Apple's ridiculously successful iPad tablets dominate the product category they effectively defined. While "tablet computers" have been around for decades, for the last two years the term has been narrowed to mean essentially "things that are like iPads". Even so, the market-leading device has been subject to a number of fair criticisms of its limitations.

For one - a big one - the camera on the iPad 2 was woeful beyond woe. It was superior to the one in the original iPad only inasmuch as there was not one in the original iPad. For that matter, not everyone saw it as an improvement.

The iPad 3 (which Apple calls "the new iPad" but mine already has fingerprints all over it so it ain't new no more) has a fair-to-middling camera on the back. Its five-megapixel sensor is supplemented by clever technology that boosts the amount of light it collects and increases contrast. It's undeniably a better camera than the one in the iPad 2. It is not, however, as good as the camera in the iPhone 4S, nor in most other smartphones.

I'll admit at this point that I don't see myself holding up my iPad as a camera. It's just too awkward. But if it happened to be the only camera I had with me when the UFOs landed in my backyard, I'd probably think it was pretty good.

The other fair criticism of the iPad 2 was that its screen was not as good as it should have been. Not that it was bad, but compared to the screens on iPhones or some other tablets it was lacking. Apple didn't help when it pushed developers to refer to apps developed for iPad as "HD" when the screen was not, in reality, particularly high-definition. Calling attention to a weakness doesn't help it.

The iPad 3 gets a larger version of the "Retina Display" from the iPhone 4S and, at 2048x1536 pixels (264 pixels per inch) it's definitely HD. Whether that will make a real difference will wait to be seen when HD content for the iPad comes out and some more apps optimized for the display are available. At first blush, though, it's a nice-looking display. Text is sharp and photos really pop - at least photos taken with a proper camera do.

The camera on the back of the iPad 3 doesn't take photos that show off the capabilities of the display to its absolute best, perhaps, but it does offer one more advantage over the iPad 2, in that it can take HD video - real HD, 1080p. Don't expect to be filming Hollywood masterpieces or anything, but again, if it's the camera you've got to hand when baby takes those first steps into the alien craft, it's a pretty good camera.

The other big complaint with the iPad 2 was that it gets sluggish when you push it too hard. Apps like iMovie and GarageBand ask a lot of the processor, and many's the time the iPad 2 has not been up to the task. The iPad 3 has a dual-core A5X processor with four graphics-processing cores, and the performance difference is definitely noticeable. One of the first things I did with it was play a tower-defense game called Spice Bandits, which can get choppy on the iPad 2 once a lot of baddies and guns are on screen. The iPad 3 handles such complex levels with aplomb.

I haven't yet had enough time to put the iPad 3 through its paces performance-wise, but my first impression is that it is a marked and obvious improvement over its predecessor.

Now the bad news.

If you were hoping the iPad 3 would add 4G networking, you're out of luck. The 4G presently in use in Australia is not supported by the iPad, so this is a 3G device within our sunburnt shores. Apple claims that the 3G and WiFi performance of the device is superior to the iPad 2, but I haven't been able to test that properly yet and it's certainly not obvious from my first day's usage.

It's not Apple's fault, of course, that Telstra didn't implement the same 4G LTE standard that AT&T, the largest telco in the USA, implemented. Had Telstra followed AT&T's lead, we'd have a 4G iPad. But Apple did decide to support only 700MHz and 2100MHz. Had it thrown support for 1800MHz in there, we'd have a 4G iPad. Plenty of blame to go around.

Also, if you were hoping that "voice dictation" in Apple's promotion for the device was code for "Siri" you'll be disappointed. It is in fact code for "voice dictation". Most places where you have a keyboard on screen you can, instead, dictate and the iPad will do a reasonable job of parsing what you say. It's by no means perfect, it doesn't work in certain places like the URL bar of Safari, and it is decidedly not Siri. No "Write a message to my wife saying I'll be home at six and I'll pick up some milk along the way" for this puppy.

Fair enough, really - that is more or less the kind of stuff you do with a phone, not so much with a tablet. But why should it be? This is a category-defining product, so why limit what it can do? My bet is the iPad 4 (which Apple will probably call "the new iPad" just to confuse everyone) will have a proper implementation of Siri.

It's also marginally heavier than the iPad 2 - not by a whole bunch, but you notice if you're swapping between the two of them for any reason (like if you have to write a thing about it for the ABC). The difference is about 50 grams, or a third of the weight of an iPhone 4S. This may become problematic given how much you're likely to carry the thing about. Or it may not.

More noticeable, though, is the heat. Granted, I've been using the iPad 3 pretty extensively today, but I've used my iPad 2 extensively some days too, and I never noticed that one getting anywhere near this warm. Apple's put in a faster processor and tried to optimise things so it gets similar battery life (another claim I'll have to test more clinically later) and obviously there's been a compromise made somewhere - it's a hot little pad.

Then there's my own personal beef. It's still only available in sizes up to 64GB. When it's a device for looking at stuff and surfing the web and reading email and so forth, that's fine. But why give me apps like iMovie and GarageBand and proper photo editing like the recently-released iPhoto for iPad, and expect me to keep all my stuff in the same amount of space I had before? When I was scraping the ceiling with stuff I wanted to consume, how am I supposed to have room to create?

So should you get one?

Well, that depends. There are some boxes unticked there. If 4G matters to you, go get a Samsung. If you're in the vast majority of people to whom 4G doesn't matter (yet, at least) then that's not a factor. If you want to use your tablet as a "proper" camera, not just as a reserve for when it's absolutely needed, then the camera in the iPad 3 isn't compelling - the best that can be said is it's not a reason to avoid the iPad anymore. If you want a tablet for creating multimedia content and need plenty of headroom for your stuff, get the 64GB model but don't install too many apps.

If you have an original iPad or iPad 2, the better display and better processor really do make a difference. If you've noticed either of those lacking, it's worth a look as an upgrade just for the screen and the speed.