Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod touch Touch 4G - 0.7 megapixel camera??

P

pizz

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 10, 2007
196
0
Dont throw out your Sony Cybershot's just yet!

The new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720.

Even Sony's first Cybershot camera produced over 10 years ago was 1.5 megapixels!
 
Correct. The cameras used in the iPod touch are best suited for video. Just like the camera used by the (former) iPod nano.

Cameras capable of high-quality still images are significantly thicker, and would have increased the thickness of the iPod touch rather than decreasing it.
 
That resolution is fine for shooting quick pics to FaceBook or whatever. Who knows, maybe the quality of the photos might be good.
 
What resolution are the flip video recorders, just for a comparison?

Peterson8765 said:
That resolution is fine for shooting quick pics to FaceBook or whatever. Who knows, maybe the quality of the photos might be good.
Click to expand...

No resizing at least...
 
pizz said:
Dont throw out your Sony Cybershot's just yet!

The new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720.

Even Sony's first Cybershot camera produced over 10 years ago was 1.5 megapixels!
Click to expand...

I'll be the first to say that Apple should have increased the thickness of the iPod touch and put in the same camera as the iPhone 4.

But people need to realize that pixel count means absolutely nothing. A 10MP camera won't necessarily take better pictures than a 5MP camera. It will just have MORE pixels, not better ones. Case in point, look at Canon's G series. They actually DECREASED the pixel count to use a better sensor. The resulting camera took far better pictures at 11MP than the previous one did at 14MP.

The iPod touch camera will be fine for quick video shoots and pictures for Facebook.
 
mosx said:
I'll be the first to say that Apple should have increased the thickness of the iPod touch and put in the same camera as the iPhone 4.

But people need to realize that pixel count means absolutely nothing. A 10MP camera won't necessarily take better pictures than a 5MP camera. It will just have MORE pixels, not better ones. Case in point, look at Canon's G series. They actually DECREASED the pixel count to use a better sensor. The resulting camera took far better pictures at 11MP than the previous one did at 14MP.

The iPod touch camera will be fine for quick video shoots and pictures for Facebook.
Click to expand...

Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!
 
kenypowa said:
Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!
Click to expand...

Wrong. The amount of pixels DOES NOT MATTER in the face of quality. My iPhone 4 at 5MP takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP digital camera. Canon's G series is better now with several million fewer pixels than it had in the previous generation.

I do agree that Apple should have put a better camera in the iPod touch.

But the NUMBER of pixels does NOT mean BAD QUALITY. It just means smaller pictures.

Edit: If you want to see what the smaller number of pixels means, take a picture at full resolution on your iPhone or favorite digital camera. Open the picture in your favorite photo editing software. Resize the picture down to 960x720. Notice how the SIZE of the picture decreases but the QUALITY does not? Exactly.
 
kenypowa said:
Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!
Click to expand...

For the average user, no it doesn't. Sounds like you are one of those that went hook line and sinker on the MP myth. The only time that it matters is when one needs to heavily crop their images, and needs to retain detail.

However, I would agree that a .7MP camera is certainly nothing to roost about. Apple is so caught up in making something thinner, that they sometimes lose touch in terms of what it takes to enhance the user experience.

I think that we all would have loved to have had a 5MP camera, especially when it already does video, at the expense of a body that might be a little thicker. With every release, Apple always seems to step on their 3rd leg with a key feature that would have been insignificant to add, yet expand the user experience greatly.

With the last iPod Touch, it was a camera period. The Nano comes out with video capability, when the much more expensive sibling did without. Then comes the iPad with a limited amount of RAM, as the iPhone 4 was released 6 weeks later with hardware intact. Now its the iPod Touch again, but this time, without a decent camera, as Apple is for some reason infatuated with video.

Do it right the first time Apple and move on.
 
mosx said:
Wrong. The amount of pixels DOES NOT MATTER in the face of quality. My iPhone 4 at 5MP takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP digital camera. Canon's G series is better now with several million fewer pixels than it had in the previous generation.

I do agree that Apple should have put a better camera in the iPod touch.

But the NUMBER of pixels does NOT mean BAD QUALITY. It just means smaller pictures.
Click to expand...

To some extent you are correct...the difference between 5 and 6 is not that great and depending on other things the 5 could produce nicer pictures than the 6. Nevertheless a 0.7mp camera won't give you a photo you can use for much more than a large thumbnail...anything bigger will probably be grainy. 0.7mp is like ancient history...shame on Mr. Jobs! Also, Apple knows it is a weak feature as they don't mention the megapixel count in the specs on their website.
 
mosx said:
Wrong. The amount of pixels DOES NOT MATTER in the face of quality. My iPhone 4 at 5MP takes better pictures than my 4 year old 6MP digital camera. Canon's G series is better now with several million fewer pixels than it had in the previous generation.

I do agree that Apple should have put a better camera in the iPod touch.

But the NUMBER of pixels does NOT mean BAD QUALITY. It just means smaller pictures.

Edit: If you want to see what the smaller number of pixels means, take a picture at full resolution on your iPhone or favorite digital camera. Open the picture in your favorite photo editing software. Resize the picture down to 960x720. Notice how the SIZE of the picture decreases but the QUALITY does not? Exactly.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say but to say the number of pixels count does not matter is absurd on it's face. For starters, you can forget ever making a print much bigger than a postage stamp from .7mp and as you look at the images on increasingly larger and higher definition monitors the pictures will display smaller and smaller.

As every woman knows, size matters.
 
tsinvest said:
To some extent you are correct...the difference between 5 and 6 is not that great and depending on other things the 5 could produce nicer pictures than the 6. Nevertheless a 0.7mp camera won't give you a photo you can use for much more than a large thumbnail...anything bigger will probably be grainy. 0.7mp is like ancient history...shame on Mr. Jobs! Also, Apple knows it is a weak feature as they don't mention the megapixel count in the specs on their website.
Click to expand...

960x720 is more than enough for your average Facebook or Twitter upload.

I mean, honestly, who prints pictures any more? I've had a dedicated photo printer for years. It's literally been more than 2 and a half years since I have printed a picture.

If you're worried about printing pictures, a modern dedicated digital camera would be a better choice. Cameras on mobile devices like cellphones and the iPod touch are meant for quick fun shots and thats it.

Though I do agree, Apple should have included a higher resolution camera.

However, my entire point is that number of pixels doesn't equal quality.

Phil In Idaho said:
I understand what you are trying to say but to say the number of pixels count does not matter is absurd on it's face. For starters, you can forget ever making a print much bigger than a postage stamp from .7mp and as you look at the images on increasingly larger and higher definition monitors the pictures will display smaller and smaller.

As every woman knows, size matters.
Click to expand...

As I said above, cameras on things like cellphones or the iPod touch are meant for fun quick shots and to be uploaded to social networking sites. Not for prints. If you're worried about prints, a modern dedicated digital camera is something you should have.

But you're missing my point. My point is that the number of pixels doesn't equal higher quality. You could have a 20MP camera that doesn't take pictures as good as a 5MP camera because the sensor is terrible.
 
Well in defense of Apple, the camera was mainly touted for video recording. And it seems to do a good job of that.

While I agree the megapixel count isnt a huge factor, we are in the age of 10mp+ cameras. 0.7 is pathetic at best.

But then again, mp only matter if you plan to print your pictures or crop and enlarge your images on screen. I'd say for most people, the camera will do just fine for quick snapshots. It's all in the quality of the camer lens etc.

ftr: this is a 960x720 image. (about 10"x13")
 

Attachments

  • 7mpx.jpg
    7mpx.jpg
    357.5 KB · Views: 1,771
kenypowa said:
Wrong. MP does matter. There is absolutely no excuse to roll out a 0.7 MP camera in late 2010!
Click to expand...

I agree about rolling out a 0.7MP camera in LATE 2010! Effing ridiculous.

And for those of you who claim MP have ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO BEARING on picture quality, you are poorly mistaken.

MP is not everything. Just like how much RAM is in your computer is not everything. We know (or most of us do) that optics/lenses/sensors/MP all have their role.

Please don't try to convince me that a 1MP camera takes the same quality pictures as a 5MP...or 10MP...or 90MP.


I was at Amazon tonight looking to throw 2 of these into my shopping cart when I noticed the folks screaming about the crappy camera.

Shame on Apple...now I am convinced this is the worst iPod convention/rollout/speech ever. Total disappointment on all 4 models. Apple must be getting trillions of hate emails.

-Eric
 
Why are most surprised?!?!

Jobs/Apple will NEVER give you everything iPhone 4 has on their $299+ iPod touch.
 
ericinboston said:
I agree about rolling out a 0.7MP camera in LATE 2010! Effing ridiculous.

And for those of you who claim MP have ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO BEARING on picture quality, you are poorly mistaken.

MP is not everything. Just like how much RAM is in your computer is not everything. We know (or most of us do) that optics/lenses/sensors/MP all have their role.

Please don't try to convince me that a 1MP camera takes the same quality pictures as a 5MP...or 10MP...or 90MP.


I was at Amazon tonight looking to throw 2 of these into my shopping cart when I noticed the folks screaming about the crappy camera.

Shame on Apple...now I am convinced this is the worst iPod convention/rollout/speech ever. Total disappointment on all 4 models. Apple must be getting trillions of hate emails.

-Eric
Click to expand...

As I said before, just because the iPod touch only has a "0.7MP" camera doesn't mean the pictures will be bad. They'll just be SMALL. But perfect for social networking, which is exactly what it was meant for.

And, again, I do agree that Apple should have used a higher resolution sensor. But at the same time, saying the pictures will be BAD because of pixel count is silly.
 
mosx said:
As I said before, just because the iPod touch only has a "0.7MP" camera doesn't mean the pictures will be bad. They'll just be SMALL. But perfect for social networking, which is exactly what it was meant for.

And, again, I do agree that Apple should have used a higher resolution sensor. But at the same time, saying the pictures will be BAD because of pixel count is silly.
Click to expand...

The pictures aren't that small! 960x720 is fairly average for handheld devices! Well, big enough to see a bloody picture! I don't know why everyone is complaining! Apple upgraded more than what i expected! I didn't believe they were going to go into HD recording immediately, but hey did!
 
I didn't watch the speech, but I followed a lot of what was coming out through twitter (foxnews scitech) ...so how else was it a bad conference?
Personally, I like the new touch, (except for the mps) and the new nano is awesome. Besides, apple tv, I don't know what else we could be expecting?
 
britybritbrit said:
I didn't watch the speech, but I followed a lot of what was coming out through twitter (foxnews scitech) ...so how else was it a bad conference?
Personally, I like the new touch, (except for the mps) and the new nano is awesome. Besides, apple tv, I don't know what else we could be expecting?
Click to expand...

I thought it was amazing! Great Conference, everyone just disappointed because they very very high speculations didn't come true. :)
 
pizz said:
Dont throw out your Sony Cybershot's just yet!

The new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720.

Even Sony's first Cybershot camera produced over 10 years ago was 1.5 megapixels!
Click to expand...

IMO, its good enough for an iPod. Chances are adults have a better dedicated camera for serious shots or a phone with a better camera. Younger kids with the iPod Touch will be able to take fun facebook shots with their friends and upload them. This wasn't intended to replace anyones P&S camera. Also, if the iPod Touch rolled out the equivalent MP cams as the iP4 with the retina display, whats the incentive to go with an iP4 over iPT? Sure there is 3G and can make calls, but is that enough to justify the massive price difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back