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.
New iPad Using Same Camera Sensors Found in Older Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just like a car company (Ford, BMW, Toyota, etc.) design their cars but they get the actual parts for the cars from various suppliers. Computer companies do the same thing. What would you say about car companies?
Apple reportedly paid for the Samsung factories that makes a bunch of this stuff (as in sent Samsung many billions of dollars ahead of time to build the manufacturing lines), so might legally have quite a bit of say over where the stuff produced there goes first. Maybe they could even legally (after a pile of even more lawsuits) take the factories away from Samsung if Samsung defaults.
That they weren't absolutely sure would sell so they didn't invest in half baked latest thing tech that would probably decrease sales due to its bad quality and the newness of the item.
once they knew they had something they felt it safe to jump in both feet and risk the expense.
It's a common business tactic and not something to be bashing them about. After all they are in the business of making money.
As for the whole 'new model' and 'redesign' stuff, i don't get why folks think that a company needs to fully redo their designs on any kind of regular schedule. If the design works, why not stick with it and focus on what's in the box
They pay for a manufacturing job which requires raising additional specialized factories. Its uncommon, as more often than not factories can meet expected demands - but hardly unheard of for expansion to be required. Particularly when you're discussing large jobs, or unusual jobs - and Apple has a few which most certainly qualifies.
And that means larger forward payments, which themselves can be enough for the creation of new facilities. It is preferable by manufacturers, because it reduces their own investment risks. That in turn not uncommonly results in a slightly reduced fee.
Last edited:
What's happened here is that finally the camera sensor is no longer the bottleneck to image quality. In other words a better sensor would not improve the image.
It's the lens that matters. lenses makes images, sensors record images. if the image created by the lens is only so good a better sensor will not help.
It's the lens that matters. lenses makes images, sensors record images. if the image created by the lens is only so good a better sensor will not help.
I love the camera in my iPhone 4, so I'm glad to see the same camera is in my new iPad. I was sorely disappointed with the camera on my iPad 2. Not because I had a special use for it, but because it was such a terrible camera, whatever use I might have put it to.
Frankly, the camera from the iPhone 3 would have been a serious upgrade. The iPhone 3's camera is more than capable of creating publishable images.
As for whether the new iPad is a worthy upgrade to the iPad 2, it depends on wants/needs and how much disposable income a potential purchaser has. Anybody knocking the new iPad is a troll and/or can't justify the purchase price, whether or not they have the money.
I use the iPad is for professional photography. The new iPad is, for me, a serious and worthy upgrade to my 'Pad 2. I ordered the new one the first minute I could do so online. I'm thinking I won't have much difficulty justifying the purchase of the new, new iPad when it comes out.
Frankly, the camera from the iPhone 3 would have been a serious upgrade. The iPhone 3's camera is more than capable of creating publishable images.
As for whether the new iPad is a worthy upgrade to the iPad 2, it depends on wants/needs and how much disposable income a potential purchaser has. Anybody knocking the new iPad is a troll and/or can't justify the purchase price, whether or not they have the money.
I use the iPad is for professional photography. The new iPad is, for me, a serious and worthy upgrade to my 'Pad 2. I ordered the new one the first minute I could do so online. I'm thinking I won't have much difficulty justifying the purchase of the new, new iPad when it comes out.
A low density sensor and a good A/D converter usually help a lot in image quality. If dynamic range is bad (dramatic tone transitions, burst pixels), lens will help near nothing, although it can help a little if its contrast response is designed to work together with the sensor. I don't bet that the New iPad lens will bring a considerable improvement in IQ.
yea, I have to agree. This iPad 3 I have in my hands would say otherwise, it's definitely not underpowered. There is a reason apple juiced up the graphics portion of the CPU and not the generic portion... It's quite nice and surprisingly smooth.
If they decide that, it will be because company X has already surpassed Apple's order size. In tablets, they are still over half the entire industry. So, not currently possible.
This surprises me quite a bit, not due to my expectations but due to my experiences thus far. My pictures look a lot clearer than my iPhone 4, but perhaps the pixel count of the display alone is making that difference? Specifically I'm speaking of grain. I don't mind a little grain but, for example, the iPad 2 took such grainy indoor images that I found them mostly unusable. The iPhone 4 seemed to take more grainy images, but the power of suggestion is well documented, I'm certainly willing to consider that a factor. I'm more likely to accept that better optics are allowing more light to hit the sensor and if you can achieve that, replacing a perfectly capable sensor would be stupid.
Regardless, the camera is a huge upgrade from the iPad 2, no matter how you spin it.
Regardless, the camera is a huge upgrade from the iPad 2, no matter how you spin it.
Last edited:
Almost every product manufacturer-Ford, Chevy, HP, Maytag, etc. does this yet you feel you need to complain about this?
Because no other hardware manufacturer utilizes other company's products in their hardware. I bet you wouldn't argue that a lawn mower manufacturer is a hardware company, but I promise you that the logo doesn't represent the manufacturing of every part inside (probably not even most). If that's the basis for a hardware company, there are almost no hardware companies that have products on store shelves. Perhaps you should relax your definition a tad, not everything has an absolute definition.
As I've alluded to in other threads, a 45nm A5X is a deal-killer for me
Right. Because pushing pixels on a 2D interface requires both CPU and GPU power. Wait, neither, 2D accelerators dating back to the Voodoo banshee were capable of smooth acceleration.