# In defense of WiFi...



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

I get flamed (a lot ) for bashing manufactures lack of WiFi support in their products..  lots of people see it as a gimmick or a useless feature. 

but tell me... why cant i:



Have my pictures automatically download to my computer when i walk into my house.
Send pictures to facebook/twitter in near-real-time while shooting my kids sporting events.
Remotely capture that elusive humming bird with my camera outside while i'm sitting inside at my computer.

Manufacturers adding WiFi support to their cameras is currently half-*arsed*.  The apps are horrible and outdated.. Support is non-existent...  and most people don't care.

WiFi isn't a 'gimmick'... its an extension of the tool.  

This little $10 part could offer soooo much more to photography.

Does anybody but me care?


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Oct 8, 2013)

I use a eye-fi card, it`s only 8gb and it`s great, just as you say as soon as you walk within range of your homes router your photo`s start downloading, i have not had a camera that has built in wifi yet, but most camera`s support eye-fi cards.

John.


----------



## runnah (Oct 8, 2013)

First off its not a $10 part. Its a ton of R&D, testing and programming.

Secondly all the things you have listed are easier done using conventional methods. 

Thirdly you left out the biggest reason for having wifi and that would be to trigger flashes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

none of the things you listed have any interest for me... 

1. I would rather download at my system, and put the images where I want them to go. (especially with D800 sized RAW images)

2. Especially since I edit any photo prior to uploading it anywhere, and have no interest in "real tiime" social networking... especially since FACEBOOK then OWNS the image.... read the TOS!

3. I have better tools for remote photography...


----------



## amolitor (Oct 8, 2013)

Do you really want the NSA looking at those pictures? The ones you don't want your wife to know about?


----------



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

From another thread...



			
				DarkShadow said:
			
		

> I really see no big deal with no built in wifi, at least it has a flash if needed. IMO that makes it more of a complete tool. Off camera or shoe mount is better of course but I don't think someone should be forced to by a flash from the start.



It costs Nikon / Canon under $10 to include WiFi into their device...  Nikon would rather you pay $60 for an add-on then build it into the camera.  



			
				DarkShadow said:
			
		

> I shoot RAW, take the card stick into my desktop process the RAW pictures then and only then I am ready to share the ones I deemed worth sharing.


Why do you have to take the card out?  Why cant you just connect to your camera and pull them off remotely?  How many people have broken card slot door off their camera? (I've done it a few times).  Its a small cost to add HUGE benefits.



amolitor said:


> I don't know why everyone wants WiFi but nobody wants wired Ethernet. If Nikon built a DSLR with an AUI plug for 10BASE5 I would totally buy one. The fact that they do not is PROOF that Nikon is clueless about its user base, and will die pretty soon!





amolitor said:


> I don't know why everyone wants WiFi but nobody wants wired Ethernet. If Nikon built a DSLR with an AUI plug for 10BASE5 I would totally buy one. The fact that they do not is PROOF that Nikon is clueless about its user base, and will die pretty soon!


You'd rather have to plug in a cable then something that can do 802.11ac/AC1750 wireless speeds?


----------



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> I use a eye-fi card, it`s only 8gb and it`s great, just as you say as soon as you walk within range of your homes router your photo`s start downloading, i have not had a camera that has built in wifi yet, but most camera`s support eye-fi cards.
> 
> John.



The awesome thing about the Eye-fi card is it runs in both AP and Client mode!  Meaning you can connect it to your existing network (client) or you can connect to it as an Access Point.

The down side is the range...  building that into a camera lets you increase the antenna and power.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> none of the things you listed have any interest for me...
> 
> 1. I would rather download at my system, and put the images where I want them to go. (especially with D800 sized RAW images)
> 
> ...



I don't need video in any of my cameras.... but they all have it.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

My son enjoys the free WiFi at my local McDonalds! He uses it to download larger game and software applications for his Android phone.

WiFi is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, the short attention-span generation needs to have its stuff NOW. No deferred gratification!!! 

An hour or two or three is a looooooong time to go without Facebook status updates!


----------



## sm4him (Oct 8, 2013)

I tried the eye-fi card, and didn't even like that. I'm with Charlie and the others. 
First: I don't really WANT my photos to download to my computer automatically, because I want to put them where I want them to go, named what I want to name them.

Second: I *especially* don't want them to upload to social media sites. I'm fairly particular about what goes onto social media, and I'd never have it upload without a watermark. Yeah, yeah, they can steal it anyway--my photos aren't really even WORTH getting stolen, yadda yadda. But they're MINE, and I at least want them marked as such initially.

Third: Wait. What? Remotely capture a hummingbird outside while I'm inside at my computer? Call me old-fashioned (because I'm am), but if I have time to be doing bird photography, I *want* to be OUTSIDE doing it. That's part of the fun of it. Why on earth would I want to sit inside at my computer and remotely capture the beauty of the outdoors that I *could* be enjoying instead?

Fourth: Yeah, I know, you didn't have a fourth, but I do. I'm just basically not really interested in one more way to involve the cloud/internet/computer in my life. I'm OLD, okay? And this is just a new trick that this old dog doesn't really WANT to learn.  Good grief, wasn't it enough that I finally bowed to the pressure and bought a "smart" phone? Which, as it turns out, isn't all that smart after all... :lmao:


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

TheLost said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > none of the things you listed have any interest for me...
> ...



And WHAT does that have to do with ANY of the points I made? lol!


----------



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

runnah said:


> First off its not a $10 part. Its a ton of R&D, testing and programming.


Nikon and Canon already support WiFi...  They use an existing 'standard' protocol (PTP/IP)..  The R&D was done YEARS ago... they are not re-inventing the wheel.



runnah said:


> Secondly all the things you have listed are easier done using conventional methods.


They can be done... but not with less effort and setup. 



runnah said:


> Thirdly you left out the biggest reason for having wifi and that would be to trigger flashes.


Exactly!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

I think it's useless. If you have an expensive dlsr, and you use it for more than snapshots you more than likely edit your photos before putting them online. I'm in no rush to have my photos on my computer or online that quickly. It can wait until I'm at home. Also, why would you be so lazy to take photos while you sit inside and stuff your face or watch some reality show?


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Maybe because I would hate inputting my 30 character totally random complex WPA2 password on a friggin camera?   

Why waste your breath telling us.. Tell Nikon or Canon.. or buy a SONY! My RX100M2 has wifi.. and yea, I turned it off!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

Well, HOW MANY d-slr cameras actually SHIP with built-in WiFi?  I know about the Canon 6D, which is a full-frame camera that is, frankly, out of the price range of the vast majority of buyers--I KNOW it has built-in WIFi capability as a "stock" feature. 

I'm not fully up on the specifications of every single d-slr on the market, but I know Nikon  has like 13 models in current sales channels...and Canon has probably about the same number of models, and Pentax has a handful of d-slr models, and Olympus has a few cameras.

So..how MANY d-slr MODELS currently SHIP with WiFi built in?

TheLose, do you know???


----------



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> My son enjoys the free WiFi at my local McDonalds! He uses it to download larger game and software applications for his Android phone.
> 
> WiFi is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...



Derrel... Derrel...  I almost want to call you old but i think we are the same age 

WiFi isn't about social media! Its a tool... posting your DSLR selfy is just something you can do with the tool!

Fun fact... USB 2.0 speed is ~280Mbit/s (35 MB/s)...  802.11ac (latest WiFi) speed is ~860Mbit/s (107MB/s).  At that's the spec speed for 801.11ac enabled TABLETS!! With the right hardware it can reach up to 1-7 Gbit/s!!

Why do you need USB when WiFi is faster!!

Everything is going WiFi...  and its cooooooool!
Meet Nest&#39;s Protect, a Smart Smoke Detector That&#39;s Actually Exciting


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel ... good question...

DPReview shows two DSLR's with Built-In Wifi  Camera feature search: Digital Photography Review

and shows 18 mirrorless  Camera feature search: Digital Photography Review

Guess there isn't much demand among DSLR owners... or the manufacturers would do it. Apparently more of the mirrorless types want it, or they add it to the mirrorless to help the sales....


----------



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Well, HOW MANY d-slr cameras actually SHIP with built-in WiFi?  I know about the Canon 6D, which is a full-frame camera that is, frankly, out of the price range of the vast majority of buyers--I KNOW it has built-in WIFi capability as a "stock" feature.
> 
> I'm not fully up on the specifications of every single d-slr on the market, but I know Nikon  has like 13 models in current sales channels...and Canon has probably about the same number of models, and Pentax has a handful of d-slr models, and Olympus has a few cameras.
> 
> ...



Darrel,

I have used the WiFi on...
Canon 6D
Canon 70D
Sony NEX-6
Nikon D7100
Nikon D5200
Nikon D600
Nikon D800

Have you even tried it on anything?


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > My son enjoys the free WiFi at my local McDonalds! He uses it to download larger game and software applications for his Android phone.
> ...



Don't believe everything you read... most tech today uses a single stream, not the two or three needed for faster speeds that 802.11ac is capable of*. *
Single link (one device) = 500 Mbit/s (current tech speeds.. ) 
*
IEEE 802.11ac* is a wireless computer networking standard in the 802.11 family (which is marketed under the brand name Wi-Fi), developed in the IEEE Standards Association process,[SUP][1][/SUP] providing high-throughput wireless local area networks (WLANs) on the 5 GHz band.[SUP][1][/SUP]  The standard was developed from 2011 through 2013, with final 802.11  Working Group approval and publication scheduled for early 2014.[SUP][1][/SUP]  According to a study, devices with the 802.11ac specification are  expected to be common by 2015 with an estimated one billion spread  around the world.[SUP][2][/SUP] This specification has expected multi-station WLAN throughput of at least 1 gigabit per second  and a single link throughput of at least 500 megabits per second  (500 Mbit/s). This is accomplished by extending the air interface  concepts embraced by 802.11n: wider RF bandwidth (up to 160 MHz), more MIMO spatial streams (up to 8), multi-user MIMO, and high-density modulation (up to 256-QAM).[SUP][3][/SUP]

IEEE 802.11ac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




From CISCO...   802.11ac: The Fifth Generation of Wi-Fi Technical White Paper* [Cisco Aironet 3600 Series] - Cisco Systems

The design constraints and economics that kept  802.11n products at one, two, or three spatial streams haven't changed  much for 802.11ac, so we can expect the same kind of product  availability, with *first-wave 802.11ac products built around 80 MHz and  delivering up to 433 Mbps *(low end), *867 Mbps (midtier),* or *1300 Mbps  (high end)* at the physical layer. Second-generation products promise  still more channel bonding and spatial streams, with plausible product  configurations operating at up to 3.47 Gbps.



ZDNet article on why it isn't as fast as it could be (except in a laboratory)  Gigabit Wi-Fi: 802.11ac is here: Five things you need to know | ZDNet


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

Okay, so according to dPreview, there are TWO digital SLR cameras that ship with WiFi installed as a standard option....

I have not tried heroin, nor MDMA, but I have read that millions of people almost can't live without them...

So, doggone it, out of all the d-slr models, only two come with WiFi....

Damn....you mean I could be updating my Facebook status wirelessly using my camera, you know, without any editing or cropping or selectivity, ....Gawd, I feel so *hopelessly lost*....I mean sonofabeech...I've been using Photoshop and Lightroom, and cropping and editing and selecting only the better pics...but instead I should just spew 'em directly to Facebook while on-location!!! 

"Do'ah!!! I'm doing it all wrong!!!!!!!! I'm talking too much time to make my pictures look 'better'. I need to just stream them, right off the card!!!"


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

And I run Asus RT-AC66U's both at home and at work.. (one of the best 802.11ac wifi routers on the market right now) and they are not hitting much more than 400mbs (less with multiple device access) according to my Fluke!! Wired gigabit lan is still significantly faster....


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

And the projected speeds are all on the Physical layer of the OSI model (assuming you are familiar with that?)... and much slower by the time it gets to the Application layer... (which is where the advantage would be)


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Okay, so according to dPreview, there are TWO digital SLR cameras that ship with WiFi installed as a standard option....  I have not tried heroin, nor MDMA, but I have read that millions of people almost can't live without them...  So, doggone it, out of all the d-slr models, only two come with WiFi....  Damn....you mean I could be updating my Facebook status wirelessly using my camera, you know, without any editing or cropping or selectivity, ....Gawd, I feel so hopelessly lost....I mean sonofabeech...I've been using Photoshop and Lightroom, and cropping and editing and selecting only the better pics...but instead I should just spew 'em directly to Facebook while on-location!!!  "Do'ah!!! I'm doing it all wrong!!!!!!!! I'm talking too much time to make my pictures look 'better'. I need to just stream them, right off the card!!!"



Solve that problem by having all perfect photos.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> My son enjoys the free WiFi at my local McDonalds! He uses it to download larger game and software applications for his Android phone.
> 
> WiFi is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Rock on dude, I like totally get what you are saying man.  It's like you were reading my mind or something.   It's like.....like...........

Uh....wait.....like what were we talking about?   :mrgreen:


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> Rock on dude, I like totally get what you are saying man.  It's like you were reading my mind or something.   It's like.....like...........
> 
> Uh....wait.....like what were we talking about?   :mrgreen:


----------



## runnah (Oct 8, 2013)

I looked at a new dryer that had wifi. It's a gimmick designed to sell out dated models to tech geeks who want to bore people.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

runnah said:


> I looked at a new dryer that had wifi. It's a gimmick designed to sell out dated models to tech geeks who want to bore people.



I'm convinced I need a new blender with WiFi...I can send it my preferred ice grind settings from the living room, using my Android phone OR my iOS devices, and it can grind my ice EXACTLY the way I want it, in increments as discrete as .08 seconds per setting change!

Suuuuu-WEEEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do people realize what this new WiFi tech can DO for the advancement of the cocktail world???


----------



## runnah (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I'm convinced I need a new blender with WiFi...I can send it my preferred ice grind settings from the living room, using my Android phone OR my iOS devices, and it can grind my ice EXACTLY the way I want it, in increments as discrete as .08 seconds per setting change!  Suuuuu-WEEEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Do people realize what this new WiFi tech can DO for the advancement of the cocktail world???



I asked what it was for and the sales guy said for remote access and firmware updates.  

I think I will keep my old one that just dries my clothes.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

This is a far better use for wifi. ReaDIYmate: Papercraft Plus WiFi Makes For Interesting New Things


----------



## Bulb (Oct 8, 2013)

I recently bought the Canon 6D.

It's a really great camera and I'm far from pushing it to its limits, but I can't think of many practical situations where I would want to use the WiFi.

I always turn the GPS on when I'm shooting outside though. It's fun to go back and look at all of the places I've taken photos.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Bulb said:


> I recently bought the Canon 6D.
> 
> It's a really great camera and I'm far from pushing it to its limits, but I can't think of many practical situations where I would want to use the WiFi.
> 
> I always turn the GPS on when I'm shooting outside though. It's fun to go back and look at all of the places I've taken photos.



I don't want people to know where I was shooting, lol!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

I just want the latest and greatest Nikon to run android and like totally have Facebook and candy crush. They need to because like they aren't doing anything new. /rant

-_-


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> I just want the latest and greatest Nikon to run android and like totally have Facebook and candy crush. They need to because like they aren't doing anything new. /rant
> 
> -_-



New is not always better...


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Bulb said:


> I recently bought the Canon 6D.
> 
> It's a really great camera and I'm far from pushing it to its limits, but I can't think of many practical situations where I would want to use the WiFi.
> 
> I always turn the GPS on when I'm shooting outside though. It's fun to go back and look at all of the places I've taken photos.



Food for thought with the GPS.  If you use it, it is embedded in your meta data.  Someone can take those embedded coordinates, plug them into Google maps and pull up a street view of the location the photo was taken.  Not a big deal with a landscape at the Grand Canyon.  Could be a big deal if it is photos of your kids at a birthday party at home or Christmas morning with lots of neat, expensive presents in the photo.  And yes there are criminals out there that actually do such things.  Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I just want the latest and greatest Nikon to run android and like totally have Facebook and candy crush. They need to because like they aren't doing anything new. /rant
> ...



Spoken like one of the first passengers to fly on a Boeing Dream Liner.  Hot time in the old town tonight. :mrgreen:


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Bulb said:
> 
> 
> > I recently bought the Canon 6D.
> ...



Yeppers! I think it is a BAD idea...


----------



## amolitor (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> And yes there are criminals out there that actually do such things.  Just something to keep in mind.



Really? Like, how many such criminals? Can you give me any evidence whatsoever that there is even one? And, if so, can you give me a rough estimate of how many others there might be? How much of a risk is this, do you think, relative to say getting in my car and driving for one mile?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

amolitor said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > And yes there are criminals out there that actually do such things.  Just something to keep in mind.
> ...


Yep really.  If you want stats look them up.  It's folks that are complacent that has kept me and all the folks I work with busy for the last 30 plus years.  We call them Job Security.  GPS is a handy tool, and criminals are well aware of that.  

http://www.futurecrimes.com/article/stolen-gps-devices-lead-criminals-back-to-empty-homes-2/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photog...y-by-geotagging-location-info-to-your-photos/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-on-victims-car-before-burglarizing-her-home/


----------



## amolitor (Oct 8, 2013)

Uh. And how, exactly, would I "look up the stats" for "how many criminals use GPS data embedded in photographs to identify good targets for a burglary"?

A quick google search turns up a lot of people telling me to Watch Out, but no actual evidence that anyone actually does it. Most burglars select targets by which houses are nearby. Smart ones target houses by zip code. Using GPS data from photographs might happen, but it's statistically so unlikely that worrying about it is stupid, it speaks to a burglar who is technically savvy and yet a complete imbecile who is clueless about how to actually be a burglar. Of course now that mayors and police chiefs are warning us about it, we'll probably see a tiny number of dorky teenagers trying it out, but I'm going to stick to worrying about things like how much I drive and the other 10,000,000 risk factors more likely to impact my life.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> New is not always better...



Sarcasm. I'm making fun of people who think nikon doesn't innovate enough.


----------



## snerd (Oct 8, 2013)

Just to go on record that I don't want or need video or wifi or gps on my dslr camera. I'm old, but still a tech-geek. I just will never use any of those features.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

amolitor said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > And yes there are criminals out there that actually do such things.  Just something to keep in mind.
> ...



I have heard that GPS-tagged photos are helping sophisticated poachers and traders in rare, exotic animals located animals or populations of rare/endangered animals. They search the web for photos, and there are apps that have pretty good data extraction capabilities which allow poachers/traders/smugglers to locate very precise coordinates for the subjects shown in their search results. Not sure exactly how widespread this is, or even if it is true.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 8, 2013)

I think DSLR wireless connectivity and transmission of data is the wave of the future. It will make many things easier for everyone. 

Resistance is futile.

Practicality 1: 
You're shooting a wedding with a 6D (the best low light camera that Canon makes). You have your laptop in your backpack. You've set up the EOS utility to transmit full raws. You have the folder "watched" by lightroom for auto importing. 

So you're shooting away, all the while, your RAWs are being ingested into Lightroom on your laptop. 

Some photographers like to sell photos at the venue. This is a handy way to get rid of wired tethering and make everything easier. Also, the files are being backed up automatically.


Practicality 2:

I'm in my studio posing a family. I have my EOS utility app connected to my 6D. Focus is set, and I can use the app to see a live view of the image, and also to remotely release the shutter. This way I can focus on the posing and how the people look, and not be behind a view finder. 

Practicality 3:

I take an awesome shot of my kid with my 6d. But I'm on the road and nowhere near a computer. Sure, I can snap a shot with my cell phone, But it just doesn't have that same Juicy DOF that the DSLR sensor gives me. Also, I have much less control over exposure with my phone, so I'd look to shoot with my DSLR whenever possible. The photos automatically download to my phone through EOSutility. They are all there, for me to see, and share if I want to. 

I'm not going for broke here, it's a pic of my kid I want to share with friends and family. I share it directly to Facebook because I did it right in camera and it looks good. 

Again: resistance to Wi-Fi is futile. This is the wave of the future. There are many practical advantages, and there will be more and more as tech advances.

If anything, we need MORE Wi-Fi connectivity and options. Right now, there is no EOS utility app for iPad. Imagine how nice it would be to see your pictures at 10inches, the near equivalent of an 8x10" print, right in your hands, instantly after taking the picture. So many possible uses. You could use this to show a client the image you just took. You could create a slide show. You could see minor imperfections that you couldn't see on your small DSLR LCD. 

DSLR Wi-Fi is in no way perfect, but it has a boat-load of potential. And I will be (already am) one of the first to take advantage of it. 

We are just on the cusp of what's going to be possible.


----------



## Bulb (Oct 8, 2013)

To all of the above, I don't plan on uploading any photos with embedded GPS data.

It's for my own use. If I show someone a photo I've taken then I'll remove the GPS data. RawTherapee allows me to remove EXIF data from the exported .jpg including GPS.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> I think DSLR wireless connectivity and  transmission of data is the wave of the future. It will make many things  easier for everyone.
> 
> Resistance is futile.
> 
> ...





Gee in the old days instant gratification had a term for it.  It was called "Choking the Chicken."  In the future it will be probably be called "Wackin the WiFi." :mrgreen:

Starts at 2:30


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Gee in the old days instant gratification had a term for it. It was called "Choking the Chicken." In the future it will be probably be called "Wackin the WiFi." :mrgreen:



So why is instant gratification taboo? What makes instant gratification better or worse than delayed gratification? 

"Instant" sounds better than "delayed" to me. 

When you go to a restaurant, would you like your food served to you as so as it's ready, or would you like it delayed? 

When you go to DMV to renew your license, would you like your new license instantly, or would you like it delayed? 

When you purchase an item in a store, would you like to walk out of the store with the item, or would you rather the delivery of the item be delayed? 

It seems that in most things in this world, we want things done as fast as possible. 

Why is there a double standard here? Why is instant gratifcation taboo? It makes no sense. 

If you know what you're doing with your camera, it shouldn't matter how much time is in between you pressing the shutter button, and you utilizing the image in the ways you see fit. 

It seems like a rather odd attachment to the ways of old. And not a very logical one.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Instant Gratification:  http://friendseat-images.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/09/big-mac2.jpg

Damn well worth waiting for:  http://assets2.pulsdcdn.com/system/images/8622/original/prime-rib.jpg

You want fries with that? 
 I know which one I am choosing and there are no arches involved.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

I have always loved the predictions of the way new technologies will "kill" older ways of working. Or will suddenly "revolutionize" entire industries, activities, or ways of doing things.



Damn...with all this TV, and DVD, and BlueRay, and on-demand streaming, and downloads...there's always these doggone brand new 6-plex and 8-plex and 16-plex theaters popping up all across the world...showing those outdated "movies" on big screens, where people actually go to a place, stand in line, buy tickets, then sit in a big dark room, sometimes by the hundreds, and all watch a movie, together...

That whole "movie in a theater" concept, that entire paradigm, was supposed to have died off in the 1950's when television was invented...I mean, thousands upon thousands of people wrote articles about how *television would kill the movie business*...

The fascination with the "new" often blinds people to the broader meaning, the nuance, and the societal aspects of activities and behaviors people have long engaged in. Watching movies in one's sweat pants in one's own living room is one thing. It's easy, yes. It's instant gratification. There's no effort in it, really. NO need to shave, or put on shoes even. And it pretty much guarantees that one need not leave his own home, or run into new people, or be seen by others, or partake in an activity with, God forbid, a bunch of other people. Hell, there's whole BOOK written about the decline in societal interaction and the withdrawing into the self and withdrawing from real, person-to-person interaction at many levels. It's called Bowling Alone. Bowling Alone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's realllly a fascinating book; one of my all-time favorite reads!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Instant Gratification:  http://friendseat-images.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/09/big-mac2.jpg  Damn well worth waiting for:  http://assets2.pulsdcdn.com/system/images/8622/original/prime-rib.jpg  You want fries with that? I know which one I am choosing and there are no arches involved.




So you're saying you want prime rib, even if takes longer?

I'm saying if you could have your prime rib, without the wait, why wait? 

This isn't rocket science.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Instant Gratification:  http://friendseat-images.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/09/big-mac2.jpg  Damn well worth waiting for:  http://assets2.pulsdcdn.com/system/images/8622/original/prime-rib.jpg  You want fries with that? I know which one I am choosing and there are no arches involved.
> ...



He that can have patience can have what he will.   
  &#8213;     Benjamin Franklin

"A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else."
   George Savile 
​ Why is patience so important?"
"Because it makes us pay attention.   
  &#8213;     Paulo Coelho

Good and instant when talking about prime rib are not in the same sentence.  Not unless you want a Hometown Buffet prime rib that's been sitting under a heat lamp for a couple of hours. Yum...Yum. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Fine cuisine is very much akin to rocket science.  But hey if you want that instant food, have at it.  It isn't my taste buds and stomach getting stuffed in a rush.  


Here a couple of more gadgets I know you will want to go out and get.  Smart appliances: A washer that connects to the Internet and other amazingly dumb ?smart? gadgets.

Just think, you could instantly show clients your photos on your refrigerator and if they need editing why you could send them to the washing machine for a little clean up. :mrgreen:


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I have always loved the predictions of the way new technologies will "kill" older ways of working. Or will suddenly "revolutionize" entire industries, activities, or ways of doing things.



 When did I say it would kill anything? DSLR wi-fi is just an obvious step to make workflow easier: we are a society all about cutting the cords wherever possible.   There is a lot of potential in this area. That's all I'm saying. saying there isn't potential in this area is just ignoring the facts.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else. George Savile   &ldquo;Why is patience so important?" "Because it makes us pay attention.&rdquo; &#8213;     Paulo Coelho  Good and instant when talking about prime rib are not in the same sentence.  Not unless you want a Hometown Buffet prime rib that's been sitting under a heat lamp for a couple of hours. Yum...Yum.   Fine cuisine is very much akin to rocket science.  But hey if you want that instant food, have at it.  It isn't my taste buds and stomach getting stuffed in a rush. A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else. Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgesavi381357.html#T1KsaDBWjfGTBIkO.99   Here a couple of more gadgets I know you will want to go out and get.  Smart appliances: A washer that connects to the Internet and other amazingly dumb ?smart? gadgets.  Just think, you could instantly show clients your photos on your refrigerator and if they need editing why you could send them to the washing machine for a little clean up. :mrgreen:



 When did this conservation turn into a debate about patience? Are you really in that much of a logical rabbit hole that you're just going to entirely change the topic and sprinkle in some ad hominem to boot?  

Sounds about par for the course, judging by my interactions with you in the past.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 8, 2013)

I prefer my wine to be instant wine!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

Instant is better. Who enjoys a brewed cup of coffee when you can have instant coffee???


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 8, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Instant is better. Who enjoys a brewed cup of coffee when you can have instant coffee???



*PLEASE t**ell *me that is sarcasm!!!! Ugghhh... lol!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2013)

I thought about some things and some activities that would all be immeasurably better if only they had WiFi added to them! Because as we know, without WiFi, these things are all just God-awful.

Bay crabbing with family members:


Girls!!!:


Bananas!:


Camping with old fishing buddies!


Summer evenings spent saltwater salmon fishing near Canada!:


----------



## runnah (Oct 8, 2013)

Do people have terrible memories? I can look at all thousands of photos and tell you exactly where it was taken.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> PLEASE tell me that is sarcasm!!!! Ugghhh... lol!


Of course it is. I was trying to prove a point that instant isn't always better.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else. George Savile   &ldquo;Why is patience so important?" "Because it makes us pay attention.&rdquo; &#8213;     Paulo Coelho  Good and instant when talking about prime rib are not in the same sentence.  Not unless you want a Hometown Buffet prime rib that's been sitting under a heat lamp for a couple of hours. Yum...Yum.   Fine cuisine is very much akin to rocket science.  But hey if you want that instant food, have at it.  It isn't my taste buds and stomach getting stuffed in a rush. A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else. Read more at A man who is a master of patience is master of everything else. - George Savile at BrainyQuote   Here a couple of more gadgets I know you will want to go out and get.  Smart appliances: A washer that connects to the Internet and other amazingly dumb ?smart? gadgets.  Just think, you could instantly show clients your photos on your refrigerator and if they need editing why you could send them to the washing machine for a little clean up. :mrgreen:
> ...


BUY A SENSE OF HUMOR
I hear it comes in an instant version.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I prefer my wine to be instant wine!



Then this my friend is for you.  Instant wine course

Now you can be an instant wine expert. :mrgreen:


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BUY A SENSE OF HUMOR I hear it comes in an instant version.


But, does it have wifi?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Instant is better. Who enjoys a brewed cup of coffee when you can have instant coffee???



There are some days when instant is better.  Ever stood in a Starbucks line.  I have to stop at Duncan Donuts to get coffee just so I can patiently wait in a Starbucks line for Coffee.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > BUY A SENSE OF HUMOR I hear it comes in an instant version.
> ...



:lmao:

Even more important.....Does it have *BACON??????*

Admit it Derrel, you know we would get to Bacon in this thread eventually didn't you?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

runnah said:


> Do people have terrible memories? I can look at all thousands of photos and tell you exactly where it was taken.



Oh yeah???? Where was this photo taken??? 
http://vodly.to/content/avatars/917b5fc29d8bac42945b5be96ca61f06.png


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> There are some days when instant is better.  Ever stood in a Starbucks line.  I have to stop at Duncan Donuts to get coffee just so I can patiently wait in a Starbucks line for Coffee.


I worked at Dunkin for 2 years in college. We always had a line out the door compared to the shorter line at Starbucks across the way. They were probably all like you. Haha. I prefer Starbucks over any other. That's what I brew daily.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> It seems that in most things in this world, we want things done as fast as possible.
> 
> Why is there a double standard here? Why is instant gratifcation taboo? It makes no sense.
> 
> If you know what you're doing with your camera, it shouldn't matter how much time is in between you pressing the shutter button, and you utilizing the image in the ways you see fit.



I've lost count of the number of posts I've read here which state that every photo needs editing.

Every photographer takes pictures he doesn't want clients to see. Any photographer who says he doesn't is a liar.

Why would I want my camera to automatically upload all my photos for a client to see immediately? Why would I want to show clients images before they're edited? I don't do it now and, frankly, there's really no reason to. 

I don't have it, nor do I want it. If a camera I want for other reasons has it, and it increases the cost too much, I won't buy it. If I do buy it, I won't use it.

I'm not saying that it won't hold a level of value for some people, but it's like anything else that's new. It doesn't suddenly make everything else not work anymore...


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > There are some days when instant is better.  Ever stood in a Starbucks line.  I have to stop at Duncan Donuts to get coffee just so I can patiently wait in a Starbucks line for Coffee.
> ...



That was probably because Dunkin just had counter help.  You come in, you ask for coffee, you get coffee, you leave.  

Starbucks has "Barista's." You come in, you stand in line, then you wait in line, while your "Barista" is busy trying to figure out who is on the expresso line, and who is making lattes.  Barista - an Italian word for *Bartender*.

I will have to admit though, if it wasn't for the wifi, they would go out of business in a week.  No one would just stand around in that line with out some form of entertainment.  Let's be serious here, after all it's only coffee.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> BUY A SENSE OF HUMOR
> I hear it comes in an instant version.



You might want to look at the return policy on yours. 

And the rest of you 







I love how a thread must be titled "defense of Wi-fi", in 2013, as the majority of you respond via your Wi-Fi networks, in 2013, while I posted numerous practical applications of DSLR Wi-fi, realistic, practical applications, in 2013-- which none of you responded to. 

You can twist my words all you want. Never did I imply instant coffee is superior to regular coffee, or instant wine is better than aged wine. 

I feel like I'm arguing with a field of scarecrows.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> You might want to look at the return policy on yours.  And the rest of you  I love how a thread must be titled "defense of Wi-fi", in 2013, as the majority of you respond via your Wi-Fi networks, in 2013, while I posted numerous practical applications of DSLR Wi-fi, realistic, practical applications, in 2013-- which none of you responded to.  You can twist my words all you want. Never did I imply instant coffee is superior to regular coffee, or instant wine is better than aged wine.  I feel like I'm arguing with a field of scarecrows.



I don't have hate towards you or your work. Just wifi on my camera.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 8, 2013)

A bit of Cheese to go with that instant whine???


(Yes the spelling is correct):lmao:


----------



## limr (Oct 8, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I'm convinced I need a new blender with WiFi...I can send it my preferred ice grind settings from the living room, using my Android phone OR my iOS devices, and it can grind my ice EXACTLY the way I want it, in increments as discrete as .08 seconds per setting change!



I SO would have loved that in my bartending days. I hated frozen drink orders. H.A.T.E.D.



Rotanimod said:


> I think DSLR wireless connectivity and transmission of data is the wave of the future. It will make many things easier for everyone.
> 
> Resistance is futile.
> 
> ...



That's all well and good for you, but not everyone works that way or wants to work that way. So no, it will not make things "easier for *everyone.*" Saying that everyone should just shut up and get on board is just as silly as saying that wi-fi is useless and just a fad. No one here seemed to be saying that wi-fi is useless, btw, but just that they didn't find it *personally useful*when included in their camera. Those scenarios you listed are pretty specific to professional portrait or wedding photographers. If someone is not in those professions, will they still find it easier and irresistible? And if they don't, *so what?* Why should it matter if someone chooses a different way of doing things? Why do I have to jump off the bridge just because everyone else is doing it?



Rotanimod said:


> So why is instant gratification taboo? What makes instant gratification better or worse than delayed gratification?
> 
> ...
> 
> It seems like a rather odd attachment to the ways of old. And not a very logical one.



"The Economics of Immediate Gratification"  http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/rabin/jbdmfinal.pdf A quote from the discussion: "Perhaps our most explicit theme is that an underlying preference for immediate gratification can explain a variety of behaviors. We have outlined a simple model of preference for immediate gratification, and shown how such preferences give rise to procrastination, overindulgence in addictive activities, seemingly excessive punishments for delay in completing a task, and over-consumption of basic consumer goods."

"Escaping the impulse to immediate gratification: the prospect concept promotes a future-oriented mindset, prompting an inclination towards delayed gratification." : Escaping the impulse to immediate gratification... [Br J Psychol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
"People's willingness to postpone receiving an immediate reward in order to gain additional benefits in the future, that is, a tendency to shallow delay discounting, is closely related to one's health, wealth, and happiness."

"Ability to delay gratification may be linked to social trust, a new CU-Boulder study finds"  Ability to delay gratification may be linked to social trust, new CU-Boulder study finds | University of Colorado Boulder   "A body of research that stretches back more than a half-century has shown that the ability to delay gratification is linked to a number of better life outcomes. On average, people who were able to delay gratification as children go on to have higher SAT scores, for example. They also tend to be more socially conscious as adolescents, less obese as adults, and less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol."

So what's so great about 'faster'?

The fact is that the same sort of fanatical attachment to the new simply for its newness or its speed is also illogical. There is nothing _inherently better_ about newer and faster, or even easier. Neither is there anything inherently good about older or slower or more difficult. People will assign value to these characteristics, however, because they have a desire to assign these characteristics to tasks they find boring or difficult. Others may not need that same task to be faster, or they have a different definition of 'easy.' You see wi-fi in a camera as easy and convenient so you can make more money or spend time doing other things. Someone else might see it as fussy and a PITA and an unnecessary complication. (I see it as totally a moot point for me since I don't even have a DSLR.)

The fact remains that people are going to have their opinions and preferences, and this takes the entire subject outside the realm of logic, so there's no point in speaking so pejoratively about 'an odd attachment to the ways of old' when the same could be said of a 'pathological need for the new, imaginary ways of the future.' 




Derrel said:


> I have always loved the predictions of the way new technologies will "kill" older ways of working. Or will suddenly "revolutionize" entire industries, activities, or ways of doing things.
> 
> View attachment 57473
> 
> ...



Okay, you forced me to do it.

<span style="font-family:verdana;">


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 8, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Starbucks has "Barista's." You come in, you stand in line, then you wait in line, while your "Barista" is busy trying to figure out who is on the expresso line, and who is making lattes.



If I want coffee, I'll go to Dunkin' Donuts or McDonald's or 7-Eleven or any one of the gajillion other places in town to get "coffee"

Starbuck's doesn't sell coffee. Starbuck's sells raspberry-mocha-mint-creme-girlie-boy-foo-foo-bull****-coffee.

It's nothing more than the liquid version of the many pastries they sell...


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Instant Gratification:  http://friendseat-images.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/09/big-mac2.jpg  Damn well worth waiting for:  http://assets2.pulsdcdn.com/system/images/8622/original/prime-rib.jpg  You want fries with that? I know which one I am choosing and there are no arches involved.
> ...



That's idealistic and not necessarily realistic. 

The operative phrase in your question is "If you could."

Saying instant gratification is or isn't bad is like debating about whether credit cards are bad. It depends on the situation and the circumstances. This seems like argument for argument's sake.


----------



## Dao (Oct 8, 2013)

I have few eyefi cards at home, but they are SD cards.  So my wife use them most of the time.   If the card support my camera, I will use them.  

First of all, it is also a regular memory card, so it store all you photos.   2nd, the setup is quite easy.  No need to do much and do not need to be a tech (although my work require technical knowledge including ISP networking equipments).  And you do not need do anything different while you are shooting.

You setup to dump the photos to a tablet or computer or both.  I see it is a great tool for instance backup for important photos.  You do not need to wait, just shoot.  It is kind of like write cache in a storage system.  You can keep shooting and store the photos in the card.  While there is a chance, the card will make a copy to your computer. 

From your computer, you can use Lightroom to import the photos to the location you prefer later on if you choose to do.    And you do not need to have a hotspot nearby, the card can act as a AP and your PC can connect to it directly automatically.


Again, speed is not an issue.  So if a person take a photo then look at the top display and change the shutter speed or aperture and look at the viewfinder, the computer may already backup that photo. 

Personally, I like that feature and I wish both of my camera take SD card now.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

limr said:


> That's all well and good for you, but not everyone works that way or wants to work that way. So no, it will not make things "easier for *everyone.*" Saying that everyone should just shut up and get on board is just as silly as saying that wi-fi is useless and just a fad. No one here seemed to be saying that wi-fi is useless, btw, but just that they didn't find it *personally useful*when included in their camera. Those scenarios you listed are pretty specific to professional portrait or wedding photographers. If someone is not in those professions, will they still find it easier and irresistible? And if they don't, *so what?* Why should it matter if someone chooses a different way of doing things? Why do I have to jump off the bridge just because everyone else is doing it?




I attacked his logic. His logic being that because something can be done faster with new tech, then that is somehow instant gratification, and the resulting instant gratification is bad. I found fault in that logic, because it's inherently wrong. Now, what you and others have done, is made _my attack on his logic_ somehow my philosophy about everything, which is classic straw man argument fallacy. 

If his logic worked, all our cars would still go less than 20mph, our internet would still be provided through our telephone line and AOL, and our precious smartphones would not exist. No one would want the instant gratification of going faster, or having high speed internet. Tech has rapidly changed the world. Some go along for the ride, some groan and resist. I see a lot of groaning in this thread. And general negativity. Around something that can be pretty damn cool. All the while, they're probably groaning while typing from their computer which is connected to wi-fi, or their tablet, or smartphone. So it's just a steady dose of hypocrisy and irony here. 

Then I come along and serve up some REAL, practical, useful ways this tech can be utilized, and all I hear is an onslaught of "aghhhhhh, instant wine, wifi sux HAR HAR HAR, instant coffee blah blah". It's completely beside the point. I can't really take the opposing argument seriously, especially if there's faulty logic. 




limr said:


> "The Economics of Immediate Gratification"  http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/rabin/jbdmfinal.pdf A quote from the discussion: "Perhaps our most explicit theme is that an underlying preference for immediate gratification can explain a variety of behaviors. We have outlined a simple model of preference for immediate gratification, and shown how such preferences give rise to procrastination, overindulgence in addictive activities, seemingly excessive punishments for delay in completing a task, and over-consumption of basic consumer goods."
> 
> "Escaping the impulse to immediate gratification: the prospect concept promotes a future-oriented mindset, prompting an inclination towards delayed gratification." : Escaping the impulse to immediate gratification... [Br J Psychol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
> "People's willingness to postpone receiving an immediate reward in order to gain additional benefits in the future, that is, a tendency to shallow delay discounting, is closely related to one's health, wealth, and happiness."
> ...




I appreciate a well-researched and thought out argument. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and forget the context of this conversation though.



limr said:


> The fact is that the same sort of fanatical attachment to the new simply for its newness or its speed is also illogical. There is nothing _inherently better_ about newer and faster, or even easier. Neither is there anything inherently good about older or slower or more difficult.




I disagree. Advancements largely make all our lives easier. Without advancements, our quality of life would never improve. Human innovation wouldn't exist. Humans have the innate need to find easier way to do things, more efficient ways. It's a driving force. Newer is better, the majority of the time. 




limr said:


> (I see it as totally a moot point for me since I don't even have a DSLR.)





So I'm not invalidating your argument, but what's your angle here? This conversation is about DSLR Wi-fi, a feature which I've actually used. You say I'm arguing for the sake of argument, but I have firsthand experience with the topic under discussion (hint: a lot of these guys don't).  It does not seem you do. So who is arguing for the sake of argument here? 





limr said:


> The fact remains that people are going to have their opinions and preferences, and this takes the entire subject outside the realm of logic, so there's no point in speaking so pejoratively about 'an odd attachment to the ways of old' when the same could be said of a 'pathological need for the new, imaginary ways of the future.'




I'm seeing a lot of negativity surrounding an exciting new feature. I'm coming from a place of actual real-world use, and application. Like it or not, this tech is going to be more and more intertwined in the DSLR's to come. I'm embracing it. Others are not. It's not a pathological need for others to see the same way. It's a need for the hundreds/thousands of others who will see this thread years down the road to understand there's a different perspective/opinion, and not everyone is here to dump on OP and the tech.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


----------



## Kolia (Oct 9, 2013)

Don't take them to seriously Rotanimod.

Many active users her are certainly nice people, but when hidden behind a keyboard will rant against any topic for no other reason than reading their words and the reaction of users actually taking a topic seriously. 

Last time I checked, a very large part of a photographer's time end up editing pictures instead of actually taking them. I see that as a down time, not generating any revenue. If a business owner cannot see the potential benefits of a new tech like in camera wifi, leave them be. The market will take care of them eventually.  

Honestly, why they would bother with a DSLR when an SLR could work perfectly well today is beyond me.  What better pleasure than waiting to develop film and later print them, say the week after ?  Customers would obviously line up to wait for days for their pictures ! Because THAT is what people want !


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

OP says "it's not a gimmick" and then lists three uses for it that are pretty clear-cut gimmicky uses...

I agree that it has some potential, and they should have wifi control built into the custom firmware APIs (if they aren't already! Has magic lantern gotten their claws into this yet?) and should probably begin introducing it on future models whenever reasonable. But it's mostly going to be for fun, and/or as a sort of flipout screen on steroids. I.e. largely gimmick.

I've yet to hear any serious mainstream reason why wifi will be super important. Yet.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Starbucks has "Barista's." You come in, you stand in line, then you wait in line, while your "Barista" is busy trying to figure out who is on the expresso line, and who is making lattes.
> ...



Steve, Starbucks does sell coffee.  It's at the bottom of the menue in really small letters and it really is quite good.  It's kind of like putting wifi into everything.  They try to baffle you with bulll$%!# instead of dazzling you with brillance.  The "Barista's" get a little upset when you order just plain coffee.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Steve, Starbucks does sell coffee.  It's at the bottom of the menue in really small letters and it really is quite good.  It's kind of like putting wifi into everything.  They try to baffle you with bulll$%!# instead of dazzling you with brillance.  The "Barista's" get a little upset when you order just plain coffee.



I've never had straight up hot coffee there before. I usually only have that at home and work. All I get at Starbucks is their Mocha Frappachino.  However I brew their coffee at home.


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> I've never had straight up hot coffee there before. I usually only have that at home and work. All I get at Starbucks is their Mocha Frappachino.  However I brew their coffee at home.



Its terrible. Its very bitter so when you dump enough sugar cream and chocolate chips into it you can still taste the coffee.

Metaphor!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Its terrible. Its very bitter so when you dump enough sugar cream and chocolate chips into it you can still taste the coffee.  Metaphor!


Not to mention it's $10 for me and my wife to get what we like.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I've never had straight up hot coffee there before. I usually only have that at home and work. All I get at Starbucks is their Mocha Frappachino.  However I brew their coffee at home.
> ...


Must be a regional thing.  In my part of the world, Starbucks figured out real quick that if they wanted to stay in business they better be able to sell coffee first and add all the trimmings later.   I will agree though that it is a darn expensive cup of coffee.


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> OP says "it's not a gimmick" and then lists three uses for it that are pretty clear-cut gimmicky uses...



Well that is my point in a nutshell. 

Its like cars these days. They still every goddamn widget and knick knack they find to drive the price up past $20k for a sub compact. It's crazy feature bloat. "Oh i need wipers that automatically sense rain"


----------



## kathyt (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > OP says "it's not a gimmick" and then lists three uses for it that are pretty clear-cut gimmicky uses...
> ...


That is my #1 must-have feature. Just in case I am too lazy to push the button myself.


----------



## Dao (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > OP says "it's not a gimmick" and then lists three uses for it that are pretty clear-cut gimmicky uses...
> ...



To be honest, it is the other way around.  It is not the feature that drive the car price past $20K.   It is what the car manufacturers want to sell the car at this price level.   In order to do so, they need to pack more stuff to it.

Same thing apply to a lot of other products we buy today.  TVs, Bluray players, computers, coffee machines and printer etc.  If they can sell it at the same price or more (inflation) without adding additional feature, I bet they will.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > OP says "it's not a gimmick" and then lists three uses for it that are pretty clear-cut gimmicky uses...
> ...


You have never lived until you own a car that has little tiny wipers for the headlights.  If you ever live, let me know how important they are too you.  Especially if they come with Wifi.

For me, I guess I will just never live.


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> I attacked his logic. His logic being that because something can be done faster with new tech, then that is somehow instant gratification, and the resulting instant gratification is bad. I found fault in that logic, because it's inherently wrong. Now, what you and others have done, is made _my attack on his logic_ somehow my philosophy about everything, which is classic straw man argument fallacy.




To be fair, you were the one to start expanding the argument about instant gratification into other areas:



Rotanimod said:


> So why is instant gratification taboo? What makes instant gratification better or worse than delayed gratification?
> 
> "Instant" sounds better than "delayed" to me.
> 
> ...



Was it not fair to say you were generalizing the benefits of instant gratification? Or were you just cherry-picking examples?

You said faster and instant is better, but "it shouldn't matter how much time is in between you pressing the shutter button, and you utilizing the image in the ways you see fit." That fits your argument when you try to defend faster, but it also can easily fit into the argument of someone who doesn't care about wi-fi on their camera. So what if it takes more time for them to utilize their pictures? 



Rotanimod said:


> I disagree. Advancements largely make all our lives easier. Without advancements, our quality of life would never improve. Human innovation wouldn't exist. Humans have the innate need to find easier way to do things, more efficient ways. It's a driving force. *Newer is better, the majority of the time.*




How does one qualify that? And doesn't "majority of the time" imply that sometimes, newer _isn't_ better? So one has to measure the way in which newer is 'better' or 'worse' - it's not automatic. So the point stands: there's nothing inherently 'better' about newer because it can be good but sometimes it can be bad - we have to see if the newer thing actually does enhance our lives, or if it complicates things. It could even be the case that initial benefits of efficiency or convenience might in the long run turn out to be drawbacks. You seem smart enough to recognize that what I'm NOT doing here is saying 'newer is worse' - simply that you can't place an automatic value on 'newer' until it proves that itself one way or another.



> limr said:
> 
> 
> > (I see it as totally a moot point for me since I don't even have a DSLR.)
> ...




I didn't actually say that. Someone else did.

I don't have a DSLR at the moment, it's true, but I was still following the discussion because what if I want one someday? How are people using them? What features are important and not important? Will I even care about wi-fi and if I have the option, would I even want it? Or am I going to be forced into it even if I decide I don't want it? And it seems for the most part, there are a handful of passionate defenders but a lot more who just don't find it as useful. I don't see that as 'moaning and groaning' but as defending their choice to not care about wi-fi. Just because someone doesn't want to have all the latest features or gear doesn't mean they're hanging desperately onto old ideas for their own sake. People can make evaluations about what newer things will actually enhance their lives and which ones won't make any difference.

Well, and I do provide a data point against the 'it will make things easier for everyone' generalization.



> I'm seeing a lot of negativity surrounding an exciting new feature. I'm coming from a place of actual real-world use, and application. Like it or not, this tech is going to be more and more intertwined in the DSLR's to come. I'm embracing it. Others are not. It's not a pathological need for others to see the same way. It's a need for the hundreds/thousands of others who will see this thread years down the road to understand there's a different perspective/opinion, and not everyone is here to dump on OP and the tech.



Fair enough. It's true that things do tend to deteriorate rather rapidly and become far more sarcastic than they need to. And perhaps you accomplished your point already, since you've informed me of some of the uses wi-fi could potentially have. Granted, they're not ones that I'm likely to use, but it helps me make that evaluation for myself about what new things I will actually find value in for my life.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> All I get at Starbucks is their *Mocha Frappachino*.



So, that's something you _drink_?

Sounds like something you would put an ointment on...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

For me, I see Wi-Fi as being as useful on my camera as video.

I don't need it. I don't want it. I don't want to pay for it.

It would be a complete waste for me, just like video.

A question which is still waiting an answer: It was mentioned that you could show clients photos instantly. Why would I want to do that?


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > All I get at Starbucks is their *Mocha Frappachino*.
> ...



I think its venereal.
over the counter medicine wont touch it either. 
you need prescription meds.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

This is so interesting. We have two camps:

- It would be useful to me.
- It would not be useful to me.

What matters, obviously, is what percentage of users would find it useful, and how many of them would include WiFi in a buying decision.

You know, there should be a discipline in figuring that sort of thing out, and then Nikon could have a department of people skilled in that discipline to perform that function, and to help decide whether to stick WiFi into one camera model or another. They could call it WiFi Decision Science. Or maybe Product Marketing. Whichever.


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Devinhullphoto said:
> ...



That is why you always use the cardboard cup holder and never share stirrers.


----------



## mishele (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> This is so interesting. We have two camps:
> 
> - It would be useful to me.
> - It would not be useful to me.
> ...




:hail:


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



but it doesnt feel as good with the cardboard over it...


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> This is so interesting. We have two camps:
> 
> - It would be useful to me.
> - It would not be useful to me.
> ...




To me the fact that they DO have a wifi solution and that fact that it is a crappy add-on tells me the majority of people do not care for it.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> So, that's something you drink?  Sounds like something you would put an ointment on...


Yeah man. It's great!


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > This is so interesting. We have two camps:
> ...



isnt this whole thing kinda a non issue though?
i mean, if you can just BUY a wifi device to give your DSLR that ability....
if you have a DSLR that does not have wifi, and you can buy a device to give it wifi...isnt that a solution in itself?
not as convenient, sure. I get that.  BUT...people that DON'T want wifi don't have to pay for that added feature, and people that DO want wifi can have it.


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> isnt this whole thing kinda a non issue though?
> i mean, if you can just BUY a wifi device to give your DSLR that ability....
> if you have a DSLR that does not have wifi, and you can buy a device to give it wifi...isnt that a solution in itself?
> not as convenient, sure. I get that.  BUT...people that DON'T want wifi don't have to pay for that added feature, and people that DO want wifi can have it.



Thats my point. There is a solution and it works just as well as if it were integrated. The OP is complaining about nothing.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Thats my point. There is a solution and it works just as well as if it were integrated. The OP is complaining about nothing.


He always wanted to plug his upcoming app.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Thats my point. There is a solution and it works just as well as if it were integrated. The OP is complaining about nothing.
> ...



Find one instance in this thread where i have.



Gavjenks said:


> OP says "it's not a gimmick" and then lists three uses for it that are pretty clear-cut gimmicky uses...
> 
> I agree that it has some potential, and they should have wifi control built into the custom firmware APIs (if they aren't already! Has magic lantern gotten their claws into this yet?) and should probably begin introducing it on future models whenever reasonable. But it's mostly going to be for fun, and/or as a sort of flipout screen on steroids. I.e. largely gimmick.
> 
> I've yet to hear any serious mainstream reason why wifi will be super important. Yet.



I guess taking pictures at high school football games, editing them on a tablet, then posting them to twitter&facebook in near-real-time is a gimmick.  I'll make sure to tell all the parents that cant make it to games... that their praise is unfounded.  I'll tell the other schools that have started copying our workflow they are wasting their time.

And your right... Tethered photography is a joke. Nobody in a studio situation wants instant access to what the camera see's.  

And golly..  It is so much easier to pull the memory card out of a camera and plug it into a card reader.  Why would anybody want to skip that step and just pull the images off the camera wirelessly.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Find one instance in this thread where i have.  I guess taking pictures at high school football games, editing them on a tablet, then posting them to twitter&facebook in near-real-time is a gimmick.  I'll make sure to tell all the parents that cant make it to games... that their praise is unfounded.  I'll tell the other schools that have started copying our workflow they are wasting their time.  And your right... Tethered photography is a joke. Nobody in a studio situation wants instant access to what the camera see's.  And golly..  It is so much easier to pull the memory card out of a camera and plug it into a card reader.  Why would anybody want to skip that step and just pull the images off the camera wirelessly.



I guess I got that confused with the D610 thread. Isn't that why you started this thread? Was to discuss lack of wifi in the camera market and not take over the D610 discussion?


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

I am actually laughing at how 'old fart-ish' most of you sound...

"We didn't have any intertubes in my day.. you kids and your bookface!"

"A model-t got us where we needed to go... these new cars nowadays with their bee-boops-and-doo-dads!"

"digital photography is a gimmik.. its film or go home!"

The BYU Workflow: An Automated Wireless Photography Workflow

Rich Clarkson and Associates, LLC Photography Blog


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> I guess I got that confused with the D610 thread. Isn't that why you started this thread? Was to discuss lack of wifi in the camera market and not take over the D610 discussion?



This all started in the D610 thread where i said (to paraphrase)..  Nikon could have pushed the D610 a bit farther away from the D600 by adding WiFi and GPS, rather then just releasing the same camera with new firmware and shutter.

Then the "WiFi is evil" gang started taking over the thread so i moved it here...


----------



## Juga (Oct 9, 2013)

I don't use it often but I like the feature. I like being able to remote shoot particularly when shooting low. My wife likes that I can upload snapshots immediately of she wants. It is a nice feature and I appreciate having it but it isn't essential. 

As for coffee...Dunkin Donuts because MURICA RUNS ON DUNKIN!


----------



## Dao (Oct 9, 2013)

For me, WiFi is a feature I like to have in my camera.  I may not use it all the time, but it make things easier and it is not an feature that will cost a lot to add in the future.

For wireless tether shooting to remote storage.  I can see professional photographer can take a photo and that photo end up in a secured cloud storage in less than a minute.  By the time the photo session is done, he/she already has a backup copy of his/her work. Since it can upload the photos during the shooting without the photographer do anything.


What about in sports events.  Let's say the coming Worldcup in Brazil.  A sport photographer take photos during the events and using the wifi to send the photos to his phone in the background in which they all get upload right away to the cloud storage (also happens in the background).  So the backend office crew can access the photos right away.  They can sort them, process them and publishing them right away online.

So the photographer do not need to wait until the break and rush back to his/her laptop and upload them at that time.  Of course, for a sports photographer who do everything by himself or herself, that's a different story.

What if you take few photos and a police officer stop you and ask you to erase them.  If I do not want to waste my valuable time and argue about it, I will say okay and erase them.  But I'd already has a copy in the cloud.  And it is possible that to have your PC at home/work download them automatically.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Why limit it at wifi? Why not add 4g to all nikons. Now my photos can go to my Facebook anywhere!


----------



## Juga (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Why limit it at wifi? Why not add 4g to all nikons. Now my photos can go to my Facebook anywhere!



Why hate on WiFi? Sounds like you be jealous. Is it harming your way of life? Afraid Skynet might go live?


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Wow, dude, settle down. No need to get the panties in a knot over this. You're getting upset because some people don't share your opinion. Get used to it. It's called "life". You'll understand this once you get out in the real world.

No one here is saying that you shouldn't do with it what you want. Not a single person has said that. You're getting upset because there are those who simply have no need for it. In that regard, their opinion matters, because they know how they shoot, process, upload, etc. You don't know how hey shoot so, with respect to that, your opinion doesn't matter.

That's just the way it is.

I can certainly see where it could have some benefit for certain shooters. I'm not one of those people, and someone going off the emotional deep end like you are isn't likely to change my mind...


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Juga said:


> Why hate on WiFi? Sounds like you be jealous. Is it harming your way of life? Afraid Skynet might go live?


Jealous of technology? Oh yeah, I desire nothing more than having my photos appear online right away or on my computer. There are other things they could work on improving or innovating.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

Dao said:


> What about in sports events. Let's say the coming Worldcup in Brazil. A sport photographer take photos during the events and using the wifi to send the photos to his phone in the background in which they all get upload right away to the cloud storage (also happens in the background). So the backend office crew can access the photos right away. They can sort them, process them and publishing them right away online.





> What if you take few photos and a police officer stop you and ask you to erase them. If I do not want to waste my valuable time and argue about it, I will say okay and erase them. But I'd already has a copy in the cloud. And it is possible that to have your PC at home/work download them automatically.



If you're going to offer up examples of where it would be beneficial, you should probably choose examples that people will actually find themselves in.

As it is, I guess if I'm ever asked to shoot the World Cup in Brazil, I will suffer through my technologically deficient camera.

As for the police, in almost 40 years of shooting, I've had one encounter with a cop, and he asked me if I got a particular shot. Never have I been asked to delete photos. Most police know that's not within their purview.

Neither is a very compelling argument in favor of using Wi-Fi...


----------



## Juga (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> > Why hate on WiFi? Sounds like you be jealous. Is it harming your way of life? Afraid Skynet might go live?
> ...



It is an innovation. It appeals to some and others not so much.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Juga said:


> It is an innovation. It appeals to some and others not so much.


I want a gigapixel sensor and refocusing abilities like the Lytro. That's the innovation I desire. I know the gigapixel is a bit of a stretch but maybe by the time my kids are in school.   (I don't have kids yet)


----------



## Dao (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > What about in sports events. Let's say the coming Worldcup in Brazil. A sport photographer take photos during the events and using the wifi to send the photos to his phone in the background in which they all get upload right away to the cloud storage (also happens in the background). So the backend office crew can access the photos right away. They can sort them, process them and publishing them right away online.
> ...




I saw a video one time regarding a sport photographer (not sure if it was olympics or worldcup) that he needed to RUSH back to his laptop in the common room where everybody trying to dump the photos to their laptop and then upload them during break so that the company can publish them right away.   And then RUSH back to the field to continue to take photos. During that time inside that room, which was designated for the sport photographers or photo journalists, were packed with people.  Looks like everybody were trying to send their work ASAP.   If technology allow them to do it easier, why not?


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

Dao said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



I don't see anything in that post saying that the person in that situation shouldn't have the ability to wirelessly upload pictures instantly. The point was that the example was irrelevant to anyone who is not in that position, and most people won't be in that situation. If I someone really needs it and it will make their jobs easier in a very definite way, then of course it makes sense and there's no reason to not use the technology that is available. But for someone who doesn't HAVE to have photos published IMMEDIATELY, then it's optional and will depend on 'want' rather than 'need.' If someone wants it, then sure, go ahead and get it. If someone neither needs nor wants it, why should they have it?

And goodness, why does it matter so much if someone doesn't want wi-fi on their camera?


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Wow, dude, settle down. No need to get the panties in a knot over this. You're getting upset because some people don't share your opinion. Get used to it. It's called "life". You'll understand this once you get out in the real world.



huh? my panties are not knoted even a bit...  i'm the one trying to add a bit of levity.  This thread is totally cracking me up.



Steve5D said:


> No one here is saying that you shouldn't do with it what you want. Not a single person has said that. You're getting upset because there are those who simply have no need for it. In that regard, their opinion matters, because they know how they shoot, process, upload, etc. You don't know how hey shoot so, with respect to that, your opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I can certainly see where it could have some benefit for certain shooters. I'm not one of those people, and someone going off the emotional deep end like you are isn't likely to change my mind...



Maybe you need to read my first post...  my point was "I get flamed (a lot ) for bashing manufactures lack of WiFi support in their products".. we are on page 8 of this thread.  

... and how am i going off the emotional deep end?  I'm 'debating' my stance that WiFi is a valid tool and shouldn't be shunned as just a 'gimmick'.


----------



## Dao (Oct 9, 2013)

Yes, you are correct.  It is a personal preference.

When I need to shoot 400 items (product photography).   It is easier if I can shoot wifi to my PC.   Have my lights all ready, place the subject on the table, hit the shutter button on the remote shutter.  And review the result if needed.  I can do that now with the USB cable and the Canon software that shipped with the camera.    But it is more convenience if no cable.

Can I shoot with PC cords for the light?  Yes, but I like it better with radio trigger.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

Dao said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



Um, okay.

I never said such a person shouldn't be able to do that, so I don't really know what your point is...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Maybe you need to read my first post... my point was "I get flamed (a lot ) for bashing manufactures lack of WiFi support in their products".. we are on page 8 of this thread.



Can you provide links to where you've been flamed for doing that? I may have missed that obviously large collection of posts...



> and how am i going off the emotional deep end? I'm 'debating' my stance that WiFi is a valid tool and shouldn't be shunned as just a 'gimmick'.



You should probably wrap your head around the fact that, for some, it actually *is *a gimmick. But I don't know that I see too many people saying that _you _shouldn't avail yourself of what you see as its benefits because _they _think it's a gimmick...


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Can you provide links to where you've been flamed for doing that? I may have missed that obviously large collection of posts...



Here you go... typical post...  



Derrel said:


> My son enjoys the free WiFi at my local McDonalds! He uses it to download larger game and software applications for his Android phone.
> 
> 
> WiFi is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



How about this one..



Steve5D said:


> Why would I want my camera to automatically upload all my photos for a client to see immediately? Why would I want to show clients images before they're edited? I don't do it now and, frankly, there's really no reason to.
> 
> 
> I don't have it, nor do I want it. If a camera I want for other reasons has it, and it increases the cost too much, I won't buy it. If I do buy it, I won't use it.




How about this post from you again..? maybe you should take your own advice....



Steve5D said:


> For me, I see Wi-Fi as being as useful on my camera as video.
> 
> 
> I don't need it. I don't want it. I don't want to pay for it.
> ...



Quick off topic.. but relevant to the whole 'blow back from new tech': I'm going to quote you here again...



			
				Steve5D said:
			
		

> Wow, dude, settle down. No need to get the panties in a knot over this. You're getting upset because some people don't share your opinion. Get used to it. It's called "life". You'll understand this once you get out in the real world.



When YOU get out in the real world maybe you'll understand video is more important to some people then still images.. With 5D in your name i thought you'd understand that.  




Steve5D said:


> A question which is still waiting an answer: It was mentioned that you could show clients photos instantly. Why would I want to do that?



I know youth and high school sports shooters that make more sales (aka.. $$$) when they show parents images instantly.


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

OP, if you didn't like 'getting flamed' for supporting wi-fi on cameras, why are you now flaming those who *don't* think it's the best thing since sliced bread?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

Who remembers when *tethered shooting* was going to "revolutionize photography"? Ohhhh, you haven't been in photography long enough to have lived through that phase? Oh, I see...

Remember that technology??? It was supposed to take over the world, buuuuuuut, the thing is, that was mostly hype coming from the inventors/sellers of the tech. It never proved to be all that necessary.

It's easy to get caught up in what is technologically possible. Just because we "can" do something does not mean that the technology or working method will catch on to any great degree, nor does it mean that it is necessarily "good", "great", or "better", nor anything else. It's just...one way among multiple ways...to achieve an end result.

Uploading images right off of a memory card, and presenting them straight out of the camera to an audience...wow...that's utterly,utterly,utterly counter to the actual working practice of most people in this thread, and yet we had one worker who shops his images pretty extensively advocate that as a "good idea". I understand, it's fun to debate, and even argue, but putting forth ridiculous assertions that "instant photo display" is a good thing, and better than spending a few minutes in post to properly prepare each image is...ludicrous.

The main use for WiFi or FTP transmission of images direct from camera to a server has been for news and sports shooters to transmit to editors who cull through the dreck, and make selections, and then send the images to be toned, and inserted into layouts, on deadline. It's a great system for people doing that. But JUST like tethered shooting, direct to computer, the technology itself, by itself, does absolutely nothing without a skilled shooter pressing the shutter release. And it does nothing to "improve" one's photographic abilities. So, _in defense of WiFi...cough,cough...
_
Next up, my post, "*in defense of tethered shooting--the next major revolution in digital imaging.*"


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

Perhaps the better path for manufacturers would be to make cameras a bit more modular in general.

Like, for example, have a compartment or two in the camera somewhere, sort of like a much smaller version of the battery compartment, but have a few different modules you can stick in it that do different special things and are sold separately. 

* Wifi module
* GPS module
* Maybe a more expensive one that does both
* Maybe a module that can hold an extra SD card or two for redundancy?
* Modules that provide you with additional jacks that your camera might not have natively? Like a PC cord jack, or an external mic one, or whatever.

Then wifi and all those other options become essentially available on EVERY camera, but nobody has to pay for them if they don't want to use the stuff.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

Manufacturers HATE that kind of modularity, for a couple of excellent business reasons.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

Well yes I see that.  But it might be a viable route for a company that is currently an underdog anyway, like Sigma.  Sacrificing a bit of product turnover in exchange for capturing more market share with an attractive-to-the-consumer modular product could be worth it for them.

I mean, highly modular products do exist in other industries. There are circumstances where it apparently makes sense. I don't know if any DSLR companies happen to be in those circumstances currently, but they might be.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

Ricoh introduced a pretty interesting modular camera system, the GXR a few years back. It offered some VERY nice options, including one module that would allow Leica M-series bayonet lenses to be used. It never has sold well. ProPhoto Supply closed out its entire inventory at fire-sale prices not too long ago,

GXR / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global

And THIS season, Sony is hitting the streets with its two new QX-series modular lens/camera clip-on-thingies that attach to smart phones, and integrate a camera and zoom lens with smartphone technology....Sony Smartphone Camera| Smartphone Attachable Lens-Style Camera Review | DSC-QX10 | Sony USA

Reviews I have read of Sony QX cameras say that they are *kludgy*, and the phone integration is poor on iOS devices, so, a large part of the tech/geek/hipster crowd's iPhones are not gonna be of much use...once again, Sony shows itself incompetent in interoperability in the most-critical aspects of their products...


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

limr said:


> OP, if you didn't like 'getting flamed' for supporting wi-fi on cameras, why are you now flaming those who *don't* think it's the best thing since sliced bread?



Because on a boring Wednesday afternoon what's more fun then to play "armchair quarterback/camera executive"... 


Adding fast, long range, fully featured WiFi to a camera is innovative.. 
Adding slow, short range, unsupported WiFi to a camera (built-in or add-on) is pathetic..



Derrel said:


> once again, Sony shows itself incompetent in interoperability in the most-critical aspects of their products...



I see Sony thinking outside the box.  Hit or Miss... at least they are trying (Sony QX = controlled via WiFi... BOOYAH.. that just happend!)


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

Now, if this thing (the Chrysler New Yorker) woulda' been outfitted with WiFi, it woulda' been a big,big seller! I just KNOW that was the one,single missing feature...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Can you provide links to where you've been flamed for doing that? I may have missed that obviously large collection of posts...
> ...



All you've done is post a myriad of whines regarding posts I made regarding my view of wi-fi. That's called "expressing an opinion". Now, had I expressed my opinion about your opinion of wi-fi, you might have a point. I didn't, so you don't.

If you think my saying "I have no use for "wi-fi" is flaming you, you're in for a tough life. You didn't even bother to respond to any of the questions I asked. All you wanted to do was complain.

But, more to the point, you claimed you were flamed in your _initial _post; _before _I said a single word about it. Using my replies to your initial post to support a point made in your opening post is asinine. 

Let's see the offending posts which compelled you to whi... er, post about being "flamed". Unless it didn't actually happen, which I'm strongly starting to suspect...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > OP, if you didn't like 'getting flamed' for supporting wi-fi on cameras, why are you now flaming those who *don't* think it's the best thing since sliced bread?
> ...



Nice to see you admit to being little more than a troll.

Shouldn't you be in class?


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Let's see the offending posts which compelled you to whi... er, post about being "flamed". Unless it didn't actually happen, which I'm strongly starting to suspect...



Some people get angry when they find out that their opinion is not held by others. They get even more upset when their opinion is shown to not be well supported.

Rather than changing their mind after being presented with countering information, they dig their heels in and start name calling.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> I guess taking pictures at high school football games, editing them on a tablet, then posting them to twitter&facebook in near-real-time is a gimmick. I'll make sure to tell all the parents that cant make it to games... that their praise is unfounded. I'll tell the other schools that have started copying our workflow they are wasting their time.
> 
> And your right... Tethered photography is a joke. Nobody in a studio situation wants instant access to what the camera see's.
> 
> And golly.. It is so much easier to pull the memory card out of a camera and plug it into a card reader. Why would anybody want to skip that step and just pull the images off the camera wirelessly.




I think many in here have exceeded their logic quota for the week. So don't be using _THAT _in your argument!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Dao said:


> For wireless tether shooting to remote storage. I can see professional photographer can take a photo and that photo end up in a secured cloud storage in less than a minute._* By the time the photo session is done, he/she already has a backup copy of his/her work.*_ Since it can upload the photos during the shooting without the photographer do anything.




*OMG that is, like, SOOOO Gimmicky! Rain detecting windshield wiperss... harr harr 

*WIFI SUX!!!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Why limit it at wifi? Why not add 4g to all nikons. Now my photos can go to my Facebook anywhere!



Dude, I know you're trying to be cute here. But you're basically making a joke about something that already exists. Most phones have 4G (or will have in the very near future). So DSLR Wi-fi + 4G is already a very real possibility in many areas. Which means you can back up your photos through your cell network at reasonably fast speeds, even with large files. 

And just FYI, there are many people who would be delighted with the possibility of sharing a photo to Facebook or other places INSTANTLY. Not everyone requires the traditional Raw workflow for every image. Ask Imagemaker. I think he does this for a living, and shoots JPEG only, and sports. 



Dao said:


> I saw a video one time regarding a sport photographer (not sure if it was olympics or worldcup) that he needed to RUSH back to his laptop in the common room where everybody trying to dump the photos to their laptop and then upload them during break so that the company can publish them right away. And then RUSH back to the field to continue to take photos. During that time inside that room, which was designated for the sport photographers or photo journalists, were packed with people.* Looks like everybody were trying to send their work ASAP. If technology allow them to do it easier, why not*?



Absolutely, we've definitely established in the sports world in general this will be/already is a key features of DSLR. But DSLR wi-fi can be used in MANY other applications for the hobbyist/semi-pro/and pro, many of which I've listed. 



Dao said:


> Can I shoot with PC cords for the light? Yes, but I like it better with radio trigger.




We are a society about cutting the cords. We talk on cell phones (not wired rotary phones). Everything is transmitted wirelessly. Everything is moving to the cloud. 



Steve5D said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you need to read my first post... my point was "I get flamed (a lot ) for bashing manufactures lack of WiFi support in their products".. we are on page 8 of this thread.
> ...



Sure, Steve, I had to dig pretty deep to find a few examples, but I think you'll see what he's talking about here.


----------



## Dao (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > For wireless tether shooting to remote storage. I can see professional photographer can take a photo and that photo end up in a secured cloud storage in less than a minute._* By the time the photo session is done, he/she already has a backup copy of his/her work.*_ Since it can upload the photos during the shooting without the photographer do anything.
> ...



Well, it is not for everyone at this point.  And I agree.   But for the wedding photographer who could not locate one of his memory card after wedding, it could be a life saver.  (I believe he said he found that eventually later on.  It stuck between one of the lens and the front lens cap and he did not recall how it got there in the first place)

Just like liveview, it is not for everyone.  But in comes in handy in some situation.


----------



## kathyt (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > For wireless tether shooting to remote storage. I can see professional photographer can take a photo and that photo end up in a secured cloud storage in less than a minute._* By the time the photo session is done, he/she already has a backup copy of his/her work.*_ Since it can upload the photos during the shooting without the photographer do anything.
> ...


I like this fired up side of you R! You're even using colored letters _and_ CAPS!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Dao said:


> Well, it is not for everyone at this point. And I agree. But for the wedding photographer who could not locate one of his memory card after wedding, it could be a life saver. (I believe he said he found that eventually later on. It stuck between one of the lens and the front lens cap and he did not recall how it got there in the first place)
> 
> Just like liveview, it is not for everyone. But in comes in handy in some situation.



Green text = sarcasm.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Dude, I know you're trying to be cute here. But you're basically making a joke about something that already exists. Most phones have 4G (or will have in the very near future). So DSLR Wi-fi + 4G is already a very real possibility in many areas. Which means you can back up your photos through your cell network at reasonably fast speeds, even with large files.  And just FYI, there are many people who would be delighted with the possibility of sharing a photo to Facebook or other places INSTANTLY. Not everyone requires the traditional Raw workflow for every image. Ask Imagemaker. I think he does this for a living, and shoots JPEG only, and sports.  Absolutely, we've definitely established in the sports world in general this will be/already is a key features of DSLR. But DSLR wi-fi can be used in MANY other applications for the hobbyist/semi-pro/and pro, many of which I've listed.  We are a society about cutting the cords. We talk on cell phones (not wired rotary phones). Everything is transmitted wirelessly. Everything is moving to the cloud.  Sure, Steve, I had to dig pretty deep to find a few examples, but I think you'll see what he's talking about here.


You were right about my approach. I know it could happen, it was partially a serious statement. The people who would "normally" instantly upload without raw editing would more than likely be entry level owners.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Uploading images right off of a memory card, and presenting them straight out of the camera to an audience...wow...that's utterly,utterly,utterly counter to the actual working practice of most people in this thread, and yet we had one worker who shops his images pretty extensively advocate that as a "good idea". I understand, it's fun to debate, and even argue, but putting forth *ridiculous assertions that"instant photo display" is a good thing, and better than spending a few minutes in post to properly prepare each image is...ludicrous.
> 
> *



It's not a ridiculous assertion, because one way doesn't apply to all ways. This is where many of our opinion's digress. 

The difference is, I see the place of DSLR wi-fi, and it's potential. And I've actually used it. I think many in this thread are talking from ZERO actual experience. 

There are many, many, many way that DSLR wi-fi and "instant photo display" could have practical application. Here are a few off the cuff:

Sports>  Jpeg > Online almost instantly
Day long event coverage > Photographer team > one person prepares photos for slideshow display
Wedding photography team > Display photos from earlier in the even > on-site sales
Father taking pics of his kids at a theme park > gets a good one > posts on facebook
Out on a river fishing > take a good shot > upload from your phone to a social network
News outlet > to press/writers instantly
High school sports/ show parents images > sales 

Other reasons:


Wedding photographer > automatic redundancy/cloud backup in case of equipment failure
Studio photographer > wireless tethered shooting
Lack of wired connections/not tripping over wires
Expedited workflow
Etc. etc. etc.
 

Sounds like a lot of real-world applications to be a "ridiculous assertion"


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> You were right about my approach. I know it could happen, it was partially a serious statement. The people who would "normally" instantly upload without raw editing* would more than likely be entry level owners*.



Or people who get it right in camera, and would prefer skipping the step of raw editing, in lieu of being able to share an experience as it's happening.


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

Yes, these are all practical applications. 

But what if someone doesn't care about those applications or require them for their business? Why should they then care about wif-fi? Someone can still understand the practicality and use in a general sense but still not need it or want it for personal use. Why is that such a problem?


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

Those are some excellent examples of reasonably useful functionality.  I would probably change my mind about the uselessness of wifi if those were actually available options with existing wifi setups.  Most of them, however, are not easily possible just yet, even on wifi enabled cameras.

Also, one to add:
* If I could upload to a computer or online repository at the push of a single button (not 120 buttons and 10 minutes of waiting), then I would never accidentally leave my memory card at home, which I do with alarming frequency.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> But, more to the point, you claimed you were flamed in your _initial _post; _before _I said a single word about it. Using my replies to your initial post to support a point made in your opening post is asinine.
> 
> Let's see the offending posts which compelled you to whi... er, post about being "flamed". Unless it didn't actually happen, which I'm strongly starting to suspect...



Maybe you should see the little smiley face in the same line..  It means humor...  

It starts on about post #8..
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/341357-last-its-officially-here-d610.html
Rather then hijack the thread on the merits of WiFi i created a new thread to continue the discussion..  If you feel its inappropriate why don't you report me to a moderator.  



Steve5D said:


> Nice to see you admit to being little more than a troll.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you be in class?


So bringing up a discussion on a technology not being used to its fullest by camera manufacturers make me a troll?  We're on what... page 9 of this thread?  All you've done is insult people and say "Steve no like! Steve no want!"

And what does my age have to do with anything?  Are you saying that your 'opinion' is better then somebody in school because you are older?  You sir, are the one that keeps taking this discussion personal.  I have no idea what your beef is... but i suggest some meditation and maybe therapy.  

For the record...  I'm 45.. have multiple degree's in computer science.. have 25 years working in human interface design and usability.. work for a fortune 100 company as a software development manager..  own my own software company that produces mobile apps for iOS and Android..  married.. Have 3 kids.. a pregnant English bulldog.. enjoy air-cooled german automobiles.. long walks in the park.. football.. and hate spaghetti.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Those are some excellent examples of reasonably useful functionality.  I would probably change my mind about the uselessness of wifi if those were actually available options with existing wifi setups.  Most of them, however, are not easily possible just yet, even on wifi enabled cameras.
> 
> Also, one to add:
> * If I could upload to a computer or online repository at the push of a single button (not 120 buttons and 10 minutes of waiting), then I would never accidentally leave my memory card at home, which I do with alarming frequency.



Thank you!! Yes.. the current implementation is horrible... its soooo close to being usefull.  Until people ask for more we are stuck with what we have.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

limr said:


> Yes, these are all practical applications.
> 
> But what if someone doesn't care about those applications or require them for their business? Why should they then care about wif-fi? Someone can still understand the practicality and use in a general sense but still not need it or want it for personal use. Why is that such a problem?



It's not. 

The problem is the ridicule of a potentially useful feature. It's important to keep in min this site gets TONS of readers. The huge majority of those are un-registered users, researching, reading and learning. They are forming opinions. Long after people stop contributing to this thread, it will still show up in search results. 

There's a heavy skew in this thread to the negative around this feature. Myself and a few others are representing the other, also VALID side to this argument.


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, these are all practical applications.
> ...



Understood. There was some ridicule of wi-fi. But there was also ridicule of those who didn't find it useful. And there have been a LOT of "I see that it's useful but just not for me" opinions being aired, which are just as valid as the Solidly For and Solidly Against crowds. At this point, it's feeling like a lot of browbeating (on BOTH sides - I'm not pointing fingers at anyone!) into getting others to agree 100% with their opinions, and not a lot of the educating you're trying to keep in mind. People are getting SO invested in their positions that it's getting a bit shrill and perhaps it's already beyond the point of usefulness for someone who has come in looking to do some research.

Edited - Just an afterthought in case it wasn't clear: I _do_ actually agree that the mockery was annoying and unnecessary; it's just that I saw mockery on both sides and it seemed the shouting was drowning out the middle-ground folks who were trying to be reasonable.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

I think it's pretty inevitable that all modern pro/high end amateur bodies will probably indeed have not only wifi but a full array of bluetooth and 4G and whatever else is around, in maybe 10-15 years at most.

Whether or not people use it or like it.  

I don't think it really matters what any of us say.  There are hundreds of millions in the masses that are getting more and more addicted to internet wifi interconnectedness in everything they do and own, and they are going to drive the market that way no matter what.

It's fun to discuss what it might be useful for or is useful for anyway, in the meantime. But I have no doubts whatsoever about the mere reality of what is coming, regardless.


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

The big point I think people are missing is that there way more to wifi than "having it on a camera".

Some people are talking about things that require a cell connection, others are talking about needing routers and cloud based storage on an established wireless network. If I am standing in a field taking photos my camera having wifi or not means squat if I am not on a net work or have a mobile hotspot with me. This is also disregarding all the back end functions. Is the camera just a push or are you expecting it to put out to social networking sites and cloud databases? 

Either way you are pushing content to a laptop/pc/tablet that requires a connection to post out to the web and transfer data, or you are building camera that has cellular bits and pieces. If anything bluetooth would be better than wifi, but right now plugging a card in or using USB is way easier.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

I think its funny how many people freaked out about "pictures automatically download to my computer [..]" 

I approve the NSA jokes..  but when somebody says "I want to control of where my photos go!".. "Why would i want that"... "Why fy what?"..  how can you not try to correct that?   hint: It's the same thing people!  Just replace the word 'card reader' or 'cable' with wifi... it works the same.  you still control where your pictures go (double hint: they don't go online unless you want them to)

If you don't want it... you don't have to use it..  I don't like the stupid auto modes they put in my camera but it doesn't stop me from buying the best tool for my situation if its included. 

The current state of WiFi in photography s*cks... The implementation s*cks... The software s*cks... the support s*cks.. the marketing s*cks.  

The sad fact is.. it doesn't have to.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

I find it interesting that Rotanimod JUST bought himself a Canon 6D, which is apparently one of the TWO d-slr models in the entire world that has built-in WiFi, and he's lobbying vociferously for its amazing "potential usefulness".

Meanwhile, Gavjenks, who also owns a Canon 6D which he's had for a few months, seems to be much less _rambunctious_ and less-enthusiastic about the usefulness of WiFi.

Food for though...

Both are normally pretty smart fellows, and Rotanimod is a personal friend of mine, and Gavjenks is one of my favorite TPF forum members, but I find it interesting to see the opinions of two people, each of whom has spent money on a technology that is, for the most part, only sold as an afterthought in 98% of the d-slrs ever built and sold.


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> The sad fact is.. it doesn't have to.



Can you state clearly what you think wifi on a camera can do and what you expect it to do?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Or people who get it right in camera, and would prefer skipping the step of raw editing, in lieu of being able to share an experience as it's happening.


Now tell me, how often do you like a photo straight up with no editing? I always edit my photos slightly. Just preference.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 9, 2013)

limr said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



I have never ever ever seen anyone being browbeaten here. It just does not happen. :er:


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Why limit it at wifi? Why not add 4g to all nikons. Now my photos can go to my Facebook anywhere!
> ...



Idiotic.

Providing a link to this thread is stupid because, according to the OP, the flaming is what compelled him to start this thread in the first place.

Essentially, though, you've just taken the position that the replies to what he said in his initial post are what caused him to say what he did in his initial post, and that's beyond ridiculous. It might make sense in _your _world, but not in the _real _world.

Now, apparently, there was a good deal of flaming going on about wi-fi being gimmicky before the OP started this thread. If you can't find it, it's entirely okay to admit that you can't find it (which would support the probability that there was none)...


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Some people are talking about things that require a cell connection, others are talking about needing routers and cloud based storage on an established wireless network. If I am standing in a field taking photos my camera having wifi or not means squat if I am not on a net work or have a mobile hotspot with me. This is also disregarding all the back end functions. Is the camera just a push or are you expecting it to put out to social networking sites and cloud databases?.



Yes but in 15 years, there aren't going to BE very many fields that don't have mobile/wifi hotspots next to them.  Or satellites. And you could simply use the camera as a device on an existing cell phone plan that you have set all up already, since virtually everybody has or certainly in the future WILL have that.

Or if you don't have a plan, then you simply have to wait until you're within range of normal free wifi. Which will also be much more ubiquitous in coming years, with a large number of cities already having wide ranging public wifi offered. Even if you're in a field somewhere with no wifi, you can probably just use your cell phone as an access point, even if the camera doesn't have cell-type capability built in.  My cell phone ALREADY has that technology (I can serve internet to my laptop via 4G, for instance)

Also, there's no need for facebook functionality, for example, to be built into official camera firmware.  All they have to do is make an app API and the ability to download firmware/software apps from a manufacturer repository, and users can take care of all the details like that.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Myself and a few others are representing the other, VALID side to this argument.
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> For the record...  I'm 45...



Huh.

Honestly, I find that enormously surprising, simply because I don't often see such hissy-fits from adults.

All you're doing is whining. To your credit, though, you're doin' a damn fair job of it.

Some of us have said we don't have a use for it, and somehow you construed that to mean that we're "flaming" you. We've even said we understand the value of it for others; people like you, and you still want to whine about being flamed.

Amazing.

45 year old men who've been in the corporate world are usually more open and receptive to hearing differing ideas and opinions and, when they don't agree with them, they discuss them. They don't whine about being flamed.

Really, this would've all made sense if you said you were 17. The fact that you're 45 just makes this all infinitely funnier...


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

Apparently, 4G phones account for only 30% of North American smartphone/cellular/mobile traffic in North America, so the idea that "most phones" have 4G access in North America is in fact wildly off-base. It seems that in reality, 70% of North American smart/cellular/mobile phones do NOT have 4G access...

4G Account for 30 Percent Of Mobile Traffic - Business Insider

As to the idea that 4G service will "soon be" coming to most customers--I remember back in Grade 1 in school we were introduced to the "metric system", because , "*The Unites States will be fully metric by 1977*." The powers that be had mandated it! GONE, gone I tell you...no more pounds and ounces, no more inches and feet and yards and miles...we would all bow down to the superiority of...*the metric system* of weights and measures.

Uh, yeah...


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Apparently, 4G phones account for only 30% of North American smartphone/cellular/mobile traffic in North America, so the idea that "most phones" have 4G access in North America is in fact wildly off-base. It seems that in reality, 70% of North american smart/cellular/mobile phones do NOT have 4G access...  4G Account for 30 Percent Of Mobile Traffic - Business Insider


I'm on 3G. Lol


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > For the record...  I'm 45...
> ...



Your corporate world sure looks a lot different from mine..


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Sure, if my emphasis on "valid" as an implication that the other side of the argument is not valid. But your interpretation would be incorrect. 

The emphasis placed on "valid" is there because the idea of DSLR wi-fi has been continuously invalidated in this thread.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 9, 2013)




----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I find it interesting that Rotanimod JUST bought himself a Canon 6D, which is apparently one of the TWO d-slr models in the entire world that has built-in WiFi, and he's lobbying vociferously for its amazing "potential usefulness".
> 
> Meanwhile, Gavjenks, who also owns a Canon 6D which he's had for a few months, seems to be much less _rambunctious_ and less-enthusiastic about the usefulness of WiFi.
> 
> ...



I'll be the first to admit that I don't use it for everything. I agree with TheLost that it's full potential has yet to be reached. 

But I realize it's potential. RIGHT NOW. And in the future. 

I'm not dumping on the tech with the rest of this forum. It's not fully developed and mainstream yet. But it's not hard to imagine it's many uses when it is.


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> The emphasis placed on "valid" is there because the idea of DSLR wi-fi *has been continuously invalidated in this thread*.



I just don't think it has. Most people were saying the idea of* wi-fi becoming a standard DSLR feature because it will useful to everyone* has been invalidated. But somehow that point keeps getting lost in the shuffle.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Apparently, 4G phones account for only 30% of North American smartphone/cellular/mobile traffic in North America, so the idea that "most phones" have 4G access in North America is in fact wildly off-base. It seems that in reality, 70% of North American smart/cellular/mobile phones do NOT have 4G access...
> 
> 4G Account for 30 Percent Of Mobile Traffic - Business Insider
> 
> ...



Sprint plans to have 4G nationwide by the end of 2013. 
Sprint Community: is sprint  going to have 4g lte  everywhere they have 3g at now

& per my conversation with a store employee last week.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Oct 9, 2013)

Could someone explain to me what the big deal is here?  I haven't read every single post but I think I've got the gist of it.  So far all I'm getting is that there's a feature available on some newer cameras that some people aren't utilizing, because they don't want to.  There are a lot of features I don't utilize on my camera.  Do each of them have threads?  I just don't understand why this matters.  At all.  To anyone.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > For the record...  I'm 45...
> ...



Maybe we reading a different threads here..   Where have i had a hissy fit? Where is my whining? where am i not open to other peoples opinions? I used the word flamming once... and it had a little smiley next to it -> 

Have a great day... and i hope whatever is wrong with your life gets better soon :heart:


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Maybe we reading a different threads here.. Where have i had a hissy fit? Where is my whining? where am i not open to other peoples opinions? I used the word flamming once... and it had a little smiley next to it ->
> 
> Have a great day... and i hope whatever is wrong with your life gets better soon :heart:



Steve and TPF controversy go hand in hand. He's the new and improved Cgipson (lol, love ya Charlie).


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:
			
		

> Sprint plans to have 4G nationwide by the end of 2013.
> Sprint Community: is sprint* going to have 4g lte* everywhere they have 3g at now
> 
> & per my conversation with a store employee last week.



And the Unites States planned to make a total shift to the metric system by 1977.  I've heard about big plans before. Microsoft's* Zune* was gonna' take over the MP3 player market from the iPod, as per Bill Gates' plans for it... *BlueRay* was going to take over the home theatre playback market, as per SONY's plans...*Windows 8* was supposed to be *awesome*, and achieve widespread adoption rates, as per Microsoft's plans

Fact is, ADOPTION rates and making chit actually happen are two wildly,wildly different things. And what a person hears from a salesman at a Sprint store has almost zero bearing on what his corporate employer can manage to accomplish. Ask Bill Gates about the Zune.

Sprint has 55.8 million subscribers; AT&T has 108 million: Verizon has 117 million subscribers. The fact remains, only 30% of the mobile traffic in North America is 4G NOW, today, and 70% is NOT 4G. 

Good intentions and plans are nice. Just like the plan to shift the entire United States economy and manufacturing and social base to the metric system in roughly eight years between 1969 and 1977...just like Microsoft's huge plans for the now-discontinued Zune MP3 player...

What do all the above things have in common? All were "big plans" and "*the next big thing*", according to their devotees... and all of them fizzled, terribly...the thing I've learned in my 50 years is that "the next big thing" is exceptionally difficult to predict or to identify, and many ideas or products or technologies that early adopters RAVE about never get off the ground floor. WiFi might be the next MP3 format....OR...it might be the Zune..or the metric system in the USA...or Windows 8...some chit that not many people really want around, in any form...


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> Can you state clearly what you think wifi on a camera can do and what you expect it to do?



*Want*: You should be able to browse to your camera from your computer and access your images just like you can when its plugged in (or when using a card reader).
*Has*: Most cameras with wifi work as an access point.. you connect your phone/tablet to the camera like you would to a home network. The exception to this is the EyiFi cards.. they'll run in both AP and Client mode. (however the software makes it difficult to use.. ie.. no browsing to the camera directly)
*Needs*: In the ideal world the camera would also work as a WiFi client, connecting to your home network and be accessible as a remote device/computer.  (ie: you can browse to the images on your camera..  for nerds.. it would run as a cifs/smb shared server).

*Want*: Modern WiFi protocols and speed.
*Has*: Both Nikon and Canon offer 802.11b/g/n protocols.  However, range is poor (canon is better then Nikon).. Reliability is non-existant (dropped connections all the time).. and speed is slooooow (Nikon uses the cheap Broadcom BCM4336 radio).  
*Needs*: There is no reason you shouldn't be able to get USB speads from WiFi on a camera.

*Want*: Software
*Has*: Nikon software doesn't even work on the iPad (it does.. but in iPhone mode).  Canon's software is a little better. 
*Needs*: If you want to see whats possible check out the awesome open source app.. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dslr.dashboard&hl=en

*Want*: Support..
*Has*: Marketing that makes it sound like a gimmick.
*Needs*: To be turned into a true enhancement to photography.

Here is nikons answer... btw.. to the non-gimmick wifi:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Wireless/27046/WT-5A-Wireless-Transmitter.html
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Wireless/27101/UT-1-Communication-Unit.html

$877 + $470 = $1347 worth of 2002 technology.


----------



## limr (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Does anybody but me care?



I think the original question has been answered  Some people do and some people don't. Not sure what other answer there could be.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Could someone explain to me what the big deal is here?  I haven't read every single post but I think I've got the gist of it.  So far all I'm getting is that there's a feature available on some newer cameras that some people aren't utilizing, because they don't want to.  There are a lot of features I don't utilize on my camera.  Do each of them have threads?  I just don't understand why this matters.  At all.  To anyone.



Weell, according to the OP, TheLost:

"I get flamed (a lot ) for bashing manufactures lack of WiFi support in their products.. lots of people see it as a gimmick or a useless feature. 

but tell me... why cant i:




Have my pictures automatically download to my computer when i walk into my house.
Send pictures to *facebook/twitter in near-real-time while shooting *my kids sporting events.
Remotely *capture* that elusive *humming bird* with my camera outside *while i'm sitting inside at my computer*.


Manufacturers adding WiFi support to their cameras is currently half-*arsed*. The *apps are horrible and outdated*.. Support is non-existent... and most people don't care.

WiFi isn't a 'gimmick'... its an extension of the tool. 

This little $10 part could offer soooo much more to photography.

Does anybody but me care? "

Oh..and the OP also stated that *he will soon have a WiFi software application for sale at the iTunes store for $4.99 per download*.


----------



## kathyt (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we reading a different threads here.. Where have i had a hissy fit? Where is my whining? where am i not open to other peoples opinions? I used the word flamming once... and it had a little smiley next to it ->
> ...


Improved? Hell no! Not my cgibs!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

@ Derrel: Most major markets are already 4G. It's getting the infrastructure in place for the smaller markets. Sprint has 2013 circled as their target to complete this infrastructure. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect 4G to be _almost _everywhere in a couple years at the most. If you're Verizon, you've probably already noticed it almost everywhere.   

A good read:

4G network speeds: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile put to the test | BGR


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

I think bluetooth makes more sense, really. I'm not convinced that there's much need to send stuff 100 feet to some object I can't even see.

Bluetooth just lets you plug your camera into your whateveryouwant without fussing with wires.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Oh..and the OP also stated that *he will soon have a WiFi software application for sale at the iTunes store for $4.99 per download*.




More power to him. The EOS Utility on iphone kinda sucks right now. If it's private Dev's that unlock the potential of this tech, I have no problem supporting them.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

As for great, awesome ,incredible, innovative, revolutionary, and MUST-OWN!! new technologies, let's look at this 10 Innovative Pieces of Technology That Failed Miserably

10 Innovative Pieces of technology That Failed Miserably. 

Intellivision, Laser Disc, Cinerama, Betamax, Quadrophonic Sound, QR codes (lol!), Digital Audio Tape, Virtual Reality, The PDA like the Apple Newton or the PalmPilot, and finally, DIVX.

And yes, Sprint has big,big plans!!! Just as Microsoft had big,big plans for the Zune. And Windows 8. When some random dude starts a thread about how awesome his new $4.99 WiFi application is going to be, once he's gotten the bugs out of it and it's on the iTunes Store, well, his integrity and his intellectual (dis?)honesty is pretty suspect. It's pretty simple...right now....WiFi-enabled d-slr cameras are not in much demand. Kind of like Zune MP3 players; there were better solutions, so the Zune never got any traction.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe we reading a different threads here.. Where have i had a hissy fit? Where is my whining? where am i not open to other peoples opinions? I used the word flamming once... and it had a little smiley next to it ->
> ...



Majeed.. I find it offensive to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Steve... especially in that context! (but I'll forgive ya this time... just don't call me an Andrew or Gavjenks!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 9, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > TheLost said:
> ...



Kathy... thank you! (I think! lol!)


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 9, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Majeed.. I find it offensive to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Steve... especially in that context! (but I'll forgive ya this time... just don't call me an Andrew or Gavjenks!)




OH no offense intended. I don't know your history with Steve. Just know once in a while you've found yourself in controversy (as we all have) and cracked a joke.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 9, 2013)

:raisedbrow::scratch::meh:


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 9, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Majeed.. I find it offensive to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Steve... especially in that context! (but I'll forgive ya this time... just don't call me an Andrew or Gavjenks!)
> ...



Yep.. once in a while! We good! I do know some jokes! (on here, even!)  lol! (hey wait.. was that a joke?)  lol!


----------



## terri (Oct 9, 2013)

So how many of you will be upset if I close this thread simply because I'm bored with it and think it's been teetering too long on the rails?   :sun:    Is the OP satisfied he has had enough responses in 13 pages?


----------



## runnah (Oct 9, 2013)

terri said:


> So how many of you will be upset if I close this thread simply because I'm bored with it and think it's been teetering too long on the rails?   :sun:    Is the OP satisfied he has had enough responses in 13 pages?



Only if you close it on a wifi enabled device.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 9, 2013)

Terri.....I for one will be very upset if you should close this thread.........................unless of course you close it with*BACON!!!*


----------



## kathyt (Oct 9, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Rotanimod said:
> ...


Yes, I was sticking up for you cgibs.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

terri said:


> So how many of you will be upset if I close this thread simply because I'm bored with it and think it's been teetering too long on the rails?   :sun:    Is the OP satisfied he has had enough responses in 13 pages?



It tipped over long ago..   close away!


----------



## terri (Oct 9, 2013)

runnah said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > So how many of you will be upset if I close this thread simply because I'm bored with it and think it's been teetering too long on the rails?   :sun:    Is the OP satisfied he has had enough responses in 13 pages?
> ...



I closed it with wifi enabled bacon.    Everyone wins.


----------

