I hate to be the Grinch as well as a disagreeable old sot, but I disagree. Do not take what I say as a personal insult; I am in my Rage Against the (pro photographer) Machine phase. I have found the iPad 1 to be just fine for images and I spent many moons in a custom lab and shooting professionally, so I absolutely understand the art, craft and science that is photography. Not sure any iPad will let you evaluate the rocks and trees in a meaningful way. Hell's Bells, I do not need to focus in many cases, and i can tell you specifically and precisely which areas will be a sharp as the film/processing/lens/equipment will allow. But that is for the Amazing Bobbo Photo Thread.
Originally Posted by lecycliste
I know my equipment and I know for a fact if I need the rocks and trees to be sharp, they will be, indeed, sharp.
I knew with out any question how my images would look before I processed and printed them. Old school 8X10/11X14 and much larger film and only needed two shots at the most. Sorry, but I must chortle when I listen to some "professionals" justify their reasons for wasting time.
NOT YOU - TAKE NO OFFENSE!
Every photographer demands something they will never get from the systems they setup and use. I just think there are too many inexperienced photographers out there that have few real skills and they worry about things that a through grounding in the art and science would immediately stop the brain bleeds they often suffer because they just do not understand.
NOT SAYING YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE.
Just a general observation about most photographers--working pro or advanced amateur--that my skill, knowledge and abilities let me say with impunity, the Mini is likely fine if you want a smaller device; the iPad is just fine if you are as blind as Bob.
Again, sorry for the apparent insult. No insult was intended.
The wifi only 16 gb iPad mini wifi is $329.00, iPad 2 is $399.00. The 2 may possibly have more battery (I don't know), the mini has updated camera and lightning port. The screen on each has the same number of pixels so the battery - to produce the same life, would need to be about the same (about due to non-video issues). I don't know if the mini is using the smaller process A5 and the 2 using the previous generation or original generation A5, but if this is the case there is less power consumed performing the same functions with the newer chip (at 45 nm for the original and 32 nm the next version and now the newest is at 28 nm). Clearly there isn't a $70.00 premium for components or construction between the two...
Originally Posted by mgpitt
Newer more efficient chipsets, better backlighting control and better and integrated comm chipsets with an updated antenna design all will help the new mini reduce power requirements letting Apple use a smaller battery than if they put a Retina on the first generation mini.
Originally Posted by scifan57
The mini has a physically larger screen so if you only look at pixel density you miss the picture. The Kindle Fire is 1280x800 while the iPad Mini is 1024x768 for a 24% less pixel screen not the 37% pixel density would lead one to believe.
Originally Posted by lecycliste
The iPad Mini is 3mm thinner and 87 grams lighter - both very noticeable while using.
The Kindle Fire does not come in a 64gb size but does have 1gb memory compared to iPad Mini's 512kb
The A5 chipset supporting the cortex-A9 in the Mini is a much more modern chipset than the Fire's and it runs at a faster speed
The cameras don't even belong in the same planet, with the Mini having two (a 720p 1.2 MP front facing and a 5 MP main) to compare with the 1.3 MP 720p main (only) camera on the Fire.
The Mini has available cellular (4G-LTE) while the Fire only has wifi
The Fire does have a couple of ports that the Mini doesn't, a micro USB (can't say that is an advantage over Lightning) and a HDMI where the Mini requires a $29.00 adapter.
Edit: sorry, the purpose wasn't just to throw specs around, but to show that the Mini is clearly a superior product. I can buy a Yaris for less than $20,000.00 but it doesn't have the performance or quality that a Corvette or Ferrari have. These two don't have $80,000.00 to $150,000.00 more in parts inside them, and the cost doesn't just pay for the material and construction, but the time and resources to design something you will feel real passion for both owning AND using.
The ipad 2 has ios 30 pin dock connection and the ipad mini has the 8 pin dock connection. Basically depending on your need for accessories, your decision could be already made. As for the yaris vs the ferrari, yaris has the far superior carbon emission performance. It depends on what you're using it for. The ipad mini 2 with presumably new retina display may not have the same weight and battery performance as the original ipad mini.
Anyway, today I took some pictures outside in the sun and I could not see through the display to properly frame the pictures that I wanted. Granted I had screen protectors on, shooting pictures in the sun is not well supported by ipad mini. But the pictures luckily turned out awesome. Even the framing came out just right, luckily. I don't know, maybe there was a gyro in the ipad mini that help steady my hands while I was shooting the pictures and properly framed the photos without me knowing it, who knows... Apple does these things.
Yeah, all Apple devices are VERY hard to see in the sunshine. I agree the Yaris does have a much better carbon footprint, but the Ferrari may have a better emissions to Work ratio (lb/HP-hr or g/kW-hr). Good point of discussion somewhere.
Originally Posted by Magnetic1