Why tarnish a beautiful device with 2 woeful, pathetic cameras?

[cfdj1971]

1MP rear and front-facing VGA, are of absolutely no use of all, apart from for FaceTime. Nokia dumbphones were packing better specs nearly a decade ago! As for the PhotoBooth app, another waste of time, fun for 10 minutes and then it will never get used, just like it's equivalent on a Mac.

 

[cardfan]

1MP rear and front-facing VGA, are of absolutely no use of all, apart from for FaceTime. Nokia dumbphones were packing better specs nearly a decade ago! As for the PhotoBooth app, another waste of time, fun for 10 minutes and then it will never get used, just like it's equivalent on a Mac.

You've just described most apps.

 

[cfdj1971]

I guess so, but you expect more from an app developed by Apple.

 

[JasonG]

haha. wait, so i didnt look into the specs of the ipad 2 yet, as i have been fairly busy, and i really dont care honestly, but they seriously only put a 1mp camera on it? haha. joke. that makes me think that they only put the camera on there for facetime purposes, and that they know that no one wants a camera on the ipad, at least not for any other reason.

 

[stkywik]

Why would you want state of the art cameras on the iPad? The iPad was not and is not designed to be a camera, and the cameras they have added to it are perfectly fine for the function they are meant to perform (Facetime cameras). Anything more would just needlessly drive the price up.

 

[JasonG]

you will see better cameras on them as new ones get released. and the purpose of the cameras on the ipad is facetime, but people will still use them for something else. it seems a tad out of place, since the iphone 4, and the 4th gen ipod touches have 5mp cameras, but the ipad has such an inferior camera. even my first camera phone was a 1.3 mp camera. and i understand that its for face time, but if theres a chance of someone using the rear camera for facetime, then theres the chance that they would use the camera to take pictures, or a video of something. it would just seem like they would put a 3mp camera in it a least. correct me if im wrong, but didnt the 3gs have a 3mp camera on it?

 

[Jjzoo]

iPod doesn't have 5mps. Only iPhone 4

 

[kittykatta]

Why would you want state of the art cameras on the iPad? The iPad was not and is not designed to be a camera, and the cameras they have added to it are perfectly fine for the function they are meant to perform (Facetime cameras).

Why?

1) The spent 40min in the press event to prove the iPad is an all-in-one media creation device. So what good is all that incredible software and powerful hardware when your native film/photo input is limited to a .69MP Front / 1MP Back camera?

2) Cameras arent limited to only view people. So its a HUGE deal that the iPad 2 camera lacks AUTOFOCUS. As we've seen with this camera system on the Touch, many fantastic iPhone 4 apps require AF to work. Google Translate, Document scanning, Check cashing, QR scanning, Augmented reality, barcode apps will all be incompatible without a quality autofocus camera.

3) HD Output. On the low res iPad screen you can (almost) get away with a sub-par camera. But now that Apple supports HD output then those 640x480 pictures will look

4) This isn't 2004. When was the last time you had a sub 1MP cell camera? The original iPhone is 2MP. Most disposable cellphones have over 1MP cameras. The iPod Nano's 1.6" screen had VGA camera. And now the 2011 9.7" iPad has a .69MP/1MP camera set. And people are defending this?

5) iPad INSTEAD of iPhone. In tech circles then everyone has a good phone. So yes, "take a pic with your smartphone" works with your friends. But MANY people will buy the iPad INSTEAD of an iPhone so why should the functionality be limited? Especially at this pricepoint.

6) Developers If you dont provide the proper equipment then developers wont give any attention to that feature. So even if people will say "wait for 2012 to get a passable camera" then devs wont start working with that until next year.

7) Price. Ignore the cost of the competition and look purely at Apples product line. $499 is great but lets not pretend it really costs $100/200 to move from 16GB to 32/64GB so why not at least put in a high quality camera in the high end models? People defend Apples bottom line that they ignore the fact that a $829 tablet deserves more than a 1MP camera.

8) Apple. Make all the excuses you want, but lets be honest here. When did Apple ever aim for the bottom? Apple has earned their public perception of being a quality company due to their forward-thinking attitude and reluctance to half-ass anything. Yet here we are staring directly into one of their few compromises. A camera that does not hold up to their reputation of innovative technology.

 

[big9erfan]

Have you held an iPad? Do you have any idea how unwieldy it would be to use the iPad for taking pictures?

By apple putting in such low mp cameras they are telling the customer that the iPad isn't for taking pictures. Period. IMO people "complaining" about the quality of the cameras are just looking for something to complain about. For the record I don't care wither way, I'm not getting an iPad2.

The back camera is 720p, that's 1280x720.

 

[cardfan]

Have you held an iPad? Do you have any idea how unwieldy it would be to use the iPad for taking pictures?

By apple putting in such low mp cameras they are telling the customer that the iPad isn't for taking pictures. Period. IMO people "complaining" about the quality of the cameras are just looking for something to complain about. For the record I don't care wither way, I'm not getting an iPad2.

The back camera is 720p, that's 1280x720.

Don't you have to hold the ipad for using Facetime? It won't hold itself. A quick scan or pic requires a few seconds. I would assume Facetime involves holding the ipad much longer than that in front of your face. One is silly, the other is not?

Unwieldy? It's just a bigger ipod touch and weighs little over a lb.

 

[big9erfan]

It's unwieldy IMO for holding and taking pictures. Even for FaceTime holding it up that long would get uncomfortable quite quickly.

I think that's why they are selling the smart case or whatever it's called so people have something to prop the iPad up against for long FaceTime sessions

 

[kittykatta]

Have you held an iPad? Do you have any idea how unwieldy it would be to use the iPad for taking pictures?

Actually the entire camera industry is locked into an outdated design for "comfortably" shooting photos and it isn't getting any better. With DSLR's and older cameras you would hold an awkward box to your head that restricted any peripheral vision. And with big screen cameras you now extend your arms to view a screen which creates a tremendous amount of shake. So to say the iPad is unwieldy doesnt necessarily make it any worse than every other camera in the industry.

(BTW. The most comfortable way to take a photo? A sniper rifle. The butt of the gun allows more stability, the arm positioning offers balance and the sight allows use of the other eye in order to properly guage the wider shot. Unfortunately this wont make it into modern camera design for obvioius reasons)

By apple putting in such low mp cameras they are telling the customer that the iPad isn't for taking pictures. Period.

That logic doesn't make sense. Apple doesnt want us taking pictures/video yet they spent half the announcement showing off Photobooth, Facetime and iMovie? I guess they also dont want us to output content to anywhere other than the iPad screen which is why they have social viewing site connectivity and introduced HDMI output too?

IMO people "complaining" about the quality of the cameras are just looking for something to complain about.

Or maybe they're content creators that watched a fantastic demo of the iPad working as a standalone Media Creation tool yet find the input quality to be severely lacking. Or maybe they're Mac users who thought they just paid for an app called Facetime HD, not Facetime VGA. Or maybe it's people who dont want apps crippled due to lack of autofocus. Or maybe its "penny pinchers" who are so cheap that they expect modern hardware in a $800 product.

Maybe since youre not be buying one is why you dont care. But I'm buying two and I really don't think "Wait until 2012 to get a 2009 camera" is an excuse we should accept so easily.