In defense of WiFi...

[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 The apps are horrible and outdated..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?

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TheLost]

From another thread...

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.

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.

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!

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]

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]

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...

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

 

[Derrel]

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]

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]

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...

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

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

 

[TheLost]

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.

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

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

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

Exactly!

 

[Devinhullphoto]

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]

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]

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???