Long-term test of a freshly-love Apple user-photo & video function
For me personally, which dedicates itself ambitiously to the topic of photography and for conscious reasons still committed to the mainly analogue rail, the possibilities are, with telephone or Tablet Augenblicke per Image, a nice addition to one or the other snapshot, but no more and no less. Since the new Apple iPad like its predecessor has got two “eyes” for seeing or photographing and filming, I am, of course, curious about what it is capable of doing. So I dedicate myself after the first impression in the second part of my iPad long-term/everyday test of the installed camera technology and its quality. The picture quality in the iPad 2 was underground and should now be better. But how is the new iPad against the iPhone and is it at all suitable as a digicam replacement?
Face-time camera: For Videotelefonie ok, but otherwise…
Apple has upgraded its iPad in the third generation and missed it also new cameras. You mean. Equipped to compare with the iPad 2 mag, but new optics are not. The blinking face-time camera above the display is already known from the only iPod nano with camera so far and brings it just like the original in the predecessor only to VGA resolution and quality of 640 x 480 pixels. In addition, the OmniVision sensor also allows video sequences with up to 30 frames per second. Leaving itself long and broadly over their picture results, forbids itself itself: It is enough for the Videotelefonie completely, but it should be left however also then however.
ISight camera: 5 megapixel and HD video function
For any other purpose, it is better to access the back view iSight camera. It is the centerpiece for those who want to get involved with the new flounder as well. Also from OmniVision, it exposes in a resolution of 5 megapixels and offers autofocus, the familiar focusing by fingertip and face recognition. Integrated into the video function, it delivers true HD with 1,920 x 1,080 pixels and up to 30 fps. This component also does not appear for the first time in a Cupertino device. Already since the year 2010, the OV5650, according to the manufacturer identification, can do their service in the iPhone 4. This makes them solid, which is why it was a good step on the part of Apple to take a good step towards minimizing risk.
The camera function of the new Apple iPad in the Praxistest
As far as the dry facts. But how does technology work in practice? For all those who want to take an Apple iPad for the first time or even filming, it requires an adaptation to the device sensibly. It seems bulky and cumbersome, and it takes time to find a perfect posture position in which you can trigger as much shake-free as possible. The dimensions of the Apple iPad are for this purpose but then (too) large. Another disadvantage is the 9.7 inch “viewfinder”.Although the display brightness allows a decent look, the non-reflective retina display is unfortunately also prone to reflections of any kind, which can occasionally hinder the way to the perfect image cut. It is also the large area which makes it difficult to survey a complex motif. In moving objects rather complicated. At all: Only for photographing, the Flachmann will surely be very rare. For the transport in the case is an iPhone – to stay in the Apple family-then undoubtedly the more comfortable choice.
Apple iPad (3rd generation) IPhone 4: Who is better for photography?
The recordings that the new iPad captures in daylight can be seen on the whole, according to the classification of the optics and the actual orientation of the iDevices. However, I want to know more closely and duel it with the iPhone 4, which, as mentioned above, basically has the same equipment. The results lead to astonishing differences: The minibau type of the optics is omitted, of course, the last class is lacking for both subjects, but in the basic field they are in the range acceptable for the category. The iPad, however, with a touch of better detail, the bare nose in front, while the iPhone takes this slightly more faded.
With the problem of digital photography that is bound to the limits of contrast, my two candidates are self-contradictory. The pictures of the iPhone appear more saturated, a darker nuance, “drunk” in the depths properly, while the iPad recordings are lighter overall and can reproduce in the darker parts a few more details. In contrast, unfortunately, the lights rather break away. Moreover, I noticed that the recordings of the tablet have a warmer touch, while the images of the iPhone a bit bluish-coming.
The photo function in the iPad is, as it should be different, fully automatic: call program, if necessary, focus, trigger, done! Variations in aperture, exposure time or sensitivity are not possible in self-regulation. Even the fixed focal length of 4 mm (corresponds to a wide angle of approx. 30 mm in a 35 mm format) with a minimum focusing distance of approx. 75 mm can not be changed at the time of recording-also not digitally. For the one a blessing, for the others a curse, everything takes over the automatic. As a rule, however, misalignment is virtually impossible. This works with a kind of aperture pre-selection or time automatic, in the case of the iPad with the aperture f/2.4. The value of f/2,8 used with the Apple iPhone is probably also the explanation for the mentioned brightness differences. Then the calculated choice of sensitivity and exposure time – in my test between ISO 80 and 1000 or between 1/15 and 1/1080 s. With this method of operation, at least the shake-free images are achieved with the shortest possible exposure time at appropriate light conditions, but free of any shaping means in the form of depth of field or the like.
There is also no option to produce serial recordings. This is a bit tedious only by hand, by repeatedly pressing the “button” once the previous file has been saved. Unfortunately it does not work with a permanent pressure on the shutter to shoot several photos one after the other like a Digicam. How long then such a series becomes, depends mainly on how great the patience of the “button-backer” is – one would think. However, I was negatively surprised by the self-test. With approximately 1.5 seconds per picture the beginning was indeed promising.With the duration, however, the iPad left more time or needed a larger margin to store. Until after 22 pictures or 45 seconds the camera app-probably offended-said goodbye. The repetitions lasted a maximum of 23 seconds and allowed a series of 32 photos. At the latest at this point the program fell again. If I had already brought the A5X to despair, that would be a somewhat too simple way to get it out of the way! But I keep in mind: In picture series are estimated average 2 seconds for a file. That it is different, showed me quite bravely the iPhone 4: After three minutes it was my finger, the lust left. Until then, 115 photos found the way into the memory, making an average of 1.6 seconds per recording.
Video function: picture quality top, sound quality flop
The video function works according to the same principle of the photo function. Also their quality is, are now expected no HD quality as in Bockbustern, of decent quality. Of course you have to accept some cuts like fast pans. Great advantage here is the recording in native HD resolution (1080p). Too bad, that the mitschnittschnitte material is technically in line with the picture. Since only the internal mono microphone is available, the audio part of the films remains somewhat flat and one-dimensional.
Bad light conditions: What now?
But what makes the new iPad, if not (more) enough light is available? The last two generations of the iPhone can take advantage of a LED light, which at least for close-ups like portraits still tries to get the coals out of the fire, my new favorite is proverbial in the dark.More than to screw up the sensitivity and lengthen the exposure time is unfortunately not in it. The results are correspondingly sobering. If the exposure time is still halfway through the short focal length, the increased ISO value consequently produces an unpleasant ground noise. However, this is not enough: owing to the missing ambient light, it takes patience and sometimes skill to be able to focus the subject, if it succeeds at all. The ending point in terms of surprises in the dark appearing ghost lights, which have paved the way to image and video as reflections of headlights of opposing cars.
Conclusion: The improvement is there, but who photographed or films with the iPad?
The preferences should be clearly defined: A real camera will never be the Apple iPad and will not be in the third generation according to Timelesstablets.com. As a “trouser button”, it is not only in terms of its size but also corporate in the shadow of the iPhones. Apple’s tablet has other advantages. But more of me in the next episodes.