An iPad Would Have Made This Picture Better
As a very amateur photographer, I had high hopes for the Apple (AAPL) iPad.
I’ve experimented with tethering my Canon DSLR to my computer. In plain English, that means using a computer to operate the camera while previewing the images on screen. And that was fine inside the house.
But it fails for two simple reasons:
1) No USB Port without an overpriced adapter
2) No ability to run Apple’s Aperture software, which has great tethering, organizational, and photo editing tools
Maybe I’m a cheapskate, but I don’t see why I should pay up for a port that should be standard on a $500 device – especially since that adapter is also just one more thing that can break in the field. And even a scaled-down version of Aperture would have been awesome for the iPad – you could just sync up everything on your ‘real’ computer later. And you know what? It would be something that Adobe’s Lightroom couldn’t match.
And why couldn’t Apple at least stick iPhoto, along with an actual camera, in the iPad? The iPad has room inside for a decent-sized image sensor, which combined with the big screen, would have made the iPad an amazing photographic tool. Canon and Panasonic are moving tons of point-and-shoots like the G11 and LX3 for about $500, which along with Canon’s strong earnings report indicates that photographers are willing to pay up for the latest hot stuff.
A camera would have also enabled movie-making on the go with iMovie. One device that can shoot, edit, and upload video on the go would have just been amazing.
So the more I think about the iPad, the more disappointed I become. Yes, the iPad is probably the best device for displaying a portfolio, but I’d rather use it to create. We’ve come to expect a lot from Apple – but everybody misses sometimes.
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Ipad is poooop. Get Hpslate