Numerous 3rd party case photos suggest iPod cameras coming
A plethora of recently revealed Chinese third-party iPod cases seem to corroborate rumors that cameras will be included in new models of the iPod touch and iPod nano, expected to be released later this year.
Discovered by Cult of Mac, dozens of pictures of new iPod touch and iPod nano cases show camera holes on the external covers. The iPod nano camera hole is placed on the bottom left corner of the back of the device, while the iPod touch lens looks to be at the center of the device, unlike the iPhone.
If legitimate, these pictures seem to support previous, recurring rumors that some of the iPod line would be receiving camera upgrades this year.
Manufacturers are reportedly already sending out samples of the cases to resellers. Cult of Mac obtained pictures from e-mails and PowerPoint presentations sent from several different Chinese companies to U.S. accessory makers.
Also reaffirming prior rumors, the case for the new iPod nano reportedly features a wider screen. The case suggests the new screen would carry a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, compared to the 1.33:1 featured on the current model. The case also accommodates a smaller click wheel.
While the iPod nano has never featured a camera before, the media player has shipped with a built-in photo viewer.
The iPod touch also already has a built-in photo viewer, while the camera software would likely be ported over from the iPhone OS.
Discovered by Cult of Mac, dozens of pictures of new iPod touch and iPod nano cases show camera holes on the external covers. The iPod nano camera hole is placed on the bottom left corner of the back of the device, while the iPod touch lens looks to be at the center of the device, unlike the iPhone.
If legitimate, these pictures seem to support previous, recurring rumors that some of the iPod line would be receiving camera upgrades this year.
Manufacturers are reportedly already sending out samples of the cases to resellers. Cult of Mac obtained pictures from e-mails and PowerPoint presentations sent from several different Chinese companies to U.S. accessory makers.
Also reaffirming prior rumors, the case for the new iPod nano reportedly features a wider screen. The case suggests the new screen would carry a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, compared to the 1.33:1 featured on the current model. The case also accommodates a smaller click wheel.
While the iPod nano has never featured a camera before, the media player has shipped with a built-in photo viewer.
The iPod touch also already has a built-in photo viewer, while the camera software would likely be ported over from the iPhone OS.
Comments
Cameras would certainly put the hurt on the Zune HD and other rivals by changing the equation so now they have to compete on photo and video capture, sharing/uploading, etc.
I know people are going to discuss the camera placement on the nano again as it would apparently be right where everyone would put their fingers. However, I've been looking at it and I don't think it woud actually be in the way if you are right handed. When holding the nano in portrait mode, your fingers would cover, but not touch the lens as your fingertips will hit the back left side of the device and the camera is on the back right. When taking a picture, most likely in landscape, your fingers would be below the lens. Now if you are left handed, that lens is definitely in an awkward place, however I can't think of anywhere else it could go if it can't fit behind the screen.
I was thinking the same thing, that it couldn't be put behind the screen. Or behind the clickwheel, probably. That doesn't leave many other options. I'm also wondering if the nano will get a little thicker? Or maybe the camera lens sticks out a little bit? It will be a challenge to create a good optical path for good quality photos in such a narrow space. Same goes for the touch. It's thinner than the iPhone, so it will be interesting to compare the photos from each device.
Apple should make a phone version of the iPod nano with a simulated rotary dial. (Of course, texting would be a bit of a bother.....)
yes simple phone nano ipod
I know people are going to discuss the camera placement on the nano ... I've been looking at it and I don't think it woud actually be in the way if you are right handed. ....
I thought the same thing.
This is one of those cases where left-handers get screwed a bit. The only solution would be holding it upside down if you are left handed. Maybe Apple has built in a software preference so that left handers can use it upside down and the picture automatically rotates?
I thought the same thing.
This is one of those cases where left-handers get screwed a bit. The only solution would be holding it upside down if you are left handed. Maybe Apple has built in a software preference so that left handers can use it upside down and the picture automatically rotates?
I assume you would be able to hold it in landscape mode with the clickwheel on the left if that is what you mean. The iphone can flip both ways, and I assume the current nano can as well. The only problem is that the lens would be below your hand, so your fingers could block the lens if you weren't careful.
I think it would be usable for left handers, but it definitely favors right handers. I don't see many other options without making the device thicker though, and we know Apple likes thin, even if it means limiting or removing features.
How could they miss something like that?
It's never going to be the all in one device if even one of the components is crap. Sure the 3Gs has better focusing and video capabilities, but if the image is blurry because it has no image stabilization and other features that regular point and shoots have, it's not worth my time.
The only thing i use the camera on my phone is for crap that i don't care about showing people. or stuff i post on facebook, but it'll never replace my Nikon PaS.
If it is true they are adding the camera, good for them. I could care less. The iPhone camera is crap for quality. I'd still take my point and shoot on trips, regardless of the fact that i have the camera on my iPhone. If Apple would put a 8-10 megapixel camera on them, and include a decent lens, it would be a start.
It's never going to be the all in one device if even one of the components is crap. Sure the 3Gs has better focusing and video capabilities, but if the image is blurry because it has no image stabilization and other features that regular point and shoots have, it's not worth my time.
The only thing i use the camera on my phone is for crap that i don't care about showing people. or stuff i post on facebook, but it'll never replace my Nikon PaS.
If it is true they are adding the camera, good for them. I could care less. The iPhone camera is crap for quality. I'd still take my point and shoot on trips, regardless of the fact that i have the camera on my iPhone. If Apple would put a 8-10 megapixel camera on them, and include a decent lens, it would be a start.
It's never going to be the all in one device if even one of the components is crap. Sure the 3Gs has better focusing and video capabilities, but if the image is blurry because it has no image stabilization and other features that regular point and shoots have, it's not worth my time.
The only thing i use the camera on my phone is for crap that i don't care about showing people. or stuff i post on facebook, but it'll never replace my Nikon PaS.
More megapixels does not equal better quality, just like faster MHz doesn't necessarily mean a faster computer. In fact, on something as thin as the touch, it would most likely equate to worse quality...tiny photosites, resulting in lots of noise and low ISO capabilities. Heck, 10 megapixels on a compact point-and-shoot is almost pushing the useful limit as it is.
Give me a 3-4 megapixel sensor with nice fat photosites to capture more light for better color and ISO performance any day. Unless you are printing large prints (as in bigger than 8x10) that's all the pixels you need.
with the touch case i see two holes, does that mean a flash?
WiFi antenna.
More megapixels does not equal better quality, just like faster MHz doesn't necessarily mean a faster computer. In fact, on something as thin as the touch, it would most likely equate to worse quality...tiny photosites, resulting in lots of noise and low ISO capabilities. Heck, 10 megapixels on a compact point-and-shoot is almost pushing the useful limit as it is.
Give me a 3-4 megapixel sensor with nice fat photosites to capture more light for better color and ISO performance any day. Unless you are printing large prints (as in bigger than 8x10) that's all the pixels you need.
That's why in I clearly state in my post that more Megapixels would be "a start". if it's 4 or 12 it's still better than 2 or 3. If you do a little research, physical 35mm film quality is the digital equivalent of 12 Megapixels, sure there are other features that give digital images better quality but i think our readers are smart enough to get the point.
Then further down i state image stabilization would be nice too. I also go on to state that it needs "other features that a regular point and shoot have"; need I bore people with the details.
WiFi antenna.
GPS antenna
That's why in I clearly state in my post that more Megapixels would be "a start". if it's 4 or 12 it's still better than 2 or 3. If you do a little research, physical 35mm film quality is the digital equivalent of 12 Megapixels, sure there are other features that give digital images better quality but i think our readers are smart enough to get the point.
Then further down i state image stabilization would be nice too. I also go on to state that it needs "other features that a regular point and shoot have"; need I bore people with the details.
I didn't say your other points weren't valid, just that the 10 megapixel request didn't make any sense.
While I won't debate the 35mm = 12 megapixels, you are talking about a sensor that's less than 1/35 the size of a 35mm film frame. Canon's 50D is roughly 2/3s the size of 35mm film, and it packs 16 megapixles, or about 29,000 pixels per square mm. Many people consider this to be pushing the practical limit due to aperture diffraction, sensor noise, and lower ISO range (due to each pixel getting less light). To get higher pixel resolution while maintaining quality, you need to move up to a larger format sensor.
A compact camera like Canon's Elph series has a sensor 1/35 of full frame. A 10 megapixel sensor of that size would have a pixel density of 400,000 pixels/mm^2. But people accept that because they aren't expecting DSLR quality out of a point and shoot. But the sensor in an iPhone or touch would likely be smaller still, and yet people expect a camera phone to take photos as good as an average point and shoot.
All I was pointing out was that people requesting such high resolutions are fodder for the camera manufacturer's marketing team, similar to the "megahertz myth". It only gives you bragging rights, not better photos.
As far as the image stabilization, that only helps if YOU are moving. It doesn't do crap (to use your word) if your subject is moving. For that you need a faster shutter. You get that by having a higher ISO range. And there are two ways you can achieve that: 1) crank up the gain on the signal coming off the sensor, which will make for a very noisy photo, or 2) use larger pixels to capture more light. I'd prefer #2. Larger pixels=more light=higher ISO=faster shutter=better than having image stabilization.
Sorry if I've bored you.
Edit: Ok, there's 3 ways, you can use a larger aperture. But that's a very limited option on a camera phone.