A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
People don't take pictures all day even with a DSLR digital camera. I think you use the iPad only at home or work. For people that carry iPad around as the only mobile device, the camera will be very handy when needed.
A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
But I'm sure Oprah wants one to comunicate with Gail while she reclines on her couch in between reading her new iPad O magazine. That's all that matters.
Just because you'll be left with yet another obsolete 1st gen Apple products doesn't. Hint: eBay.
A camera on the front for Facetime is a given. A camera on the back probably wouldn't get much use. That would make for some awkward, embarrassing photography.
I can see it now, people holding this ten inch pad (out at arms length of course) trying to take pictures with it. Cheese!
I won't buy the thing until it has a front-facing camera and the ability to make Facetime calls. I suppose that makes me part of the "braindead crowd."
Actually, I think it would be pretty cool. The viewfinder would be larger then on any other camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
A camera on the front for Facetime is a given. A camera on the back probably wouldn't get much use. That would make for some awkward, embarrassing photography.
I can see it now, people holding this ten inch pad (out at arms length of course) trying to take pictures with it. Cheese!
As they say, the best camera is the one you have on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
People don't take pictures all day even with a DSLR digital camera. I think you use the iPad only at home or work. For people that carry iPad around as the only mobile device, the camera will be very handy when needed.
Instead of two mediocre cameras, how about one high quality camera mounted on a swivel like some of the old Sony ultralight laptops? I can't imagine anyone needing to use both cameras at once and one instead of two would mean either lower cost or higher quality.
Or better yet, how about a twisting swivel, sort of like a camera module mounted on a headphone jack. That would allow the camera module to be larger than what the Sonys had. Then it would be possible to put folded optics in the module to allow optical zoom. Hey, I can dream.
I'm pretty sure iPad "2" will match the iPod touch sensor specs rather than the iPhone sensors. The front camera will be there for FaceTime and the rear one for AR, scanning etc - it doesn't need to have an LED or 5Mpx sensor for those purposes.
When I use my digital camera I don't walk around holding it up constantly. I raise it, aim and shoot a photo and then lower the camera. Why can't I do the same with an iPad?
Tim
The iPad weighs over a pound - most cameras significantly less than that.
A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
Actually the iPad may turn out to be the most desired FaceTime device because of the size of the image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Anything more than that is overkill. The lens is going to have dust and smudges on it, just like my iPhone. It doesn't need to be hi-res.
You might try wiping it off before turning on the camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert
It makes absolutely zero sense to have a rear-facing camera on an iPad. Are you really going to hold that thing up to take pictures with it???
You can hold it steadier than a smaller device, and prop it up more easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo
I'd like to see Apple using two away-facing cameras on the iPhone and Touch so that we can start collecting stereo images. One camera near the top of the enclosure and one near the bottom, for use in landscape mode. I am sure that other uses for a dual camera system would be found too. Sub-pixel interpolation might be possible leading to reasonably higher resolution images for a given pixel rating. A Facetime camera on the iPad would be great.
Nice idea, but you would want the two cameras to be about 2 1/2 inches ~ 65 mm apart for decent stereo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
A camera on the front for Facetime is a given. A camera on the back probably wouldn't get much use. That would make for some awkward, embarrassing photography.
I can see it now, people holding this ten inch pad (out at arms length of course) trying to take pictures with it. Cheese!
More imagination, please. It will make a fantastic view camera, as others have noted.
After living with the iPad for eight months now, enjoying every minute of using this life-changing instrument, the only thing I wish it had is the ability to do live video. So I'll be trading up if this camera thing happens. And I hope they put two of them in.
I won't buy the thing until it has a front-facing camera and the ability to make Facetime calls. I suppose that makes me part of the "braindead crowd."
You are not alone. Funny thing here I was ready to buy an iPad and then my mind did a 180 on FaceTime. Now I simply won't even consider buying until FaceTime is supported. Ideally it will come with a 3G modem that supports many service providers with the hope that one will support FaceTime over 3/4G. I will go with whatever vendor is willing to support FaceTime on their cell network.
On the otherhand i'm not sure why people get worked up about the mega pixels and stuffy. For a front facing FaceTime camera it really isn't important. All we need is reasonably good quality and hopefully decent low level light performance.
I don't care so much about cameras. Personally, I'd forgo all cameras on the iPad and iPod Touch if we were given GPS chips!
I see the GPS chip as a big deal my self. Very important for many business apps these days. Though it is a little big it can also pass as a in visible navigation platform.
As a side note the issue may be technical. Specifically they may need the 3G modifications for the antenna. GPS need a good antenna and the current iPad has few options.
Largan reportedly supplies 5-megapixel lenses for the iPhone 4.
Um, lenses don't get rated by megapixels, sensors do. So is this story about the lens, or the sensor?
Note: this is exactly why the whole megapixel war is such a joke. You have a 10 megapixel sensor, but a craptastic lense, you get craptastic photos. You have a 3 megapixel sensor and a great lens, you get great photos, that just can't be enlarged. Sensor quality both being equal of course. Apple understands this, so I wonder when the iPhone will get a leica lens?
You're crazy!! Why just the other day, I was buying windows and the salesman showed me some 12.1 megapixel glass! Surely a glass camera lens would be rated the same!
</sarcasm>
Where? Where can I get some? The last glazier I visited only had something he called "slow glass" where it took light three to five hours to transit depending on the thickness of the pane. Oh wait, I can think of a dozen uses college frat boys might have with this.
Comments
A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
People don't take pictures all day even with a DSLR digital camera. I think you use the iPad only at home or work. For people that carry iPad around as the only mobile device, the camera will be very handy when needed.
A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
But I'm sure Oprah wants one to comunicate with Gail while she reclines on her couch in between reading her new iPad O magazine. That's all that matters.
Just because you'll be left with yet another obsolete 1st gen Apple products doesn't. Hint: eBay.
...even how many cameras might be included on the new iPad.
To appease hardware geeks who want USB ports, SD card slots, PCMCIA, VESA, PCI-X, AGP and every other port on the iPad:
It will have 17 cameras. Now shut up.
I can see it now, people holding this ten inch pad (out at arms length of course) trying to take pictures with it. Cheese!
I won't buy the thing until it has a front-facing camera and the ability to make Facetime calls. I suppose that makes me part of the "braindead crowd."
A camera on the front for Facetime is a given. A camera on the back probably wouldn't get much use. That would make for some awkward, embarrassing photography.
I can see it now, people holding this ten inch pad (out at arms length of course) trying to take pictures with it. Cheese!
People don't take pictures all day even with a DSLR digital camera. I think you use the iPad only at home or work. For people that carry iPad around as the only mobile device, the camera will be very handy when needed.
Or better yet, how about a twisting swivel, sort of like a camera module mounted on a headphone jack. That would allow the camera module to be larger than what the Sonys had. Then it would be possible to put folded optics in the module to allow optical zoom. Hey, I can dream.
Bageljoey was polite in his reply, so i will try to be, too.
PLEASE READ posts before you reply to them.
I wasn't replying to anyone - I was making a statement.
When I use my digital camera I don't walk around holding it up constantly. I raise it, aim and shoot a photo and then lower the camera. Why can't I do the same with an iPad?
Tim
The iPad weighs over a pound - most cameras significantly less than that.
If it gets a camera it will be for a magical reason- Steve won't do it otherwise.
A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
Actually the iPad may turn out to be the most desired FaceTime device because of the size of the image.
Anything more than that is overkill. The lens is going to have dust and smudges on it, just like my iPhone. It doesn't need to be hi-res.
You might try wiping it off before turning on the camera.
It makes absolutely zero sense to have a rear-facing camera on an iPad. Are you really going to hold that thing up to take pictures with it???
You can hold it steadier than a smaller device, and prop it up more easily.
I'd like to see Apple using two away-facing cameras on the iPhone and Touch so that we can start collecting stereo images. One camera near the top of the enclosure and one near the bottom, for use in landscape mode. I am sure that other uses for a dual camera system would be found too. Sub-pixel interpolation might be possible leading to reasonably higher resolution images for a given pixel rating. A Facetime camera on the iPad would be great.
Nice idea, but you would want the two cameras to be about 2 1/2 inches ~ 65 mm apart for decent stereo.
A camera on the front for Facetime is a given. A camera on the back probably wouldn't get much use. That would make for some awkward, embarrassing photography.
I can see it now, people holding this ten inch pad (out at arms length of course) trying to take pictures with it. Cheese!
More imagination, please. It will make a fantastic view camera, as others have noted.
After living with the iPad for eight months now, enjoying every minute of using this life-changing instrument, the only thing I wish it had is the ability to do live video. So I'll be trading up if this camera thing happens. And I hope they put two of them in.
It makes absolutely zero sense to have a rear-facing camera on an iPad. Are you really going to hold that thing up to take pictures with it???
Of course people want to take pictures with it. Perhaps not as a regular camera, but ?
There you are in a cafe. Old friend comes by from out of town. "Hey grab a quick shot!"
Or maybe: "this is the street I am on. Which way do I go now?"
Personally, I do not see why an iPad is that much worse than using an iPhone to take a quick video.
So yeah - I am for 2 cams. They ain't even that expensive.
I won't buy the thing until it has a front-facing camera and the ability to make Facetime calls. I suppose that makes me part of the "braindead crowd."
You are not alone. Funny thing here I was ready to buy an iPad and then my mind did a 180 on FaceTime. Now I simply won't even consider buying until FaceTime is supported. Ideally it will come with a 3G modem that supports many service providers with the hope that one will support FaceTime over 3/4G. I will go with whatever vendor is willing to support FaceTime on their cell network.
On the otherhand i'm not sure why people get worked up about the mega pixels and stuffy. For a front facing FaceTime camera it really isn't important. All we need is reasonably good quality and hopefully decent low level light performance.
I don't care so much about cameras. Personally, I'd forgo all cameras on the iPad and iPod Touch if we were given GPS chips!
I see the GPS chip as a big deal my self. Very important for many business apps these days. Though it is a little big it can also pass as a in visible navigation platform.
As a side note the issue may be technical. Specifically they may need the 3G modifications for the antenna. GPS need a good antenna and the current iPad has few options.
Largan reportedly supplies 5-megapixel lenses for the iPhone 4.
Um, lenses don't get rated by megapixels, sensors do. So is this story about the lens, or the sensor?
Note: this is exactly why the whole megapixel war is such a joke. You have a 10 megapixel sensor, but a craptastic lense, you get craptastic photos. You have a 3 megapixel sensor and a great lens, you get great photos, that just can't be enlarged. Sensor quality both being equal of course. Apple understands this, so I wonder when the iPhone will get a leica lens?
Gordon
A camera is the last thing I need on my iPad, this feature was pushed for by the braindead crowd.
Actually the rear facing camera has lots of uses.
1. Use it to take a picture of a document rather than using a scanner.
2. On project tours take pictures and enter description at the same time
3. realtors input data and pictures of a house using the same device
etc etc.
I'm not pretty enough, nor am I a narcisist, so I don't need a front facing camera.
<sarcasm>
You're crazy!! Why just the other day, I was buying windows and the salesman showed me some 12.1 megapixel glass! Surely a glass camera lens would be rated the same!
</sarcasm>
Where? Where can I get some? The last glazier I visited only had something he called "slow glass" where it took light three to five hours to transit depending on the thickness of the pane. Oh wait, I can think of a dozen uses college frat boys might have with this.
I'm pretty sure that none of your friends want to see an "up the nose" video of you.
When I go off to Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever else for six months to a year, my kids will want to see me any way they can.