TUNE DIGITALLY

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Stephen:

The iPod Nano update on September 1, 2010 is arguably the most dramatic since the iPod Nano moniker was introduced by Apple five years ago.

More than an update, this is a new product that simply retains the iPod Nano name. It gains a significant feature, but loses several others.

The big deal is the touch interface on the newest iPod Nano. iPod Nano users will now be "touching," their music as iPod Touch and iPhone users have before them. The click wheel is gone. To find your music, you select a category from the Nano's menu such as "Playlists," or "Artists," and select from there. Less convenient or more convenient than a click wheel? Honestly, about equal. The screen is indeed small, but not unusable.

FM Radio has been retained as well as the Fitness aspects with the ability to use Nike + or simply the built in pedometer. However, the form factor will be a major benefit for those working out with the Nano. The previous Nano required an armband to keep it on you while working out, jogging, or the like. Not always comfortable, an additional expense, etc. However, with this new small, square form factor that need is gone. Now, we can simply "clip," the Nano onto us, with the built in clip, and run to our listening content. A bigger deal than you might think.

The downside? Features have been removed from Nano. The screen is much smaller than the previous generation. Therefore, playback of video content from iTunes is gone. Nano no longer plays video, which was a feature added three years ago. Secondly, last year, Nano added a small video camera to record low quality video, which could be played back on the Nano's screen or synced with iTunes and viewed on your computer. That feature is gone too. The device is too small now for a camera or to watch video. This new generation iPod Nano has many exciting new features, but buyers must be aware that it is no longer a video player. It is something new. Those wishing to play video on an iPod must choose an iPod Touch.

My opinion on this change? Honestly, did I ever watch video on the iPod Nano's screen? No. For me, while they kept trying to make the screen larger, it was simply too small to enjoy more than a once a year video. Likewise, the camera was simply not high enough quality to keep yourself entertained by using on a regular basis. It became a feature unused by many.

The iPod Nano has changed and gone back to being an exceptional music player. There is nothing here you do not need to enjoy music. However, the display and touch interface brings the 21st century "touch," that Apple has made so popular to a more affordable device. The touch function will be limited here to simply selecting songs or bringing up the clock, but nevertheless, touch has made its way to the Nano.

I'm most thankful that the Nano has indeed retained the DOCK CONNECTOR. The dock connector is key to use with iPod accessories such as docks, speaker docks, and built in car iPod connectors. The nano is so diminutive that if you plug it into the factory iPod kit of an automobile, the cable's dock connector will look nearly bigger than the Nano itself. Not a negative, just amusing. Nevertheless, the dock connector is there, and you will be able to use the device in such applications, and that was a significant decision by Apple. Users want and need the dock connector. It is there on this iPod Nano, but still missing from the Shuffle due to its even more diminutive size.

This 16 GB version is the largest size Apple offers in the Nano. It offers no additional functionality over the 8GB, but features twice the storage. Choose the one best for you. 16 GB is great if you have a large music collection. We should all remember though that with Nano no longer doing Video or Storing Pictures, the storage is exclusively for music. This makes 8 GB and 16 GB more appropriate size offerings as music takes up much less storage than video.

Overall, Apple has removed video (both playback and recording) from this iPod Nano. However, it's an equalling good music player. Navigation of music is now completed via touch, which works effectively despite the small screen. It's really hard to believe so much can fit into such a small device and I believe everyone will be a bit shocked when they open up the Nano the first time and see it's size yet primary function as an effective music player retained. The newest Nano brings a nearly Shuffle like size, but yet retains the functionality (touch, clip, dock connector) that serious music lovers and those who use the Nano while working out, demand.

Review by Peter Hunt:

In a way, I understand what Apple are trying to do with the latest nano - get back to basics.

In the last couple of years, they've added features to the nano which weren't really improvements, just additions. The nano's main purpose as a take-anywhere music player was muddied by other features that didn't really fit. The screen was not really big enough to watch TV shows or movies on it. The video camera was simply not hi-res enough to be competitive or useful. As I've said in other reviews, it seemed that these features were added not because they made the nano a better product, but just because Apple could add them.

With the latest nano, Apple has stripped away all those extra features, and gone back to trying to make a best-in-class take-anywhere music player. Great idea. Unfortunately, they failed in two respects - the execution of that idea, and the price.

The two main design changes in this nano are the smaller screen, and the replacement of the click wheel with a touchscreen (with buttons for volume). Both of these changes make the product less successful as an on-the-go music player than previous models.

Having a smaller screen makes it harder to find songs - only a few lines can be displayed at a time. On a purely aesthetic note, having the mix of icons and menus in the user interface is more cumbersome and less clean that the purely menu-based UI of previous models. Not a big deal, but Apple's appeal has traditionally been their sense of aesthetics.

Removing the click wheel is a serious misstep. The click wheel made it easy to adjust the volume, scan back and forth within a track, or move between tracks in a playlist or album *without taking the player out of your pocket*. You didn't have to look at the player; just dip your hand into a pocket, quickly find the click wheel by feel, and make the adjustment. You can't do that with the new nano. While superficially cool, the touch screen makes the new nano harder to use than its predecessors.

Finally, the price. Apple is charging the same price as the previous model nano, for the same amount of storage. In essence, we lose the extraneous features in order to pay for the touch screen. I would accept that trade-off if the touch screen better served the nano's core function as a portable music player. But it does not.

I'm giving the new nano three stars because, despite being a step down from previous models, it's still a pretty good music player.

But in paring down the nano back to its primary function, Apple also made design changes that make it perform that function less well, and then charged us for them. Far from being an improvement, the new nano is a disappointment.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Nathan Andersen:

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GCL7CCLCHZCY When Steve Jobs announced the newest generation iPod nano, he suggested that with its new video capability the nano would easily compete with the Flip Video camcorder. While someday down the line this may be a serious contender in the pocket video camera market, it's not there yet. I took some comparison footage with the iPod nano and the standard definition Flip Mino to show why. My point in all this is not to suggest that you go buy a Flip instead of an iPod nano, but that you ask yourself what it is you really want. If you want to make videos you can upload to Youtube and you want them to look pretty decent, and you don't care much about music or you already have an mp3 player, I wouldn't buy this iPod just because now it has video. On the other hand, having some video capability might be enough to give this the edge over most other music players; if games are more important to you than video, though, you'd be better off with an iPod touch.

One thing you'll notice in the footage, where I shot the same things back to back with both camcorders, is that where the Flip really shines is in low light. I shot the hamster moments at night, in a room illuminated only by a lamp. Not only did the iPod nano take grainy video, it also didn't do any kind of white balancing and the indoor lightbulb added an orange tint to the clip; I'm not sure exactly how the Flip is designed to address this (whether it automatically adjusts white balance or just has a better average setting), but the footage shows that it captured light correctly both outdoors and indoors. If you compare the hamster shots with the Flip and with the nano, I think it's clear that for indoor and lowlight there's no comparison and the Flip has the nano beat hands down. The outdoor images are closer, but I think even this small video shows greater detail in the Flip video. When you blow the images up bigger there's no comparison -- the Flip looks decent even on a big screen TV, the iPod nano footage looks like it was shot with, well, a toy camera. In all fairness, that's all it is at this point. (Note, by the way, that, like the Flip, the nano will only take video and doesn't take photos. You can manually add photos to the nano from your computer, but you can't use the onboard camera to capture stills.)

Another thing that bugs me a bit about the new iPod nano is the bizarre placement of the camera lens. It's nestled down in the corner of the backside below the screen -- exactly where it is most natural to hold this thing if you are shooting with it. Even if you just grasp the thing at the corners, there's a tendency for some part of a finger to accidentally edge into the camera frame. In fact, I found that even after I was aware of this fact I kept doing it anyways -- the way this thing fits in my hands just makes it likely I'll catch an edge of a finger in my shots unless I'm conscientious about avoiding it, and that detracts from the spontaneity this is designed to take advantage of. (I even noticed I'd done it on most of the iPod nano footage for this video comparison -- and I thought about doing it over, but then decided to leave it in just to show how easily it can happen.)

So, to sum up: what you really get with the iPod nano is a toy camera, fun to have in the pocket and very cool to have just in case there's something you want to shoot, but not quite the quality we've come to expect from the handy pocket camcorders like the Flip Mino and the Creative Vado and the Kodak Zi8, that keep getting better and better. Video is a nice new feature on the Nano, but not really a radical innovation and not a game changer.

What makes the iPod Nano worth it is that in addition to video on the fly, you get to listen to music, you get an FM radio that works quite well and even tells you what song you are listening to, you get a voice recorder (a VERY nice feature, excellent for students who can listen to music on their way to class and then record a lecture), a decent quality mini speaker, a somewhat useful pedometer, decent game options for killing time. You don't get any of that with the Flip! Sure, the new iPod nano is a toy ... but it's a very cool toy.

Review by S. K. Plante:

Let's face it...we are not all clones and look for different features when it comes to an MP3 player. I wanted a small, portable player for the gym. The FM Radio feature is what I have been hoping for for a very long time! I don't need apps. I don't need to surf the web. I need to play my tunes. Genius is a great way to create a mix for the gym. The fitness tracker is incredible. And finally I can tune in to the TVs in the gym. Love it! This is exactly what I've been waiting for. Perfect device for my needs.

Review by Mark:

Apple 4 GB iPod nano AAC/MP3 Player Silver (3rd Generation)

Apple's new nano is designed to improve upon past models and add some functionality. The improved video, smaller thinner body and updated firmware are enough to make it stand out. The slightly lower price tag is also sure to help sell more units.

I think most buyers will opt to get the 8GB, considering it is only more than the 4GB and actually makes the video function more usable. Apple 8 GB iPod nano AAC/MP3 Player Blue (3rd Generation) Regardless, the new nano is an improvement in any size.

Pros

+ Small size - so thin!!!!

+ Nice design - shorter, fatter form factor for more reliability

+ Brushed aluminum front seems more durable than plastic composite of 2nd generation nano

+ Many color options - Silver, blue, green, black, etc.

+ Brighter screen with better contrast than previous generation

+ Great video option is a nice to have for sample TV shows, clips, etc

+ Works with most traditional iPod accessories (except old A/V cable)

+ Priced to sell! Lowest price Apple video capable player

+ Lower price tag than 2nd Generation nano

+ Unlike iPod classic, all flash memory means less failures and breakage

+ Flash memory also awesome for running / working out

+ Slightly better sound quality than 2nd generation

+ Apple reputation is highly deserved

Cons

- 4 GB capacity is very limited for a video player and will require constant reloading via iTunes

- New 2GB Shuffle option provides a workout alternative at about 1/3 the price

- New design not ideal for very big hands due to smaller click wheel

- Universal dock now required for video out (no more A/V cable)

- Slightly shorter battery life than other iPods

- No expandability or SD card slot like Sansa View or Creative Zen

- iTunes software with limited native formats (MP3, AAC)

- Coverflow still buggy / slow

- Features built-in to competing players, like FM radio & voice recording, much be bought as add-ons,

- Competing players now available at 16GB flash at similar body size

The Looks

Some people prefered the gen2 nano's longer body and larger click wheel. The longer nano was prone to bend (and sometimes break) when people put them in their pocket and sat down or moved around. The smaller click-wheel can be awkward, particularly for those with large hands. But it's a worthy trade-off for the smaller size and better durability.

Another change motivated by durability is the metal face. The old clear composite face was a magnet for smudges and scratches. The new brushed metal face holds up nicer. Be warned though; it can chip and scratch, so get a cover.

The Sound

Sound quality is not significantly improved from previous models. The slight improvements touted in Apple's marketing are exaggerated. However, let's be fair to Apple here. MP3 and even CD audio have inherent sound quality limitations.

MP3 is a compression technology that does experience quality loss, however minimal. With a lower bitrate your MP3 files will lose more and more of the sound integrity from the original recording. Combine that with the fact many people rip from sources that are not digitally mastered, and you would get inferior sound quality with any device.

Almost no MP3 players are actually designed for audiophiles / musicians / sound engineers; i.e., the people who could tell the difference between good sound and great sound. Fortunately, some of these devices are starting to come onto the market.

Features and Software

Few new features are noteworthy with this device. Changes in the components and software make the screen brighter and allow you to do more things, including watch videos and play games. Some complain there isn't enough memory for video. You can still get enough on here to watch one movie or fit some TV shows with your music. It's a nice extra even if these nanos don't have tremendous memory.

The flash memory in this device could have been a faster speed. However, the main advantages of the flash player are still here: less risk of hardware failure associated with a hard disk drive player (better for running or working out).

The device does seem to have a shorter battery life than advertised. Perhaps because of the smaller body size Apple placed a smaller batter inside. As long as you sync and charge at night, it's ok. You are still likely to get a day's worth of use from a full charge.

Apple's software is still a weakness with very limited direct control over your device library and few native file options. All formats can be converted using iTunes or another software. You can convert pretty much any file to the MP3, MP4, or AAC formats you need for iTunes. This will mean that those of us with other players will have to have 2 versions of our libraries on our computers, eating up hard-drive space. That's because there's no drag and drop adding into the player, you have to add it to iTunes first and then sync.

However, most users have limited needs and will not notice if they are using MP3s. Apple hits the minimum compatibility needs of most of the market.

Coverflow is little more than a gimmick. It's still buggy and covers tend to blank out if you scroll quickly. Cover art has been downloaded with previous software versions and most other video players, so the ability to scroll covers is not really a breakthrough.

Competitors Pros and Cons

Apple's devices are obviously more expensive than other players on a per gigabyte $ cost. In addition, the iPod still has fewer built-in features than most competitive devices. It doesn't have a built-in FM radio tuner, voice recorder, Bluetooth, WMA support, and an SD card expansion slot. Both the Creative Zen Creative Zen 4 GB MP3 Player (Black) and the Sansa View SanDisk Sansa View 8 GB MP3 Player have micro SD slots, FM tuners and voice recording components built in. Both are better priced. The Sansa View comes in a 16GB size for the same price as the 8GB nano.

Still the iPod Nano beats both those players on size as the Creative Zen is much thicker and the Sansa View is taller. Also keep in mind that the Creative Zen has been somewhat buggy, and the View doesn't have as long a track record only being released in November 2007.

The new Sony players have finally abandoned their own bad software, and now provide some good competition to the iPod nano. In typical Sony fashion, they are priced just as high as the nano. But they do have quality components and better sound quality. Sony NWZA816BLK 4GB Walkman Video MP3 Player (Black)

The new 2 GB iPod Shuffle, released in February 2008, probably provides the biggest competition if you don't care about video and your only use is working out. Apple iPod shuffle 2 GB Silver (2nd Generation) For 1/3 the price, you get a player with half the capacity that's designed for longer battery life and more active use.

Conclusion

In the end, what the iPod nano does, it does very well. Apple really wins with sleek design and a wealth of accessories. This unit is no different. Not all docks and accessories work with the 3rd generation, but many do. And for that large number of users already using iTunes, moving your music over to the nano is a snap.

Overall this device is an improvement. Apple's entry level video player will continue to be popular due to great features, acceptable pricing and the Apple brand.

Enjoy!!!

Review by Mark:

Apple iPod nano 8 GB Black (3rd Generation)

This review is for the 8GB iPod Nano. All the reviews for the third generation Nanos have been combined by Amazon. While this unit is very similar to the 4GB iPod Nano Apple 4 GB iPod Nano (3rd Gen) there are enough differences that they each deserve a closer look.

Choosing Among iPods

Overall, I would choose the 8 GB iPod Nano over the 4 GB nano and the 8 GB iPod Touch. This unit is priced right, and at only more than the 4 GB unit it's a no brainer. Those who want to step up should look to the 16 GB Apple iPod Touch 16 GB or 32 GB iPod Touch Apple iPod touch 32 GB. I have been lucky enough to live with all these players, so I hope this helps you decide.

Hopefully Apple will soon make a 16 GB or even a 32 GB Nano available. Only the iPod Touch currently sports those capacities. Till they offer larger sizes the 8GB is the biggest option. The screen is small, but the regular buttons and click wheel allow easier volume and track changes and better use on the go than the iPod Touch.

Some may choose to pay an extra 0 more than this to step up to the 8 GB iPod Touch Apple iPod touch 8 GB with Software Upgrade. The extra features of the Touch are awesome. The high overhead of the Touch software gives you 6 to 6.5 GB of useable space out of those 8 GB. That is just not enough to justify the higher price.

Comparing to Competing Players - Features and Concerns

The iPod Nano still has less features than most competitive devices. It doesn't have a built-in FM radio tuner, voice recorder, bluetooth, WMA support, or an expansion slot. More and more users demand those features. Both the thicker Creative Zen Creative Zen 8 GB (Black) and the taller Sansa ViewSanDisk Sansa View 8 GB MP3 Player include most of those features. They both also now come in 16GB and 32GB capacities.

The Creative Zen does have slightly better sound and file version support. But its native software is even worse and the company has acquired a reputation for high failure rates. Conversely, the Sansa View is perhaps the best value but the video screen and sound quality is less attractive than either two. Perhaps the new Sansa Fuze may have more improvements, but we'll have to wait and see SanDisk Sansa Fuze 8 GB MP3 Player (Silver).

Of course the growing Zune population gets wireless sharing and syncing Zune 8 GB Digital Media Player Black (2nd Generation). But Zune's screen is also less attractive for video and the device has other issues. So I would still choose the Nano over the Zune.

Perhaps the best new competitor is the 800 series Sony MP3 player Sony NWZA818BLK 8GB Walkman Video MP3 Player (Black). For years, Sony devices suffered from proprietary audio formats and both annoying and unethical software limitations. Sony has finally given in to MP3 format, though I'm sure they will try to sneak in DRM at every turn. Surprisingly, even though Apple is the clear market leader Sony's has almost overpriced their units. While expensive, they do have the durable metal body like Nanos. And in terms of sound quality, I would say they are just as good if not slightly better. I just don't consumers should pay them a premium.

The Sound

Sound quality has been slightly improved. Apple has a much better reputation and lower failure rates than music players marketed on high fidelity sound. Quality components and jacks still matters. But there is still no player on the market today that can truly claim hi-fi sound.

Some technical limits make it very difficult to get lossless sound out of any device regardless of source file. Lower bitrates make your MP3 files lose more and more sound integrity, and even CDs have quality limits, which are even lower if they are not digitally mastered.

The Looks

Apple shortened the body and added a brushed metal face for durability. There was a previous Nano version with a rounded metal face. Then they tried the clear composite plastic face that so easily scratched and smudged. The back still has the shiny aluminum surface used on most iPods that is known for attracting fingerprints. The brushed metal face holds up better, but you still need a cover.

The screen is smallish, though I would argue still adequate. But the thin body alone allows this player to overcome having less features than many competing players. Apple does lose points for the smaller click-wheel being awkward for those with big hands.

Features

The ability to watch videos and play games is huge. With the 8 GB capacity you can still get enough on here for a flight. That's the main advantage over the 4GB model. Watching videos will cut battery life to about 5 hours though.

Apple's software gives you limited direct control over your music and few file options. For people like me with multiple players, it's harder to manage your music library with multiple copies. iTunes is good enough for most users. You can easily convert and import your files, but it's an annoying extra step.

Cover-flow still underperforms on the Nano versus the iPod Touch. To me it's not a deal-breaker with the nano's real buttons. You still have the advantages of a flash-based player.

Conclusion

Apple's nice price, sleek design and a wealth of accessories overcome any missing features or annoying software limits. Unless you can afford a 16 or 32 GB iPod Touch or demand some of the missing features offered by the competition, go with this iPod Nano 8 GB and don't look back.

Enjoy!