Yikes! iPod touch’s Rear Camera Capped at 960x720 Stills! | iLounge Backstage


Yikes! iPod touch’s Rear Camera Capped at 960x720 Stills!

Yup, it’s official: the new iPod touch got a rear camera, but it’s not an iPhone 4-quality 5-megapixel shooter, an iPhone 3GS-quality 3-megapixel version, or even an iPhone-quality 2-megapixel version. Instead, it’s just shy of 0.7 megapixels, with 960x720 still resolution, outputting 720p videos at 1280x720. So don’t expect to toss out your point-and-shoot pocket camera—or an iPhone 4—for the iPod touch. This camera’s just for the kiddies.

The front camera? 640x480 VGA, like the iPhone 4’s.

« How the new iPod touch does FaceTime

Last-Minute Fourth-Generation iPod touch Details (And 3G / VoIP Rumors) »

Related Stories



Ouch! I was considering upgrading, but that’s kind of killed it for me! The retina display and slimmer design is nice, but my main reason for a potential upgrade was to take photos and that’s put me right off! Well, thanks for saving me a few hundred pounds, Apple!

Posted by NFreak007 on September 1, 2010 at 3:04 PM (CDT)


I would have bought a touch as soon as they were available if it weren’t for this crappy camera. I wanted something that would really be an all in one device, guess I’ll have to wait till people start selling their old iphone 4’s.

Posted by jtk513 on September 1, 2010 at 3:20 PM (CDT)


I’m a huge Applke fan and i wanted to wait for the iPhone4 (white) but it takes forever.  I was about to torder me the black iPhone4, then the ne iPod touch was introduced.  I was blowed away and wanted to get that one with a mobile hotspot.

well,.. the 0.7 mega pixel camera is very adisapointing when u think about the price u pay for the iPod touch.  ... so,.. i’m getting a bit frustrated with apple.  why are they so stingy??

Posted by dennis on September 1, 2010 at 3:56 PM (CDT)


I was trying to figure out why the Megapixels are not listed in the tech specs of the Ipod Touch and now I know why. I am going to cancel my order I just placed. I hoped for a nice camera that comes with geo location data, but at 0.7 Megapixels it will look crappy.

Posted by netsaint on September 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM (CDT)


I own a 3rd gen iPod Touch and was worried I would feel bad today. Not any more knowing how much Apple gimped the camera. Actually, I can’t believe Apple would do something like this. I’m just waiting now for the Verizon iPhone to come out, with a 5MP camera of course.

Posted by Teddy on September 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM (CDT)


You know I really am happy about this. Gives my iPhone 4 some validation and separates it from the “other device”. Now when someone poses the argument that the iPod touch is merely an iPhone 4 minus the phone, I can correct that incorrect assumption.

Posted by Viper83181 on September 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM (CDT)


we all should be happy that there IS a camera and it can do FACETIME. think about it, the only way to have a camera fit into such a thin device is to reduce the lens and sensor sizes. Stop the complaining and enjoy this amazing new device!!!

Posted by Min on September 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM (CDT)


Between the above, the lack of GPS, and the still-limited storage capacity… what’s the point of this thing?

Posted by Farnsworth on September 1, 2010 at 4:17 PM (CDT)


I don’t care if it had a half a megapixel, I,ve had an Archos 5 with android for a while and I find my self going back and using my sons 2nd gen ipod touch more. I am running back to apple. Sorry Archos and Android. The 4th gen will be heading my way very soon!!!

Posted by jcil_rkg on September 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM (CDT)


I’ve been a backer of Apple through thick and thin since 84. Today, they have ticked me off. I can’t even begin to describe how lame this is…

Posted by Ray on September 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM (CDT)


Welcome back to 1997…

Posted by Bob Levens in UK on September 1, 2010 at 5:03 PM (CDT)


Hugely disappointing. I was ready to upgrade before today’s big event but not now. A .7mp still camera is an insult. I understand Apple wants to be sure each of its products all have their unique selling points but the only reason for this decision is to keep its best technology reserved for people ready, willing, and able to spend lots of cash on two year cell phone contracts.

Shame on you Steve - you know better.

Posted by PhotoGuy on September 1, 2010 at 5:10 PM (CDT)


help me understand… it records HD video though?  So it can record HD video and only take .7mega pixel images?

Posted by gavin on September 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM (CDT)



This has nothing to do with size restrictions or limitations and everything to do with Apple liking to limit functionality to persuade people to upgrade to more expensive products.

I was actually very excited about this new iPod Touch and was ready to order until I just read this little bit of info.

Absolutely ridiculous to actually purposely limit the functionality of something that’s capable of much more.

I think I’ll go ahead and buy a 3rd gen Touch off Craigslist now instead.

Maybe after a jailbreak is announced someone will come up with a hack to enable the full resolution of the chip, in which case I’ll consider getting the new Touch again.

Posted by kloan on September 1, 2010 at 5:32 PM (CDT)


Ditto!  It was the camera that I was looking forward to.

I would have gladly spent $300+ if it had even had a 2 megapixel camera.  But this is silly.

I’d gladly trade some thinness for a decent camera.  This is going to hurt Apple big time!  Not face time, big time!  :-)

Posted by astroman33 on September 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM (CDT)


Folks .... it all comes down to money. Suppose the new itouch came with a 12 mega pixel still camera. How do you expect Apple to upgrade the device in the future? It will have the latest pixel and no room to upgrade and make money. We consumer are driven by latest technology. Steve Job knows this and so do you. How about we put the pixel at .000000007 and sell the product. YES, PEOPLE WILL BUY THE PRODUCT. Next year we will increase the pixel to 3 and sell the same device. YES, PEOPLE WILL BUY THE PRODUCE AGAIN. Outcome - money for Steve and consumers (suckers) are happy.

Now go ahead and complain NO, NEVER, I will not buy it. Shut up. Yes you will. Either today or tomorrow.

Posted by Jag on September 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM (CDT)


Maybe there’s a decimal point error!  That it’s actually 7 megapixels rather than .7 megapixels!  Any possibility of that?

Posted by astroman33 on September 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM (CDT)


@ astroman33

GOD pray it is a decimal mistake. But chance of that are your chances of winning the lotto today.

Posted by Jag on September 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM (CDT)


Wow, what a disappointment. I’d ordered the 32Gb model but based on this I went and cancelled my order. 0.7 megapixels is like 1990s retro. No thank you. I’m happy with my 2nd gen iPod Touch just fine.

Posted by Lani on September 1, 2010 at 6:33 PM (CDT)


Hopefully this camera issue will be solved by next week. The people at ign were backstage and they said that although the camera wasn’t as good as the iPhone 4, the pictures taken by the camera weren’t that bad. Besides, why give .7 MP camera but give us HD video, that doesn’t make sense. We will see next week when we get some full reviews on the new touch

Posted by N on September 1, 2010 at 6:35 PM (CDT)


Oh come on guys! Are you seriously surprised by this? The iPod nano also had a VGA video camera but couldn’t take photos at all. The camera in the new iPod touch is for video recording, nothing else. The photo functionality is basically just a screenshot from the video recording.

The iPod touch needed at least a VGA video camera on the back for FaceTime compatibility, that’s the only reason the iPod touch even has a camera! We are lucky they upgraded the video recording to 720p.

Posted by Mike11 on September 1, 2010 at 7:26 PM (CDT)


Wow…I was so excited about upgrading to this next iPod!  I can’t believe they only allow 0.7 megapixel camera…worthless!

Oh well, I guess I’ll wait to see what android tablet will bring.  I’m not spending another $230 and not even having a camera.  Might as well spend a little more for a tablet.  I hope android doesn’t disappoint like apple did today.

Posted by give up on September 1, 2010 at 8:15 PM (CDT)


Jeeze you guys are so whiney. So what its not the best camera. But you know what… Thats .7 megapixels than before!!!!

Also its got a a4 chip and retina display, and its not even that much more. I was going to buy the older one anyways so this is a bonus!

Look at what your getting, not what it doesnt have.

Posted by Bryce Daniel on September 1, 2010 at 8:48 PM (CDT)


I gave my 3rd generation iPod Touch to my wife expecting to upgrade to the new version with a real camera. Now the new Touch only has a cheap web cam. Taking good pictures should have been the priority for both the old Nano and the new Touch and then then they happen to be able to do video too. I really believe Apple has this backwards. I know they feel that thin and small come first, then music and video and then if they happen to be able to take a pictures they throw that in for free. Well a free cheap camera s not what I want. And thin is less important then having to be stuck with a cheap camera. Apple could have blown everyone away with a great Touch Camera but all we got was a basic web cam.

This is just dismal.

Posted by steve on September 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM (CDT)


can someone PLEASE tell me how it can take 720p HD video, but 0.7 mp photos? There HAS to be some sort of error here.

Posted by Eric on September 1, 2010 at 9:23 PM (CDT)


I’m not too worried about the camera. But I am excited to record videos at 720p. Is anyone going to use it for serious photography anyway or the iPhone.

Posted by Troy on September 1, 2010 at 9:27 PM (CDT)


This shit needs to stop. I understand a company has a responsibility to their shareholders…but turning a profit by intentionally crippling your products to force people into a yearly upgrade cycle is infuriating. Apple might make some innovative products, but their business model is anything but innovative. Thanks for thinking about your customers

Posted by Aaron on September 1, 2010 at 10:06 PM (CDT)


Glad to see many are excited about the 4G Touch but also that many
feel the still camera is pretty lame-I know I do.
I agree with steve(#24) in that they got it backwards-A nice still camera
with flash would have a nice upgrade. I also was hoping they’d make it
look more ipad or iPhone like with squared edges for easier holding
when taking photos or video AND in turn more room for a bigger
battery it sorely needs. Especially for gaming. Guess I’ll keep my
64GB touch another year or hope for a Verizon iPhone.

Posted by Art on September 1, 2010 at 10:06 PM (CDT)


@Eric (#25): Do the math. Video, even HD video, has always been considerably lower resolution than still cameras.  SD video, at 640 x 480 is only 0.3 megapixels, and video cameras were still shooting that when 5 megapixel still cameras were the norm.  720p HD video is normally 1280x720, in the standard 16:9 aspect ratio, which is only 0.9 megapixels.  Since most cameras take still photos in a 4:3 aspect ratio, and the maximum number of vertical lines in the iPod touch sensor is 720, still photos are reduced to 960 x 720, or 0.7 megapixels.

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM (CDT)


It can take 720p HD video which is .7 mp. They are equal. The still photos are 960p x720p. It’s just an HD video camera that can capture a still frame and call it a photo. If you tried to print an 720p HD video frame it would not look to great…but on tv it’s a different story.

Posted by Kerry on September 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM (CDT)


Once again, the only reason cameras are included in the first place is FaceTime. Everything else is only a side product/bonus. And we only get 720p video recording because there’s something called product differentiation and Apple’s standard practice of being very selective about including features (and Apple’s quality standards). Now you might not agree with Apple’s choices for the iPod touch, but they make total sense for Apple (and for virtually any other big publicly traded company).

Posted by Mike11 on September 1, 2010 at 10:11 PM (CDT)


Apple really screwed the pooch on this one. I’d wanted a GPS chip; a camera would have been OK. A 0.7MP camera? What use is that? Fine for kids emailing each other snapshots of themselves doing foolish things, but for actual photos?

Posted by Scott on September 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM (CDT)


yeh sad. i was waiting for a new touch, for an incld still camera. got no camera, and liked the ease of using big screen touch cam on mothers iphone 3g. so incl camera is main point for me.

now its a crappy cam, i have been researching other touch screen brands. (with phone as well though). and the only reason ill never get an iphone is lack of physical buttons esp for call and end call.

anyway samsung and others looking better to me now

Posted by 4rrr on September 1, 2010 at 11:37 PM (CDT)


The great camera is the one thing I was waiting for. My old crappy dumbphone has 1megapixel camera! Ridiculous and a total deal breaker for me. Like someone above said, I’m just gonna buy someones iPhone 4 when the iPhone 5 comes out.

Posted by jetgirl2k on September 2, 2010 at 12:09 AM (CDT)


How did they not even go 1.3mp?
Considering the ip4 is 5 I would have bet the touch would have been at least 2 but no more than 3.
I was going to skip ip4 and wait for the touch but I am so glad I did not.

Posted by IPODPOCKET on September 2, 2010 at 2:41 AM (CDT)


I don’t see why people are complaining at all about the 0.7mp camera. The device is not and was NOT designed to replace a camera. Taking 0.7mp photos means that it will fit the touch screen perfectly, and therefore designed to be used on the touch i.e. for sharing on ipod touches and similar devices with a small screen. How can you expect someone to shove a full on high quality camera inside this tiny device.

I’m just very happy that it can do 720p HD video recording, that’s enough for a high quality, say youtube video.

If you want to take “actual” photos, use a camera! God people are so spoilt these days.

Posted by Jonny on September 2, 2010 at 4:31 AM (CDT)


I reckon its worth upgrading for the a4 processor and retina and 720p video, my iphone 3g wont keep up with me and Ive nearly had that for 4 months

But its still disappointing that they haven’t added a 2 or 3 megapixel camera

Posted by george robson on September 2, 2010 at 4:40 AM (CDT)


is it possible to download an update or something which will upgrade the camera further rather than having to put a new one in there?

Posted by Olivia on September 2, 2010 at 5:09 AM (CDT)


It’s still cheaper in terms of previous generations of Touches. Camera is not important tho. My phone’s cam is way better than this and I just needed something to manage my daily tasks and playing games on it. No more.

Posted by Alex on September 2, 2010 at 6:18 AM (CDT)


at .7MP, that’ll still make a good 4x6 or even 5x7 print.  what’s this big deal?  it’s sharpness that matters more than MP sometimes.

Posted by chris on September 2, 2010 at 7:12 AM (CDT)


I had my finger hovering over the BUY button until I saw about the camera.  0.7 megapixels is just insulting, especially after waiting since last year.  So Apple lost another €399, like they care.

Posted by Chris on September 2, 2010 at 7:56 AM (CDT)


@Olivia (#38): You can’t change the laws of physics with a software update. :)  If the camera sensor is only 1280x720, which appears to be the case, then all a software update could possibly do for you is create artificially higher resolutions by enlarging the image without actually increasing the quality of it.

@chris (#40): While I agree that megapixels aren’t everything, the other camera components on the iPod touch aren’t going to do it any favours either.  Sure, a pro-grade DSLR with a great lens can take much better pictures than a higher-megapixel point-and-shoot, but the other components on the iPod touch (lens, sensor, etc), are quite obviously well below even the most basic point-and-shoot camera. 

Really, it’s not even that the iPod touch only has a 0.7 megapixel camera. It’s the fact that it has such a low-res camera compared to the iPhone, combined with the fact that most users who don’t do a bit of research or at least read the tech specs are going to rightfully expect a higher-resolution camera.

This was clearly designed to replace last year’s iPod nano camera feature rather than step the iPod touch up to the iPhone’s capabilities. Keep in mind that the 5G iPod nano didn’t even allow for still photos to be taken, probably because the 0.3 megapixel camera would be so far below people’s expectations it was better off avoiding it altogether. On the iPod touch, which runs iOS, it would be exceedingly odd to exclude still photo capabilities.

The rear camera isn’t even all that necessary for FaceTime—a single front-facing camera would have sufficed. That said, like last year’s iPod nano, Apple seems to be continuing to target the iPod touch at the younger crowd, who are more interested in shooting video clips than still photos these days and are frankly quite content with lower-resolution photos for Facebook posting.  Consider also that just about every other new hardware feature on the iPod touch is targeted at the gamer (Retina Display, gyroscopes, faster CPU, etc). 

When you really boil it down, it seems that Apple considers the iPod touch to be the device for teens who can’t afford an iPhone. :)

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 2, 2010 at 8:29 AM (CDT)


Doesn’t almost every adult already have a cell phone with a higher quality camera? If you own a Touch, you’re probably already carrying around two devices.

Posted by kdt on September 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM (CDT)


@chris (#40): I am afraid that 0.7MP is not good enough for 4x6 prints of good quality. At 240 dpi, a 4x6 print requires 4*240*6*240=1,382,400 pixels, which is roughly 1.4MP. At 300 dpi, 2.16MP is required.

My own comments:
I had planned to buy ipod touch 4 as my all-in-one portable device when there were rumors about having 3MP or 5MP camera on this device. Now I won’t buy it since the still camera is pretty useless.

Posted by mstars on September 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM (CDT)


Quite. I had a 2.1MP digital camera (Olympus C-700UZ) back in 2001. Nine years ago.
Apple have probably lost a lot of customers over this one aspect alone. Even when the first iPhone was launched it came equipped with a pathetic 2.0MP camera when the industry standard was double (or more) that.

My Samsung D-900 came with 3.15 MP, 2048x1536 pixels, autofocus, LED flash. That was launched a whole year before the original iPhone. Oh, and it shot video!
Apple appears to have learnt nothing in the years since.

Some seem to accept such a retrograde step on the basis the camera is aimed at ‘infant’ users. If keeping the MP count as low as possible was intended to keep the price down I think Apple have misjudged it.

Just my 2MP worth….

Posted by Bob Levens in UK on September 2, 2010 at 12:51 PM (CDT)


we should be okay, i mean really the ipod touch will never get a good quality camera like the iphone. besides i never planned on printing the photos anyway, its very clear that the camera is only good for uploading photos directly to facebook,which is fine by me. i can just go buy a cybershot for $170. i expect the touch to get a 3MP camera probably in 2012, by that time the iphone 6 will have a 8MP.

Posted by john on September 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM (CDT)


also,why are people complaining about the price considering they paid the same exact amount for the old generations of the ipod touch. the 8gb is the exact same price as when the 2nd gen 8gb touch first came out. people should be glad that it doesn’t cost more than what it is.

Posted by john on September 2, 2010 at 1:07 PM (CDT)


So in addition to buying the ipod touch for $299.99 you can also shell out another $150.00 for a GPS system (which the iphone has and the ipod touch doesn’t), and a cyber shot for $170.00 to take decent pictures. Oh but you have the retina display which BTW is the biggest crock ever and it’ a little thinner.

Posted by Whatever on September 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM (CDT)


@whatever dude I don’t need a GPS system, I never wanted one, remember the iPod touch is built for games, it’s not a phone so be happy

Posted by John on September 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM (CDT)


@john :  people should be glad that it doesn’t cost more than what it is.

Nobody was expecting price to increase much for new iTouch.  More features (for new version after 12 months) doesn’t mean price increase!
Apple needs to be intouch with latest technology. In terms of iTouch 4 camrea, they have failed big time..

@john :  remember the iPod touch is built for games, it’s not a phone so be happy

LOL! Thanks for that information.

Posted by Parag on September 2, 2010 at 3:11 PM (CDT)


@parag dude what did u expect, for it to cost less? Dude you’re paying the exact same amount for something with MORE features

Posted by John on September 2, 2010 at 4:11 PM (CDT)


Just Cancelled Order!

Posted by Chris on September 2, 2010 at 5:35 PM (CDT)


We should stop buying all at once that will make them stop being such jerks…

Steve you used to rock now I just can say

fuck that shit!

Posted by Wroomann on September 2, 2010 at 6:31 PM (CDT)


I don’t know I’m still debating on getting it, I’ll wait till full review to make my final decision. Lately though I’ve just been recycling iPod touches. For instance I just sold my 2nd gen touch for $220, which is $20 more than what I paid for it. That way I never really lose money when I buy a new iPod touch, just buy one, use it for a year, and then in September, sell it and buy the next version.

Posted by Rick on September 2, 2010 at 6:32 PM (CDT)


I don’t really care that much.  I can just sell my old one/buy a new one if they come out with the 5 megapixel camera on the iPhone.  Anything is an improvement over my 1st generation iPod Touch.

Posted by Dustin on September 2, 2010 at 6:53 PM (CDT)


MEGAPIXELS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE PHOTO. Megapixels affect the size of the picture, not the quality. For example, you could have a 10 megapixel camera with crappy sensors, and what do you get? A gigantic, shitty quality picture with no detail whatsoever. On the other hand, say you have a camera with 0.7mp resolution and nice sensors. What do you get? A smaller picture, probably not worth printing (but then again, anything under 8mp really isn’t worth printing due to its lack of size), but it has great, vivid detail that shows everything the average person wants to see. And guys, 960x720 isn’t all that small when viewing from a computer that has an average resolution of 1366x760. Facebook is just going to end up cutting the photos to the default size, so what does it matter. Sure, its no professional $500 camera, but it’s certainly a fine camera for taking casual pictures around town.

And besides, it takes 720p (1280x720) HD videos, while the iphone 3GS (which came out last year!) only took 640x480 videos. That blows the 3GS’s video camera out of the water! How can you argue with that? And may I remind all of you guys, that the ipod touch 4g’s camera’s purpose is for taking videos, not taking pictures. You all should be happy that it has the ability to take pictures. And you’ll be surprised with the actual quality of them. If you’re still in doubt that the ipod touche 4g’s camera blows, wait until it comes out to see an actual photo taken by it.

And in the meantime, look up “960x720 photo” on google images to see just how nice they actually look. Seriously, do it.

Posted by Rocky on September 2, 2010 at 7:15 PM (CDT)


@Rocky: Good point. I was at first put off when I realized it was a 0.7MP camera. But then I decided to take a regular image on my computer and photoshop it to 960 x 720. I look at all my photos on my computer and print something once every few years, if that, and was happy to see it still took up a good portion of my 1920 x 1080 screen. You can get caught up on numbers, but think through how you will actually use these photos. This should be perfectly fine for how I view mine!

That said, I plan to try it out at the Apple Store when it comes out, and see how it looks on their iMacs there.

Posted by Colin on September 2, 2010 at 7:47 PM (CDT)


finally someone whos on the same page as me… ive had my 1st generation ever since the summer of 2008, and it blows. ive already pre ordered the new ipod touch, with all the new features,

holy i agree with you completely, with all the new features of the new ipod touch, taking photos is not all important to me, and 960x720 photos are still pretty decent. especially for sharing on your ipod touch

Posted by Myco on September 2, 2010 at 7:51 PM (CDT)


The camera is so mediocre it’s the only reason I’m not going to buy a new iPod touch. Apple is so obsessed with thin products that thery are even willing to sacrifice functionality. Shame on you, Apple!

Posted by Luis on September 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM (CDT)


My goodness there are a bunch of unthinking people in here.  OK, why is this a problem?  First the iPhone and iPod Touch should not be compared.  The iPhone is highly subsidized by AT&T.  The front almost $300 of the cost of the iPhone.  Not to mention have you seen their price plans?  Yikes, almost $100 a month when all said and done.

Second, I had a 4th Generation iPod Photo . .remember those.  I was thinking of upgrading to a touch and was holding off, as I was also thinking that I wanted a Flip Video camera and I heard rumors a few months back the the new ipod might have a camera.  Guess what?  It does. And Guess what else?  It shoots video at the same specs as the Flip Camera Does.  What? yep.  How much is a flip video?  Well, the 8 gig one is $229.  Yup, the same price as an iPod touch.  Stop your complaining right now.  Or else include Flip Video Cameras in your little hissy fits. 

BTW the 16 gig one is $279 . .so for $20 more I can double the storage space for my HD video, and do facetime and all the other things that this can do, and I’m not locked into an expensive contract?  Guess what I ended up ordering today?

Check out the specs for yourself . . 1280 * 720 CMOS sensors.

Posted by NY Tony on September 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM (CDT)


@Jesse David Hollington:
A rear camera IS necessary for FaceTime. Just from the Apple commercials and my own usage I can tell you that SHOWING someone something that you’re seeing is very often the reason in the first place to make a FaceTime call (or switch to it).

Posted by Mike11 on September 2, 2010 at 10:27 PM (CDT)


@NY Tony dude I completly agree with you. Why complain about something that comes with all that for only $229. The iPod touch is a gaming/music device first. The fact that we even got a rear camera instead of only just a front camera is a bonus.

Posted by Rick on September 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM (CDT)


I’ve sat here on a iPod touch 3rd gen and I’m typing this on the itouch, I must admitthat I wasquite disappointed at finding out about the 0.7 mp camera. But then I used my head a bit, what is the 4th gen? It is an upgrade of the itouch 3. Is it an upgrade ? YES!! It brings retina display and an a4 these are the core upgrades the camera is just but A added bonus. Frankly I bet that if there wasn’t even a camera fewer people would be less disapponted , yes they would complain but they would buy oh anyways because it IS an upgrade whether you critics believe or not, yes the low mp camera is a downer bt and upgrade is there. And I for one camera or not would and will upgrade to the 4th gen. On a final note think about computers or laptops new comps or laptops only true upgrade is memory , physical design and graphics just like the itouch 3rd to 4th gen. Webcams and pictures are a bonus. Just something to think about.

Posted by Victor the curious on September 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM (CDT)


@Mike11 (#61): No, a rear camera is useful for FaceTime, and definitely of huge benefit to the experience, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it necessary for the feature to simply work.

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 2, 2010 at 11:56 PM (CDT)


Hmmm sounds not a great deal new iPod touch ... And Rocky (56) sounds like Steve Jobs. I really spect a better camera, I understand the vision of Apple for this, but they could make a more quicker sell if they include better camera they are leaving a side a big pie of the market people that can use this device for a PDA style with much more things. At this years .7 mp is not acceptable. I don’t really print all my photos, but I really like to see a good quality picture I can zoom in and see details, and when I print it get a sharp and crisp image. I expected that for this version. As always for the iOS devices Apple makes you think twice or more times to purchase it, when they have the power to make you pay immediately with out thinking.

Posted by Oswald on September 3, 2010 at 1:48 AM (CDT)


according to the comments a lot of people with 3rd gen ipod touch won’t be upgrading.  But for a person like me who is just getting the first ipod touch it is a great deal considering a new 3rd gen 32gb is priced at $260 and 4th gen 32gb is $299.  It is a no brainer to buy the 4th gen with all those new features… retina, 3 gyroscopes, 2 cameras, slimmer….etc.

Posted by ed on September 3, 2010 at 2:25 AM (CDT)


“but then again, anything under 8mp really isn’t worth printing due to its lack of size”

Rubbish. I have images taken with the 2.1MP Olympus which have been blown up to 8x10. That is about as big as you can go with that size sensor.
I seriously doubt if I tried to do the same with an image taken on the touch 4G I’d get an image worth using.

Until a full hands on review is carried out the quality of the images produced can only be guessed at…

Love the back though - boy is that sucker going to get scratched if left naked (first gen touch anyone?).

Posted by Bob Levens in UK on September 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM (CDT)


@Jesse David Hollington:
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “necessary”. I think two cameras are an Apple requirement for FaceTime on a (mobile) iOS device so let’s say that if it would have been impossible to integrate a rear camera for whatever reason then there would have been no FaceTime in the new iPod touch. For me, Apple’s commercials with their extensive use of the rear camera are proof of that. And I happen to agree with Apple on that point. Now, do you need a rear camera for plain old video calls? No. But for FaceTime you do.

Posted by Mike11 on September 3, 2010 at 2:58 AM (CDT)


i had an itouch 64gb. i sold it because i knew when the 4g comes out the price is going to be reduced as on craigslist. I read all these comments and was kind of disappointed with the camera, but if this new itouch takes as good hd videos just like the iphone 4 im definitely buying it.

Posted by eugene on September 3, 2010 at 3:26 AM (CDT)


I think the new iPod Touch camera is driven by FaceTime rather than still photo quality.

Remember FaceTime is only on WiFi and the best way for Apple to get a groundswell of support for the (non-telco contract based) feature is to make it available cheaply to the younger market that make videos more often than they shoot still photos.

I’m disappointed though, as I like still photography, and even a camera with the dire quality of previous iPhones would have had me getting this without a second thought.

But here’s my second thought :) I keep my little high-quality low-light still camera for “sunday best” and get a Touch for the cool HD video feature & FaceTime while feeling a bit sad I that I don’t get everything in one package… until next September that is.

Posted by Karlos on September 3, 2010 at 4:02 AM (CDT)


Guys it’s all about recycling. Just sell your old iPod and use the money to buy a new one. Then next September sell that iPod and use the money to buy a new one. That way you never really lose any money.

Posted by John on September 3, 2010 at 7:31 AM (CDT)


To Jesse David Hollington in Toronto,

You’re the man who explaining the most from the tech specs, totally agreed with your views.
Just wonder the file size for filming 720p videos and how long per clip allowed ? hope you can help

Posted by Edmund on September 3, 2010 at 7:42 AM (CDT)


@Mike11 (#68): Based on what Apple is hyping in their commercials, sure, but how often do features actually live up to marketing spin.  Even the name FaceTime clearly implies that the feature is about video calling, not necessarily showing people what you’re seeing—that’s just an added bonus.  A great and useful feature, but not a necessary one for what most users consider FaceTime to be about. 

Regardless, I agree that it would have been unusual for Apple to include FaceTime without a rear camera (although Apple has done weird things before), but that’s not the only reason the iPod touch has a rear camera.

If the rear camera was added solely to support FaceTime then it didn’t even need to be 720p—it could have been a 640x480 VGA camera just like the front camera. In fact, a camera was supposed to be added to the iPod touch last year, long before FaceTime was available.  It only missed last year’s model due to supply problems.  The camera Apple was planning on adding last year probably would have had similar specs; in fact I would have been surprised if HD video recording was part of the equation at that point.

As I mentioned earlier, the focus here (no pun intended) is on recording short video clips and casual snapshots for sharing and uploading to social networks like Facebook.  The camera will be more than adequate for that kind of stuff, but it’s not reasonable to suggest that the rear camera was added only, or even primarily, to support FaceTime. 

@Karlos (#70): I don’t believe it’s driven by FaceTime at all, since Apple could have used a lower resolution camera if that’s all it was about.  With the iPod touch, Apple is not competing with the large and well-established cellular phone market, where most modern phones have much higher-resolution cameras, so they can get away with a lower-resolution camera on the iPod touch in the same way as they did for the iPod nano. 

I do agree that it’s targeted to the younger market. However, that market still shoots a lot of still photos in my experience, but they could usually care less about picture quality—they’re used to using cheap cell phone cameras and getting blurry snapshots at parties to upload to Facebook or just send around to each other via e-mail or MMS.  A 0.7 megapixel photo is more than adequate for Facebook uploads, where photos are scaled down even further anyway.

@Edmund (#72): We won’t know for sure until we actually see the iPod touch in action, but it’s a pretty safe bet that you’ll get the same file sizes as the iPhone 4 since it records in the same 720p/30fps quality.  On the iPhone 4, an HD video recording is around 80MB per minute of video, and there doesn’t appear to be an upper limit on recording times beyond how much space is available on the device, however at those sizes an hour of HD recording would take up almost 5GB of storage. 

In other words, don’t buy the 8GB iPod touch if you’re planning to do a lot of video recording :)

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 3, 2010 at 8:59 AM (CDT)


@Jesse (#72) Good points Jesse, though I think they may have wanted to carry over a “quality” difference between the front and rear cameras (just not to the same extent as on the iPhone4). I probably should have said it’s a Flip Mino HD killer too ;) I have visions of 3rd party steady-cam accessories for the budding video director.

Posted by Karlos on September 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM (CDT)


Hey guys, can someone tell me or give me an official link where I can actually read that the camera is only capable of 0.7 mega pixels? I cant believe it, and cant find any info on apple’s side. thank u!

Posted by Rasmus on September 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM (CDT)



“Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still photos (960 x 720) with back camera (emphasis mine).

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM (CDT)


@Jesse David Hollington:
Well, I see your point. But I still think FaceTime was the primary reason to include a rear camera and then make it video centric. From Apple’s business perspective it makes more sense to me. Let’s just agree to disagree. Maybe someone should write Steve Jobs an E-Mail and ask ;-)

Posted by Mike11 on September 3, 2010 at 2:06 PM (CDT)


people should really look at the fact that it just cost $229 and apple always try to keep their ipods as cheap as possible. Imagine how expensive it would be if it had a 5 megapixel camera or even 3

Posted by addi on September 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM (CDT)


Its so obvious why they are making the camera low res cos it means that lodes of people will buy them then next year they have something they can improve making it like 3.2 mega pixels then like 5mp in the 6g version its just a way to make money and its such crappie not just giving it to us from the get go and then just bump the price by like £30 its not that hard apple and i know alot of people that would pay just £30 for atleast a 3.2mp camera cos how many people upload videos on face book its pics we want not hd recording even thow that’s nice to have :]

Posted by Jon on September 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM (CDT)


Like some people said about the ratio, if they increased the camera quality for still pictures, wouldn’t they have to increase the quality of the HD video camera?

Posted by Monika on September 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM (CDT)


Wow, the camera looks bad. Fail Apple! I will stick to my iPod touch 2nd gen thank you.

Posted by GreenHelium on September 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM (CDT)


lets look at the good side: retina display(960x640 resolution), front facing camera, web browser, multimedia player with a speakers, speedy a4 chip, longer battery life, bluetooth,wifi all on a portable touch screen device just for $230. Now thats value for your money

Posted by Mr.green on September 3, 2010 at 4:07 PM (CDT)


@Mike 11 (#77): Sure. My only point is that they would have included a camera anyway—they were planning to do it last year, and they even added a camera to the iPod nano at that point.  FaceTime was a useful bonus, not the primary reason.

@Monika (#80): Not really.  The iPhone 4 takes the same resolution for videos, yet it has a 5MP still camera.  The camera sensor on the iPhone 4 could theoretically do 1080p HD, but chances are the iOS and CPU couldn’t handle processing it.  Keep in mind that in the digital world video resolutions have always been far lower than still photo resolutions.  With the iPhone 4, the video camera crops the photo sizes. With the iPod touch 4G, the 960x720 stills are a crop of the 1280x720 HD video, most likely just to keep them in a more natural aspect ratio that is typical of photos (4:3).

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM (CDT)


Years ago I wrote my PhD dissertation on a Mac Plus. Then I got a job in a PC world and moved away from Apple products. I bought an iPod a few years ago and use it for music, podcasts, iTunes U. Then the iPhone came along, which interested me, until I found out it was only available on the nation’s worst possible phone carrier. So I passed on that. I was interested in the iPad until I discovered it wouldn’t use Flash. Let me correct that: Apple forbids users of the iPad from installing software they want to run on their own devices. That patronizing attitude persuaded me to wait until a real tablet PC comes along. Then I saw the iPod Touch announcement, and thought it would be time to upgrade. Now you tell me the camera is 0.7 megapixels. WTF? What kind of lousy, stupid idea is it to put a useless camera that is at least 10 years old in a brand new, and otherwise interesting (to me) device? Are you all nuts at Apple??? Great products that all have one fatal, and totally avoidable, design flaw that just irritates people. Keep your iPod Touch, Steve.

Posted by Tony on September 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM (CDT)


And one other point: who even makes 0.7 megapixel chips anymore? Did they find a trailer full of junk from the 1990s in Taiwan?

Posted by Tony on September 3, 2010 at 6:00 PM (CDT)


Technically speaking, the iPod touch sensor is actually 0.9 megapixels—720p HD, or 1280 x 720 video recording.  For still photos, the iPod touch simply crops the sides to produce a 4:3 picture like most still cameras would, rather than a 16:9 image.

Hence, 0.9 megapixel sensors aren’t antiquated at all—they’re quite common for pocket video recorders like the ones by Flip and Kodak.  For that matter, last year’s iPod nano was even lower in resolution, but nobody seemed to notice this because it didn’t even attempt to take still pictures at all.

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM (CDT)


Do you really think that the camera sensor hardware is incapable of taking picture with more than 0.9 MP? I don’t think we will find out until e.g. the iFixit guys get their hands on it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the sensor hardware is actually capable of higher resolution pictures (clearly not 5MP, but maybe 2MP). Wouldn’t be the first time that Apple isn’t using/enabling all the features that are theoretically available with their hardware parts.

Posted by Mike11 on September 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM (CDT)


I agree with all previous comments bemoaning the lack of a good camera. I too was waiting to purchase this iPod, as I particularly wanted it for video and photos, but I am so very disappointed with the .7 or .9MP camera that I won’t now purchase.

Posted by WillT on September 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM (CDT)


I’m a little disappointed at the rear camera, but I’m also happy to have been able to sell off my 3 month old 3rd gen touch to upgrade to the new one of the same size for roughly the same price. (I lost a bit when discounting my used touch to someone else)

As a Verizon customer, I’ll wait until I’ve got an iPhone model in my hands, if ever, we’ll see what 2012 brings…it’ll either be me using an iPhone 4’s camera, or my Droid’s camera…

My iPod touch is music and gaming first, to me, and obviously, to Apple as well.

But yeah, I don’t really give two shits about the whole “slimmer, thinner, squeezing out at least a 2MP camera, or a 3MP, which virtually every phone has (albeit the iphone 4 and others) to me, slimmer means nothing. I’ve never had the “Oh shit, this iPod Touch is TOO DAMNED THICK to fit in my pocket/bag/mouth/anus/whatever…” Just doesn’t make much sense.

My main worries with the product I just upgraded to?
Same battery…new processor, better display, and gyroscope with games pumping better graphics a la Unreal’s “Epic Citadel?” yeah, im worried I’m going to charge this every freaking night, or afternoon and night.

Thinner profile, great, make my already THIN ENOUGH device completely incompatible with my expensive case. Face it, most cases area total rip off (InCase one pieces, I’m looking at you, 30 dollar bastards) and they just forced you to buy another one.

Forced because they kept that same damned easy to scratch shiny back. Just brush that metal and be done with it.

But overall, I think I’ll enjoy my new touch, those concerns are small I think, in comparison to the uses I’ll have once it’s JB’n.

Posted by Blake on September 4, 2010 at 1:08 AM (CDT)


Waaaaaaah! Steve Jobs should die, the MF.

Notice how on the Apple website they dont mention its 0.7MP biatchiz

I was so gonna get it iPod4 until I did research on the camera, its unbelievable, someone should take a dump on Steve Jobs head.

(I agree with all previous comments bemoaning the lack of a good camera. I too was waiting to purchase this iPod, as I particularly wanted it for video and photos, but I am so very disappointed with the .7 or .9MP camera that I won’t now purchase.)

Totally agree

Posted by Cornholio on September 4, 2010 at 1:16 AM (CDT)


Ok not die its a little harsh.

Posted by Cornholio on September 4, 2010 at 2:40 AM (CDT)


@All the people who say they cancelled their order because of the bad photo camera or who think Steve Jobs deserves to die because he didn’t include the ability to shoot high quality pictures with the new iPod touch:

So the ONLY reason for you to pre-order the new iPod touch was the rear PHOTO camera? That’s such a big deal that you went from going through with your PRE-order to “MEGA FAIL! DIE, STEVE JOBS, DIE!”?

Posted by Mike11 on September 4, 2010 at 3:54 AM (CDT)


yeah, steve jobs dying may be extreme… how about he just get ill to the point that he can no longer run the company…ever!

then maybe things will move forward.

Posted by mike on September 4, 2010 at 2:09 PM (CDT)


lol I could read these comments ALL freakn Day. Ya I know guys .7 mp was a HUGE disappointment..But as Rocky said the mp’s dont determine the Quality, it determines the size I mean FaceTime is Petty cool. And you can use the front Camera To no?? I’d rather have this than the iPhone 4 on a Contract. But no Wonder Steve Jobs didnt give a Demo of the Camera or tell us how many mp’s it had. Come on Apple not even ONE mp? What a Sad Day…. Hopefully theyll fix it once they see how mad people are Cancelling their orders!

Posted by Jamie on September 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM (CDT)


Theres a way to get around the poor camera and thats by videotaping what you want as a still picture. Pause the video at the image you want and use the “Screen capture” (press the home button and power button)and you will have a perfect pic in HD.
Yeah i know im the man y’all dont have to thank me. STEVE YOU OWE ME FOR THIS ONE!

Posted by blackbuddah on September 4, 2010 at 5:21 PM (CDT)


Even though I’m a little disappointed with the camera, I can’t say I’m really that suprised. Honestly, we all now that besides not being able to call people, the iPod touch is always goons have one major difference than the iPhone. It seems that the camera is that difference, even though it is a big difference. Still we should be happy with all the things the new iPod touch DID get, besides the only major downside

Posted by John on September 4, 2010 at 10:09 PM (CDT)


@blackbuddah (#95): Uh, no.  The iPod touch screen is only 960 x 640lower than the 960 x 720 capabilities of the still camera.  In other words, this method would produce a 0.6 megapixel photo.

Even were the screen resolution high enough to provide you with a “perfect pic in HD” you’d still be looking at a 0.9 megapixel image—1280 x 720, and of course it would have an odd widescreen aspect ratio compared to how most cameras produce still photos.

With all the hype about HDTV people fail to realize that even HD video is far lower in quality than the most basic digital cameras of 10 years ago.  Even a 1080p HD video is only 2 megapixels, and of course the iPod touch only shoots 720p HD, or 0.9 megapixels.  Oh, and standard-definition video?  0.3 megapixels.

Posted by Jesse Hollington in Toronto on September 4, 2010 at 11:41 PM (CDT)


Why would Apple bother cropping the still photos from 1280x720 to 960x720?  Why wouldn’t you want to maximize the use of the sensor?

Posted by YouDownWithOPP on September 5, 2010 at 12:04 AM (CDT)


I love my 64GB 3rd gen iPod Touch. It’s loaded with apps and reference books, and I use it all the time for calendar and task management, RSS reading, e-mail, e-books, audio books, podcasts, music, a few games, and web-surfing. It’s pretty much a laptop computer that fits in my pocket. I would have upgraded for a reasonably useful camera or if they’d taken it up to 128GB, but now don’t see any reason to. Face Time doesn’t interest me, and as long as I can run my apps on my 3rd gen, I’ll wait until next year to upgrade.

Posted by sfSusan on September 5, 2010 at 2:37 AM (CDT)


rumors about the screen doesn’t has the same quality as iphone 4 like # 800:1 contrast ratio (typical)
# 500 cd/m2 max brightness (typical), any comments ?

Posted by Edmund on September 5, 2010 at 4:53 AM (CDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market products, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators. Wondering why we're talking about something other than iPods? Check the Archives: Backstage has been here and kicking it since 2004.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
iLounge Weekly

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2019 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy