Originally Posted by RBR
Yes, LED flashes have very limited range. Some give a bit more range than you seem to have experienced, but your comment is still a valid criticism of the current crop of flashes. If you are making extensive use of a stronger flash I suppose that it could drain the battery somewhat, but that still would be preferable to not getting the shot.
I've played with several phones with LED flash. I suppose, under very limited contexts, they sort of work. But the way it works, the camera would need four times the power to give sufficient exposure at twice the distance. "Real" flashes do better because they have proper reflectors and fresnel lenses to focus the light. But I haven't yet seen an LED flash on a phone that does that. One reason is that they absorb light as well, so with such a tiny "flash" it would even out.
Photo sensors which generate a lot of noise at lower light levels are typically the result of the incredibly small size of many, if not most, of them used in phones. At this point in the development cycle I believe the cost of a somewhat larger sensor should be low enough to incorporate in a phone or iPod. A decent 3.2 MP sensor can capture acceptable images. (The Nikon D1 camera was a 3 MP camera.) The point of my comment about 3-5 MP was that represents "enough" for such a device. It does not need to get caught up in "the megapixel race".
Unfortunately, in experimenting with my daughter's 3GS, I haven't found the new camera to be any better in low light than the old one. I'm not sure what the software is doing, but as on all other phones I've tried, results in dimmer light are random. Sometimes, the image will come out pretty well, but then an almost equal image won't.
Apple, and all other manufacturers, lease get on this! It's the biggest impediment to decent pictures.
I have a Canon D30. The first D-SLR to be considered to be a good pro level camera at anywhere near a decent price. It also has a 3 MP sensor. This was back around 2000-2001.
I certainly would have no objection to a 7" screen iPod touch. Frankly, the extra space would make it easier to fit things in. It would still be very compact in terms of carrying it around and would fit in the size range of screens for a MID. Actually, if Apple just did away with speakers so that you either listened with earbuds/headphones or plugged in small external speakers it would simplify packaging and would offer the possibility of much less "wasted space" than on the current iPod Touch/iPhone.
Many of us like that size because it's about as big as a device can be, yet beltable. Anything larger won't be, which is the problem with a lot of products in this space.
"The rumors" seem to suggest that Apple is moving in the direction of a touch screen tablet, which, I suppose, could be described as an iPod Touch on steroids. It will undoubtedly be priced such that it is not really an option people will consider as an iPod like device. Other speculation suggests that Apple will bring it out as what amounts to a netbook, except for price. This is consistent with Apple's history of denial right up to the moment a device is unveiled, but certainly is not proof of its existence. Still, Apple must be looking for "the next thing" to bring to market.
Who knows what this will look like? It does seem as though something in that size is coming though. Too many reports from too many reliable sources.
I'm hoping that this will use the simple OS X interface rather than the iPhone one.
Though it would be interesting if somehow Apple figures out a way to use both. That's just hope though, as the processors are different. I wonder if Apple will go with some unreleased Atom chip for OS X compatibility, or an ARM for iPhone compatibility, or both.
Or a mainstream chip for speed (which could then likely emulate the ARM). YUM!