Are you really trying to say that the ability to compose a shot on a 10" screen would be revolutionary? How is it much different than composing on something smaller?
The sooner you realize that Apple is not in the camera business the better. For someone that apparently teaches photography, I would expect you to extol the virtues of shooting with a real dedicated camera rather than looking for some gimmicky add on to some swiss army like electronic device.
Absolutely...way different. If he were still alive, I would say, "Ansel Adams would say it makes a difference". One of my first DSLRs was a Nikon D100, wtih a little tiny screen. I recently re-bought a D70 IR (converted to IR) and am amazed at how small the screen is after getting used to the newer generation 3" screens. Of course composing on a 10" screen will be amazing. Of course being able to shoot pictures on it and instantly being able to review them on a 10" screen will be amazing!
And Apple could once again be a camera maker. There were once...when they made The Apple Quick Take, which I owned a couple of versions of, including sending in one model for an upgrade, etc. Can't imagine how much money I threw at Apple's early digital cameras. This was back in 1995 or so, and we used it to produce about 50% of a year book. For the time, it was pretty amazing. It was certainly one of the first consumer digital cameras. And it was Apple! Right along with the Newton...that in some ways, is still better than the iPad...mainly because Apple didn't have it locked down to the point that you can't tweak it with software like you want, with like the awesome Standalone Software, etc.
And what the heck is wrong with a Swiss Army Knife of technology???? I am DYING for a ONE TOOL DOES IT ALL device. We aren't far from it, and we have sure come a long way. Look at the cell phone. Large, small, now large again, because people were tired of carrying multiple devices.
How so? If a camera was so critical for iPad sales, how did they manage to sell so many already?
Lack of options. And, the fact that the iPad is the coolest device since the Newton. No doubt about that. But it would have been WAY cooler with a camera. Nobody can deny that. And frankly, I don't understand why this is such a divisive debate. I have never seen such a hotly contested feature! You would think we were asking to put square tires on cars or something. The document scanning capability of an iPad to import documents to tweak, OCR, insert in brochures, etc. is enough of a reason to give the iPad a decent camera.
Forget ALL of the other photographic features...document scanning is the ONE reason Apple HAS to give it a better camera. The iTouch 4 can't even use a bar code reader...or scan receipts, etc. The camera isn't just low res, it doesn't close focus, or really serve any useful purpose other than a gimmick capture of where you might have visited.
I find it funny that a supposedly "professional photographer" is interested in using his iPad as a camera in the first place. If you're not, then don't bring up your job.
Although directed at another professional shooter, anybody who doesn't understand why a photographer wants a good camera on the iPad just doesn't understand. It's kind of like asking me to understand why put good gas in my car. I am sure if I was a mechanic, I might understand that regular unleaded isn't so great for the engine. Maybe not such a great analogy, but I shoot 50k plus images a year, easy. And I shoot on ALL kinds and models of cameras. I am not going to NOT shoot with the DSLRs any more. I just want the iPad that is with me a LOT of the time to be able to take decent pictures.
Any good photographer will agree...it's not about the camera...its about the photographer. I can take good pictures with any camera. And its more about having a camera WITH you. The best DSLR on the planet is useless if you leave it at home in a bag because it was too big to bring on the trip. Which is one of the reasons I have so many cameras...all kinds of different sizes. The iPad would just another camera to fill a certain niche. But don't forget, I just want the iPad to have a GREAT document camera. Everything else would be icing on the cake.
You are odd if you'd use a rear facing camera on your iPad. Just odd.
Again, anybody who doesn't understand the need for a rf camera on the iPad, just simply doesn't understand.
Heck even half interested amateurs have DSLRs and a high quality pocket camera for when the DSLR is too big to carry.
There is simply no call for someone with even a passing interest in photographer to want to use an iPad as a camera.
Your missing the point. NO SERIOUS photographer is suggesting that this would be their only camera. That is ridiculous. We are just saying we want at least iP4s camera.
Another person commented about the success of the iT4. Sure, it has been a success. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck...and wont be dusted by Apples next model of the iTouch. But, I guess that is what they are good at doing...suckering people in to the next model when they already have 3 other iPods. I wasn't falling for it. I took my iT4 back as fast as I could. I already have enough low resolution cameras. But, mark my words, the iTouch will have a high res camera in it a few years from now...Apple could have done it now.
I am just saying, once again, if Apple puts anything less than iP4s camera in the iPad2, it will be very frustrating and a REAL disappointment. But then, this is Apple...the same company that downgraded the USB port to keep people from plugging in a memory card reader or keyboard. And broke the screen rotation lock against our will.
