Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Input Devices

How the iPod Nano's Video Abilities Stack Up 216

Posted by timothy
from the now-equipped-for-one-night-stands dept.
andylim writes "Recombu.com has pitted the iPod Nano's video capabilities against an iPhone 3GS, a Nokia 5530 XpressMusic and Flip Mino HD. This simple test shows how the camera deals with motion, colour and audio. The iPod Nano's camera seems to offer a basic yet decent video experience and some might say delivers a higher picture quality than the iPhone 3GS's camera. What's interesting is how well it deals with close-ups."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the iPod Nano's Video Abilities Stack Up

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14, 2009 @08:08PM (#29420889)

    I'm not so sure, considering that probably most people who are willing to spend the money on a DSLR camera, WANT a DSLR.
    It likely wouldn't sell well enough to be viable as a product.

  • by skyride (1436439) on Monday September 14, 2009 @08:16PM (#29420971)
    Its an MP3 player... Why the fuck does it have a camera on it?
  • by TheGreenNuke (1612943) on Monday September 14, 2009 @08:50PM (#29421209)
    I disagree. I would love to see some form of portable electronic NOT include a camera. I can't take a camera into work. That limits me to crappy cell phones. Now i'll have to worry about what mp3 player I can get too. Why does everything need a damn camera.
  • by speedtux (1307149) on Monday September 14, 2009 @08:50PM (#29421213)

    Why not? Having a camera with you at all times is kind of nice, and building it into the MP3 player means you don't need to carry an extra gadget.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14, 2009 @08:56PM (#29421257)

    Strap some proper optics to the iPhone platform and you've got a killer product:

    Ugh, no. "Proper" optics" would mean a much larger, motorized lens like on a dedicated digital camera. It would be fragile, expensive, and bulky on a device which is already expensive and bulky.

    If you care about quality, buy a real camera, and be gentle with it. If you want a tiny, durable camera on a device rugged enough to be carried all the time, don't complain when it sucks.

  • by speedtux (1307149) on Monday September 14, 2009 @09:13PM (#29421347)

    I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Apple.

    Samsung, Nokia, and several other manufacturers already offer 5-8 Mpixel cameras with smart phone capabilities. They have automatic geo-tagging and automatic upload. You can get these phones with Symbian, Android, Windows Mobile, and (soon) Linux/Maemo. You can program them in C, C++, Java, and, in some cases, Python and C#. Samsung even has HD video.

    I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.

    Price it to compete with entry level DSLR

    An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).

  • by TheGreenNuke (1612943) on Monday September 14, 2009 @09:18PM (#29421375)
    Thats when they go to the high end camera thats not a DSLR such as the new Cannon G11 [canon.com]. Suggested Retail price: $499.99 or the Powershot SX20IS at $399.99 Not as complex as a DSLR, but better than the cheap point and shoot they had before. If you're going to price it like a DSLR, you better be delivering a DSLR, there's a reason they're that expensive.
  • by WillyDavidK (977353) on Monday September 14, 2009 @09:34PM (#29421493)
    if you have an mp3 player (or an iPod particularly), you probably also have a camera phone
  • by TheGreenNuke (1612943) on Monday September 14, 2009 @09:50PM (#29421583)
    Well that's your unique situation. My life doesn't involve posting pictures on Facebook or keeping a blog, therefore a camera on everything is of no added value to me.
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki AT cox DOT net> on Monday September 14, 2009 @09:54PM (#29421609)

    I don't see anything that Apple brings to the table. Apple's iPhone already costs more than twice than what those other phones cost, it's less capable, has worse battery life, can only be programmed in Apple-approved languages, and has severe restrictions on the kind of software you can write for it. And Apple's overall market share is small compared to Symbian.

    The real question about the market share of Symbian is, how many Symbian users *want* to be Symbian users? Out of the ~%47 or so, how many of them actually break into their phone's full features beyond camera, music and phone? Given the rates of users who are regular bluetooth users versus users who aren't, I'd be surprised if even 10% of Symbian users are of the variety, "Oh this thing? It's the crappy phone Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/Tmobile gave me for free."

    An unlocked iPhone 3GS without a two year contract already costs around $1400, about three times the price of an entry-level DSLR (if you buy it with a contract, you pay the same, it's just hidden in your monthly fees).

    I sure hope you're not citing a number that's not USD. In USD, the cost for an unlocked iPhone is $599.

  • by khchung (462899) on Monday September 14, 2009 @10:00PM (#29421641) Journal

    How about, because people find it convenient?

    When you are already carrying a gadget around, with enough battery power, gobs of free memory available and enough processing power, is it that much a leap to put a camera on it?

    I assume you don't have kids, because if you do, you would know that parents (surprise!) like their kids and will take lots of pictures/videos of them if only they have a camera handy. Some parents take to always carry a small camera, and would appreciate if their iPod can take pictures so they don't have to carry another gadget.

    Personally, I found that after I got a phone with a camera, I took many more pictures. It is just like texting and sending email, you would never know how often people would do it until you give them the ability to do so easily.

  • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Monday September 14, 2009 @10:22PM (#29421745)

    Because the world has decided putting videos of yourself puking on YouTube is the killer app for our modern technology.

  • by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Monday September 14, 2009 @10:28PM (#29421797)

    I'd like to strap one on to my motorcycle helmet and record my trips. I could then report the assholes texting, analyze the moves, etc. Nano wold work a lot better, sizewise, than a mino.

  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Monday September 14, 2009 @11:41PM (#29422277) Homepage

    I don't know where you live, but the most likely places a geek is to live in the US all have pretty draconian 'wiretapping' laws which would make that activity highly illegal.

  • Can it read email? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flink (18449) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @01:06AM (#29422651)

    Is this a corollary to the old adage about software bloat: "a piece of software will gain features until it is capable of reading email"?

    "A piece of consumer electronics will gain features until it can take digital photographs".

  • by cerberusss (660701) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @03:13AM (#29423207) Homepage Journal

    Because the world has decided putting videos of yourself puking on YouTube is the killer app for our modern technology.

    Oh, get off of your high horse. The whole world except you has decided that having fun is a great way of spending time. As for what's considered fun, well... *shrugs*

    I've had fun shooting impromptu videos of me and the girlfriend on holiday, going to the beach, playing with my nephew, etc. And then sharing it with friends, and the world as a side incident. Apple/YouTube enables this and I think it's great.

  • by mdwh2 (535323) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @09:19AM (#29425245) Journal

    I would sure love to have a "real" camera from Nokia. Strap some proper optics to the Nokia Phone platform and you've got a killer product: photos automatically GPS tagged and seamlessly uploaded in the background to your photo library, with support via apps for any kind of online hosting, plus specialty stuff like time lapse or other artistic/scientific needs. Full HD video of course, perhaps even with wifi streaming to a TV for instant nostalgia. Price it to compete with entry level DSLR and they would capture a huge chunk of market share overnight. Maybe not the volume of the cell phone market, but great margins.

    See? What's special about Apple here? If we're allowed to make up products, then it would be great if Amiga were to release a new quad-core Intel machine with the latest NVIDIA graphics, with 8GB RAM, and priced the same as a netbook. It'll capture a huge chunk of the market share overnight.

    Aren't we such geniuses - why on earth aren't companies hiring us for our great ideas like these?

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...