According to Gadgetlab (and Apple’s specs) the new iPod touch camera is less than 1 mega pixel which is about what my old Treo 650 had!

I can understand their argument that due to the thinness of the thing it could have been difficult to get anything more in there, but even so, that is a very weak camera.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Advertisements

14 comments

  1. I don't know why they have to create all these artificial reasons to make the iphone looks so much better. Why include a camera if its only good for crappy videos?

  2. Yea, Agreed with the above comment. I really don't like Apple when it comes to giving 'reasons'. I bet the true “reason” is because if it had a good camera and now since there is a microphone (or you would have a muted video.. lol) they know the sales of iPhone will drop. I think that has always been the case, leaving the essential parts out so people can't simply buy the touch and use that as an 'iPhone' as people could use wifi to call people. W/E. I'm satisfied with my 3GS. Haha

  3. I'll hold judgement until I've seen the results. Pixel count isn't everything you know. Less pixels mean less noise, and therefore sharper results. Camera technology has come on leaps and bounds since the Treo 650. If the camera in the new iPod Touch is really that bad, why put in a retina display to show it up even more?

  4. @Tom

    What are you talking about? Do you seriously believe the >1 megapixel camera on the ipod touch is better than the 5 megapixel one on the iphone because its got less pixels? How much kool-aid did you drink?

  5. @Robert

    By “crappy videos” I meant what the people would use it for, not the quality of the picture (as we all understand we rarely use those types of camera to create masterpieces).. I should've used another term, but at the same time 720p is not true HD ;P

  6. That's too bad. If possible they should have had the better camera on the bigger models. Megapixels are overly emphasized by non-photographer types but 1mp is really too low. 2 good megapixels should really have been the absolute minimum. Still it's not a camera just a nice feature though not so nice if it's hampered.

  7. people seem to be missing apples marketing strategy …… why give us a better camera now…. what will they give us next update LOL !

  8. A weird choice to go for a camera that weak. Doesn't seem to make much sense at all, a bit like the last Nano having a video camera and the new one doesn't.

    Odd choices, like they're just experimenting with some of this stuff

  9. @ jonnyg0

    I take it that you're not a photographer? Or at least haven't been one for the last 25 years or so? As I said, I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the results, but more megapixels does actually mean more noise. However better, more up-to-date technology also means better camera noise reduction algorithms. BTW, I don't drink Kool Aid, but I believe they once did in Jonestown?

  10. @Tom

    So you have been a professionnal photographer for at least 25 years? Good for you. That means I shouldn't have to explain to you how more pixels also means more details? Especially with a good lens?

    You said the camera must not be so bad because of retina display, … , do you seriously believe a camera is good because of the display screen? For how long have you been using cameras really to make such a comment?

    You must really have a strong faith in the new ipod touch camera lenses to think that such a low pixel count won't matter when you look at the photo you took on a monitor or if you print them.

    also you couldn't even spell my name right 😛

Leave a Reply