iPod touch Touch 4G - 0.7 megapixel camera??

[WordLife565]

I think the whole anger that people have is stupid.

It's an iPod, why is it that important for you to have a super high quality iPod camera. The cheapest of digital cameras can take better pictures then 90% of cellular phones, so if you really cared that much about photos, then you'd not only have a digital camera, but you'd know that very few things can replace it in terms of portability and quality.

 

[pavinder]

I was all set to buy until I saw the ridiculous camera spec.

Many people are arguing that if one wants better quality photos one should use a dedicated digital camera, but that's completely missing the point.

The iPhone has a great camera, from which many semi-pro photographers are making reasonable sized prints, and regular folks are doing fantastic creative work with some of the photo apps available. As many people have pointed out, almost all devices nowdays with cameras take reasonable sized images. It's obvious that this new "mini camera" in the iPod Touch is intentionally meant to cripple the functionality of the device.

I, like many others, was hoping for a device that could play movies, music, run apps and take great photos - in other words a single device which does everything one needs (other than make phone calls).

The fact that the iPhone does all these things is great, but one is forced to pay a substantial cost (not to Apple, but to a network) for a long-term data plan. Many of us have no need for a new phone or expensive data plan, but do look for such an "all-in-one" device. The technology is already out there, and the new iPod Touch has all that except it also has a single incredibly compromised function which therefore prevents it from being the device it could be. It leaves a huge hole in the market.

I would love to use all these great photo apps from the Apple store, but now see that I have no choice but to subscribe to a 2 year data plan and buy an iPhone to get that functionality? WTF??

 

[MaCamZa]

I would love to use all these great photo apps from the Apple store, but now see that I have no choice but to subscribe to a 2 year data plan and buy an iPhone to get that functionality? WTF??

^^ Well that's exactly what Apple wanted you to do! Buy the iPhone because of the bad (even tho we don't even know what the quality is like yet, until the product is fully released) camera facility on the iPod Touch!

Apple have to cripple the iPod Touch, so sales will continue on the iPhone. However, the phone feature is now easily able on the iPod Touch by the various hacks out there so why not wait until the full reviews mate! As long as you can bloody see what you took, its not like you want to upload to the best company in the world and have it feature in a top porn mag, huh?

All im saying is that it's better to wait until you see what the camera quality of stills are when people are unboxing/reviewing them, and then you can decide yourself! But you can't judge the camera when you don't even know what the quality is like yet!

Also, It's your fault that you wanted such high expectations from such a *cheap* device for what it can do!

 

[tubemonkey]

I think the whole anger that people have is stupid.

It's an iPod, why is it that important for you to have a super high quality iPod camera. The cheapest of digital cameras can take better pictures then 90% of cellular phones, so if you really cared that much about photos, then you'd not only have a digital camera, but you'd know that very few things can replace it in terms of portability and quality.

The iPhone has it, so why not the touch?

 

[PlatinuM195]

Basically what people wanted was the same (or better) specs than the iP4 so that they could somehow feel better about their purchase compared to people who shelled out significantly more for the iP4.

 

[skiltrip]

Digital camera resolution chart - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

Good link! This kind of lays it all out for everyone.

 

[skiltrip]

True, so why doesn't Apple use the touch's cam for the iPhone?

'Cause the iPhone is already thick enough to put a higher rez cam in it.

 

[M-5]

The camera isn't meant for stills. I'm sure it's meant primarily for FaceTime and switching between the front and back camera to display things during a video session. The resolution is high enough for HD video, but since people would like to upload photos to a social network or for use in other apps, the ability to take stills is also there.

 

[tubemonkey]

'Cause the iPhone is already thick enough to put a higher rez cam in it.

The touch could be just as large. There was no reason for them to shrink it.

 

[skiltrip]

I've taken some really nice pictures on my Samsung Mantra prepaid phone with a VGA camera. And that's a $29 POS phone. It's all about available light. If conditions are good, there's no reason this iPod touch cam won't deliver.

For what it's worth, all 5MP of the iPhone's camera doesn't make it a good one. It's grainy in anything but really good natural light. Or you can use it's little flash to unevenly light your subject. And if your frame is dominated by any particular color, like.. too much blue when shooting people in a pool for example, your whole image has a blue hue to it.

Point is, the iPhone 4's cam is great for fun, point and click, post to Facebook kind of shots. Maybe now and then you'll snag a printable picture. But not usually. There's no image stabilization on it either, so good luck getting a pic without some smearing unless you're in nice bright sunlight.

On the same token, the iPod touch's cam will be great for point and click, post to Facebook kind of shots as well. Only difference is I never have to resize anything because they are already a good size for posting to Facebook, web forums, digital photo albums, etc.

I can't believe people are bitching about this. lol.

 

[tubemonkey]

Point is, the iPhone 4's cam is great for fun, point and click, post to Facebook kind of shots. Maybe now and then you'll snag a printable picture. But not usually. There's no image stabilization on it either, so good luck getting a pic without some smearing unless you're in nice bright sunlight.

Yeah, Apple really screwed up by putting such a lousy camera in the iPhone, when they could've put the touch's fabulous camera inside. 😉

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

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.

So... you saw a bunch of people complaining about a product they have yet to use and that swayed your opinion? Even if they went into an Apple Store to test it out, those are hardly ideal conditions for testing the camera.

And thus the Touch getting a retina display, built-in mic, two cameras, and the A4 processor is the worst rollout ever?! What would it take to make the best rollout ever?

Also, on the MP vs quality argument: The number of MP has no bearing on the quality of the photograph (as long as "quality" doesn't include size, just the clarity, color parity, etc). I've seen 10 MP cameras churn out far worse pictures than my 5 MP camera does in the same conditions. The biggest thing is low-light performance. Assuming the sensor size is the same, a 5 MP sensor will out-perform a 10 MP sensor in low-light conditions.

 

[uberamd]

Given the one they shoved in; yes, they should've left it out. What was wrong with using the same one they put in the iPhone 4?

Alright, maybe you should head over to the Apple campus and teach those stupid engineers a thing or two about cameras!

My ********** god people! Are you serious right now? The iPod Touch is $229.... thats it! The iPhone 4 is $599! Are you trying to tell me that the ONLY difference between the $229 price tag and the $599 price tag should be the 3G chip in the phones? Seriously? There NEEDS to be differentiation between a higher end product like the iPhone and the lower-end product like the iPod Touch.

This was NEVER intended to replace your digital camera.

I was all set to buy until I saw the ridiculous camera spec.

Many people are arguing that if one wants better quality photos one should use a dedicated digital camera, but that's completely missing the point.

The iPhone has a great camera, from which many semi-pro photographers are making reasonable sized prints, and regular folks are doing fantastic creative work with some of the photo apps available. As many people have pointed out, almost all devices nowdays with cameras take reasonable sized images. It's obvious that this new "mini camera" in the iPod Touch is intentionally meant to cripple the functionality of the device.

I, like many others, was hoping for a device that could play movies, music, run apps and take great photos - in other words a single device which does everything one needs (other than make phone calls).

The fact that the iPhone does all these things is great, but one is forced to pay a substantial cost (not to Apple, but to a network) for a long-term data plan. Many of us have no need for a new phone or expensive data plan, but do look for such an "all-in-one" device. The technology is already out there, and the new iPod Touch has all that except it also has a single incredibly compromised function which therefore prevents it from being the device it could be. It leaves a huge hole in the market.

I would love to use all these great photo apps from the Apple store, but now see that I have no choice but to subscribe to a 2 year data plan and buy an iPhone to get that functionality? WTF??

Are you freaking kidding me? The new iPod Touches added dual cameras, a much faster chip, and an amazing display and that isn't good enough for you? Are you serious right now? I paid $300 for my original iPod Touch (the 1G) that had NO speaker, NO volume buttons, NO cameras, NO retina display, and NO A4 chip all while being $71 more. And you're complaining over a less expensive device with many more features?

I feel like I'm at a toy store listening to all the kids whining to their parents about how all the toys there suck. Grow the heck up.

So... you saw a bunch of people complaining about a product they have yet to use and that swayed your opinion? Even if they went into an Apple Store to test it out, those are hardly ideal conditions for testing the camera.

And thus the Touch getting a retina display, built-in mic, two cameras, and the A4 processor is the worst rollout ever?! What would it take to make the best rollout ever?

Also, on the MP vs quality argument: The number of MP has no bearing on the quality of the photograph (as long as "quality" doesn't include size, just the clarity, color parity, etc). I've seen 10 MP cameras churn out far worse pictures than my 5 MP camera does in the same conditions. The biggest thing is low-light performance. Assuming the sensor size is the same, a 5 MP sensor will out-perform a 10 MP sensor in low-light conditions.

+1. These people are pathetic. It is impossible to please so many people here it just makes me lose faith in a lot of Apple fans. I mean seriously, the iPod Touch is the best yet and all people do is cry for MOAR!!! Whats happening to this place?

 

[tubemonkey]

My ********** god people! Are you serious right now? The iPod Touch is $229.... thats it! The iPhone 4 is $599! Are you trying to tell me that the ONLY difference between the $229 price tag and the $599 price tag should be the 3G chip in the phones? Seriously? There NEEDS to be differentiation between a higher end product like the iPhone and the lower-end product like the iPod Touch.

I'm saying a $299 iPod touch 32Gb should have the same features as a $299 iPhone 32GB.

 

[uberamd]

I'm saying a $299 iPod touch 32Gb should have the same features as a $299 iPhone 32GB.

But the $299 iPhone 32GB is actually $699, so your point is entirely moot. BLNT.

 

[puffnstuff]

I'm saying a $299 iPod touch 32Gb should have the same features as a $299 iPhone 32GB.

The iPhone is $299 w/ a contract. If it was $299 without nobody would get an iPod touch

 

[tubemonkey]

But the $299 iPhone 32GB is actually $699, so your point is entirely moot. BLNT.

A phone that costs Apple around $200 to make is deserving of a $400-500 profit? 😱

 

[tubemonkey]

The iPhone is $299 w/ a contract. If it was $299 without nobody would get an iPod touch

Exactly.😀

 

[uberamd]

A phone that costs Apple around $200 to make is deserving of a $400-500 profit? 😱

Where does it say, out of curiosity, that the iPhone 4 32GB costs $200 to make? And really, nobody is making you buy it. If the iPod touch is so terrible, go buy a Zune HD.

 

[tubemonkey]

Where does it say, out of curiosity, that the iPhone 4 32GB costs $200 to make? And really, nobody is making you buy it. If the iPod touch is so terrible, go buy a Zune HD.

I said around $200. iSuppli did a teardown on a 16GB iPhone 4 and placed the costs at $187.51 ($27.00 for 16GB flash). I'm estimating for the additional 16GB of flash.

And the Zune is even more crippled than the touch. 😀

 

[goobot]

it shouldn't even have a back camera. so you shouldn't complain.

 

[uberamd]

I said around $200. iSuppli did a teardown on a 16GB iPhone 4 and placed the costs at $187.51 ($27.00 for 16GB flash). I'm estimating for the additional 16GB of flash.

And the Zune is even more crippled than the touch. 😀

First off, device cost doesn't include R&D which is very expensive. So maybe these devices aren't whats cripped? Maybe whats crippled is your expectations of a $229 piece of equipment?

As I said before, and I'll say again: my 8GB iPod Touch 1G was $300 with no speaker, no volume rocker, no retina display, no cameras, no microphone, and no A4 chip. In my eyes the iPod Touch is an amazing value, some of you are just way to picky and need to get over the "I WANT I WANT I WANT" stage.

 

[ingraman]

I would guess that the "pictures" are just video stills, which aren't the greatest of quality by any measure. But I'm glad they added the cameras, since the 5G will probably get higher resolution sensors.

 

[br0adband]

The rear camera ain't for professional level stuff, folks, this is just too obvious. This is a consumer grade "Oh lemme record that for YouTube with my iPod touch" kinda stuff, not the kind of things that would be used in broadcast work.

I mean really, I'll be the first to chew Apple a new one when they screw up (far more often than the majority of this forum would dare admit - for example, Jobs claimed the iPod touch(s) have outsold PSPs/Nintendo portables/etc and it's simply not true, not by a long shot but, Jobs says it and people believe it) but this time they really haven't done much of anything wrong that I can tell.

As noted by uberamd, it's a significant difference with the iPt 4G than the previous models whether people like it or not. If you accept that the hardware improvements in the iPhone 4 blow away the previous iterations, then you should be thinking the same thing about the iPod touch 4G.

Don't like it? Too bad, but Apple doesn't give a damn what you like or don't like - they make what they want to make and then use marketing to get people to want the same things.

Hell, Steve Jobs outright declared the audio CD dead for all intents and purpose when he stood on that stage on Wednesday. If not exactly today, soon enough, but since HE said it, people attach significance to it, entirely too much in my opinion but, that's what happens.

While the iPt 4G is nice, I'll still be getting an Archos 43 soon instead. It's got what I'm interested in (overall) and that's really all there is to it. Each of us is different... Apple doesn't care, of course, but we are. 😉

 

[tubemonkey]

First off, device cost doesn't include R&D which is very expensive. So maybe these devices aren't whats cripped? Maybe whats crippled is your expectations of a $229 piece of equipment?

Subtracting what's missing and what's lower spec'd, it appears that Apple is doing about a 100% markup on the touch. Why is the markup on an unlocked iPhone over 300%?