In defense of WiFi...

[Majeed Badizadegan]

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.

That's idealistic and not necessarily realistic.

Why? Is it really that idealistic? The uses for DSLR wi-fi are not "idealistic", but are practical, relevant, and useful RIGHT NOW. So it wouldn't be such a stretch to predict that they will be MORE USEFUL in the future. Tech has a way of becoming more useful as time goes by.

Remember, 30 years ago a computer the size of a house had less computing power than your phone does now. So it's very easy to guess that in 5-10 years, full Wi-fi integration will be expected and commonplace in the DSLR world.

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.

Can't lose sight of context. And sure, since most here aren't sold on the use of the tech, I'm bringing a different opinion to the mix. Whether that stirs up the pot, and whether that's "argument for argument's sake", we'll let the jury decide.

 

[Kolia]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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"

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

 

[Dao]

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"

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]

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"

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]

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:

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.

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?

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.

(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?

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]

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]

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?