM, larger display to power, I don't know?)

Although Apple is a business with the goal of making money, they also are meticulous about selecting the best thing for the user experience. Sometimes it is using "old" technology, but for Joe Average User, it works "well enough" and reliably enough to be a satisfactory experience.

 

[Tailpike1153]

Because if you really want to take a picture, you'll have a smartphone with a better camera.

+1. Or a Canon EOS Rebel with "bazooka" lens.

 

[MRU]

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/03/08/ipad-2-video-quality-looks-good-sounds-great/

 

[oclor]

While I agree that videoconferencing is going to be the primary use for the front facing camera (and virtual reality probably will probably utilize the back camera), I still think Apple is too greedy. There might be occasional use for high resolution back camera, for example - to take a picture of a document.

Too greedy??? Are you joking??? The entire electronic world is baffled at how apple can offer something like this at such a low price. No one can compete with the price and you are calling them greedy? The price has to be the last thing that anybody would ever complain about the iPad since nothing competes with that aspect. The original iPad had no camera and was still considered to be offered at a great price, now you are getting this update for the same price and you still complain? Get a laptop and a camera.

 

[That70sGAdawg]

Lousy cameras: Apple was thinking "It's a magical device", and you will buy it anyways....

 

[herdnerfer]

Scanning barcodes

I just wanted to say for the record I use red laser(barcode scanning) and noogle noogles (google googles) on my iPod touch 4g and both work great with the crappy Back camera!