Some people are complaining that Apple kept the same iPhone camera with its 2.0 megapixels in their new iPhone 3G.
To those people, I say: If you want to take better pictures, use a real camera.
That camera on the iPhone is for quick and dirty shots, mostly meant to be emailed as part of the communication process. For example, an architect snaps a shot for a contractor to not just tell him, but show him that his crew needs to learn how to frame a house. Or a parent grabs a quick shot of their kid playing soccer to dash off to grandma. That camera in iPhone 3G isn’t for the aspiring Ansel Adams framing their perfect shot of Grand Teton.
Apple correctly has given users enough to get the job done while not bogging down networks unnecessarily with 5+ megapixel shots of Sally running around in shin guards.
Ditto for the whole “iChat AV-yay-we’re-finally-gonna-have-video-phones!” idea. The network capacities are finite, people. Not infinite. I’d wager that Apple understands perfectly that if they put a front-facing camera and and iChat AV app on an iPhone, then they’d have a video phone. I’d also wager that they didn’t bother to even discuss it with the carriers, since they didn’t want to hear where to put their “video phone.”
The networks can’t handle millions of people making video calls along with all of the regular voice and other traffic, including all of that extra data bandwidth that iPhone users already use surfing. And, starting on July 11th, surfing on the iPhone 3G will only increase as it becomes so much faster.
So, let’s recap: Apple’s iPhone 3G camera isn’t overkill for the sake of looking good on a specs sheet, while negatively affecting network performance. iPhone 3G’s camera is the proper one for the average job for which it is intended to be used. If you want to be a photographer, get a real camera. Also, Apple didn’t fail to grasp anything. They understand perfectly well that a video phone is possible, but that millions of them in action isn’t a feasible idea, yet.
People who complain about the number of megapixels in iPhone 3G’s camera and/or wonder why Apple didn’t put a front-facing camera on the iPhone for video chatting simply aren’t seeing the whole picture.
SteveJack is a long-time Macintosh user, web designer, multimedia producer and a regular contributor to the MacDailyNews Opinion section.
Don’t forget there will be a third generation iPhone in a year or two. Need to keep some features for that one !
SE 850 you sacrificed on small display and no memory for that fat camera. You did surf the next much and you didn’t bring you music and movies with you on that trip.
Yeah make a movie with you cell phone and be Steven Spellberg, edit your pictures and be Ansel Adams.
To everyone chasing the megapixel myth , I would point them to the Sports Illustrated CENTREFOLD, that was taken on a 2.1 megapixel Nikon Coolpix point and shoot.
I’m not saying that the iPhone camera can’t be improved, but I do say it is adequate for what most people use it for – screen and snaps.
@RJ:
when i travel, indeed, i find most of the time, the camera is the dealbreaker feature. Memory cards are easy to come by – and the display is crystal clear. I found that even when i was using the iPhone as primary, I wasnt surfing all too often. Maybe to check sports scores and news occasionally – even then the screen size became limiting.
2 MP, Sheep Register and Rob are correct. Adding more megapixels to a camera with a tiny lens gains you nothing, even if the bandwidth is infinite. I consider it a fraud for any company to offer a high megapixel sensor for such small diffraction limited optics. The laws of physics can not be breached no matter how much ignorant users whine about this missing “feature”.
I guess the main reason for my disillusionment with the iPhone is that i really would like for it to be like my Mac experience – being able to use an MBP for ALL of my computing needs. Maybe it’s too much to ask for one device to fit all of my “pocket” needs (decent camera, media player, and phone)
TheConfuzed1: did your Nextel i860 also have a 3.2″ screen? which would you rather have, the current iPhone with 10 hours 2G/5 hours 3G talk time, or a thicker, slightly bulkier iPhone with 6 hours 2G/3 hours 3G talk time? a flash bulb uses a lot of battery power. Apple had to do some creative engineering to get the battery life up to acceptable levels as it is.
what irks me about all the iPhone complaints (and this isn’t directed at you specifically, TheConfuzed1) is that comparisons are being made to these older existing phones that DON’T have multitouch screens, DON’T have Wi-Fi, and DON’T run a (highly optimized) version of Mac OS X that contains technologies like OpenGL. complaints about no video chat are ludicrous as the battery demands alone would greatly increase the size of the iPhone’s elegant package. not to mention the lack of network bandwidth in the US to handle adding acceptable video chat to several million users on top of data transfer. you want a video chat phone with a light to illuminate your face? great, go design one with all the same features the iPhone has packed into the same case with today’s technology for a reasonable price. we’ll all be waiting.
Note that the actual embedded camera may be of better quality than the current one (albeit with the same 2Mpx), and the software that runs it could possibly be better too. We may have to wait until they are released and someone does the first parts breakdown.
I don’t buy the spin. People don’t want to carry multiple devices and there’s a significant difference between a 2 megapixel and a 3-4 megapixel camera. As someone noted above, the higher resolution cameras have been used on non-US networks without problems for a while now. As to video chatting, it could be restricted to Wi-Fi connections. You can’t argue that they can’t handle the load; that’s where we do our video chatting at the moment. And I see no argument for omitting video recording, or other things like cut and paste or editable Word documents. Steve Jack’s arguments sound like the usual Apple fan apologies. Truth is, the keynote yesterday was lackluster. It took a rehash of the SDK and a LOT of demos of nice 3rd party apps to fill the two hours because there wasn’t much from Apple. The 3G phone price is great but that’s because AT&T;is subsidizing it – directly this time, instead of indirectly through kickbacks on the monthly service charge. Looks like most users will be paying for that through higher fees ($240 extra on a 2-yr contract).
I think carrying a camera on a trip is the least I would do. I would not use my mobile phone for my picture taking. I use a Nikon with full zoom and wide angle lens capabilities.
I was hoping for a swivel camera. I prefer Apple lead, or at least respond rapidly should a competitor come up with half-as-good a GUI (maybe more like half-ass?) plus video-chatting capability. I’m sure they’re all looking for chinks in the armor.
Have you ever seen video chatting on Asia’s ADVANCED 3G networks??? It’s terrible. Hardly anyone uses it. I have never seen it used myself only in store demos. And it’s terrible.
@jacksprat
Exactly! So much effort went into trying to save energy and then what, blow it all away on flash?
Don’t forget that the software plays a big role in how the pictures turn out. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an improvement in the software.
How badly do you want to chat with someone holding a camera in one hand at stomach level…
Do you really want a jiggling, rolling, up-the-nose, live video of your best friend? Really? How long until that gets old?
The megapixels don’t matter if you don’t have the hardware to take better pics.
A great tuner is useless with Wal-Mart speakers. It may produce in great sound, but you’ll never hear it because the speakers are crap.
Adding better camera hardware would increase the iPhone’s price. Apple obviously wanted to reduce the iPhone’s price with this upgrade, to coincide with releasing it virtually worldwide.
Also, this iPhone upgrade was about the 2.0 software, app store, new features, GPS, etc. Frankly, the hardware wasn’t going to change that much after only 1 year on the market. Too much cost in re-engineering a very successful product.
As for video recording, what would people want to do with the clips once they’re recorded? Email them! Now if people think Jobs was right in not having a 5M camera because the files were too large, just imagine how large these video clips would be.
Also remember that the U.S. is Apple’s largest market, and the U.S. lags significantly behind in 3G implementation. AT&T;only in the past couple of months seriously upgraded their network to handle significant 3G data transfers, and it remains to be seen if the network can handle the loads. I suspect AT&T;has much more work ahead to get the 3G network really working well for millions of new users, and AT&T;won’t know all of the problems until the user load starts (on July 11).
The same people who want more megapixels in their iPhones are the ones who want an FM radio in their iPods.
“To those people, I say: If you want to take better pictures, use a real camera.”
And if you want a better email device buy a Blackberry, and if you want a better voice phone, buy a Nokia, and if you want a better GPS buy a Garmin, etc etc etc.
That can now be the standard solution for every Apple shortcoming. If you want a better X buy from competitor Y.
I think it’s great that Apple is adopting this “No New Features” policy for products. Steve Jack will obviously be happy if they never improve anything again.
People who complain about the number of megapixels in iPhone 3G’s camera and/or wonder why Apple didn’t put a front-facing camera on the iPhone for video chatting simply aren’t seeing the whole picture.
Yeah! Especially with only ONE, measily 2-megapixel camera.
Cheers!
Steve is really showing his age here. Only an old fart would say “get a real camera.”
Cell phone cameras are “real” cameras. A top of the line consumer oriented camera of only a couple of years ago was 2.0 Mp’s. the argument that there are “real” cameras, and cell-phone cameras just doesn’t cut it anymore when cell phone cameras typically have 3.5 to 5.0 Mps. That *is* a “real” camera.
It’s a mistake not to include it in the iPhone because:
a) the 3.5 Mp parts and chips are made by the same company that makes Apples current camera and only cost a fraction more.
b) all the other cellphones that have any hope of seriously competing with the iPhone have a better camera.
Apple will have to be feature competitive with the other makers if it hopes to survive, so all this means is that you will need to buy another iphone a year from now to get the stuff that they should have put in this one.
The whole “e-mailing large photos hogs bandwidth” thing is moot anyway because when you send one from the iPhone it automatically resizes it to make it smaller. SJ’s argument for keeping the current camera doesn’t make any sense at all.
“Steve is really showing his age here. Only an old fart would say “get a real camera.””
You’re right, but if the iPhone had an 6MP camera, Steve Jack would be writing about how great it was and that no other phone could compete.
“The whole “e-mailing large photos hogs bandwidth” thing is moot anyway because when you send one from the iPhone it automatically resizes it to make it smaller.”
It’s as much BS as the “Nobody wants 3G” arguments put forward with the version 0.9 iPhone beta release last year.
Of course people want a better camera. Unfortunately the one in the iPhone sucks. Admit it and get over it.
I get the feeling that if service providers and hardware mfr’s who take advantage of the what’s to come in Android, the iPhone will fade quickly.
I give credit to Apple though. Apparently, no other hardware mfr. or service provider ever thought of making their phone a handheld computer.
Outside of the awesome interface of the iPhone, its really an average phone. Lacks many features that my $99 Palm Centro has including voice dialing, bluetooth modem capabilities, video recording, texting pictures, instant messaging, etc.