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.
Although I largely agree with the content of this story, I find amusing how Apple fanatics (including myself) are always quick to find excuses for missing features.
If other phones had crappy camera and the iPhone was the only one with a good camera we would be trumpeting this on every web site.
3G has been available for a while outside the US and operators have tried to get people to use their video phones. Video communications are now the same price as voice on most network in europe.
I think it is a good technology demonstration, but no one wants to do a video conversation in Public as people around can hear both side of the conversation.
I find that when I am perfectly still, and there is plenty of light, the pictures are pretty good. As long as I can see the directions of wires in a piece of equipment I am working on, so that I can email for support, I am happy.
The 2 megapixel limit probably makes it easier to attach pictures for emailing, and also for storage (since there is no external storage…)
Now, about no video capture……
simple, first the networks are just not that robust yet to support video calls, second…they have to have something in the works for you to upgrade to in the next revisions, it’s coming, just not yet.
I’d support a better camera in a heartbeat tho, full lighting it’s not to bad, low light is hell with the iPhone camera however š
2 megapixels is about as much as that tiny lens can resolve anyway (probably even overkill). You don’t increase quality by adding megapixels, especially if the light gathering device is about the size of a pinprick.
It’s ironic that people want smaller, thinner and lighter but they also want DSLR quality. That’s just not going to happen unless someone defies the laws of physics.. or Apple makes the light-gathering device a lot bigger. Then, we can increase sensor resolution/size.
@ Philippe
“Video communications are now the same price as voice on most network in europe. “
I know you know this, but I’m going to clarify; Jack is talking here about the bandwidth capacity, not the price.
” but no one wants to do a video conversation in Public as people around can hear both side of the conversation.”
I don’t know why anyone thinks I should hear ONE side of their conversation. Man, I hate public cell phone users. I think talking on a cell phone in public should be considered as socially inappropriate as dropping one’s pants and squatting to defecate on the sidewalk.
Take it where no-one can hear you, people!
I really wish they had upgraded the camera. Not so much for my personal use, as the existing camera is usually good enough. My concern is as a stockholder. I believe the phone will sell very well in the rest of the world, but I think the camera quality will cause many people not to buy. I only say that because I’ve read many times how important the camera is to people in other parts of the world. Since I don’t live in Europe, when a European tells me a good cell camera is important, I have to believe him. And of course I mean a good cell camera compared to what THEY are used to, not what I’M used to. I expect this issue to be addressed with the third iPhone next year though, as we all saw that job listing Apple had a while back.
I like Apple’s stand against the megapixel myth. For a small camera, after a point, the greater the megapixels, the worse the picture (like telescopes & binocs, greater mag’n = worse image after the limitations of the optics are reached). Bottom line: Get a real camera.
The GPS feature, on the other hand, is aces. Garmin et al have been fleecing consumers for far too long. They are about to get what they deserve.
I’ll probably get an iphone in a bit but my friend has some small nokia N series phone and it takes great video shots while walking around which the downloads to his computer, edits and then uploads to youtube. The quality is VGA but it works well and more importantly he was able to take the shot since your phone goes everywhere with you. That’s where I see a nice camera on the iphone really being invaluable. Look at the success of the Flip which is just a simple, small, easy to use video camera that takes crappy footage but is always with you
I don’t agree with Phllippe.
Have seen the size of the phones with those hi mega pixel cameras? I like my iphone nice and thin thank you. I don’t want to carry more weight with a bigger camera that I don’t need.
Plus 3G video chat is over rated. I live in Hong Kong and 3g video chat has been around for years. I have many friends with 3g and video chat capability, but I have never seen anyone use that video chat function in all years its been on the market. Only once when they demoed it at the store and on advertisements, but those don’t count. The tech is just not there even in Asia to be practicable. The user experience is terrible and nobody uses it. Video chat is not ready for market. Maybe in 5 years.
I agree with Jack on this one.
As I said yesterday, I am disappointed on how little of a leap Apple made in its next gen iPhone, but I will buy one anyway.
I am waiting for OtterBox to update their cases too: they make the most rugged iPod and iPhone cases on the planet in my never humble opinion.
I suppose I will have to live with my iPhone purchase for four to five years when Apple really comes out with something truly spectacular.
If the Nokia N95 can have a 5 MP camera, I don’t see why the iPhone can’t. Bogging down the networks? I honestly don’t believe that a better camera would bog down the network.
I can see, however, that video calling could do this. However, as people are quick to point out, many European phones can do this, so the technology is definitely feasible. The counter point to that would be that iPhone would likely do for video calling what it did for mobile Internet–Previous devices have had these capabilities, but many people don’t utilize them on other devices, as they are not as easy to use.
Rubbish. Europe is full with 3G video phones and that was never a problem. Sure, Apple would make finally USABLE and thus create even more data load, but still, it’s totally not the case. And about back camera – it’s shit, no more, no less. And again – I think we WILL one day have usable images with our phones. Why the hell I’d care for geo-tagged photos, when they are no good for anything? Megapixels actually don’t matter. Smaller resolutions for phone cameras are even good, but the quality has to be better.
So. All this comes to only one simple explanation – updage path for iPhone v3. That’s it.
Well, to expand on your take, Stevejack, I will submit that Steve Jobs knows exactly what he is doing and has no intention of adding a feature to a product until or unless it can meet his exacting standards.
We all already know that Video Conferencing over Wi-Fi seldom looks anywhere near as clean as it does in the demos from the Moscone. Most people don’t have 3-5 mbps download AND upload, and the quality of video chats can often struggle depending on the available bandwidth.
3G has an even tighter bandwidth cap, and as a result Video Chatting would look bloody awful. If they had included the feature, they certainly could have made a compelling demo out of at the Keynote yesterday; but as soon as the phone went public, the reality would set in, and everyone from the tech press to the forum trolls would pounce on Apple like a rabid monkey.
Perhaps once 4G networks are in place, Video phones will be plausible, but not a moment before.
Oh, and how about a camera with a flash? My Motorola Nextel i860 had a flash, and it’s not even a smartphone.
Completely agree with the author: If you want to be a photographer, buy a camera! And mobile video chat is simply not feasible over today’s networks.
Actually I think SteveJack is missing the point.
My 3 megapixel powershot takes great photos and fine movies–I have been using a 512mb CF card in that thing for years.
my 30 gig iPod has about 10 gigs of music, games and movies on it.
I lug my 17″ powerbook with me on trips to access the internet and email.
My crappy razr gets about a day of use on a charge and I turned off data and text so I won’t get accidentally charged.
I want to be able to use an iphone for these things.
And I almost can. Apple has no reason to marginalize the device.
I do not video chat and I never will but I know you could limit the traffic to wifi if you wanted to so no network concerns.
Imagine if that contractor could show and tell his client.
Convergance, man. Thats what the iPhone is supposed to be tackling.
My concern is as a stockholder. I believe the phone will sell very well in the rest of the world, but I think the camera quality will cause many people not to buy. āWish I Was Here
I doubt that Apple wants the business of anyone dumb enough to reject the iPhone because of its camera. Ridiculous!
It’s also a matter of price. Keeping the hardware the same they utilize their economies of scale and can lower the price and allow more people to get engaged in the platform. Once the platform is established, they will start adding new features again!
Being able to shoot simple video clips would be nice, rather than just still pictures. I can live very well without video chat, and I have no problem with camera quality… Although it seems a little slow in terms of responsiveness, which is likely more of a software issue.
Totally agree
1. it’s not megapixel, it’s the optics that matter, if SJ put 5M camera in iP, all you would get is blur that consists of more pixels, not sharper image. 2M is good enough for me to take a shot of a white board, or item at the store so I can show it later to my wife, or a tag at lowes so I can know what that plant’s name is.
2. front camera? so how would you shoot regular pics? 2 cameras? so we would pay extra for 2nd cam just to use it once or twice?
Steve made the right choice.
The iPhone camera is perfect for* For the Record* pictures…if you want a nice picture get a real camera. Of course I wish it had one, of course I wish it had a ray gun and anti gravity but it is pretty darn good the way it is.
N95 is almost twice as think as the iPhone. The only thing I want that thick is in between my….
Convergence means compromise. As long as it can do a good job, its good enough. For the best job, get a device dedicated to the task.
The Swiss army knife is useful; however, if I wanted to kill someone instead of cutting a rope, I will get a meat cleaver specifically for the task of killing someone. Most days I don’t plan to kill someone carry the Swiss army knife. The meant cleaver comes out if there is premeditation.
I couldnt disagree more with SJ. Hey I have a decent camera already, but I do not want to carry more than one gizmo everywhere I go.
The camera in the mobile phone doesnt have to be some elite shit..but it can be decent and right now I can’t take any decent pictures with my iPhone unless the lightning conditions are good.
I got an iPhone on June 29th last year – have been a loyal Mac guy since the early 90s. However, the iPhone hasnt earned my loyalty because unlike the Mac – which allows me to DO MORE, the iPhone DOES LESS than my current phone. I use an SE k850i, unlocked, quadband and triband 3G. It’s got a 5mp camera with a xenon flash. On my last vacation, i didnt even need to bring a camera. Used it for all my picturetaking with great results – day and night. and of course, no hassles with using overseas prepaid SIMs.
i do see the whole picture – but unfortunately, not with the iPhone.
What’s your excuse for lack of video recording, Mr. Jack? Did Steve Jobs leave that out as part of his masterful plan, too?
With this big, beautiful screen and great software, Apple had the chance to make a very useful camera out of a cell phone. Excellent photo and video editing features right here at the palm of your hand. But I guess Jobs will save that for iPhone 4G and then we can all bow down and praise it for the improvement while forgetting SteveJack’s lame ass commentary detailing why Apple should just rightfully give up on the camera.
No wonder he pulls this shit. You can cut a few corners, like having a so-called smartphone WITHOUT CUT AND PASTE AFTER A DAMN YEAR, when you have people like SteveJackass rushing to the front of the line to make excuses for your lackluster decisions.
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.
@Amused: that’s the standard solution to ANY product’s shortcomings. the quality of the camera in my phone wasn’t good enough for my needs, so i got a nicer Canon. the TV card in my computer doesn’t do HD, so i bought an HDTV. same goes for convergence devices like the iPhone.
Sorry, Jeremy, but a cell phone camera is not a real camera. It’s a toy.
For those of you know think a cell phone camera is a real camera should get into a simple adult photography class.
Why not just add phone functionality to SLR? SIZE!
I totally disagree.
At issue here is that while the current camera does a job, it doesn’t do the same quality of job that we know is possible. Sure, there are limits to what you can do because of the optics, but the new Infineon chip can handle much more and do more image enhancement if they had gone to 5MP. This would’ve also allowed for better image stabilization, low light conditions, as well as other detail and quality improvement. Those of us “wanting to see the big picture” aren’t asking for a magic fairy solution here, we know the parts are out there, and some of us would’ve rather paid extra for them.
The same is true with video. Those of us with Jailbroken phones know what the current iPhone is capable of in terms of video, and with the new Infineon chip it could’ve been able to do a good enough job for when you don’t have your camcorder with you.
iChat, I can kind of see having problems over 3G because of the carriers, but it still could’ve been WiFi enabled…although again, this would’ve raised the price for the second camera (which would’ve only needed to be the lower-end camera sensor).
Still I disagree with the overall philosophy of the article…
With the iPhone almost everything is great or best in class. You don’t say, screw the resolution, if you want to watch video, use a TV. You don’t say screw the music, if you want to listen to music, get an iPod, etc…
For anyone looking to do video, video chat, or take good pictures as a priority with their mobile device, the iPhone is now low on the list in this category.
The megapixel marketing myth is just like the megahertz myth for PCs. There’s an optimal pixel size for image quality, and just cramming more pixels into the same tiny chip does NOT improve resolution as much as one would think, as you lose resolution due to the increased heat noise, not to mention the high levels of compression used by most cellphone makers.
I have yet to see a cellphone cam, even the N95, which has image quality equal to even the cheapest digicam on the market. In fact, the N95 with its 5 megapixels doesn’t even take images as good as a 5-year old Canon SD200 with just 2 megapixels.
Anyone who NEEDS 5 megapixels, presumably so they can make 11×14 inch prints, is NOT going to be satisfied with a N95. It’s just utter nonsense.
The reason why the chips in cellphone cams are so small, is because of the physical size limitations. And, because of those limitations, I’d guess the optimal chip size currently has to be about 3 megapixels. So, yeah, Apple might have been able to get a slightly better chip in there, but the difference is marginal.
If people buy a CELLPHONE based upon its camera, then they are fools. The killer app on the cellphone is the phone! The iPhone takes surprisingly good pictures when exposed properly with good light and a steady hand. The one quibble I have is that the color balance seems off. If they’d adjust the color balance away from blue-green, then they’d have a perfectly usable 2 megapixel camera phone.
I don’t often disagree with the eminent Stevejack but in this case I think he’s way off base. Video, or even audio iChat could very easily be implemented and restricted for use over WiFi just the way almost every Mac is used today. I personally would consider the iPhone a “must have” rather than just a “want” if it gave me the ability to have iChat access in my pocket around my home and at work. It doesn’t exist because the cell networks want users to be forced into using their services rather than sidestepping those revenues by utilizing free WiFi communication. In short it remains missing, not because of technical limitations or for lack of desire, but because of corporate protectionism on the part of AT&T;and Apple.
People yakking on their phones in public are annoying enough already. Add iChat and the annoyance level will increase dramatically.
Not seeing the whole picture?
Oh boy! SteveJack sure is a flexible, bend-overy kinda guy.
Agree on the video.
Disagree on the camera. When I bought the iPhone, I thought it would be nice for limited use when I didn’t have my “real camera” with me. However, I use it a lot. The pictures are good enough for posting on the web.
I think that both the megapixels and lens should have been improved. Obviously, the lighting situation will always be a problem.
“same goes for convergence devices like the iPhone.”
It doesn’t really, because the whole point of the convergence device is that the features are converged into a single device.
Buying individual best of breed solutions to augment a convergence device and carrying them all around defeats the basic premise as to why you’re want a convergence device in the first place.
” you lose resolution due to the increased heat noise”
You don’t lose resolution, you get increased noise, all this at around the 10 megapixel level with the technology in today’s small camera sensors. The iPhone is a long way away from the point where that’s the problem.
In reality they probably did a survey to find out what most people didn’t like about thier iPhone and found (in no particular order) a) slowness due to no 3G b) No GPS c) No corporate Email support.
So that’s where they threw their effort for this generation of the device. Those who answered d) Camera sucks will have to wait.
Regarding the video recording on the iphone i belive there is already software to do that for the old hacked phones. With the apstore surely there will be will be plenty more to come…
As for the camera quality… how much would anyone be prepeard to pay for the inclusion of a “good” camera (incl better optics, flash etc…)?
The more i reflect on the choices made the more impressed i get…
Now roll on July 11th…
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
The quality of the iPhone camera is not bad, I have no problems with 2MP, it would be nice to improve the low-light performance.
Having more megapixels is over-rated.
Hogwash to this analysis!
Sure, you can limit the iPhone to a 2 megapixel camera but by no means limit the features as such. No zoom, no flash, no effects, no video. Give me a break. I love my iPhone 1.0 but I certainly expected iPhone 3G to step up the features to justify buying a new one.
But w/ this as well as the other missing features (copy/paste, MMS, Flash) and the AT&T;overall price increase, the only thing this announcement convinced me to buy is an AppleCare warranty on my original iPhone!
I bet most of you who are saying “we don’t need no 5MP camera” are the same bunch who said “we don’t need no 3G” or “who cares about GPS” a year ago.
What would it cost Apple to bump the camera up from 2MP to 4MP? Probably a few bucks per phone. Do I want to have to carry a dedicated camera just to take a few decent happy snaps of my mates birthday party? No. I want my iPhone to do that.
Tired of fanboy excuses.
Forget 5mp camera… WHY CANT IPHONE RECORD VIDEO??
that just doesn’t make sense!!!
Good points about the AT&T;network capacity. This helps to confirm the redirection I see toward the Touch. I would not be surprised to see a new Touch designed for Video Chatting, etc.
…and what’s the excuse for problems providing voice dialing?
I agree the camera (with video) should be better. SJ is not making sense here.
I think that this is all smoke and mirrors. The iPhone doesn’t have iChat AV because AT&T;won’t or can’t let them. Apple made a special deal with AT&T;and that’s why you don’t see iChat AV on it and probably won’t for another year or two. How many other video phones does ATT have?
On the other hand, I haven’t been able to have a decent iChat voice or video chat since the old Jaguar days. So I don’t see this being that big of a thing either.
America is way behind on our bandwidth because the tax incentives that we gave the phone and wireless companies were squandered and they didn’t do what they promised they would do. At least it looks like AT&T;is trying to upgrade it’s 3G network to keep up with iPhone demand, and that’s pretty good news in itself.
Whatever.
You’d have said the same thing about 3G and GPD a year ago.
Loser!
it’s not about megapixels, it’s about getting the sensor large enough and the ability to discern color discrimination points on the sensor. additionally, it’s about the lens. a good “glass” will almost nearly always supersede a megapixel laden piece of rubbish.
the iphone has neither good glass or a good sensor. it’s a poor camera, but by the same token only a few cameras in this genre -compact multipurpose camera – are any good at all. so it really falls in line with most.
I live in the UK where the mobile market is more developed than the American one, I use my mobile for everyday snaps and then facebook them, I only take out my digital camera for special occasions such as birthdays and weddings, its much more convienient that way as I always take my mobile around but dont find that possible with a camera so I capture things I otherwise mightn’t of, most 14-35 year olds here are the same and as such the quality of the mobile phone camera is important when making a purchase, I’m not one to be taken in totally by the megapixel race but the iphone doesnt have a flash and i believe auto focus either (i may be wrong on the latter), I love the premise of the iphone and have used one and loved it but I got a free sony ericsson k850i with a 5mp camera with flash and auto focus and also best pic which is a feature that takes 6 pictures within milliseconds of one another and you can choose the best of the selection, I can then MMS the photo to my friends or facebook if i wish or bluetooth it to my laptop for saving. I personally was put off the iphone by the camera and the lack of MMS and I know many of my friends here are the same.
The argument that the network doesnt want lots of photos and video calls blocking up the 3g service is a valid one within the states, however here in a country where 3g has been widespread for a few years now this isnt the case, the network is much more mature and capable, the truth is the iphone is designed with the US in mind and thats fair enough, hopefully as the american market develops we will see an iphone that more adequately meets European and indeed Japanese needs.
I’m a professional advertising and magazine photographer. Wish I could post some of my iPhone shots here. You get a lot from those teeny two Mpl. I haven’t tried making large prints from them, but at full cinema display at screen resolution, I could show you some sharp and stunning images.
How do we increase a 1.3 megapixel photo/video to 10MP? it has been taken from a Nokia cell phone. Will we need a converter? If so, could you please help us with that? Thank You.
Can’t believe people buy the iphone limitations trick.
Apple could easily add a front facing camera, 5 mpixel camera and 7.2 mbit hsdpa support like the X1 and HTV touch HD have. These are phones people are carrying around in the streets today. Nothing special.
But then Steve would lose money on iPhone 2 that will have the front facing camera but a 4 mp rear cam. Again apple fans are left wanting and Steve is left rich. Iphone 3 has 7.2 mbit hsdpa and a 10 mp cam, when the rest of the world has moved on.
Please guys, understand how product marketing and feature branding work in supply and demand. Apple has a winning UI, a name and great industrial design. But that is it, it is because of this that they make Apple fans suffer in terms of functionality. Apple fans (hell the world) is paying for the iphone just the way it is, why give people more? Why not just give them it in 2 years and get rich.
Only thing I think is sad is that Apple fans try to justify these marketing decisions to themselves and others because they can’t bear the reality of their “con”.
So is the deal that overseas mobile networks have the bandwidth necessary to handle a flood of big media files but the mobile networks in the U.S. don’t? How can this be? Do we really have sh*tty, dirt-slow mobile networks in the land of the free, home of the brave? Say it isn’t so!
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. āJeremy
Same old ignorant argument. More megapixels do not a better camera make. G*d only knows what a tiny, noisy sensor these cell phone cameras must have. Cram more megapixels into that tiny space and your pictures get worse, not better. Cell phones are not real cameras and anyone who thinks they are should at least be embarrassed to admit that they can’t tell the difference.