# Wi-Fi / GPS on 5D MK IV - Patent



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2015)

I'm going to start a rumor that the 5D MK IV will have GPS or Wi-Fi 

Obviously, its CR0, mere speculation!

This is based on a Patent approved the week of August 18. 

Its Patent number US 9,113,062 B2

Here is a snipet from the description. As I read it, the flash shoe gets in the way of a antenna on a all metal body, so its put under the covering on the sloping surface of the pentaprism. This should overcome any issues with a radio on a all metal body.


"Conventionally, there has been proposed a configuration of an imaging apparatus in which a wireless communication unit is arranged on the top side of a pentaprism in a finder section (see Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2008-244735). However, an accessory shoe for providing communication by being connected to an external device such as a strobe is provided on the visible face of an imaging apparatus. Therefore, the metal section of the accessory shoe disturbs a radio wave to be emitted from or received by the antenna section of the wireless communication unit upon wireless communication, so that stable communication state cannot be obtained. In addition, the clearance between the wireless communication unit and the accessory shoe needs to be ensured, resulting in an undesirable increase in size in the height direction of the imaging apparatus. Accordingly, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2000-75381 discloses a configuration in which the wireless communication unit is arranged on the inclined surface (Dach surface) of the pentaprism such that the accessory shoe does not disturb a radio wave upon wireless communication."


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 4, 2015)

Sounds good to me.
I'd love to see this on the new 5D4.


----------



## midluk (Sep 4, 2015)

I think it is more likely to be used for an integrated RT speedlite transmitter.


----------



## msatter (Sep 4, 2015)

I had no problem with WiFi SD cards in these camera (1D & 5D) at all. The antenna should be close to the plastic door. That is why SD to CF adapters is not always working.

It is nice that Canon is looking now to make it standard build in so we don't need external dongles for remote controlling the camera.


----------



## SilverSnake (Sep 4, 2015)

Fingers crossed for GPS in 5D mkIV. Wifi would be neat as well, but if I can only have one I want GPS.


----------



## RGF (Sep 4, 2015)

wifi, gps, active histogram in the viewfinder, ..

suddenly we will only get a few hundreds per battery.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm going to start a rumor that the 5D MK IV will have GPS or Wi-Fi
> 
> Obviously, its CR3, mere speculation!
> 
> ...



Nice find there!.

Incidentally there was a Nasa story recently about zero power wifi.. using the received signal from the base unit to power the mobile unit.

Needless the say the range was lousy.. about a meter if I remember correctly. On a normal powered system the more rubbish the antenna, the shorter the range.. so even a really nasty -20dBi antenna will still provide some coverage.. just not 100 meters

For DSLRs the question I'd ask is.... how much range do we really need?.. clearly it depends on what we expect to do with it.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 4, 2015)

I used the EyeFi card in my 5D3 to transfer small JPGS to my Samsung Note 3 phone before I started using Magic Lantern (EyeFi doesn't work with ML). This was awesome and surprisingly handy. Obviously the range required was only one meter, but this also allowed me to instantly send jpgs from the Note 3 whenever I wanted. I saved RAW to the CF and JPEG to the SD card. 
I am ALL for WiFi in the 5D4!


----------



## meywd (Sep 4, 2015)

RGF said:


> wifi, gps, active histogram in the viewfinder, ..
> 
> suddenly we will only get a few hundreds per battery.



I am already at a few hundreds per battery (500-600?) but I keep checking the images I took so maybe that's why!


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 4, 2015)

It wouldn't be hard to add antennas to these cameras outside of the metal body without compromising the weather sealing. I think that wifi and RT transmission would be a fantastic add to the functionality of the camera. Even better would be a way for the wifi to be a standardized card that you add if you want it. Upgrade the card to upgrade to the next flavor of wifi. This could be added near the battery compartment or memory card compartment to maintain weather sealing. 

I would keep GPS as a bolt on device for the time being though.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 4, 2015)

If Canon starts putting Wi-Fi in their Pro bodies I might actually seriously consider owning one!

As-is I was probably just going to get an SL2 (or some other equivalent crop body), regardless of how good the other cameras are, but if they all have Wi-Fi then it equalizes the playing field.
That's right, the 1D and 5D need their specs improved to complete with the Rebel line.
(Alternatively I would be happy with a fully articulated screen on the 1D, but we know how likely that is to happen.)


----------



## that1guyy (Sep 4, 2015)

Lol I knew that the "engineering challenges" for putting wifi in metal bodies was pure BS because other manufacturers already did it. I guess now that they are feeling the heat they decide to do something. Better late then never?


----------



## RGF (Sep 4, 2015)

meywd said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > wifi, gps, active histogram in the viewfinder, ..
> ...



GPS really eats up the battery on 7D M2


----------



## quod (Sep 5, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> Lol I knew that the "engineering challenges" for putting wifi in metal bodies was pure BS because other manufacturers already did it.


+1. Yep, welcome to the party, Canon. You have a LOT of catching up to do.


----------



## The Flasher (Sep 5, 2015)

Wifi has proved indispensable on the 6d, clients and art directors LOVE having viewing access to images as we shoot them, without having to gather around a laptop in a designated spot (there are rules of course, such as no swiping through images as I'm actively shooting due to camera slowing down etc.) I've also started using it for remote composition on top down shots from a jib or crammed locations. The 5d3 stays in the backup bag until needed for an event etc 

Looking forward to seeing the next evolution. 

J


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2015)

I use the eye-fi pro in my 5D MK III. I have a good Wi-Fi system that covers my studio, and another in my house. My photos are uploaded to my access point, then by Ethernet back to my office. From there, they are repeated to my NAS and other computers in a few seconds. The photos are always all there by the time I walk into the other room where my computer is running.

It works much better than the Canon Wi-Fi (on my G1X) for just downloading photos, but there is no remote control of the camera.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 5, 2015)

So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back. Just as in any smartphone. No need for patents. It's all invented and proven tech. Just do it, Canon. And while you're at it, also put an RT transmitter and antenna into every freaking EOS camera. Sick and tired of all the delays and smoke screens from Canon.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 5, 2015)

Perhaps my needs are different or I am a bit weird (probably the case!) but I simply have no use for these features on a DSLR. Somebody will tell me that they can shoot video next!
I am sure there are those out there who like these toys on their cameras - I don't, but I have no objection to them being fitted so long as they don't compromise stills performance, don't drain batteries and don't increase the price. Otherwise no thanks Canon!


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back. Just as in any smartphone. No need for patents. It's all invented and proven tech. Just do it, Canon. And while you're at it, also put an RT transmitter and antenna into every freaking EOS camera. Sick and tired of all the delays and smoke screens from Canon.



If you put anything within 1 wavelength of an antenna (roughly) you start to "pull" it, closer and things get worse. IF you "pre load" with a metal backplane to try and reduce the effect you make the antenna very directional and narrowband. One wavelength is about 12cm at 2.4GHz.

Now take a photo looking through the viewfinder.. oh dear the wifi just dropped out as your cheek pressed against the antenna, pulled it off frequency and trapped the signals between the metal body and the users face so killing the link.

I've spent too many years working on this project.. http://toumaz.com/sensiumvitals%C2%AE-pilot-study The antenna was a major element in the development... every person's radio signiture is different depending on a variety of factors, fat content being major.

I can tell you body worn antennas are a real trial.. and not dissimilar to DSLR antennas, the 6D has no metal top plate for a very good reason.


----------



## JimKarczewski (Sep 6, 2015)

Why not just use the big a$$ accessory port where a WiFi or GPS receiver plugs into a 1Dx as an Antenna port? So, there is a little stub antenna sticking out, would I care? HELL NO. Just put it in the body and stop making me pay extra for all these little bits that are in the cheaper camera.


----------



## dolina (Sep 6, 2015)

Might not have any space there or the distance may cause interference.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 6, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back. Just as in any smartphone. No need for patents. It's all invented and proven tech. Just do it, Canon. And while you're at it, also put an RT transmitter and antenna into every freaking EOS camera. Sick and tired of all the delays and smoke screens from Canon.
> ...



every little smartphone on this planet manages to establish and maintain connection(s) to (multiple) wireless networks on very different frequency bands: mobile net (GSM, UMTS, LTE), WIFI b/g/n/ac networks, bluetooth, NFC and to GPS satellites. And mitacle over miracles, they keep doing so even when the user presses the phone tvery closely and tightly o his/her ear. very tightly and closely.cheap and small digicams also achieve the feat to wirelessly connect to WIFI networks - all with internal antennas, nothing stickibg out, no separate contraptions to be purchased by users at excessive cost.

Only the biggest, fattest and most expensive CaNikin mirrorslappers happen to lack this simple and basic ability - even in 2015. all of them do have a large LCD display around which any sort of antenna can be easily placed. No matter how much aluminium-magnesium the rest of the camera body contains.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 6, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.

1. Plastic is usually transparent to RF

2. Metal is reflective to RF.

3. Smartphones / cheap digitcams / consumer DSLRs are mostly plastic, and even when they contain large lumps of metal they are cut back in the region of the antenna... this is EXACTLY what is done on the 6D.

If you place the antenna on the "human" side of the camera then have lots of metal in close proximity on the other side of the antenna then the link will worsen, such that range is substantially limited... it's a poor choice.

On a phone with GSM850/900/1800/1900 3G UMTS GPS etc etc the plastic case means the antenna can be placed at the furthest point from the front, either by the mic or speaker.. often at both; Many modern radio chips now allow for antenna diversity, meaning you have two antennas two receivers and a processor to decide which antenna and receiver is giving the least error laden datasteam for any given moment, this makes a huge difference to link reliability and quality.

Additionally not all radio systems are required to work consistantly and reliably during a call, I would not be at all shocked to see GPS performance fall off somewhat during a call... however if the antenna is in the very top corner of the phone it might not be effected much as it would still be pointed skyward.

To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back

The LCD is EXACTLY the place I wouldn't place the Wifi antenna(s).. the top of the pentaprism is where I would choose, as it is least likely to be interfered with there. Now I'm not for one moment saying cannon couldn't have done this much earlier. Remember, any idiot can chuck an antenna on something.

It takes lots of time effort and experience by knowledgable people to make it work well and reliably.

If you'd started by saying "come on Canon, Nikon did this X years ago, what are you doing?", I'd have a lot more time for your argument... but comming on with quarter baked ideas on how to do it isn't helpful.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back
> 
> The LCD is EXACTLY the place I wouldn't place the Wifi antenna(s).. the top of the pentaprism is where I would choose, as it is least likely to be interfered with there. Now I'm not for one moment saying cannon couldn't have done this much earlier. Remember, any idiot can chuck an antenna on something.
> 
> ...



Good explanations, something I'm not so good at.

We often see comments from those who merely see the results of technology, and think it was easy, so anything is possible.

Not everyone here is a engineer, so while a good explanation is great, it will not be understood by everyone. 

Those of us who are electrical engineers have had years of school and then more years of job experience, so we know that phrases like radio waves easily pass thru plastic are not always true, it depends on the material and the frequency. As you look deeper and deeper into it, you start to see the limitations. 

Placing antennas on a polymer prism housing away from the metal body, and fingers is a reasonable solution. The interference generated by a flash is not signigicant when it comes to GPS or Wi-Fi, since its a short pulse. But, for controlling another flash, it is likely a issue. That's likely why a Canon ST-E3-RT does not include a internal flash to send optical signals like the ST-E2 did. You are forced to get a flash away from it.


----------



## grainier (Sep 6, 2015)

I've always felt that the entire "magnesium interference" argument is a load of bull to keep pushing $850 file transmitters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2015)

grainier said:


> I've always felt that the entire "magnesium interference" argument is a load of bull to keep pushing $850 file transmitters.



Why? Its well known (Since 1836 or longer) that metals or conductive surfaces cause havoc with radio waves.

Look up Faraday Cage. You cannot get a radio signal into or out of one. You can create openings and signals beyond a certain frequency based on the size of the opening will pass. Even plastics enclosures can block radio waves if they are conductive.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 6, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > To go back to your opening phrase: So utterly ridiculous. Just put all the freaking antennas around the main LCD in the back
> ...



Carbon (which is sometimes used to make plastic black) also interferes with RF radiation. Been there, changed that plastic.

While I do understand rfdesigner's reservations about how easy (or not!) it is to put antennas into a DLSR camera, I'd like to point to the fact that it's been done commercially in a much more difficult environment: a hearing aid. Since I work for a company that did this commercially in 2010, I'm quite confident in claiming that yes it can be done. It's more a matter of how much effort you want to put into delivering it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2015)

kaihp said:


> While I do understand rfdesigner's reservations about how easy (or not!) it is to put antennas into a DLSR camera, I'd like to point to the fact that it's been done commercially in a much more difficult environment: a hearing aid. Since I work for a company that did this commercially in 2010, I'm quite confident in claiming that yes it can be done. It's more a matter of how much effort you want to put into delivering it.



I wear a hearing aid with bluethooth and FM, and its plastic, not metal. That's a huge difference. Its not a issue with plastic camera bodies, their are zillions of cameras with plastic bodies that have Wi-Fi.

Its the metal body that makes it difficult.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 6, 2015)

One way would be to use the existing metal and make a cut-out to be the antenna.

Or almost any other antenna position too, even if it'll have 10-20dB attenuation due to the body metal, so what? I'm not expecting 100m wifi range from my camera anyway. ~10m is good enough. Make it .11ac with two antennas and it'll push 100+ Mbps in most scenarios.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2015)

kaihp said:


> Carbon (which is sometimes used to make plastic black) also interferes with RF radiation. Been there, changed that plastic.



I've actually had a shipment of black wiring intended for space use fail our test. (we test everything and every inch of wire insulation) 

After investigating, it turned out that the extrusion operator had dumped a huge amount of carbon black into the hopper of his machine (More is better - Right?). There was so much carbon that the insulation was conductive. Properly manufactured plastics with the correct amount of carbon black are not a issue. Its just a example of a manufacturing operation where the workers can not possibly understand all the aspects of coloring plastic, they are given a formula to follow. On the other hand, they do know the effects of time, temperature, humidity, ... everything needed to run their machine, and most turn out great products.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 6, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.
> 
> 1. Plastic is usually transparent to RF
> 
> ...



Wow. I could have sworn my iphone was metal on the back and glass on the front with an antenna on the side. Wonder how Apple makes it work?


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 6, 2015)

I am at least sure that the 5D4 will have GPS. The 5D4 will be behind the Sony A7R2 in so many ways (even if they add all the features a DSLR can have that the mirrorless A7R2 does have now), that Canon will make sure they at least include some of the the few features the A7R2 doesn't have as sales argument (like GPS). 

Aside from that, i think Canon should stop making cameras for now and then return in 2017 with a mirrorless full frame AND medium format camera system, plus lenses that cover medium format. Otherwise only a few sports shooters and all uninformed or loyal people will continue to buy Canon if they keep up this pace of little innovation. Unfortunately I fear that the 5D5 in 2020 will be a weaker camera than the A7R2 is today.


----------



## meywd (Sep 6, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > I want to write something deeply condescending here, but I'll just sigh and try again.
> ...



The iPhone antenna is on all sides, did you not hear of the grip issue? if you cover the antenna it will make the signal too weak, and the issue is not only with the iPhone, if you cover any phone with your hands the signal gets too weak, but phones with external antennas didn't have the issue of course.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 6, 2015)

If you design around it, you can make the metal work for you. I don't work for Apple so not sure on this, but e.g. on this one it looks they have broken the top and bottom metal cover, and I'm guessing those are exactly for antenna reasons:

http://www.techinsights.com/blog-teardown/blog.aspx?blogmonth=12&blogyear=2014&blogid=2147484418#sthash.GocqYfhr.dpbs


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 7, 2015)

While it takes a bit of engineerin/design, it is definitely not rocket science to enable a camera - including fat old mirrorslappers partially (!) made of metal - to communicate wirelessly in any way, frequency and protocol like any smartphone can. It is 2015. not 1869. 

CaNikon just want to force their 850 wtf wifi bricks on their customers. Thats the only "technical issue" here. 

I dont care at all where they stick the antennas. It just needs to work. After all these mute years !


----------



## kaihp (Sep 7, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > While I do understand rfdesigner's reservations about how easy (or not!) it is to put antennas into a DLSR camera, I'd like to point to the fact that it's been done commercially in a much more difficult environment: a hearing aid. Since I work for a company that did this commercially in 2010, I'm quite confident in claiming that yes it can be done. It's more a matter of how much effort you want to put into delivering it.
> ...



Now this is not really the right forums to argue about hearing aids and RF, but most "bluetooth hearing aids" don't have bluetooth built in, but requires an intermediate device to get to bluetooth. Only ReSound, Beltone, and Starkey have it built-in (any other brand on that page just buys the aid from Starkey or the technology from us). If it's not one of those mentioned on the MFi page, the Bluetooth radio sits in the intermediate device.

By the way, even plastics influence RF performance, since they don't have a unity relative dielectricity constant.
Believe me, we've been all over those problems for the last 5+ years.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 7, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



And yet my EyeFi card in my Canon 5D3 works flawlessly. 
Something doesn't add up.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2015)

Etienne said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I find it very hard to believe that a company that can develop DPAF, 250 MP sensors, a 1 million ISO sensor and many, many other innovations cannot find a way around this problem.

I've spoken out enough on another thread about how the lack of simple connectivity and mobile apps by all the camera manufacturers is doing a disservice to their customers. If that is truly their excuse for not making their cameras more mobile friendly they need a new engineering team.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 7, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I find it very hard to believe that a company that can develop DPAF, 250 MP sensors, a 1 million ISO sensor and many, many other innovations cannot find a way around this problem.



The truth was already mentioned above. The add-on modules have some 300-1000% profit margin, so they want to keep selling them.

Unfortunately I'm not so confident that they have done good analysis how many body-sales they miss because someone buys another brand for those features.

Wifi chipsets cost next to nothing, so any device since 2010 or so should have one. Regardless of the device. PC, camera, TV, cell phone, DVD-player, car, toothbrush, motorcycle, tennis racket, vibrator, house thermostat, nail polish application drying device, tripod, etc...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 7, 2015)

One of the main attractions to the 6D is wi-fi and GPS. If I had to forgo one it would be GPS the wi-fi I use for remote shooting with an iPhone and to review shots on either the iPhone or iPad it's now a must have feature for me. 
In the instant world of Facebook, Flickr, Snapchat etc. wi-if is the norm Canon must know this and has to move with the times regardless of what camera it is.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 8, 2015)

Etienne said:


> And yet my EyeFi card in my Canon 5D3 works flawlessly.
> Something doesn't add up.



You mean behind the plastic card door?

That's what the posts have been saying. Radio waves pass thru most plastics at 2.4 GHZ, but not thru metal. I use a eye-fi card on my 5D MK III. and its ok, but not at 300 ft.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 8, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > And yet my EyeFi card in my Canon 5D3 works flawlessly.
> ...



Exactly, but rfdesigner above has been carrying on that it's impossible in the all pro bodies. even claiming that you'd need 12 cm distance to make it work. If it can be done with an eye-fi card in the SD slot, then it can be incorporated into the camera body. And the range is just fine, nobody is expecting 300 ft range on wifi


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 8, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Since Canon specs their WFT 6A at 492 ft, I'd certainly expect 300 ft. My little IUSBPort Camera II specs say 300 ft. 

Since Wi-Fi speeds slow way down with distance, to get reasonably fast speeds at 50-100 ft, a device needs to be capable of a much longer distance. The stronger the signal, the faster the speed, at least up to the maximum possible for the device.

My eye-fi does not have a distance spec, but at 100 ft it works slowly. I can find my AP at 300 ft, but files do not transfer. My G1X MK II has a longer range, but it does not have to deal with the card slot.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> ... In the instant world of Facebook, Flickr, Snapchat etc. wi-if is the norm Canon must know this and has to move with the times regardless of what camera it is.



Yes! Someone else gets it! And, it's not just Canon by the way. Nikon and Sony are equally pathetic. There is no good reason why a camera should not be able to connect seamlessly to the internet. It should also allow the photographer to make a few simple edits from the back of the camera (or at a minimum, on a nearby tablet that is connected without wires and without a complicated interface.)

It's well past time for manufacturers to get into the 21st century with connectivity. Said it before and will say it again: it's absolutely ridiculous that the most expensive camera in the room is also the only one that doesn't allow uploading pictures direct from the device to the internet.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 8, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I only use my Eye-Fi card to send small or med JPEGS to my Note 3 phone, so I only need a meter or two range since the Note 3 is in my pocket or bag. 
I save the JPGS to the Eye-Fi SD (so upload is quick), and RAW to the CF card for later use.
This gives me quick review on the Note 3 and the ability to upload or email any JPEG immediately, while having high res shots to edit later.

I would love the convenience of having the wifi built into the 5DIV when it comes. In fact I think WiFi should be standard on every camera.


----------



## grainier (Sep 8, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Said it before and will say it again: it's absolutely ridiculous that the most expensive camera in the room is also the only one that doesn't allow uploading pictures direct from the device to the internet.



Canon tells you: buy this. Measly $900 with tax.


----------



## grainier (Sep 8, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > And yet my EyeFi card in my Canon 5D3 works flawlessly.
> ...



What stopped Canon from putting the antenna in the said plastic card door?


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 8, 2015)

grainier said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



my guess is eith heat, reliability or both.

I wouldn't want a RF cable going through a hinge.. longevity would be very low indeed. I'd want to put the wifi chip into the door as well then I only have to route power and low speed digital comms through the hinge, there's not a whole lot of space there so it's going to be quite cosy. I have a USB wiFi on my laptop after my on board one died, and that is small enough to get into a DSLR door, but it gets roasting hot.

Fundamentally though it introduces a point of weakness, Pro bodies are built for abuse and don't have flip out screens.. elsewhere here it's been reported/suggested the 60Ds biggest return fault is broken screens... I would expect canon have simply decided all electronics are to be on fixed boards, it's easiest to make it as robust as possilble


----------



## kaihp (Sep 8, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 8, 2015)

grainier said:


> What stopped Canon from putting the antenna in the said plastic card door?



On my 5D MK III, my hand covers the card door. That severely limits the range of my eyefi card, but when I'm not holding it, its fine. It does download when I'm under my AP (ceiling mounted) while holding my camera. Apple has the same issue with antennas, people with their hand over the antenna. They locate the phone main antenna in 2 places to help with the issue. It greatly reduces the range of the phone when a hand covers both antennas.

So, picking a spot where we do not place our hand on the camera makes sense. The bottom is out due to tripods and camera plates, same for the left side, even the front has fingers wrapped around. The top is the place that seems best. Right up on top on the sloping surface of the pentaprism housing is clear territory in most cases, but I'm sure that something exists to block that as well.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 9, 2015)

If I had to choose the location for the antenna based on what I know about antennas (and really not that much what's inside the camera), right behind the Canon-logo is the best spot (on non-flash bodies especially). That's solid piece of plastic, so you could have the antenna outside the metal frame. No worries about water sealing, almost no chance of placing hands or any other object to block the antenna. No hinges or anything. Perfect.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 9, 2015)

tpatana said:


> If I had to choose the location for the antenna based on what I know about antennas (and really not that much what's inside the camera), right behind the Canon-logo is the best spot (on non-flash bodies especially). That's solid piece of plastic, so you could have the antenna outside the metal frame. No worries about water sealing, almost no chance of placing hands or any other object to block the antenna. No hinges or anything. Perfect.



+100

you may want to quickly patent the idea, before "oh so innovative Canon" discovers this solution. ;D


----------



## meywd (Sep 9, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > If I had to choose the location for the antenna based on what I know about antennas (and really not that much what's inside the camera), right behind the Canon-logo is the best spot (on non-flash bodies especially). That's solid piece of plastic, so you could have the antenna outside the metal frame. No worries about water sealing, almost no chance of placing hands or any other object to block the antenna. No hinges or anything. Perfect.
> ...



you mean like the exact description of the patent?


----------

