1. jhamilton3's Avatar
    When I want to take pictures I'm going to take them with something comfortable in taking pictures to begin with. Who wants to hold an iPad up to take a picture?

    It would only make sense to me to use my iPhone 4 (which takes the best pics of any smartphone out there) or my Canon Rebel t2i .. two devices designed/properly used to take pictures.

    A tablet is not something that should logically be used to take pictures.
    OTACORB likes this.
    03-15-2011 10:58 PM
  2. AppleFan's Avatar
    I honstly believe for a device in this range of price, it is an amazing deal ... Many things would seal the deal for me, however, I guess I'm fine with where things are now in terms of money value. Maybe in iPad 3 things will work out better in terms of HD video recording
    03-16-2011 01:32 AM
  3. cardfan's Avatar
    When I want to take pictures I'm going to take them with something comfortable in taking pictures to begin with. Who wants to hold an iPad up to take a picture?

    It would only make sense to me to use my iPhone 4 (which takes the best pics of any smartphone out there) or my Canon Rebel t2i .. two devices designed/properly used to take pictures.

    A tablet is not something that should logically be used to take pictures.
    I see we're still trying to rationalize bottom of the barrel cameras. No one is suggesting you take your ipad on a photo shoot.

    People have tried to chime in on how better quality cameras could be used. Or see what kind of apps devs can develop on the ipad for them. But you all insist on worrying about what you would look like taking a pic. Pretty stupid..
    west3man likes this.
    03-16-2011 07:49 AM
  4. stkywik's Avatar
    To the OP and those complaining about camera quality- I'm sorry you were disappointed. However, you were not disappointed by Apple, but by your own unrealistic expectations. As it has been said a number of times in this thread alone, the cameras are primarily for Facetime and nothing more.

    I myself was disappointed by the lack of retina display, but it didn't stop me from getting an iPad 2. I understand and accept that making a screen of that size with that high of a pixel density wasn't a realistic option for this iteration of the iPad. I hope to see it in the future because an iPad with the clarity of an iPhone screen would be a thing of true beauty.
    03-16-2011 09:34 AM
  5. cardfan's Avatar
    To the OP and those complaining about camera quality- I'm sorry you were disappointed. However, you were not disappointed by Apple, but by your own unrealistic expectations. As it has been said a number of times in this thread alone, the cameras are primarily for Facetime and nothing more.
    Yep, don't blame Apple. Blame yourself for having the unrealistic expectation that the camera wouldn't be garbage :P
    03-16-2011 10:50 AM
  6. JHBThree's Avatar
    Yep, don't blame Apple. Blame yourself for having the unrealistic expectation that the camera wouldn't be garbage :P
    Or you could actually pay attention to what he said and understand that the only reason the cameras exist is for Facetime. If they had wanted to add cameras that were actually for taking pictures, they would have. But they didn't, because that's not what they're intended for.
    03-16-2011 11:30 AM
  7. P@t's Avatar
    Gotta hold something back for the next iPad. I bet we see an upgrade to the camera in the next version.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    03-16-2011 11:45 AM
  8. cardfan's Avatar
    Or you could actually pay attention to what he said and understand that the only reason the cameras exist is for Facetime. If they had wanted to add cameras that were actually for taking pictures, they would have. But they didn't, because that's not what they're intended for.
    If not intended for pics or videos, then why have a camera app? Why not just facetime?

    I've tried a few scanner apps on ipad 2 (that work well on iphone) and the ipad camera isn't really useful for that purpose. Though the ipad does create a lot of shadow given its size..a flash would be preferable.
    03-16-2011 12:41 PM
  9. JHBThree's Avatar
    If not intended for pics or videos, then why have a camera app? Why not just facetime?

    I've tried a few scanner apps on ipad 2 (that work well on iphone) and the ipad camera isn't really useful for that purpose. Though the ipad does create a lot of shadow given its size..a flash would be preferable.
    It isn't the sensor, its the fact that you're trying to use a 10 inch tablet as a camera. I have a fourth generation iPod Touch and it scans documents just as well as the iPhone 4 did.

    As for your first question: If they didn't, you'd be on here *****ing that there wasn't a camera app included. Its a no-win situation for them. (and don't try and say 'well they should have just included the iPhone's camera, because we know for a FACT that the case is too thin to support it)
    03-16-2011 01:11 PM
  10. cardfan's Avatar
    It isn't the sensor, its the fact that you're trying to use a 10 inch tablet as a camera. I have a fourth generation iPod Touch and it scans documents just as well as the iPhone 4 did.

    As for your first question: If they didn't, you'd be on here *****ing that there wasn't a camera app included. Its a no-win situation for them. (and don't try and say 'well they should have just included the iPhone's camera, because we know for a FACT that the case is too thin to support it)
    Whatever makes you feel better I'm sure we'll see improvements in ipad 3.
    west3man likes this.
    03-16-2011 01:37 PM
  11. west3man's Avatar
    I shouldn't be surprised at the quality of discourse, but sadly, I am. It's too bad people cant disagree with the op without claiming the he (?) and those who agree with him don't actually have decent reasons for having certain preferences and expectations. Naw. It's got to be that we just want something to complain about.

    And yet I see little about the lack of information available at after the iPad announcement about the quality of the cameras. We knew about video quality, but all the sites I follow were wondering about the quality of the still photos.

    No wonder Apple announced it a week and a half before it's availability. That makes it hard for the shortcomings to float to the surface and overshadow the gloss and shine of smart covers that over little protection for the front, none for the back...but at least they're pretty and clever.

    It's a nice device, but let's not get so caught up in the hype that we can't even discuss its shortcomings without saying things like "Yes, it has a camera, but it wasn't meant for taking pictures."
    03-16-2011 05:23 PM
  12. jhamilton3's Avatar
    I see we're still trying to rationalize bottom of the barrel cameras. No one is suggesting you take your ipad on a photo shoot.

    People have tried to chime in on how better quality cameras could be used. Or see what kind of apps devs can develop on the ipad for them. But you all insist on worrying about what you would look like taking a pic. Pretty stupid..
    The personal attacks need to stop. This is your last warning.
    03-16-2011 05:35 PM
  13. Ipheuria's Avatar
    I have to say that reading the posts a few people seem to forget that it's a forum and it's just an opinion. It's one which everyone has a right to have and express. This doesn't change the actual device, just because Tom says device A's camera sucks doesn't mean they suck it just means they suck to Tom. So I think it's good that the OP figured it out before he bought it because it means one less bad critic and one more available device for someone who really wants it.

    The problem I also see is the idea that the iPad is a big iPod Touch or a big iPhone. They do overlap and do look alike but they have differen pros and cons as well as different uses. I do have to say I'm an amateur photographer with a Nikon DSLR I think I've taken a handful of pictures with my iPhone. I don't care how good it is, and if it now has flash, the zoom is garbage. So I use my DSLR or my P&S if it's a quick shot. If it's in the minute and quality really doesn't matter I'll take out the iPhone. I think it's a mistake to expect to use the iPad especially if you already have a cameraphone which is smaller and lighter.
    03-16-2011 05:44 PM
  14. west3man's Avatar
    I don't fully agree with what you said, but I certainly respect the way you said it.

    I have often wanted the photos that are on my phone or point-and-shoot cameras...or even my computer... To be on my iPad, for one reason or another. There are ways to make that happen but none of them are as quick and convenient as just taking the picture WITH the iPad.

    Whether it's a picture that needs to be small enough for eBay, but good enough to attract buyers or photos that I take at a family event and then immediately want to easily show TO the family or just not wanting to have to be at the mercy of easily lost, over-priced accessories when I want to go from recognizing a Kodak moment to manipulating that stolen moment on a capable device.

    There are other options, but I still feel that the iPad would be the best option in just enough situations to warrant a better camera (IF there's going to be a camera, at all, in it's 2nd generation) on a device that can cost as much as almost $900 after tax and before accessories.

    I have to say that reading the posts a few people seem to forget that it's a forum and it's just an opinion. It's one which everyone has a right to have and express. This doesn't change the actual device, just because Tom says device A's camera sucks doesn't mean they suck it just means they suck to Tom. So I think it's good that the OP figured it out before he bought it because it means one less bad critic and one more available device for someone who really wants it.

    The problem I also see is the idea that the iPad is a big iPod Touch or a big iPhone. They do overlap and do look alike but they have differen pros and cons as well as different uses. I do have to say I'm an amateur photographer with a Nikon DSLR I think I've taken a handful of pictures with my iPhone. I don't care how good it is, and if it now has flash, the zoom is garbage. So I use my DSLR or my P&S if it's a quick shot. If it's in the minute and quality really doesn't matter I'll take out the iPhone. I think it's a mistake to expect to use the iPad especially if you already have a cameraphone which is smaller and lighter.
    03-16-2011 05:55 PM
  15. OTACORB's Avatar
    In took a few pictures today while outdoors and also did a couple of videos. I think they look just fine given that we are talking about a tablet. I am totally happy and feel that some expectations will never be met. However, the majority of us are fine with the cameras.
    03-16-2011 06:52 PM
  16. Ipheuria's Avatar
    I understand that some people aren't happy with the quality of the cameras. So let me just ask another question, if the cameras were alot better at the cost of an extra 100 bucks would any of you consider it?
    03-16-2011 07:27 PM
  17. lawls's Avatar
    I think if I had to substitute crappy cameras for a more affordable price i would. People right now talk about the iPad being expensive, and I think with iP4 level cameras the price would be significantly higher.

    Besides, Apple has to leave something for iPad 3, if they give us everything now no one will want the next gen. At the moment there is only so much they can give us. Its a great device sure, but its not an all-in-one, solve every problem device
    03-16-2011 11:49 PM
  18. Ipheuria's Avatar
    I think people view it as expensive because they lump it in with netbooks which cost 199 and 299. I don't think it's expensive at all. If you look at other things that are interests there are alot that are way more expensive. It is hard to find a good DSLR for the same price. If you buy used gear or old models then sure but at that point it's not really comparable. I have friends who buy $1400 lenses all the time. My hobby is modifying cars, last year modifications and maintenance together I spent over 15K. So when you really look at it I find it to be a very reasonable price.
    03-17-2011 12:03 AM
  19. OTACORB's Avatar
    I understand that some people aren't happy with the quality of the cameras. So let me just ask another question, if the cameras were alot better at the cost of an extra 100 bucks would any of you consider it?
    No, I would not pay more for a bit better camera. I used them today to take some snap shots and video. They look fine to me given that I am using a tablet to take them. I also felt sort of stupid holding up this 10" iPad to take pictures and video. hehehe

    I think Apple did the right thing. Cheaper cams to keep the price point.
    03-17-2011 12:18 AM
  20. ballajb's Avatar
    So far the only thing that bothers me is the camera quality
    03-17-2011 03:18 AM
  21. west3man's Avatar
    I understand that some people aren't happy with the quality of the cameras. So let me just ask another question, if the cameras were alot better at the cost of an extra 100 bucks would any of you consider it?
    I don't think that's the way it would have to be, but assuming it were...maybe I would sacrifice Americans jump for a better camera. In other words, get a 32GB model instead of 64GB.
    03-17-2011 06:58 AM
  22. west3man's Avatar
    I think people view it as expensive because they lump it in with netbooks which cost 199 and 299. I don't think it's expensive at all. If you look at other things that are interests there are alot that are way more expensive. It is hard to find a good DSLR for the same price. If you buy used gear or old models then sure but at that point it's not really comparable. I have friends who buy $1400 lenses all the time. My hobby is modifying cars, last year modifications and maintenance together I spent over 15K. So when you really look at it I find it to be a very reasonable price.
    I think you just made a better case for why it isn't expensive to you than why it is expensive to others.
    03-17-2011 07:00 AM
  23. west3man's Avatar
    I think if I had to substitute crappy cameras for a more affordable price i would. People right now talk about the iPad being expensive, and I think with iP4 level cameras the price would be significantly higher.

    Besides, Apple has to leave something for iPad 3, if they give us everything now no one will want the next gen. At the moment there is only so much they can give us. Its a great device sure, but its not an all-in-one, solve every problem device
    Apple charges an extra $100 for an extra 32GB of storage, when we know it doesn't cost anywhere near that much and an extra $200 for 48 more gigs.

    So, sure, you could say that the iPad would cost more, except that it's not a function of what HAS to be. It's about what Apple chooses.

    Just like last year when they chose to make a space for the camera in the first iPad, but didn't put one in it.

    Just like they chose to make an iphone with better features, but that costs less than the iPad - even unsubsidized, iirc. Take the retina display away from iphone 4 and take the thinness from ipad 2 and then compare. Cell reception in one, bigger display on the other but dramatic price difference...and iPhone 4 was made last year.
    03-17-2011 07:08 AM
  24. FastNOC's Avatar
    personally i find the cameras just fine. I'm not using an iPad to shoot video, and why in the world would it support 1080p video recording when it can't even display 1080p? that's like putting 5000 tires on a hybrid. looks cool, but is pointless.
    03-24-2011 07:09 AM
  25. gameboy213's Avatar
    Personally I don't have any complaints with the iPad 2. I feel like it is what the first one should have been.

    Very glad that I upgraded.
    03-25-2011 02:07 AM
70 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD