Bought some new toys....can't figure out the Wi-Fi for the 6D.

[pixmedic]

i dont have a 6d, but i found a few tutorials online. apparently the 6d's menu has built in options for home computers, laptops, other cameras, smartphones, and web. It was "meant" for pretty much any device that is wifi compatible.
have you "named" your cameras network yet? keep us posted on how the wifi works and how you like it.

How to Enable Wireless on Your Canon EOS 6D - For Dummies
Canon EOS 6D: Wi-Fi walkthrough | Wex Photographic

 

[W.Fovall]

i dont have a 6d, but i found a few tutorials online. apparently the 6d's menu has built in options for home computers, laptops, other cameras, smartphones, and web. It was "meant" for pretty much any device that is wifi compatible.
have you "named" your cameras network yet? keep us posted on how the wifi works and how you like it.

How to Enable Wireless on Your Canon EOS 6D - For Dummies
Canon EOS 6D: Wi-Fi walkthrough | Wex Photographic

i sent the link in a prev post but that wasn't good enough i guess...

 

[wyogirl]

Don't you have to have the camera utility program or app on whatever device you are trying to connect with? I'm just going by what I have read and seen in videos of the feature. I can't imagine using the wifi as a transfer method because of the time involved. I did think it would be useful with the remote shooting because it allows you to use your phone as a viewfinder and do your focusing and all controls remotely.

 

[TCampbell]

How you connect the 6D to a device via WiFi varies depending on where you are and what you're trying to do.

For example... if you are home, you can tell the camera to join your home WiFi network... and presumably your other device(s) (computer, phone, etc.) would also have joined this SAME WiFi network and would be able to find each other.

But if you're away from home, that's not going to work... so the camera has the ability to create it's own WiFi network and your remote device (phone, computer, etc.) could join that.

I don't have a 6D myself, but I have a good friend who owns one and we've worked through getting this all working. The bottom line is that there is more than one way to get it to work and which way is best depends on whether or not there's an existing WiFi network that you can join vs. needing to create your own network. The good news about creating your own network is that it'll work in the middle of nowhere. But the downside is that it's not really connected to the Internet when you do that... so if you were thinking you could unload images to your phone and then upload them... well the phone dropped off the Internet to join the camera network so now the phone isn't really on the Internet anymore.

For my friend, I configured his phone to do WiFi sharing and had the camera join the phone's network.

There are quite a number of YouTube videos that walk through step-by-step how to get this working and that's probably the easiest way to learn because you can pause the videos and make sure you're not missing anything.

 

[Derrel]

Sounds like the technology's not quite fully mature for real-world use without ample training in how to set up things and how to work around issues. But of course, Canon has basically zero experience in internet connectivity; if Samsung or Apple were the makers, then the issues would be so simple that there would hardly be a need for any instructions. This is a huge part of what Thom Hogan has been complaining about for some time now: the Japanese camera makers just do not "get" internet connectivity and how it relates to photographic workflow. Maybe in the next generation the WiFi will be more user-friendly...you know, as if it had been designed by Samsung or Apple...

What’s the Plan? | byThom | Thom Hogan

" * have done nothing to advance workflowThis is where it all comes to a head. Smartphones coupled with the Internet proved that photos can be taken, managed, edited, and distributed in new ways. Digital cameras? Not so much. Actually, not at all. Why the hell does Nikon think that with my DSLR I want to buy a WiFi accessory and then it can only talk to a crippled and basic iOS or Android app? Why can’t it talk to my TV through the WiFi connection? My computer? My network? My cloud system? Japanese companies tend to think of photo workflow as linear. It’s not. It’s highly interconnected these days. My computers understand that. My camera does not. When I look at all the ways that Apple has significantly changed customer workflow for the better, the camera companies look like giant glacial rocks that haven’t moved in millennia. "

 

[TCampbell]

Sounds like the technology's not quite fully mature for real-world use without ample training in how to set up things and how to work around issues. But of course, Canon has basically zero experience in internet connectivity; if Samsung or Apple were the makers, then the issues would be so simple that there would hardly be a need for any instructions. This is a huge part of what Thom Hogan has been complaining about for some time now: the Japanese camera makers just do not "get" internet connectivity and how it relates to photographic workflow. Maybe in the next generation the WiFi will be more user-friendly...you know, as if it had been designed by Samsung or Apple...

What’s the Plan? | byThom | Thom Hogan

" * have done nothing to advance workflowThis is where it all comes to a head. Smartphones coupled with the Internet proved that photos can be taken, managed, edited, and distributed in new ways. Digital cameras? Not so much. Actually, not at all. Why the hell does Nikon think that with my DSLR I want to buy a WiFi accessory and then it can only talk to a crippled and basic iOS or Android app? Why can’t it talk to my TV through the WiFi connection? My computer? My network? My cloud system? Japanese companies tend to think of photo workflow as linear. It’s not. It’s highly interconnected these days. My computers understand that. My camera does not. When I look at all the ways that Apple has significantly changed customer workflow for the better, the camera companies look like giant glacial rocks that haven’t moved in millennia. "

What I find both surprising and disappointing about the internet connected cameras (and actually with most internet-connected computer technologies) is how awful the end-user configuration experience is when it really doesn't have to be that way.

I used to work for Sun Microsystems. Sun developed a zero-configuration network technology called "Jini". The devices self-configure, self-advertise themselves to the network, and self-discover each other. All the consumer has to do is "use them". Apple later developed a similar technology in Bonjour. I have a couple of Bonjour printers on my network. If a friend comes over and brings their laptop, they don't have to add the printer nor install drivers... when they go to print the printer is already there -- nothing to configure. Incidentally... these devices do not actually use IP addresses (that would require at least SOME form of configuration). They communicate directly via hardware addresses which is a layer of networking below the IP layer.

I can imagine wanting a little security so that someone else in the area can't just attach to your WiFi-enabled camera and start scanning and downloading images... but it's trivial to add a trust option so that while discovery of devices is no problem, the device won't just agree to exchange data with another device unless you tell it that you trust that other device.

But I agree with your point... the technology is needlessly complicated.

 

[Derrel]

Yes...all too often engineers are incapable of seeing that their "solutions" are little more than long strings of complicated instructions which must be followed precisely, or the product will not work properly. That type of design ethos often spells marketplace rejection. Making things simple is a very challenging endeavor, and many companies are simply NOT good at making things that "just work". Apple has long been a company where ease of use and building things that "just work" has been a priority. The camera makers are coming at the computer/internet arena with VERY little real-worldf experience, and I think, with very poor chances for success at making easy-to-use solutions the norm.

As Thom has pointed out repeatedly, the Japanese camera makers need to learn the industrial design lessons that Apple has learned, but I do not think that will happen any time soon. The whole "Not Invented Here!" syndrome seems to be the prevailing way of building cameras. It would be great if Canon and Nikon and the other companies would look "outside", to the real experts, at companies like Apple and Samsung for some consulting, but that seems unlikely to happen. My sense is that the camera making companies just do not "get" the idea of internet access as it relates to photography; and because of that, hundreds of millions of smart phones have replaced hundreds of millions of compact cameras, all over the world.

 

[bratkinson]

The whole "Not Invented Here!" syndrome seems to be the prevailing way of building cameras. It would be great if Canon and Nikon and the other companies would look "outside", to the real experts, at companies like Apple and Samsung for some consulting, but that seems unlikely to happen. My sense is that the camera making companies just do not "get" the idea of internet access as it relates to photography; and because of that, hundreds of millions of smart phones have replaced hundreds of millions of compact cameras, all over the world.

Wise words, indeed.

I've seen first hand too many times the 'not invented here' syndrome try to mimic or improve upon a competitors' product and fail miserably, much to the chagrin of the product purchasers. It sounds like Canons' foray into connectivity needs some work.

As I've seen at my employer in recent months, they can even take the 'bleeding edge' technology and make it STOP working after it's been up and running for over 2 years! And the technicians can't even figure out why!

"Ain't technology great???"

 

[IzzieK]

Well, a lot equipments nowadays have "internet" and wifi, like the piano I bought last year. It has "internet" and it is wifi-enabled via your wireless connection to the house. After using it a few times just to learn how the bloody thing operates I gave up...it is good for the sales but application is meeeehhhhh...and that is a big equipment, not a camera.

 

[kathyt]

Sounds like the technology's not quite fully mature for real-world use without ample training in how to set up things and how to work around issues. But of course, Canon has basically zero experience in internet connectivity; if Samsung or Apple were the makers, then the issues would be so simple that there would hardly be a need for any instructions. This is a huge part of what Thom Hogan has been complaining about for some time now: the Japanese camera makers just do not "get" internet connectivity and how it relates to photographic workflow. Maybe in the next generation the WiFi will be more user-friendly...you know, as if it had been designed by Samsung or Apple...

What’s the Plan? | byThom | Thom Hogan

" * have done nothing to advance workflowThis is where it all comes to a head. Smartphones coupled with the Internet proved that photos can be taken, managed, edited, and distributed in new ways. Digital cameras? Not so much. Actually, not at all. Why the hell does Nikon think that with my DSLR I want to buy a WiFi accessory and then it can only talk to a crippled and basic iOS or Android app? Why can’t it talk to my TV through the WiFi connection? My computer? My network? My cloud system? Japanese companies tend to think of photo workflow as linear. It’s not. It’s highly interconnected these days. My computers understand that. My camera does not. When I look at all the ways that Apple has significantly changed customer workflow for the better, the camera companies look like giant glacial rocks that haven’t moved in millennia. "

What I find both surprising and disappointing about the internet connected cameras (and actually with most internet-connected computer technologies) is how awful the end-user configuration experience is when it really doesn't have to be that way.

I used to work for Sun Microsystems. Sun developed a zero-configuration network technology called "Jini". The devices self-configure, self-advertise themselves to the network, and self-discover each other. All the consumer has to do is "use them". Apple later developed a similar technology in Bonjour. I have a couple of Bonjour printers on my network. If a friend comes over and brings their laptop, they don't have to add the printer nor install drivers... when they go to print the printer is already there -- nothing to configure. Incidentally... these devices do not actually use IP addresses (that would require at least SOME form of configuration). They communicate directly via hardware addresses which is a layer of networking below the IP layer.

I can imagine wanting a little security so that someone else in the area can't just attach to your WiFi-enabled camera and start scanning and downloading images... but it's trivial to add a trust option so that while discovery of devices is no problem, the device won't just agree to exchange data with another device unless you tell it that you trust that other device.

But I agree with your point... the technology is needlessly complicated.

I would say I am extremely computer savvy, and I am surprised this isn't as easy as it should be. I did get it figured out, but it was not easy.

 

[runnah]

Not sure how I missed this but yeah it's a pain. I wish it was bluetooth not wifi.

 

[kathyt]

Not sure how I missed this but yeah it's a pain. I wish it was bluetooth not wifi.

Hi runnah. How is Maine treating you. Yes, the wi-fi is kinda pointless.

 

[runnah]

Not sure how I missed this but yeah it's a pain. I wish it was bluetooth not wifi.

Hi runnah. How is Maine treating you. Yes, the wi-fi is kinda pointless.

Maine is awesome this time of year.

It is very pointless. It's a gimmick that is more of a selling point than a functional piece of tech. Maybe in a couple years they will have the bugs worked out.

I had a friend who had one at a wedding shoot and he tried forever to get the thing to connect to his ipad with no avail.

 

[Civchic]

The only thing I've seen someone use the wifi for that I thought was pretty cool was using their smartphone as a wireless remote shutter.