The iPod touch is very thin, too thin to accommodate high-quality autofocus camera modules. Allegedly the camera part was scrapped at the last minute because of QA issues.
Let's face it: Apple cannot suspend the laws of physics or ignore the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing. Last year, they likely decided that the available camera modules were not of sufficient quality, so they struck the idea.
I disagree, to me - I don't think making it a a tenth of an inch thicker or whatever is needed would be a negative to consumers. Maybe Jobs would balk at it, but wouldn't people gladly accept a very slightly thicker iPod touch if it gives them a 5mp higher quality camera and hopefully with video recording? Personally I think if they release a 2mp camera that would turn off most consumers (geeks and avg guy/gal) because most people know about megapixels having purchased digtital cameras for years now and know 2mp is subpar. Especially with more and more becoming HD savvy and wanting such standards.
Last year Jobs tried to compare the video nano to the Flip, can't keep trying that comparison with such low quality and the Flip has HD.
If true this will be a huge FAIL -- 2 megapixel, wtf is that!!!?? In these days of 5mp at bare minimum and many phones and devices now offering 8 or higher mp, to offer 2mp is horribly bad and very 2007-8 (yes, tech changes fast). For Apple's sake I hope this is wrong and maybe fake... they will be laughed out of the keynote if Steve Jobs says with a straight face, "and now it has a great 2 megapixel camera." How is that going to compete with the Flip?! \
How many MP3 players have 5 MP cameras? They probably went with 2 MP because he iPod Touch is so thin, that anything more would be grainy due to the inability to make the lens and sensor large enough to capture enough light. You don't need more than 2 MP to upload pictures to Facebook.
If true this will be a huge FAIL -- 2 megapixel, wtf is that!!!?? In these days of 5mp at bare minimum and many phones and devices now offering 8 or higher mp, to offer 2mp is horribly bad and very 2007-8 (yes, tech changes fast). For Apple's sake I hope this is wrong and maybe fake... they will be laughed out of the keynote if Steve Jobs says with a straight face, "and now it has a great 2 megapixel camera." How is that going to compete with the Flip?! \
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
Given the size of the lens and aperature, and the size of the sensor, there is a physical limit to the resolution any camera can capture. It is a matter of light waves, not sensor technology, so even if they stuff an 80 mp sensor in there, if you take some line pair test pictures and zoom in, you will find there is no benefit in image resolution from having extra pixels in the sensor.
The downsides to extra pixels are quite significant. The more pixels the lower the light sensitivity. I would MUCH rather get a crisp bright 2 mp picture than a dim picture with 8 million blurry pixels. With fewer pixels for the processor and RAM, you can spend more CPU cycles on optimizing the image, futher improving visible quality. Then there is the reduced storage and transmission overhead of only saving the data you need.
If 2mp is not enough for you, I have to ask how many pixels are on your 60" 1080p flat screen TV, or perhaps your 140" front projection system? How many pixels are on you computer monitor? How many of your phone pictures do you print and frame? How many bigger than 8x10? What exactly are you doing with your images that requires or even benefits from having 8 million pixels?
A well developed 2mp/1080p sized and shaped image sensor in a smart phone would probably serve 99.9% of consumers better than the high mp cameras we have thank to marketing people and the morons who suck up their BS without thinking. The 2mp images would be clearer, brighter, take less space, and look better on computer monitors, TV's, projectors, LCD frames, and prints that are 8x10 or smaller. The consumers using their smartphone to capture images to print giant posters, or to display on super high end 8 mp displays, would be much better served with a real camera rather than a higher pixel count in their phone...not that these people actually exist. Few people with DSLR's do anything that requires 8mp.
All that said, this "leak" is likely not the 2010 iPod touch. It may have been a test mule from 2009 or even from 2010, but I highly doubt it is anything close to what will be released this summer.
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
Given the size of the lens and aperature, and the size of the sensor, there is a physical limit to the resolution any camera can capture. It is a matter of light waves, not sensor technology, so even if they stuff an 80 mp sensor in there, if you take some line pair test pictures and zoom in, you will find there is no benefit in image resolution from having extra pixels in the sensor.
The downsides to extra pixels are quite significant. The more pixels the lower the light sensitivity. I would MUCH rather get a crisp bright 2 mp picture than a dim picture with 8 million blurry pixels. With fewer pixels for the processor and RAM, you can spend more CPU cycles on optimizing the image, futher improving visible quality. Then there is the reduced storage and transmission overhead of only saving the data you need.
Exactly.
More importantly though, it is the necessity of excellent low-light performance when shooting video. Basically, the minimum shutter speed is 1/60 of a second, so you need a sensor that performs well otherwise you'll often end up with black video with moving blobs of grey.
Many people simply don't understand this simple point, which is why we have comments such as we have witnessed above and elsewhere.
More importantly though, it is the necessity of excellent low-light performance when shooting video. Basically, the minimum shutter speed is 1/60 of a second, so you need a sensor that performs well otherwise you'll often end up with black video with moving blobs of grey.
Ahhhhhh! So that must be why Hollywood still uses them big old heavy cameras instead of shooting movies with their smart phones!
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
Given the size of the lens and aperature, and the size of the sensor, there is a physical limit to the resolution any camera can capture. It is a matter of light waves, not sensor technology, so even if they stuff an 80 mp sensor in there, if you take some line pair test pictures and zoom in, you will find there is no benefit in image resolution from having extra pixels in the sensor.
The downsides to extra pixels are quite significant. The more pixels the lower the light sensitivity. I would MUCH rather get a crisp bright 2 mp picture than a dim picture with 8 million blurry pixels. With fewer pixels for the processor and RAM, you can spend more CPU cycles on optimizing the image, futher improving visible quality. Then there is the reduced storage and transmission overhead of only saving the data you need.
If 2mp is not enough for you, I have to ask how many pixels are on your 60" 1080p flat screen TV, or perhaps your 140" front projection system? How many pixels are on you computer monitor? How many of your phone pictures do you print and frame? How many bigger than 8x10? What exactly are you doing with your images that requires or even benefits from having 8 million pixels?
A well developed 2mp/1080p sized and shaped image sensor in a smart phone would probably serve 99.9% of consumers better than the high mp cameras we have thank to marketing people and the morons who suck up their BS without thinking. The 2mp images would be clearer, brighter, take less space, and look better on computer monitors, TV's, projectors, LCD frames, and prints that are 8x10 or smaller. The consumers using their smartphone to capture images to print giant posters, or to display on super high end 8 mp displays, would be much better served with a real camera rather than a higher pixel count in their phone...not that these people actually exist. Few people with DSLR's do anything that requires 8mp.
All that said, this "leak" is likely not the 2010 iPod touch. It may have been a test mule from 2009 or even from 2010, but I highly doubt it is anything close to what will be released this summer.
You're right about the issues with higher res cameras, but I actually think the initial point is an example of how brainwashed geeks are about technology. Most consumers wouldn't care if it's a 2 or 5 or 8 Mega Pixel camera on their music player, more likely they would just think it cool that it's got one at all.
If this turns out to be true, why would Apple use an antiquated 2MP camera?
Because that's all you need for 720p HD video?
Are you suggesting that their camera capabilities will simply satisfy the screen resolution?
If I am not mistaken, Apple is considering higher MPs for its iPhone, and more than likely also its iPod Touch. If not during this coming version, at least in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
And this is a stunning proclamation of how people like you understand the average consumer. You realize of course that the average consumer likes to take pictures with their phones, and share them, and sometimes print them and enlarge them. Sometimes, it is the only camera they carry for convenience.
After some time the novelty gets old, if all you get are grainy or fuzzy photos, especially when printed or enlarged.
However true what you stated, the other issue is that the average consumers compare photos. If they can see friends getting better photos with their phones, that can cast doubt in their mind -- the pissing contest factor (see below).
Based on your technical explanations, Apple should not even consider higher MP cameras for the iPhone, but they do, if you believe the rumors posted here in Apple Insider.
It is true that there are technical limits, based on the usual cameras used for phones, But there was a time, cameras were huge like a tank. Redesign were evolved in digital cameras so that they are getting more powerful (pixel wise), into smaller and smaller boxes. I do not know the technology involved, but "snooping lenses" must be quite small. In the case of light sensing. I do not know how Nikon does it, but it has found a way to improve the ISO capabilities of its cameras,
Can the existing cameras be improved further and made even smaller and even more sensitive? There is a great chance it would. Technologies may already be in the pipeline to do just that.
The other issue is more psychological why Apple cannot just stop at a 2MP camera -- the pissing contest. In situations like this, people do not really care what explanations that Apple or people like you say about the limitations of physics and technology. I want my camera to be as good (if not better) than that of my friend; however irrational that may be from your perspective.
Apple will lose the war in mobile gadget camera if it does not attempt to keep up. Or, at least, it must be able to show that the quality of the photos taken with the iPhone OS cameras are much better than those of other mobile gadgets.
Do the average consumer care about the quality of the camera in their mobile gadgets? You bet they do. And a very critical feature that could tilt their choice.
The iPhone is not just a phone, it is a mobile multimedia device. That is also the case with the iPod Touch.
Just a suggestion. Stop calling people stupid, it may be more reflective of you than the people you are judging -- without really knowing why and how they made their choices based on what they plan to do with the things they buy.
Are you going to remember these bold proclamations and how you view people you really do not know, when (not if) Apple decide to include higher MP cameras in their smaller mobile devices?
Perhaps after the Gizmodo fiasco, some of those people now see that they can not only get money for leaking, but that no one's going to get in any *real* trouble over it either. This is why it's good business practice to throw the book at people like Jason Chen, when they do get caught.
Punishing Jason Chen would have zero effect in the far east.
Are you suggesting that their camera capabilities will simply satisfy the screen resolution?
If I am not mistaken, Apple is considering higher MPs for its iPhone, and more than likely also its iPod Touch. If not during this coming version, at least in the near future.
And this is a stunning proclamation of how people like you understand the average consumer. You realize of course that the average consumer likes to take pictures with their phones, and share them, and sometimes print them and enlarge them. Sometimes, it is the only camera they carry for convenience.
After some time the novelty gets old, if all you get are grainy or fuzzy photos, expecially when printed or enlarged.
Based on your technical explanations, Apple should not even consider higher MP cameras for the iPhone, but they do, if you believe the rumors posted here in Apple Insider.
It is true that there are technical limits, based on the usual cameras used for phones, But there was a time, cameras were huge like a tank. Redesign were evolved in digital cameras so that they are getting more powerful (pixel wise), into smaller and smaller boxes. I do not know the technology involved, but "snooping lenses" must be quite small. In the case of light sensing. I do not know how Nikon does it, but it has found a way to improve the ISO capabilities of its cameras,
Can the existing cameras be improved further and made even smaller and even more sensitive? There is a great chance it would. Technologies may already be in the pipeline to do just that.
The other issue is more psychological why Apple cannot just -- the pissing contest. Apple will lose the war in mobile gadget camera if it does not attempt to keep up. Or, at least, it must be able to show that the quality of the photos taken with the iPhone OS cameras are much better than those of other mobile gadgets.
Do the average consumer care about the quality of the camera in their mobile gadgets? You bet they do. And a very critical feature that could tilt their choice.
The iPhone is not just a phone, it is a mobile multimedia device. That is also the case with the iPod Touch.
Just a suggestion. Stop calling people stupid, it may be more reflective of you than the people you are judging -- without really knowing why and how they made their choices based on what they plan to do with the things they buy.
Are you going to remember these bold proclamations and how you view people you really do not know, when (not if) Apple decide to include higher MP cameras in their smaller mobile devices?
CGC
Apple will definitely offer cameras with more megapixels. Not because they take better pictures, not because consumers need the pixels. They will do it because they will get beat up by the ignorant of they don't. Consumers definitely care about the camera quality, and since they don't know how to evaluate a camera's capabilities, most just look at the number before the "mp" and think the one with the biggest number must be best. In order to keep up with the MP race and sell devices companies are giving us inferior cameras, and doing their best to minimize the flaws.
Go ahead and "print" and god forbid "enlarge" GASP! your cell phone photos. No matter how many pixels you have the the image will be a blurr when blown up to a poster size. A good 2mp picture can look great at 8x10, and a bad 20 mp picture will look bad at 8x10 4x5 or any size. Resolution used to mean the ability to resolve details. Beyond a certain point, more pixels does not mean more details. If you make a bunch of poster prints from a variety of phone cameras capturing the same subject, I bet you I can pick out which cameras had larger lenses and sensor area. You can make a sensor more sensitive, you can also make it smaller, but you can not get smaller and get better resolution. It is a physical limit of the visible light waves. There is a reason higher end DSLR's are getting bigger sensors, back to the 35mm size or larger, for purposes where high detail is important, or where extreme sensitivity has benefits.
Other than lens size, and the generation of technology in the sensor, the light sensitivity is directly impacted by the size of the pixels. All else equal, bigger pixels capture more light which means better low light performance and faster shutter speeds. Faster shutter speeds mean less motion blurr. So far the technology has improved fast enough that they have been able to give us both better light performance and more pixels with each new generqation, but if they were not trying to cram in more pixels than needed, todays phone cameras could be much better than they are.
When someone makes a silly rant and puts in an oversized FAIL because they think Apple will not deliver a spec that they have no understanding of, I am going to reserve the right to call their post/rant stupid. Since this topic comes up often enough on tech sites including this one, I find it to be "stunning." Far more so than if it came from a Joe six pack in the phone section at Walmart who should not be expected to understand too much about technology. Geeks should know better, especially if they are going to state their opinions so strongly with bigs fonts. I can assure you I don't go on to quilting forums and type FAIL rants about sewing machine features. I have no clue about them (nor interest) so I keep my mouth shut.
I hope my next iPhone has a camera that takes better pictures than the 3G or 3GS. I want better exposure and less motion blurr in normal indoor lighting conditions. I want better low light performance and some form of flash support, at least for short ranges/closeups. I want more detail and less noise. I want faster startup times, faster response to hitting the "shutter button" and faster follow up shots. I want images that look good on the phone's screen, on an LCD frame, on my desktops 23" monitor, on my laptops 15" monitor, on a 1080p HDTV, and on my 10 foot wide projection screen. If it can do those things I really don't care how many megapixels it has, or if it even has as many as the marketing guys tell me. Label it 28 mp and only put in 2 for all I care. I will judge the camera based on ease of use and the quality of images. I will judge it based on people's reactions to the images I show them on my various display devices (none of which can show more than 3mp) and their reactions to images I share via the web and email where I will likely shrink the images below 2 mp no matter what the native resolution, and where they will be viewed below 2 mp no matter what file size I send or upload.
If you have super high resolution displays or other uses for the level of detail that requires 8 mp to capture, I am guessing you are not looking at an iPhone or iPod as your capture device and you probably already know what kind of device you need. If you do have the need for detail and you have the $$$$ displays to take advantage of it and you are still looking at an iDevice as your camera, then I am defintiely laughing at you. That would be akin to bringing a Jet Ski to a NASCAR race and hoping to qualify. Wrong tool. PERIOD.
I'm sorry guys but this one seems fake, I've seen so many counterfeit iPhone's. The GUI looks unapple like. Why are there so many finger prints on it in the first also it.
Is it really unknown? The article presents nothing other than the 64 GB capacity that would indicate it isn't a 2009 prototype, and if you look at the label closely, that's simply wrong, it's 32 GB.
math fail you. perhaps somebody who calls themselves Prof would take a few minutes to think about something before before posting?
Quote:
All of these Vietnamese leaks strike me as simple theft of prototypes by someone in the supply chain in the far east. Such prototypes have always existed, but no one previously would think of breaking their NDA to show them. It need not have anything to do with Vietnam in than that they might just be the buyers of the merchandise or the lucky cousin/friend of the thief.
Perhaps after the Gizmodo fiasco, some of those people now see that they can not only get money for leaking, but that no one's going to get in any *real* trouble over it either. This is why it's good business practice to throw the book at people like Jason Chen, when they do get caught.
bwhahahah thats good stuff. Let me guess, you want them to punish Chen sooo hard that his jail time causes a ripple effect across the world?
How many MP3 players have 5 MP cameras? They probably went with 2 MP because he iPod Touch is so thin, that anything more would be grainy due to the inability to make the lens and sensor large enough to capture enough light. You don't need more than 2 MP to upload pictures to Facebook.
To be accurate, most mp3 players do have 1.3-2 mp cams, but there are some that do have higher mp's (5mp or more). Isn't that what makes Apple great, they don't do what other do or bow to the standards of others, they are known to raise the bar and offer more - forcing companies to rise to their level. Again, I don't think anyone would complain about carrying a device 0.20" thicker than the current model if that new model offers more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
WOW!!!!! Thanks for completely bashing and insulting my intelligence and being some big-ego (because it makes me feel superior) bully. Guess people are not entitled to their own opinions without folks calling names or being insulting. It is my opinion and as an American I am entitled to it. You can disagree, but do it in a mature and non-bullying 'I am the king of all knowledge' type of way. Jerk! (Oh and thank you for the extreme rant on HDTV and pixels, good grief - relax!!)
Anyway, I will stick to MY opinion. You may be 100% correct in everything you said, but you are NOT the average soccer mom, high school kid, accountant, grandma, nurse type of consumer. Unless Apple restates everything you said in their commercials ALL the avg consumer will read and hear is, "The iPod touch has 2mp (and possibly no HD) and the Flip does have HD and other phones do also" (I know this is not a phone, but that doesn't matter to me!). TO ME (for you superior morons) the avg consumer will hear 2mp and think, "hmmm, that's nice, but my personal digital cam has 5 or 10 or 15+ mp, guess I'll have to still carry my digital cam around with me." I was hoping for something that would eliminate the need to carry a digital camera on most uses, this is not it and I think others would like to have an item that they could take on that trip to Florida for photos and more, but with 2mp you still need to bring your higher pixel cam (for most people). I would not buy this device, that is me, I am sure it will sell in the millions, but again I have the right to my thoughts.
Now go to Best Buy and bully the worker there who says something about tech you don't agree with.
Glad you folks don't work for Apple, you'd say, "well, no one else offers apps why should we? No one else had a successful tablet, we should leave that alone." Glad Apple strives for more.
I am actually most excited about the microphone now. If it can do voice commands or act like a speakerphone for skype I think this would make the touch even better. As many of you know I have a cell phone (T-Mo) and a touch, and since I am always in wifi range (school, work, home) I use the touch for calls as well. If the new touch has a mic it would make it a lot easier to call people without having to dig around for headphones. A 2 meg camera doesn't hurt either.
Seems to me the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it effectively into a smaller version of the iPad.
A screen in the 5-7 inch range would be ideal and really at the price that Apple is now selling the Touch, that makes a lot of sense. The Touch will suffer from cannibalization from the iPad unless Apple ups the ante with a mucn larger screen suited to what the Touch is now used for.
Increase the size of the Nano screen slightly and it fills in the void left by dropoing the current Touch. Offer it as a more compact alternative to the iPad and keep the price as is. If the Touch is currently (in Canada) $329 for 32GB and $429 for 64GB, don't increase the memory, increase screen real estate while keeping the price at similar levels. Put a higher res screen on these devices, compressing iPad resolution onto a smaller space and you'd have a great product. Lighter than the iPad, too. This would blunt iPad sales but enough people would opt for the larger unit, especially if 3G remained an iPad exclusive, that both models would flourish.
Seems to me the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it effectively into a smaller version of the iPad.
A screen in the 5-7 inch range would be ideal and really at the price that Apple is now selling the Touch, that makes a lot of sense. The Touch will suffer from cannibalization from the iPad unless Apple ups the ante with a mucn larger screen suited to what the Touch is now used for.
Increase the size of the Nano screen slightly and it fills in the void left by dropoing the current Touch. Offer it as a more compact alternative to the iPad and keep the price as is. If the Touch is currently (in Canada) $329 for 32GB and $429 for 64GB, don't increase the memory, increase screen real estate while keeping the price at similar levels. Put a higher res screen on these devices, compressing iPad resolution onto a smaller space and you'd have a great product. Lighter than the iPad, too. This would blunt iPad sales but enough people would opt for the larger unit, especially if 3G remained an iPad exclusive, that both models would flourish.
I actually think the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it into a proper camera. I don't want to wade into the battle of technical details that is waging above, but I've thought for a while that Apple could do a really cool camera, what with their experience of photo processing software on the Mac, and the Touch (made thicker of course) would seem to be a nice thing to build it around, in my humble opinion.
I actually think the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it into a proper camera. I don't want to wade into the battle of technical details that is waging above, but I've thought for a while that Apple could do a really cool camera, what with their experience of photo processing software on the Mac, and the Touch (made thicker of course) would seem to be a nice thing to build it around, in my humble opinion.
If it's a camera you want, buy a camera. Anyone serious about photography wouldn't even waste time on anything remotely at the price point or capability range of a Touch with a camera. A mediocre lens for a digital SLR costs more than the most expensive Touch model.
Everybody has a point-and-shoot digital these days, any one of which would undoubtedly outperform any camera Apple would end up putting on the Touch.
WOW!!!!! Thanks for completely bashing and insulting my intelligence and being some big-ego (because it makes me feel superior) bully. Guess people are not entitled to their own opinions without folks calling names or being insulting. It is my opinion and as an American I am entitled to it. You can disagree, but do it in a mature and non-bullying 'I am the king of all knowledge' type of way. Jerk! (Oh and thank you for the extreme rant on HDTV and pixels, good grief - relax!!)
Anyway, I will stick to MY opinion. You may be 100% correct in everything you said, but you are NOT the average soccer mom, high school kid, accountant, grandma, nurse type of consumer. Unless Apple restates everything you said in their commercials ALL the avg consumer will read and hear is, "The iPod touch has 2mp (and possibly no HD) and the Flip does have HD and other phones do also" (I know this is not a phone, but that doesn't matter to me!). TO ME (for you superior morons) the avg consumer will hear 2mp and think, "hmmm, that's nice, but my personal digital cam has 5 or 10 or 15+ mp, guess I'll have to still carry my digital cam around with me." I was hoping for something that would eliminate the need to carry a digital camera on most uses, this is not it and I think others would like to have an item that they could take on that trip to Florida for photos and more, but with 2mp you still need to bring your higher pixel cam (for most people). I would not buy this device, that is me, I am sure it will sell in the millions, but again I have the right to my thoughts.
Now go to Best Buy and bully the worker there who says something about tech you don't agree with.
Glad you folks don't work for Apple, you'd say, "well, no one else offers apps why should we? No one else had a successful tablet, we should leave that alone." Glad Apple strives for more.
Go Cowboys!!
Relax please. He was expressing his opinion too. A very logical and well thought-out one as well considering he was spot on about everything and backed up his claims. He was highlighting the fact that most people are, as he said, brainwashed in the "megapixel myth" where people believe that higher megapixels will automatically mean better image quality. That is FAAARRRRR from the truth. You began a hateful speech about how pathetic 2 mp are without any proper knowledge of how a camera sensor works. It's not his fault that people knowledgeable about the subject get frustrated. With all due respect, you sounded quite troll-like.
Keep in mind 2 mp is about 1600 by 1200 pixels (if that were video it would be 1200P) and could possibly support 720P recording like the Flip HD (only 1280 by 720 pixes and by the way, the Flip HD cant take photos). Simply put, if you don't have the image sensor to back up such a high amount of pixels per photo, it will look dark, grainy, and bland. While it is a great way to attract customers to phones (i.e. the Droid Incredible with an 8 mp camera), it is taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge. It will hurt the image quality and EVERYONE will be at a disadvantage without knowing it.
Also, most people who take images from their phones will upload them on facebook (just about 95% of the people I know who have high-end cellphone cameras do that) where the website automatically scales the image down to 0.3 mp. Then that 8 mp image will look TERRIBLE.
Now, hopefully the next time you walk into Best Buy you won't go "OMG THAT CAMERA HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS THAN THAT ONE SO IT SHOULD HAVE BETTER IMAGE QUALITY OKAY INSTANT PURCHASE." Please think logically next time you buy a device with any camera. By now you shouldn't be one of those "average customers."
To be accurate, most mp3 players do have 1.3-2 mp cams, but there are some that do have higher mp's (5mp or more). Isn't that what makes Apple great, they don't do what other do or bow to the standards of others, they are known to raise the bar and offer more - forcing companies to rise to their level. Again, I don't think anyone would complain about carrying a device 0.20" thicker than the current model if that new model offers more.
What makes Apple great is that they generally don't add features for the sake of adding features. They won't introduce a 5MP sensor just to win some mega pixel race. You are mistaking increased mega pixels with increased picture quality. Apple won't introduce a 5 MP cam in the iPod touch until it out performs the 2 MP sensor. If you need proof, look no further than the 13" MBP. It is still using core 2 duos because Intels integrated graphics are not up to par. Apple isn't afraid to look inferior on specs page if it means they can provide a better overall product.
Of course we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The current iPod Touch does not have a camera at all, and the addition of any camera whatsoever would be seen as a positive.
As an aside: increasing the thickness of the iPod touch by 0.2 inches would be a 60% increase in thickness. People would most certainly care about that.
Comments
It's part of the design test suite. You'll never see it on a production unit.
i certainly hope not
i certainly hope not
Some people here at AppleInsider have some mighty strange ideas of what they'd want on their iPod touch.
The iPod touch is very thin, too thin to accommodate high-quality autofocus camera modules. Allegedly the camera part was scrapped at the last minute because of QA issues.
Let's face it: Apple cannot suspend the laws of physics or ignore the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing. Last year, they likely decided that the available camera modules were not of sufficient quality, so they struck the idea.
I disagree, to me - I don't think making it a a tenth of an inch thicker or whatever is needed would be a negative to consumers. Maybe Jobs would balk at it, but wouldn't people gladly accept a very slightly thicker iPod touch if it gives them a 5mp higher quality camera and hopefully with video recording? Personally I think if they release a 2mp camera that would turn off most consumers (geeks and avg guy/gal) because most people know about megapixels having purchased digtital cameras for years now and know 2mp is subpar. Especially with more and more becoming HD savvy and wanting such standards.
Last year Jobs tried to compare the video nano to the Flip, can't keep trying that comparison with such low quality and the Flip has HD.
If true this will be a huge FAIL -- 2 megapixel, wtf is that!!!?? In these days of 5mp at bare minimum and many phones and devices now offering 8 or higher mp, to offer 2mp is horribly bad and very 2007-8 (yes, tech changes fast). For Apple's sake I hope this is wrong and maybe fake... they will be laughed out of the keynote if Steve Jobs says with a straight face, "and now it has a great 2 megapixel camera." How is that going to compete with the Flip?!
How many MP3 players have 5 MP cameras? They probably went with 2 MP because he iPod Touch is so thin, that anything more would be grainy due to the inability to make the lens and sensor large enough to capture enough light. You don't need more than 2 MP to upload pictures to Facebook.
If true this will be a huge FAIL -- 2 megapixel, wtf is that!!!?? In these days of 5mp at bare minimum and many phones and devices now offering 8 or higher mp, to offer 2mp is horribly bad and very 2007-8 (yes, tech changes fast). For Apple's sake I hope this is wrong and maybe fake... they will be laughed out of the keynote if Steve Jobs says with a straight face, "and now it has a great 2 megapixel camera." How is that going to compete with the Flip?!
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
Given the size of the lens and aperature, and the size of the sensor, there is a physical limit to the resolution any camera can capture. It is a matter of light waves, not sensor technology, so even if they stuff an 80 mp sensor in there, if you take some line pair test pictures and zoom in, you will find there is no benefit in image resolution from having extra pixels in the sensor.
The downsides to extra pixels are quite significant. The more pixels the lower the light sensitivity. I would MUCH rather get a crisp bright 2 mp picture than a dim picture with 8 million blurry pixels. With fewer pixels for the processor and RAM, you can spend more CPU cycles on optimizing the image, futher improving visible quality. Then there is the reduced storage and transmission overhead of only saving the data you need.
If 2mp is not enough for you, I have to ask how many pixels are on your 60" 1080p flat screen TV, or perhaps your 140" front projection system? How many pixels are on you computer monitor? How many of your phone pictures do you print and frame? How many bigger than 8x10? What exactly are you doing with your images that requires or even benefits from having 8 million pixels?
A well developed 2mp/1080p sized and shaped image sensor in a smart phone would probably serve 99.9% of consumers better than the high mp cameras we have thank to marketing people and the morons who suck up their BS without thinking. The 2mp images would be clearer, brighter, take less space, and look better on computer monitors, TV's, projectors, LCD frames, and prints that are 8x10 or smaller. The consumers using their smartphone to capture images to print giant posters, or to display on super high end 8 mp displays, would be much better served with a real camera rather than a higher pixel count in their phone...not that these people actually exist. Few people with DSLR's do anything that requires 8mp.
All that said, this "leak" is likely not the 2010 iPod touch. It may have been a test mule from 2009 or even from 2010, but I highly doubt it is anything close to what will be released this summer.
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
Given the size of the lens and aperature, and the size of the sensor, there is a physical limit to the resolution any camera can capture. It is a matter of light waves, not sensor technology, so even if they stuff an 80 mp sensor in there, if you take some line pair test pictures and zoom in, you will find there is no benefit in image resolution from having extra pixels in the sensor.
The downsides to extra pixels are quite significant. The more pixels the lower the light sensitivity. I would MUCH rather get a crisp bright 2 mp picture than a dim picture with 8 million blurry pixels. With fewer pixels for the processor and RAM, you can spend more CPU cycles on optimizing the image, futher improving visible quality. Then there is the reduced storage and transmission overhead of only saving the data you need.
Exactly.
More importantly though, it is the necessity of excellent low-light performance when shooting video. Basically, the minimum shutter speed is 1/60 of a second, so you need a sensor that performs well otherwise you'll often end up with black video with moving blobs of grey.
Many people simply don't understand this simple point, which is why we have comments such as we have witnessed above and elsewhere.
Exactly.
More importantly though, it is the necessity of excellent low-light performance when shooting video. Basically, the minimum shutter speed is 1/60 of a second, so you need a sensor that performs well otherwise you'll often end up with black video with moving blobs of grey.
Ahhhhhh! So that must be why Hollywood still uses them big old heavy cameras instead of shooting movies with their smart phones!
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
Given the size of the lens and aperature, and the size of the sensor, there is a physical limit to the resolution any camera can capture. It is a matter of light waves, not sensor technology, so even if they stuff an 80 mp sensor in there, if you take some line pair test pictures and zoom in, you will find there is no benefit in image resolution from having extra pixels in the sensor.
The downsides to extra pixels are quite significant. The more pixels the lower the light sensitivity. I would MUCH rather get a crisp bright 2 mp picture than a dim picture with 8 million blurry pixels. With fewer pixels for the processor and RAM, you can spend more CPU cycles on optimizing the image, futher improving visible quality. Then there is the reduced storage and transmission overhead of only saving the data you need.
If 2mp is not enough for you, I have to ask how many pixels are on your 60" 1080p flat screen TV, or perhaps your 140" front projection system? How many pixels are on you computer monitor? How many of your phone pictures do you print and frame? How many bigger than 8x10? What exactly are you doing with your images that requires or even benefits from having 8 million pixels?
A well developed 2mp/1080p sized and shaped image sensor in a smart phone would probably serve 99.9% of consumers better than the high mp cameras we have thank to marketing people and the morons who suck up their BS without thinking. The 2mp images would be clearer, brighter, take less space, and look better on computer monitors, TV's, projectors, LCD frames, and prints that are 8x10 or smaller. The consumers using their smartphone to capture images to print giant posters, or to display on super high end 8 mp displays, would be much better served with a real camera rather than a higher pixel count in their phone...not that these people actually exist. Few people with DSLR's do anything that requires 8mp.
All that said, this "leak" is likely not the 2010 iPod touch. It may have been a test mule from 2009 or even from 2010, but I highly doubt it is anything close to what will be released this summer.
You're right about the issues with higher res cameras, but I actually think the initial point is an example of how brainwashed geeks are about technology. Most consumers wouldn't care if it's a 2 or 5 or 8 Mega Pixel camera on their music player, more likely they would just think it cool that it's got one at all.
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post
If this turns out to be true, why would Apple use an antiquated 2MP camera?
Because that's all you need for 720p HD video?
Are you suggesting that their camera capabilities will simply satisfy the screen resolution?
If I am not mistaken, Apple is considering higher MPs for its iPhone, and more than likely also its iPod Touch. If not during this coming version, at least in the near future.
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
And this is a stunning proclamation of how people like you understand the average consumer. You realize of course that the average consumer likes to take pictures with their phones, and share them, and sometimes print them and enlarge them. Sometimes, it is the only camera they carry for convenience.
After some time the novelty gets old, if all you get are grainy or fuzzy photos, especially when printed or enlarged.
However true what you stated, the other issue is that the average consumers compare photos. If they can see friends getting better photos with their phones, that can cast doubt in their mind -- the pissing contest factor (see below).
Based on your technical explanations, Apple should not even consider higher MP cameras for the iPhone, but they do, if you believe the rumors posted here in Apple Insider.
It is true that there are technical limits, based on the usual cameras used for phones, But there was a time, cameras were huge like a tank. Redesign were evolved in digital cameras so that they are getting more powerful (pixel wise), into smaller and smaller boxes. I do not know the technology involved, but "snooping lenses" must be quite small. In the case of light sensing. I do not know how Nikon does it, but it has found a way to improve the ISO capabilities of its cameras,
Can the existing cameras be improved further and made even smaller and even more sensitive? There is a great chance it would. Technologies may already be in the pipeline to do just that.
The other issue is more psychological why Apple cannot just stop at a 2MP camera -- the pissing contest. In situations like this, people do not really care what explanations that Apple or people like you say about the limitations of physics and technology. I want my camera to be as good (if not better) than that of my friend; however irrational that may be from your perspective.
Apple will lose the war in mobile gadget camera if it does not attempt to keep up. Or, at least, it must be able to show that the quality of the photos taken with the iPhone OS cameras are much better than those of other mobile gadgets.
Do the average consumer care about the quality of the camera in their mobile gadgets? You bet they do. And a very critical feature that could tilt their choice.
The iPhone is not just a phone, it is a mobile multimedia device. That is also the case with the iPod Touch.
Just a suggestion. Stop calling people stupid, it may be more reflective of you than the people you are judging -- without really knowing why and how they made their choices based on what they plan to do with the things they buy.
Are you going to remember these bold proclamations and how you view people you really do not know, when (not if) Apple decide to include higher MP cameras in their smaller mobile devices?
CGC
Perhaps after the Gizmodo fiasco, some of those people now see that they can not only get money for leaking, but that no one's going to get in any *real* trouble over it either. This is why it's good business practice to throw the book at people like Jason Chen, when they do get caught.
Punishing Jason Chen would have zero effect in the far east.
Good luck throwing the book at someone in Vietnam
Are you suggesting that their camera capabilities will simply satisfy the screen resolution?
If I am not mistaken, Apple is considering higher MPs for its iPhone, and more than likely also its iPod Touch. If not during this coming version, at least in the near future.
And this is a stunning proclamation of how people like you understand the average consumer. You realize of course that the average consumer likes to take pictures with their phones, and share them, and sometimes print them and enlarge them. Sometimes, it is the only camera they carry for convenience.
After some time the novelty gets old, if all you get are grainy or fuzzy photos, expecially when printed or enlarged.
Based on your technical explanations, Apple should not even consider higher MP cameras for the iPhone, but they do, if you believe the rumors posted here in Apple Insider.
It is true that there are technical limits, based on the usual cameras used for phones, But there was a time, cameras were huge like a tank. Redesign were evolved in digital cameras so that they are getting more powerful (pixel wise), into smaller and smaller boxes. I do not know the technology involved, but "snooping lenses" must be quite small. In the case of light sensing. I do not know how Nikon does it, but it has found a way to improve the ISO capabilities of its cameras,
Can the existing cameras be improved further and made even smaller and even more sensitive? There is a great chance it would. Technologies may already be in the pipeline to do just that.
The other issue is more psychological why Apple cannot just -- the pissing contest. Apple will lose the war in mobile gadget camera if it does not attempt to keep up. Or, at least, it must be able to show that the quality of the photos taken with the iPhone OS cameras are much better than those of other mobile gadgets.
Do the average consumer care about the quality of the camera in their mobile gadgets? You bet they do. And a very critical feature that could tilt their choice.
The iPhone is not just a phone, it is a mobile multimedia device. That is also the case with the iPod Touch.
Just a suggestion. Stop calling people stupid, it may be more reflective of you than the people you are judging -- without really knowing why and how they made their choices based on what they plan to do with the things they buy.
Are you going to remember these bold proclamations and how you view people you really do not know, when (not if) Apple decide to include higher MP cameras in their smaller mobile devices?
CGC
Apple will definitely offer cameras with more megapixels. Not because they take better pictures, not because consumers need the pixels. They will do it because they will get beat up by the ignorant of they don't. Consumers definitely care about the camera quality, and since they don't know how to evaluate a camera's capabilities, most just look at the number before the "mp" and think the one with the biggest number must be best. In order to keep up with the MP race and sell devices companies are giving us inferior cameras, and doing their best to minimize the flaws.
Go ahead and "print" and god forbid "enlarge" GASP! your cell phone photos. No matter how many pixels you have the the image will be a blurr when blown up to a poster size. A good 2mp picture can look great at 8x10, and a bad 20 mp picture will look bad at 8x10 4x5 or any size. Resolution used to mean the ability to resolve details. Beyond a certain point, more pixels does not mean more details. If you make a bunch of poster prints from a variety of phone cameras capturing the same subject, I bet you I can pick out which cameras had larger lenses and sensor area. You can make a sensor more sensitive, you can also make it smaller, but you can not get smaller and get better resolution. It is a physical limit of the visible light waves. There is a reason higher end DSLR's are getting bigger sensors, back to the 35mm size or larger, for purposes where high detail is important, or where extreme sensitivity has benefits.
Other than lens size, and the generation of technology in the sensor, the light sensitivity is directly impacted by the size of the pixels. All else equal, bigger pixels capture more light which means better low light performance and faster shutter speeds. Faster shutter speeds mean less motion blurr. So far the technology has improved fast enough that they have been able to give us both better light performance and more pixels with each new generqation, but if they were not trying to cram in more pixels than needed, todays phone cameras could be much better than they are.
When someone makes a silly rant and puts in an oversized FAIL because they think Apple will not deliver a spec that they have no understanding of, I am going to reserve the right to call their post/rant stupid. Since this topic comes up often enough on tech sites including this one, I find it to be "stunning." Far more so than if it came from a Joe six pack in the phone section at Walmart who should not be expected to understand too much about technology. Geeks should know better, especially if they are going to state their opinions so strongly with bigs fonts. I can assure you I don't go on to quilting forums and type FAIL rants about sewing machine features. I have no clue about them (nor interest) so I keep my mouth shut.
I hope my next iPhone has a camera that takes better pictures than the 3G or 3GS. I want better exposure and less motion blurr in normal indoor lighting conditions. I want better low light performance and some form of flash support, at least for short ranges/closeups. I want more detail and less noise. I want faster startup times, faster response to hitting the "shutter button" and faster follow up shots. I want images that look good on the phone's screen, on an LCD frame, on my desktops 23" monitor, on my laptops 15" monitor, on a 1080p HDTV, and on my 10 foot wide projection screen. If it can do those things I really don't care how many megapixels it has, or if it even has as many as the marketing guys tell me. Label it 28 mp and only put in 2 for all I care. I will judge the camera based on ease of use and the quality of images. I will judge it based on people's reactions to the images I show them on my various display devices (none of which can show more than 3mp) and their reactions to images I share via the web and email where I will likely shrink the images below 2 mp no matter what the native resolution, and where they will be viewed below 2 mp no matter what file size I send or upload.
If you have super high resolution displays or other uses for the level of detail that requires 8 mp to capture, I am guessing you are not looking at an iPhone or iPod as your capture device and you probably already know what kind of device you need. If you do have the need for detail and you have the $$$$ displays to take advantage of it and you are still looking at an iDevice as your camera, then I am defintiely laughing at you.
Is it really unknown? The article presents nothing other than the 64 GB capacity that would indicate it isn't a 2009 prototype, and if you look at the label closely, that's simply wrong, it's 32 GB.
math fail you. perhaps somebody who calls themselves Prof would take a few minutes to think about something before before posting?
All of these Vietnamese leaks strike me as simple theft of prototypes by someone in the supply chain in the far east. Such prototypes have always existed, but no one previously would think of breaking their NDA to show them. It need not have anything to do with Vietnam in than that they might just be the buyers of the merchandise or the lucky cousin/friend of the thief.
Perhaps after the Gizmodo fiasco, some of those people now see that they can not only get money for leaking, but that no one's going to get in any *real* trouble over it either. This is why it's good business practice to throw the book at people like Jason Chen, when they do get caught.
bwhahahah thats good stuff. Let me guess, you want them to punish Chen sooo hard that his jail time causes a ripple effect across the world?
How many MP3 players have 5 MP cameras? They probably went with 2 MP because he iPod Touch is so thin, that anything more would be grainy due to the inability to make the lens and sensor large enough to capture enough light. You don't need more than 2 MP to upload pictures to Facebook.
To be accurate, most mp3 players do have 1.3-2 mp cams, but there are some that do have higher mp's (5mp or more). Isn't that what makes Apple great, they don't do what other do or bow to the standards of others, they are known to raise the bar and offer more - forcing companies to rise to their level. Again, I don't think anyone would complain about carrying a device 0.20" thicker than the current model if that new model offers more.
This is a stunning example how brainwashed and stupid typical consumers are about technology.
WOW!!!!! Thanks for completely bashing and insulting my intelligence and being some big-ego (because it makes me feel superior) bully. Guess people are not entitled to their own opinions without folks calling names or being insulting. It is my opinion and as an American I am entitled to it. You can disagree, but do it in a mature and non-bullying 'I am the king of all knowledge' type of way. Jerk! (Oh and thank you for the extreme rant on HDTV and pixels, good grief - relax!!)
Anyway, I will stick to MY opinion. You may be 100% correct in everything you said, but you are NOT the average soccer mom, high school kid, accountant, grandma, nurse type of consumer. Unless Apple restates everything you said in their commercials ALL the avg consumer will read and hear is, "The iPod touch has 2mp (and possibly no HD) and the Flip does have HD and other phones do also" (I know this is not a phone, but that doesn't matter to me!). TO ME (for you superior morons) the avg consumer will hear 2mp and think, "hmmm, that's nice, but my personal digital cam has 5 or 10 or 15+ mp, guess I'll have to still carry my digital cam around with me." I was hoping for something that would eliminate the need to carry a digital camera on most uses, this is not it and I think others would like to have an item that they could take on that trip to Florida for photos and more, but with 2mp you still need to bring your higher pixel cam (for most people). I would not buy this device, that is me, I am sure it will sell in the millions, but again I have the right to my thoughts.
Now go to Best Buy and bully the worker there who says something about tech you don't agree with.
Glad you folks don't work for Apple, you'd say, "well, no one else offers apps why should we? No one else had a successful tablet, we should leave that alone." Glad Apple strives for more.
Go Cowboys!!
A screen in the 5-7 inch range would be ideal and really at the price that Apple is now selling the Touch, that makes a lot of sense. The Touch will suffer from cannibalization from the iPad unless Apple ups the ante with a mucn larger screen suited to what the Touch is now used for.
Increase the size of the Nano screen slightly and it fills in the void left by dropoing the current Touch. Offer it as a more compact alternative to the iPad and keep the price as is. If the Touch is currently (in Canada) $329 for 32GB and $429 for 64GB, don't increase the memory, increase screen real estate while keeping the price at similar levels. Put a higher res screen on these devices, compressing iPad resolution onto a smaller space and you'd have a great product. Lighter than the iPad, too. This would blunt iPad sales but enough people would opt for the larger unit, especially if 3G remained an iPad exclusive, that both models would flourish.
Seems to me the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it effectively into a smaller version of the iPad.
A screen in the 5-7 inch range would be ideal and really at the price that Apple is now selling the Touch, that makes a lot of sense. The Touch will suffer from cannibalization from the iPad unless Apple ups the ante with a mucn larger screen suited to what the Touch is now used for.
Increase the size of the Nano screen slightly and it fills in the void left by dropoing the current Touch. Offer it as a more compact alternative to the iPad and keep the price as is. If the Touch is currently (in Canada) $329 for 32GB and $429 for 64GB, don't increase the memory, increase screen real estate while keeping the price at similar levels. Put a higher res screen on these devices, compressing iPad resolution onto a smaller space and you'd have a great product. Lighter than the iPad, too. This would blunt iPad sales but enough people would opt for the larger unit, especially if 3G remained an iPad exclusive, that both models would flourish.
I actually think the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it into a proper camera. I don't want to wade into the battle of technical details that is waging above, but I've thought for a while that Apple could do a really cool camera, what with their experience of photo processing software on the Mac, and the Touch (made thicker of course) would seem to be a nice thing to build it around, in my humble opinion.
I actually think the next logical progression for the Touch is to turn it into a proper camera. I don't want to wade into the battle of technical details that is waging above, but I've thought for a while that Apple could do a really cool camera, what with their experience of photo processing software on the Mac, and the Touch (made thicker of course) would seem to be a nice thing to build it around, in my humble opinion.
If it's a camera you want, buy a camera. Anyone serious about photography wouldn't even waste time on anything remotely at the price point or capability range of a Touch with a camera. A mediocre lens for a digital SLR costs more than the most expensive Touch model.
Everybody has a point-and-shoot digital these days, any one of which would undoubtedly outperform any camera Apple would end up putting on the Touch.
WOW!!!!! Thanks for completely bashing and insulting my intelligence and being some big-ego (because it makes me feel superior) bully. Guess people are not entitled to their own opinions without folks calling names or being insulting. It is my opinion and as an American I am entitled to it. You can disagree, but do it in a mature and non-bullying 'I am the king of all knowledge' type of way. Jerk! (Oh and thank you for the extreme rant on HDTV and pixels, good grief - relax!!)
Anyway, I will stick to MY opinion. You may be 100% correct in everything you said, but you are NOT the average soccer mom, high school kid, accountant, grandma, nurse type of consumer. Unless Apple restates everything you said in their commercials ALL the avg consumer will read and hear is, "The iPod touch has 2mp (and possibly no HD) and the Flip does have HD and other phones do also" (I know this is not a phone, but that doesn't matter to me!). TO ME (for you superior morons) the avg consumer will hear 2mp and think, "hmmm, that's nice, but my personal digital cam has 5 or 10 or 15+ mp, guess I'll have to still carry my digital cam around with me." I was hoping for something that would eliminate the need to carry a digital camera on most uses, this is not it and I think others would like to have an item that they could take on that trip to Florida for photos and more, but with 2mp you still need to bring your higher pixel cam (for most people). I would not buy this device, that is me, I am sure it will sell in the millions, but again I have the right to my thoughts.
Now go to Best Buy and bully the worker there who says something about tech you don't agree with.
Glad you folks don't work for Apple, you'd say, "well, no one else offers apps why should we? No one else had a successful tablet, we should leave that alone." Glad Apple strives for more.
Go Cowboys!!
Relax please. He was expressing his opinion too. A very logical and well thought-out one as well considering he was spot on about everything and backed up his claims. He was highlighting the fact that most people are, as he said, brainwashed in the "megapixel myth" where people believe that higher megapixels will automatically mean better image quality. That is FAAARRRRR from the truth. You began a hateful speech about how pathetic 2 mp are without any proper knowledge of how a camera sensor works. It's not his fault that people knowledgeable about the subject get frustrated. With all due respect, you sounded quite troll-like.
Keep in mind 2 mp is about 1600 by 1200 pixels (if that were video it would be 1200P) and could possibly support 720P recording like the Flip HD (only 1280 by 720 pixes and by the way, the Flip HD cant take photos). Simply put, if you don't have the image sensor to back up such a high amount of pixels per photo, it will look dark, grainy, and bland. While it is a great way to attract customers to phones (i.e. the Droid Incredible with an 8 mp camera), it is taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge. It will hurt the image quality and EVERYONE will be at a disadvantage without knowing it.
Also, most people who take images from their phones will upload them on facebook (just about 95% of the people I know who have high-end cellphone cameras do that) where the website automatically scales the image down to 0.3 mp. Then that 8 mp image will look TERRIBLE.
Now, hopefully the next time you walk into Best Buy you won't go "OMG THAT CAMERA HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS THAN THAT ONE SO IT SHOULD HAVE BETTER IMAGE QUALITY OKAY INSTANT PURCHASE." Please think logically next time you buy a device with any camera. By now you shouldn't be one of those "average customers."
Adios
To be accurate, most mp3 players do have 1.3-2 mp cams, but there are some that do have higher mp's (5mp or more). Isn't that what makes Apple great, they don't do what other do or bow to the standards of others, they are known to raise the bar and offer more - forcing companies to rise to their level. Again, I don't think anyone would complain about carrying a device 0.20" thicker than the current model if that new model offers more.
What makes Apple great is that they generally don't add features for the sake of adding features. They won't introduce a 5MP sensor just to win some mega pixel race. You are mistaking increased mega pixels with increased picture quality. Apple won't introduce a 5 MP cam in the iPod touch until it out performs the 2 MP sensor. If you need proof, look no further than the 13" MBP. It is still using core 2 duos because Intels integrated graphics are not up to par. Apple isn't afraid to look inferior on specs page if it means they can provide a better overall product.
Of course we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The current iPod Touch does not have a camera at all, and the addition of any camera whatsoever would be seen as a positive.
As an aside: increasing the thickness of the iPod touch by 0.2 inches would be a 60% increase in thickness. People would most certainly care about that.