Especially something if the top of the line mp3 player has worse speaker quality than my 2 year old phone Samsung dumb phone.
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 Is .7MP really that bad? or are people complaining just to do so?
- Thread starter applealex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Especially something if the top of the line mp3 player has worse speaker quality than my 2 year old phone Samsung dumb phone.
It's a PHONE...
People are complaining just to complain, and when you tell them why it doesn't have a higher MP camera they flip out and tell you your wrong and say how much they hate Apple and just act ridiculous.
Basically, to shortly explain it, image sensors for still image cameras are a lot larger then image sensors for video cameras and also are generally more expensive. (If anyone doesn't believe me then they can go buy a still camera and a digital and rip them apart only to find out I was right. I had to repair these things for awhile).
For Apple to put in a higher megapixel camera not only would they need much more room (its not just the image sensor that has to go in there, but everything else that drives it) which would take the price up and make the touch thicker. Consumers aren't going to pay as much as it would cost just to have an mp3 player, which is really what an iPod touch is. (Yes I know it does much more but in the eyes of consumers and parents Christmas shopping, its still just an mp3 player with "features".
Obviously Apple isn't going to make fifty different models of one MP3 player and since quality is important to them, they will go with the largest image sensor they can put in in order to keep the price at a good price point and keep the product thin AND have a decent looking camera.
Sure there are 7 megapixel cell phone cameras but megapixels don't mean anything. It all has to do with the size of the photosites. You can have a 500 megapixel camera but if the CCD is the size of a postage stamp the pictures will look terrible. People outside of the photography realm don't understand this and will still cry because its not a 3 or 5 or 10 megapixel camera.
Basically it boils down to people wanting their cake, eating it too, and not paying for it.
chrono1081 said:
This is definitely the problem. People think you need a super high megapixel camera for decen pictures. Although, .7 is very little by today's standards. 2 mp would have sufficed but as stated, I've had 2.0 phone cameras that were horrible. I think the cameras photos are fine.
iPod Touch forum.It's a PHONE...
To make matters worse the PHONE got speakers from day 1 AND now a 5 megapixel camera.
Nothing wrong with making it thicker. As to price, the 5MP cam in the iPhone 4 costs Apple $9.75. How much did they pay for the 0.7MP one - maybe $2 to $3?
For some, a decent camera is a deal breaker, for others - not. Folks wanted a still camera for the last several years and a significant number are not happy with Apple's answer to that demand. People that are not happy are not cry babies and people that are - are not sheeple or fanboys. It depends on what you value - or - what you need from this niche product.
Its wrong to think of the iPod as an iPhone without a contract, and its equally wrong to think of it as an MP3 player with a camera. It' a pocket sized computer capable of doing whatever software writers can make it do.
Personally, I think Apple shot themselves in the foot by choosing a thinner iPod over a better still/video camera. From what I've read, its not a financial decision - its a style decision, well they will have to live with that decision and so will we.
The sample photos are easy to find now so its up to each potential customer to decide if the camera makes decent enough photos or not. Its really up to you, look at the photos and decide for yourself.
Personally I say, a thicker iPod is a small price to pay for a significantly better camera.
Its wrong to think of the iPod as an iPhone without a contract, and its equally wrong to think of it as an MP3 player with a camera. It' a pocket sized computer capable of doing whatever software writers can make it do.
Personally, I think Apple shot themselves in the foot by choosing a thinner iPod over a better still/video camera. From what I've read, its not a financial decision - its a style decision, well they will have to live with that decision and so will we.
The sample photos are easy to find now so its up to each potential customer to decide if the camera makes decent enough photos or not. Its really up to you, look at the photos and decide for yourself.
Personally I say, a thicker iPod is a small price to pay for a significantly better camera.
Exactly! With Apple, it's always form over function. Look what they did to the poor nano - they gutted it.
There is a lot more to it then the price of the hardware. You have to look at software to drive the hardware, whether the motherboard in the touch can support a higher camera, space, etc etc. All that adds up to cost as well as the fact that it wont fit inside.
Now even though that cost, whatever it is may look small on the price of one piece of hardware, Apple sells millions of these things so it all adds up.
Yes its unfortunate for those who want a better camera but its better than no camera at all.
iPod Touch forum.
To make matters worse the PHONE got speakers from day 1 AND now a 5 megapixel camera.
It's only natural phones have better external speakers than the iPod Touch does since they have to do speaker phone thing. External speaker for portable player has been a afterthought ever since Sony's Walkman redefined audio player as a personal device, it's mostly about headphone outputs.
And that's a huge difference for manufacturers actually because every cent adds multiple times the amount to the end product. Look at the processors. The A4 is $10.75 and the Snapdragon is about the same when you consider the integrated baseband module. Why don't other manufacturers spend a few bucks more and use these great SoCs instead of lower end ones? Why don't HTC and RIM spend $10 more and use the amazing fast chips instead of the crappy 500-600MHZ outdated chips on their mid-lowrange products? Because when they do that the final impact on the sales price will be far far higher than the simple $10 difference and that changes the product position.
iPod Touch forum.
To make matters worse the PHONE got speakers from day 1 AND now a 5 megapixel camera.
I was talking about the dumbphone's speaker.
If you believe Apple's spokespeople, the camera decision was not based on cost, it was based on style - the desire to make the iPT thinner - period.
1080p, sometimes referred to in marketing materials as "Full HD", typically refers to the capability to accept 1080p signal and display it with native resolution of at least 1080 lines.
1080p, sometimes referred to in marketing materials as "Full HD", typically refers to the capability to accept 1080p signal and display it with native resolution of at least 1080 lines.
I know. What's your point?
Tubemonkey, please, with all of your infinite wisdom on small cameras, head over to the Apple campus and teach those dumb engineers a thing or two. I have read countless post from you complaining about this camera, so I'm begging you to do this. Drive to California and demand to speak to those stupid engineers. You show them the right way to make an iPod Touch! Show them how much smarter you are than them.
Seriously, go do that.
1080p is the ability to display 1080 vertical resolution display on a screen. Which pictures can do
And 0.7 MP is too low to display High definition pictures.
Wrong, no rear cam would've been better. People could use the front to take pics if they were that desperate.
1080p is the ability to display 1080 vertical resolution display on a screen. Which pictures can do
And 0.7 MP is too low to display High definition pictures.
Which equals out to about 2.0 megapixels (the ability to be around 1920x1080), which everyone would still bitch about?
I don't mind the fact that the camera takes 0.7mp pictures; however, I do mind that the 0.7mp pictures that the iPod Touch takes are pretty much crap and almost unusable.
They're still usable for those barcode and identification apps.
The rear camera is pretty obviously put there for recording video and the front camera for FaceTime.
yup. I use pic2shop which works great (not to mention is free). much faster than my BB which has a better camera.
I must say so far pic2shop is the only one that works reliably with barcodes that aren't x-large.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. While still pictures are bad, the iPod Touch rear cam takes surprisingly nice HD movies and other than the iPhone there's no other portable device that can edit the videos like the iPod can. I know some smartphones do have editing functionality but none does it as smoothly as iMovie does and there's also the Reeldirector app if you want something different. It makes a pretty compelling package against the Flips, the Kodak Zi6, etc, perfect for the usual target market of the iPod Touch.