Is it just me or does IPAD2 camera really stink?

[Hasty]

The higher the quality of the cameras the higher the bandwidth needed for FaceTime.
There's usually a good reason for apples choices and they're not always economic, as an extra 20 or 30 dollars wouldn't impact sales that much.

 

[jake1974]

Who really wants a camera on a tablet? I mean for taking serious pictures. That's what cameras are for.

Valid point, well taken

It'd be more valid if iMovie worked better with imported video. I have had a lot of trouble with that.

 

[SporkLover]

I'm with the OP. The camera stinks for stills. But I knew that when I purchased the iPad..... it's more for video shooting rather than stills.

I can think of quite a few good uses for a good still camera on a tablet. I've been in Europe with mine for the past two weeks, sitting out in the pedestrian zone, sipping on my beer, reading on the iPad2 I would have liked a good still camera to capture some of the things I was seeing.

 

[SporkLover]

The higher the quality of the cameras the higher the bandwidth needed for FaceTime.
There's usually a good reason for apples choices and they're not always economic, as an extra 20 or 30 dollars wouldn't impact sales that much.

That is one way to look at it.... as a consumer, I look at your statement this way..... they cripple the hardware (not provide necessarily the best out there, or even something versatile) because the infrastructure supporting Face Time isn't there?

That doesn't pass the common sense test.

 

[DontUnderstandMyIpad]

That is one way to look at it.... as a consumer, I look at your statement this way..... they cripple the hardware (not provide necessarily the best out there, or even something versatile) because the infrastructure supporting Face Time isn't there?

That doesn't pass the common sense test.

It is similar to the 20MB download restriction on iOS devices over 3G. Apple just implemented it to have users download large files over broadband rather then 3G, there is no other reason. After all, if you are paying for unlimited 3G, you would expect to be able to download as much as you like.

 

[Tarkio]

Who really wants a camera on a tablet? I mean for taking serious pictures. That's what cameras are for.

Valid point, well taken

It'd be more valid if iMovie worked better with imported video. I have had a lot of trouble with that.

iMovie wrks great with imported video, that's exactly how I use it. But just like Final Cut Pro and high-end Avid systems, the video needs to be transcoded to a format that the editor can use. Once simple conversion is done through a free app, effects etc. are rendered realtime which is a joy, and export is nearly instantaneous. None of the lengthy rendering that some other iPad editing apps require.

 

[chiffchaff]

When I decided to get the iPad 2, the cameras weren't a factor. I really didn't even expect to use them. But I'm finding them a nice bonus and pretty fun to have, especially the vid capability and for quick stills for Facebook posts. The operative word for me is "fun" as in, if I want really good pics, I'll use my dSLR or my Canon point and shoot. But for the way I'm using them, I have no complaints w/ the iPad cameras. Of course YMMV.

 

[Becky15349]

I do think the photos are a bit grainy, I am disappointed in the camera. To me, apple is a company that doesn't skimp when it produces a product, so I am surprised at the low quality of the pictures is something they permitted in the iPad 2, even if it is something the iPad wasn't intended to be used for. That just isn't usually how they function; they don't make excuses, they (usually) make products that exceed our expectations. If it was never intended to be used for a camera, I doubt they would've permitted the inclusion of a camera app, which is obviously there. Grainy photos, I call it like it is. I won't be using the camera in the iPad 2, and hope the camera is substantially better on the next version.

 

[Mtnmedic]

I do think the photos are a bit grainy, I am disappointed in the camera. To me, apple is a company that doesn't skimp when it produces a product, so I am surprised at the low quality of the pictures is something they permitted in the iPad 2, even if it is something the iPad wasn't intended to be used for. That just isn't usually how they function; they don't make excuses, they (usually) make products that exceed our expectations. If it was never intended to be used for a camera, I doubt they would've permitted the inclusion of a camera app, which is obviously there. Grainy photos, I call it like it is. I won't be using the camera in the iPad 2, and hope the camera is substantially better on the next version.

I think I'm with you. We've been accustomed to Apple producing high quality products. For them to stick in a cheap-o camera on the iPad 2 IS a bit surprising and disappointing. Oh well. A least it HAS a camera, even if rather crappy. I'm happy that it'll be there in case I need to take a quick snap when my phone or my DSLR aren't anywhere nearby.

Michael "Spam, spam, bacon, eggs and spam. Hold the bacon and eggs." Sent from my iPad using iPF

 

[Torria]

SJ suckered us with the bad camera. However maybe the question is How Much More Are You Willing To Pay for a 8m camera. Would you use it all the time or... would you, should you use the wonderfull Iphone camera which is always in your pocket. In any case I think the Ipad 3 will have a good camera, thats the apple way.

I think you are right. IPad 3 will probably have better camera's, but with better quality will come an increase in price..... Hopefully it will
also come with a USB port.

Sent from my iPad using iPF. Torria

 

[Gunny008]

Apple used crappy cameras in the 2nd gen so that they can upgrade them in the 3rd, thus giving people another reason to upgrade from iPad 2 and definitely iPad 1 (especially if there's a retina display and good quality cameras)

The iPad cameras will follow the same pattern as the iPhones...start off basic and gradually build up to 5 or 8mb with a flash.

IPad 3 will probably get 3MP cameras, maybe 5 if we are lucky.

 

[Yakuzagang5]

That is one way to look at it.... as a consumer, I look at your statement this way..... they cripple the hardware (not provide necessarily the best out there, or even something versatile) because the infrastructure supporting Face Time isn't there?

That doesn't pass the common sense test.

It is similar to the 20MB download restriction on iOS devices over 3G. Apple just implemented it to have users download large files over broadband rather then 3G, there is no other reason. After all, if you are paying for unlimited 3G, you would expect to be able to download as much as you like.

But then apple wouldn't be able to sell to OEMs, thus having 0 market. OEMs with unlimited data would not support a device that completely hogs the network like crazy.

 

[ratatapa]

Im also sad about thé backgammon camera wuality but m'en chat CAN we do

 

[rconn2]

As for the rear camera... Who wants to take pics or vid with a 10'' tablet? Its awkward at best. Maybe ill use it to snap pics around the house an email them if i need too. For actual picture taking, nope.

Why do people keep saying the above and making excuses? I don't have my iPad2 yet, but I'm very disappointed by the apparant poor camera quality and obvious weak specs. Those who dismiss the need for quality cameras seem to be missing the whole point of an iPad. It's a device that replaces a whole variety of other gadgets and the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.

I plan on having my iPad2 with me much of the time. There will be times when I'll want to take a snapshot or vid (kodak moments). I _don't_ want to also have to carry a Flip or other digital camera.

The iPhone4 cameras are excellent. My gf has one and the main selling point for her was the cameras (not the phone aspect). She uses the cameras all the time.

I don't have an iPhone4 -- my phone doesn't even have a camera. I want the same cameras in the iPad. People act like it'd be ridiculous taking pictures w/ an iPad. Why? Because it'd look silly? Who cares? I'm not a professional. If I already have an iPad with me, it'd be extremely convenient. Besides, seeing a video/picture on the big screen as it's taken or viewing afterwards is an interesting feature.

No... there is no good excuse for putting in stink cameras. It brings down the entire iPad brand. I'd gladly have paid the few extra dollars it would've cost Apple to have decent quality cameras.

Despite my disgust, I ordered the iPad2. I did so by deciding that I'd sell it in a years' time. In a year, I'll see if an iPad3 actually pushes the envelope or continues to be Apple-hobbled and cheapened. I'll also look at the Android offerings.

I _like_ Apple. The iPad has all the apps, and it's the tablet to buy now. But, it could've been much better. I understand not upgrading the display -- not yet cost-effective. But, the cameras? No excuse. The lack of an SD slot and other i/o... that's taking customer's acceptance and patience for granted.

Companies who hobble their products -- and strategize their product lines -- lose in the end. If Apple loses their cutting-edge appeal, then things will turn quickly.

 

[Gunny008]

As for the rear camera... Who wants to take pics or vid with a 10'' tablet? Its awkward at best. Maybe ill use it to snap pics around the house an email them if i need too. For actual picture taking, nope.

Why do people keep saying the above and making excuses? I don't have my iPad2 yet, but I'm very disappointed by the apparant poor camera quality and obvious weak specs. Those who dismiss the need for quality cameras seem to be missing the whole point of an iPad. It's a device that replaces a whole variety of other gadgets and the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.

I plan on having my iPad2 with me much of the time. There will be times when I'll want to take a snapshot or vid ( moments). I _don't_ want to also have to carry a Flip or other digital camera.

The iPhone4 cameras are excellent. My gf has one and the main selling point for her was the cameras (not the phone aspect). She uses the cameras all the time.

I don't have an iPhone4 -- my phone doesn't even have a camera. I want the same cameras in the iPad. People act like it'd be ridiculous taking pictures w/ an iPad. Why? Because it'd look silly? Who cares? I'm not a professional. If I already have an iPad with me, it'd be extremely convenient. Besides, seeing a video/picture on the big screen as it's taken or viewing afterwards is an interesting feature.

No... there is no good excuse for putting in stink cameras. It brings down the entire iPad brand. I'd gladly have paid the few extra dollars it would've cost Apple to have decent quality cameras.

Despite my disgust, I ordered the iPad2. I did so by deciding that I'd sell it in a years' time. In a year, I'll see if an iPad3 actually pushes the envelope or continues to be Apple-hobbled and cheapened. I'll also look at the Android offerings.

I _like_ Apple. The iPad has all the apps, and it's the tablet to buy now. But, it could've been much better. I understand not upgrading the display -- not yet cost-effective. But, the cameras? No excuse. The lack of an SD slot and other i/o... that's taking customer's acceptance and patience for granted.

Companies who hobble their products -- and strategize their product lines -- lose in the end. If Apple loses their cutting-edge appeal, then things will turn quickly.

Apple will not lose their cutting edge appeal to most people who love apple. They will spice up the cameras for future generations and say how amazing and great they are now. Thus, people who bought the 2nd iPad will think the cameras look fantastic compared to the cameras on their iPad.

iPad 1 users will upgrade due do the fact they will think the cameras are God's gift