In defense of WiFi...

[kathyt]

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!!!

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

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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, VALID side to this argument.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.