The Apple iPad 2 Review
by Brian Klug, Anand Lal Shimpi & Vivek Gowri on March 19, 2011 8:01 PM ESTThe Cameras
If there’s one thing that people were waiting for with the iPad 2, it’s the inclusion of cameras. CPU and GPU performance improvements with the iPad 2 are dramatic, but it’s the cameras that will drive both existing and new iPad customers to the device. For being probably the single most notable difference between the iPad 2 and its predecessor, the camera execution and experience on the iPad 2 is actually surprisingly bad.
I could pretty much sum up the iPad 2 cameras with one word: mediocre. The interface, the physical placement of the rear camera, and finally actual quality all leave room for considerable improvement. If you want a video overview of the entire iPad 2 camera situation, check out our video review.
The front facing camera is actually about where it should be, in fact. VGA is standard fare for iOS devices because right now FaceTime is just 320x240 from iDevices. My issue isn’t with the front facing camera, it’s the back camera that really under-delivers, and for that reason the iPad 2 feels like it’s a device saddled with two front-facing cameras. The fact that they’re better than nothing (e.g. iPad 1) is small consolation for how seriously underwhelming the rear camera is.
Both cameras are identical to what comes in the iPod Touch 4th generation, a device that starts at $229. At $499, it doesn’t seem like a completely unreasonable thing to expect cameras that are at least somewhat better.
Let’s start with the camera user interface. At first glance, it’s the exact same as the camera interface on the iPhone and iPod Touch. Capture button in the center, a link to the photo application with thumbnail of the last captured photo in the bottom left, a digital zoom slider after a tap, and a switch between video and still at right. Up in the top right is the switch-front-back camera button as well. The iPad has no HDR options, and obviously no LED flash options either. Tapping on the preview exposes for the tapped region, but since the rear camera is fixed focus, focus doesn’t change.
What’s really annoying about this interface is that it rotates.
I’ve spent every second since first picking up the iPad 2 wondering what possessed Apple’s UI designers to make this decision, asking myself what possible benefits this choice could have. The only possible one is that this is an equalizer for left-handed users, but then why not simply make an option in settings to change the location of the bar from the left to the right side?
The problem with keeping the capture/switch bar at the bottom of each orientation is that it puts the capture button in the absolute worst possible place.
At each orientation, the capture button is dead center at the bottom. The result is that to tap capture, you need to either stretch your thumb all the way to reach it, or remove your hand and tap with the index finger.
Both of those result in a much less stable grip position and add to shake. Moreover, it’s a downright fatiguing position to have to hold the iPad in for any length of time. It’s somewhat annoying in portrait, but downright frustrating in landscape.
Putting the capture button here is painful. Were it left closest to the home button like it is on smaller iDevices, the capture button would be right near where the thumb naturally rests. Tap it with your thumb, and boom, no problem. Maybe a transparent button would also make sense.
The other problem with the capture interface is that if you have relatively large palms or tightly grip the iPad 2 to brace it and reduce shake, you run the risk of causing an unintended touch on the lower right or left corners. Numerous times, I went to hit capture and found that nothing happened. When that occurred, generally it was because I was touching the bottom left or right with my palm inadvertently. Touch filtering or heck, maybe some of that multitouch wizardry would go a long way here, Apple.
The final problem is with placement of the actual camera. Because of its position in the extreme top left (viewed from the back), the only viable way to hold the iPad 2 for landscape capture is with the home button on the right side. Hold it naturally with the button on the left side, and you'll end up blocking the camera with your hand like this:
The image preview in still mode is cropped to 4:3 and upscaled to XGA. The native resolution of the rear camera is 1280x720 (16:9). To get to 960x720 (4:3) Apple simply cuts off 160 pixels on the left and right. The fact that the image preview in still capture mode is upscaled to the full size of the iPad 2 display accentuates its underwhelming and noisy quality dramatically. It doesn’t look awesome. The front facing VGA camera blown up to XGA is even less impressive.
The only positive side effect of all this is that image capture is insanely quick. You can literally mash the capture button on both the front and rear cameras and capture essentially as fast as you can tap. No doubt some of that is the A5's impressive speed gains, but the other part of it is just the low resolution of those two cameras.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
189 Comments
View All Comments
TareX - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Irrelevant, but is Anandtech gonna do an Atrix review?name99 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
"The Digital AV adapter is a bit clunky and I believe the future of this is clearly in some form of wireless transmission, but for now it plugs directly into the dock connector. "You mean the wireless transmission that ALREADY EXISTS called AirPlay?
Apple HAVE a solution to your hatred of wires. You seem to be upset that they don't have a solution that somehow magically transports video from iPad to your (HDMI and nothing else) TV using some non-existent wireless standard that isn't actually built into your TV.
It's fine to be frustrated at some of the idiocies in tech, but it's truly silly to complain about this one. Apple provides this cable for one, and only one, group of users --- people who actually NEED that physical wire.
BlendMe - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
AirPlay doesn't mirror tha iPads screen, it only allows you to stream content. For now. And for AirPlay you need an Apple TV or another AirPlay enabled device. The HDMI adapter allows you to hook it up to almost any recent TV, monitor or beamer.ananduser - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
In fact there is a standard already built in in most modern(emphasis on modern) TVs. It is called DLNA. Unfortunately Apple decided that coercing you into using their ecosystem ONLY is the way to go. Personally I find Apple's modus operandi of not giving 2 sh*ts about other 3rd party solutions one of the "idiocies in tech" as you well put it.Regardless, the iPad2(or 1) is a cool gadget(emphasis on gadget) nonetheless. Combined with leading parental controls as:no flash(as a porn enabler), no porn(appstore policy), no bloody/gory games(appstore policy) and a damn spartan simple and fast GUI makes it a great basic computing device for the naive crowd(parents, grandparents etc.). IMO it really shines for children as their 1st computing platform.
That it is also a frequent choice for the tech literate few, good on them... it still is best suited, IMO, for those of the above.
name99 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Can both of you not read?I was referring to, as I quoted, "The Digital AV adapter is a bit clunky and I believe the future of this is clearly in some form of wireless transmission, but for now it plugs directly into the dock connector. "
How do either of your comments have any relevance to that?
If you want Wifi, you need something that accepts a Wifi signal. Your TV doesn't have Wifi built in, so, yeah, you need some other box.
And DLNA? Really? You want to go there? Go explore the DLNA web pages (http://www.dlna.org/products is a good start) and tell me this pile of turds is EVER going to be relevant to the real world. For god's sake, man, get in touch with the real world. Compare that web page and everything it implies about compatibility nightmares and technobabble with the Apple TV web page.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
AirPlay is really for specific content at this point. I'm referring to the future of video out on tablets in general. And I didn't mention it as a knock against the iPad today, just a heads up that in some future version of the iPad you won't need a physical adapter (at least not on your tablet). When you have full wireless display mirroring then you can start introducing more interesting usage models - e.g. tablet as a desktop replacement, tablet as a game console, etc... You can do these things without wireless display but they are definitely enhanced by it being there.Take care,
Anand
Ushio01 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
When ifixit did there teardown of the first ipad it was shown that apart from the battery and the antennas all the other components were kept up the top so why can't a tablet simply be a dock you slot a smartphone in that supplies a larger screen and additional battery's?That to me is a far more appealing device than current tablets.
kmmatney - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
makes sense to me. I can't see Apple doing this, but maybe on of the Android makers can come up with something along these lines. I'd love to be able to pop my phone into the back of a tablet and use the bigger screen. I'd just keep it near the couch.zmatt - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
I still hold that the entire market segment (not just the iPad) is a solution looking for a problem. The idea seems cool but in reality nobody was asking for the tablet. And after using them I still can't see what the attractiveness is other than people buying them cause they are "cool". I take calls and get mobile updates on my Galaxy S, which is more than competent enough for light work such as taking down notes or answering emails on the go. Any real work I do with a computer. I'm sorry but you can't make up for the lack of performance and a real keyboard if you are talking about getting work done. The iPad may be nice for mobile entertainment, but if i already have an mp3 player and a laptop what can it do that they can't? For tablets to be viable productivity devices and not just toys i think they would basically have to evolve into laptops. So again i ask, what's the point?cucurigu - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Thanks a lot for your review, Anand, Brian and Vivek - I was waiting for your opinion on the iPad 2 as it was a gadget most appealing but, as you said, very polarizing for the reviewers.There is something I didn't really understand, even after rereading the Xoom review - both you (Anand and Brian) said the first iPad wasn't your cup of tea in the long run and chances are the new one won't change this (but you're giving it another go). The general impression (one which I also got while looking at the tablet segment) is characterized by their unclear niche - where do they really fit ?
If I understand correctly the first tablet (ipad) didn't integrate with your workflow and the reasons seem to apply to all tablets, however, this sentiment doesn't come off so clearly from the Xoom article - so I wondered : did you have the impression the Android OS was more adequate to your usage patterns ? Meaning, if the Xoom and iPad 2 where left on your desk, which one would you choose to take with you, and for which purpose ?
Once again, thanks and best regards !