Why are people dissing the rear camera?

[the_john]

Here's a picture I just took with it. I'm baking these cookies for the University of Alabama women's rowing team ( my sister is on it). I don't see why everyone is saying the quality is so crappy. Looks fine to me.

Sent from my iPad using iPF

 

[the_john]

Okay, that's odd. I uploaded that same pic to Facebook and it's crystal clear.

Sent from my iPad using iPF

 

[pinaklonkar]

I think it is basically tailored to be a video camera just as the front facing one. Just like your video camera does not shoot great stills, this one does not, either. It does shoot acceptable 720p quality videos from what I have seen so far.

It lacks focus of any sort, macro mode, and flash, the very basics of any camera found these days in any entry level smart phone.

Most people will never use that rear camera and I have no clue why they added one, giving people something to find flaws in. A simple 2 megapixel front facing camera for video calls should have been enough.

iPad should not be a digital camera, nor a video camera. I hope it does not try to become that.

 

[Tim SPRACKLEN]

Here's a picture I just took with it. I'm baking these cookies for the University of Alabama women's rowing team ( my sister is on it). I don't see why everyone is saying the quality is so crappy. Looks fine to me.

Sent from my iPad using iPF

Those cookies look fine to me - if I give you my address I have a load of hungry kids here who would **absolutely** love those cookies.

I might have a few too.....

Tim
Scotland

 

[lawhawk]

Cookies look good, picture looks bad.

 

[the_john]

Apparently uploading a picture to the forum degrades the quality. As I said in my second post, I uploaded the same pic to Facebook and it's crystal clear.

Sent from my iPad using iPF

 

[twerppoet]

The iPF app automatically downsizes picture attachements. The picture looks worse than your Facebook one because it's only 311 x 233 pixels, about a third of what the camera actually took

 

[the_john]

The iPF app automatically downsizes picture attachements. The picture looks worse than your Facebook one because it's only 311 x 233 pixels, about a third of what the camera actually took

Gotcha!

Sent from my iPad using iPF

 

[1million]

The camera is decent to me. Of course my phone is better.

 

[Fifi1992]

Here's a picture I just took with it. I'm baking these cookies for the University of Alabama women's rowing team ( my sister is on it). I don't see why everyone is saying the quality is so crappy. Looks fine to me.

Sent from my iPad using iPF

Nice

 

[yvrgal]

Send me the cookies!!

 

[madhatter61]

Still vs Video ... are the cameras on iPAD 2 adequate?

Photography 101 for the uninitiated.

Perhaps a bit of psychology. With still digital photos, as resolution increases so does the detail. We all love sharp, crisp detail. In stills, we study every detail and can get critical depending upon our need for perfection. There are a lot of other factors, but not here, and now.

What is video ... it is a lot of stills, being rapidly presented at a rate faster than the human eye and brain system can follow. As the speed of change increases and if there are slight differences from one frame (stills)then our brain takes over and it looks to us like it is a continuous scene. Here we can tolerate a bit of lessor detail because we concentrate and are focussed on the changes. Early projectors ran around 18 FPS. Obviously 24 FPS is better.

IMHO, Apple chose to support the FaceTime feature which is a video sharing service between various Apple products. The iPAD2 camera system provides reasonably good video for sharing.

The front camera of course focusses on the originator, and the rear enables sharing of the view of what the originator is viewing.

I doubt Apple envisioned using the cameras for still photography ... IMHO... hope this helps clarifies a bit.

The cookies look good enough to eat.

 

[Bennettb]

I was going to get the 2 for the rear facing camera. I want to be able to compare what's growing in my garden at different seasons. Didn't know it was for video. Does that mean still pictures don't work?

 

[Mtnmedic]

A long while ago, I thought "Meh...who needs a rear-facing camera on the iPad?"

But then I started having many "Kodak moments" while doing something on my iPad and better cameras were nowhere nearby. THAT'S when I started wishing my iPad had SOME kind of camera on it. I've missed so many of those moments for lack of a camera on hand.

I have no intention of using the iPad 2 as a camera on a regular basis. That'd be dumb. Especially since I have a good point-and-shoot camera in my EVO 4G and a great Canon DSLR. But I don't always pack those items around with me, especially when I'm at HOME.

The MOST EFFECTIVE camera is the one that's already in your hand during a fleeting "Kodak moment". I'm happy the iPad 2 will have a camera-even a junky one at that. Now, I can relax on my deck and read a magazine/book or do some other stuff on the iPad without having to worry about hauling around my EVO or my DSLR to keep them handy for spontaneous photo opportunities.

I DO wish it was just a little bit better, though. A decent 3 or 5 megapixel camera couldn't have hurt the price line. But something is better than nothing.

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

 

[the_john]

I was going to get the 2 for the rear facing camera. I want to be able to compare what's growing in my garden at different seasons. Didn't know it was for video. Does that mean still pictures don't work?

Still pictures work just fine in bright light. I will put that pic on photobucket tomorrow so you can see the real quality.

Sent from my iPad using iPF