When the iPhone 4 was launched, in the middle of last year, and brought FaceTime to the world, everyone was scratching their heads about the fact that the first iPad did not have cameras that would allow the use of this feature. "Ah, but that Apple will want to sell it in the second generation", said some; "Ah, but FaceTime was still not perfect when the iPad was launched," say others.
The fact that the iPad 2 now has two cameras, but that's not enough: Wired he was frustrated by the fact that they are limited to say “old-fashioned”, “outdated” or even “bad” from a certain point of view.
How to justify a $ 500 gadget from the second decade of the 21st century not even having 2 megapixels in its two cameras added? Meanwhile, in ZDNet the attitude towards the low resolution of the cameras is more in line with “E da?”
Stopping to analyze coldly, the reaction of the staff in the ZDNet it was the most suitable. On the one hand, it would really be nice to be able to rely on cutting-edge technology on the iPad 2, but we must agree that a 10-inch tablet is not the most elegant photo camera in the world. In fact, despite having the same cameras as the fourth generation iPod touch (rumors seem to have been confirmed), the new tablet from Apple manages to take from them a much more profitable experience.
Let me explain: while an iPod touch generates a certain expectation about having a good camera point-and-shoot in your pocket, that doesn't happen with an iPad. It would be really cool to be able to get a touch on the street and photograph something curious. D to do that? But the result is crap good enough for social media, but not enough to keep in mind.
Despite that, the filming is very competent for those who are aspiring filmmakers, except that at least I don't see myself shooting it is an everyday landscape that I consider beautiful or a passerby in a memorable composition: for this type of thing you need a minimally competent camera, like the iPhone 3GS.
Now look at the iPad. Do you see yourself using a tablet to photograph anything in the middle of the street? On the other hand, think about the main utility of his cameras: FaceTime. The front lens is obvious and basically serves as a VGA webcam. The rear lens is just good enough to let you share what you’re seeing during a video call with your friends. Additionally, a grandma or grandma may want to record scenes of their grandchildren in 720p using the iPad's huge screen (“huge” in front of any other camera on the market).
We can weigh the purpose of each gadget and how much we are willing to give in each case. Particularly, despite the initial enthusiasm, I didn’t look like the iPod touch because of the quality of the photos it takes like I said, the expectation of having a point-and-shoot of minimally reasonable quality was great. As an iPod here in Brazil is nothing trivial in terms of investment, I decided to wait for the next generation.
In the iPad 2, the cameras function, above all, to make FaceTime feasible and, for that purpose, they are good enough, in addition to contributing to the reduced thickness and the entry price below all the competition. Would it be cool if there were more megapixels? Yes, without a doubt, but I highly doubt that a person looking for a tablet will use just that as a basis when choosing what to buy.
If the resolution that Apple put in the second generation of the tablet is not enough for you, at least there is competition, which is putting cameras up to 8 megapixels in gadgets of this category. I know that, despite having skipped the last generation of the iPod touch, the iPad 2 looks very, very tempting. Even a little more than I would like to admit. However, if I buy it, it will definitely not be for taking pictures except using Photo Booth to create one or the other avatar.
And honestly, who would complain about the fact that a MacBook does not have a 12 megapixel FaceTime camera and flash? Each lens in its place.
