Apple news, rumors, tutorials, price drop alerts, in your inbox every evening, free.
Unsubscribe at any time.
Success!
You have been subscribed.
Add Comment
Would you like to be notified when someone replies or adds a new comment?
Yes (All Threads)
Yes (This Thread Only)
No
Notifications
Would you like to be notified when we post a new Apple news article or tutorial?
Yes
No
Comments (5)
Comments are closed for this article.
0
Wh - May 6, 2009 at 12:14am
Actually I'm a photographer and as Guest said, it appears more like a lack of skills than improved quality on 3.0... unless they give us an ISO setting by software that could help improve photos in low light conditions like these shown. Also note that by increasing this virtual ISO setting you would get more image noise in the photo (which means lesser quality), but better to take a noisy sharp picture than a blurred one!
0
Guest - May 5, 2009 at 2:11pm
I'd like to see that.. But I have my doubts lol. Isn't that a little lack of skill while taking the pictures @ 2.2.1? :p
0
iClarified - May 5, 2009 at 12:02pm
fixed :)
0
t_01 - May 5, 2009 at 12:01pm
Yes your right wiga. They haven't labeled the second set. Gizmodo shows the correct labelling for the second set. I'm glad to here this but i hope this isnt an excuse for apple not to include a better camera in the next iPhone.
0
Wiga - May 5, 2009 at 11:59am
Looks like the bottom Picture you got Backwarods...Beucase 2.2.1 looks better then 3.0 There.
![Apple's Private 50th Anniversary Exhibit at Apple Park Revealed [Photos]](/images/news/100450/100450/100450-160.jpg "Apple's Private 50th Anniversary Exhibit at Apple Park Revealed [Photos]")
