I think i'm the only one who doesn't like the new Nano look. I MUCH preferred the sexier nano with the super-scratchable coating. I really don't like the colored aluminium... i never liked the old minis either. Oh well, good thing I'm not in the market for a nano.
Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....
Best,
Kasper
It doesn't have to be quite that bad, even without a tilt lens.
I don't know how you are shooting, but close the aperture down as far as you can, in manual. Let the shutter speed go to where it needs to, and make sure that you are using a good tripod. You will get more depth that way.
I think i'm the only one who doesn't like the new Nano look. I MUCH preferred the sexier nano with the super-scratchable coating. I really don't like the colored aluminium... i never liked the old minis either. Oh well, good thing I'm not in the market for a nano.
If you were in the market, then now would be the time to keep an eye out for clearances of the old model.
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
Ian
He didn't say anything about the environmentality of the packaging other than: "It's better for the environment because we save fossil fuels sending these things around the world."
It's about the transporation savings not the recycling savings.
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
Alot of ipod accessories (now even the newer ihome stuff) allow you use the unvisal dock connector that came with it. It'll still fit in the iH5 anyways, it just might not have back support.
Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....
Best,
Kasper
You need to use as much light as possible and manually set the aperture to the smallest setting (i.e. the largest possible aperture number) in order to extend the depth of field. Sometimes you can only do this with a tripod b/c you have to set the exposure to a slow setting (hence the advice to boost the lighting).
edit - sorry missed Melgross' comments earlier.
The pics look great though aside from teh macro issues, many thanks for that and kudos to AI for being the only Mac rumours website to (finally) come out and call an Apple TV set top box before the announcement.
I'm sure Ryan Meader is saying "I told you so" now except that he told us so about once every month or two for the past 10 years ...
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus
since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.
though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Most plastics are recyclable. Look for the recycle symbol on the plastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Also, plastics are one of the products that are made from crude oil. Whether that material is, I don't know but the plastics industry is where a lot of crude goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
That was a pretty questionable rationalization, but less unnecessary packaging is always better.
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
You clearly haven't yet entered the mind realm of design-ninja Jonathan Ive. If you look at the bases of the two Nano models its clear that from a design point of view the connectors HAVE to go exactly where they are and nowhere else. On the new body they are in the precise centre of the edge radius. Designer-of-the-year Jonathan would DIE rather than accept a compromise to suit 3rd Party manufacturers.
You clearly haven't yet entered the mind realm of design-ninja Jonathan Ive. If you look at the bases of the two Nano models its clear that from a design point of view the connectors HAVE to go exactly where they are and nowhere else. On the new body they are in the precise centre of the edge radius. Designer-of-the-year Jonathan would DIE rather than accept a compromise to suit 3rd Party manufacturers.
Manufacturers know, by now, that when Apple comes out with a brand new version of an iPod, the size, shape, and connector positions will be different. At least, Apple standardized the connector itself.
They don't really hate it, as it gives them even more sales, as people who buy the new product often buy a new accessory, even expensive speakers.
But, it's correct to say that this problem can be mostly taken care of with a new insert. But, this time, with the commectors moved apart somewhat, if companies use both (unusual), it won't fit, no matter what.
They would then have to make an extender to adapt it.
They'll only need a new connection if they are not using the specs for Apple's Universal dock. That's another reason Apple made those specs available to all accessory makers that ponied up to be iPod partners, or whatever they called it. Most accessories do not use the headphone jack and the connector for the dock, just the dock connector.
There may be some, but as far as Apple is concerned, they should be using the Universal dock, so customers can use the dock adapter for their specific model.
Unfortunately, all iPod Nanos, first and second gen, are female. Though that might just make the pictures more exciting for some, they are definitely not making babies.
Comments
Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....
Best,
Kasper
It doesn't have to be quite that bad, even without a tilt lens.
I don't know how you are shooting, but close the aperture down as far as you can, in manual. Let the shutter speed go to where it needs to, and make sure that you are using a good tripod. You will get more depth that way.
I think i'm the only one who doesn't like the new Nano look. I MUCH preferred the sexier nano with the super-scratchable coating. I really don't like the colored aluminium... i never liked the old minis either. Oh well, good thing I'm not in the market for a nano.
If you were in the market, then now would be the time to keep an eye out for clearances of the old model.
Whoa. iPod porn.
Well, where did you think iPod shuffles come from?
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
Ian
He didn't say anything about the environmentality of the packaging other than: "It's better for the environment because we save fossil fuels sending these things around the world."
It's about the transporation savings not the recycling savings.
That said, plastic can be recycled anyways.
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
Alot of ipod accessories (now even the newer ihome stuff) allow you use the unvisal dock connector that came with it. It'll still fit in the iH5 anyways, it just might not have back support.
Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....
Best,
Kasper
You need to use as much light as possible and manually set the aperture to the smallest setting (i.e. the largest possible aperture number) in order to extend the depth of field. Sometimes you can only do this with a tripod b/c you have to set the exposure to a slow setting (hence the advice to boost the lighting).
edit - sorry missed Melgross' comments earlier.
The pics look great though aside from teh macro issues, many thanks for that and kudos to AI for being the only Mac rumours website to (finally) come out and call an Apple TV set top box before the announcement.
I'm sure Ryan Meader is saying "I told you so" now except that he told us so about once every month or two for the past 10 years ...
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.
though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.
Most plastics are recyclable. Look for the recycle symbol on the plastic.
Also, plastics are one of the products that are made from crude oil. Whether that material is, I don't know but the plastics industry is where a lot of crude goes.
That was a pretty questionable rationalization, but less unnecessary packaging is always better.
http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/
http://www.apple.com/environment/design/
Note how the Design page has been updated with a 2nd Gen nano.
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
You clearly haven't yet entered the mind realm of design-ninja Jonathan Ive. If you look at the bases of the two Nano models its clear that from a design point of view the connectors HAVE to go exactly where they are and nowhere else. On the new body they are in the precise centre of the edge radius. Designer-of-the-year Jonathan would DIE rather than accept a compromise to suit 3rd Party manufacturers.
You clearly haven't yet entered the mind realm of design-ninja Jonathan Ive. If you look at the bases of the two Nano models its clear that from a design point of view the connectors HAVE to go exactly where they are and nowhere else. On the new body they are in the precise centre of the edge radius. Designer-of-the-year Jonathan would DIE rather than accept a compromise to suit 3rd Party manufacturers.
That's good. I didn't spot that.
Well, where did you think iPod shuffles come from?
I'd say it looks like they're DOING the ipod shuffle.
Manufacturers know, by now, that when Apple comes out with a brand new version of an iPod, the size, shape, and connector positions will be different. At least, Apple standardized the connector itself.
They don't really hate it, as it gives them even more sales, as people who buy the new product often buy a new accessory, even expensive speakers.
But, it's correct to say that this problem can be mostly taken care of with a new insert. But, this time, with the commectors moved apart somewhat, if companies use both (unusual), it won't fit, no matter what.
They would then have to make an extender to adapt it.
They'll only need a new connection if they are not using the specs for Apple's Universal dock. That's another reason Apple made those specs available to all accessory makers that ponied up to be iPod partners, or whatever they called it. Most accessories do not use the headphone jack and the connector for the dock, just the dock connector.
There may be some, but as far as Apple is concerned, they should be using the Universal dock, so customers can use the dock adapter for their specific model.
I'd say it looks like they're DOING the ipod shuffle.
In the "mp3 position."
What camera and lens is that?
I am looking for a good macro capable one..