# Why WiFi should be on DSLRs



## Don Haines (May 23, 2016)

I see this a lot..... someone takes a picture of a bird, plant, reptile, whatever, and then takes out their cell phone, takes a picture of the camera display, and posts it to a field naturalist site to ask for help identifying the subject.

A tightly coupled app on the phone (or tablet) that allows one to easily grab the image from the camera, process it, and send it out is a feature that many would enjoy.....


----------



## j-nord (May 23, 2016)

Some type of Towhee? Eastern? 

I know someone who has some sort of wifi CF card that sends pics to his phone, he edits it on his phone and posts it on Instagram. Im not sure his exact workflow but thats how I understood he does it. I never really got the appeal but, in your scenario, for identifying wildlife (or flowers) etc, that make some sense. Of course, out here in CO, its easy to leave cell coverage when you are out shooting/hiking.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2016)

I have a eye-fi card for my 5D MK III. (There is a CF adapter, eye-fi is SD.). All of my images taken in my home and studio are picked up by the Wi-Fi and go straight to my NAS. Then, any of my electronics can access them. I can set it up to synch with my iPhone, but have yet to feel its a need.

For me, having a fast broad band Wi-Fi like the 1DX II does would allow tethering and remote control that is near real time, a huge jump forward. I could download short videos and raw images at Gigabit speeds.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 24, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have a eye-fi card for my 5D MK III. (There is a CF adapter, eye-fi is SD.). All of my images taken in my home and studio are picked up by the Wi-Fi and go straight to my NAS. Then, any of my electronics can access them. I can set it up to synch with my iPhone, but have yet to feel its a need.
> 
> For me, having a fast broad band Wi-Fi like the 1DX II does would allow tethering and remote control that is near real time, a huge jump forward. I could download short videos and raw images at Gigabit speeds.



Very interesting. I think that there are several things I could use, but I really have not had a need or desire. This makes me rethink it.

sek


----------



## monkey44 (May 24, 2016)

I understand we live in a more instantaneous world nowadays, but I can't imagine the importance of instantly knowing a bird ID when in the field. If you have the shot, you can always continue shooting, and find out later.

Just because we can hurry, doesn't mean we must hurry. Especially given the possibility of missing other shots while we fiddle with WIFI ...no offense to those that do it, I'm only exploring the rational here.

Maybe once in a lifetime, one might capture a very rare bird and want more shots. But, it would seem if the shooter can't ID it, would make sense to shoot it now, ask later. ???

Possibly in sports, one might make use of it in rare cases too - but I shot sports for years, and always had time between game-end and deadline to sit in my truck, open my laptop, cull some out and send the best images to an editor.


----------



## LDS (May 24, 2016)

monkey44 said:


> Possibly in sports, one might make use of it in rare cases too



Just remember Wi-Fi has just a few "radio channels" available (in the "unlicensed spectrum" also used by other devices), and some of them overlaps (specially at 2.4Ghz, 5Ghz WiFi is somewhat better). Imagine what happens in a crowded sport field (or any situation alike) if many shooters, each with its own WiFi setup - not a coordinated one where everybody is assigned a proper channel and accessing the shared access points - start to transmit maybe on the same or overlapping channels, each actually "interfering" with the others. WiFi performance will become soon dreadful.

For quick downloads, a near-field, high-speed technology would be better (but nor Bluetooth nor NFC are not so fast, AFAIK). Wi-Fi is better suited to transfer data at longer distances, but wifi-crowded environments may become an issue.


----------



## Maui5150 (May 24, 2016)

Yeah, but how do I answer my emails on the camera?


----------



## hne (May 24, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> A tightly coupled app on the phone (or tablet) that allows one to easily grab the image from the camera, process it, and send it out is a feature that many would enjoy.....



This is pretty much the main feature of Canon Camera Connect. Make it fast and easy to share a picture with the world. Too bad Canon didn't make it even easier and faster. This means I'm still taking some pictures with my smartphone even if I carry a DSLR on my shoulder!

The other feature I like with having a wifi enabled DSLR is remote shooting with wireless live view. It makes it easy to take group pictures with myself in frame. For the first time in three years, my whole family was in a single well composed and exposed photograph shortly after me buying a 70D. Sure, an IR remote and a tilty-flippy screen also helps, but only within a few meters distance.

Things Canon should fix in Canon Camera Connect:

Make it possible to fetch video to your phone. (Yes, I know phones don't like .MOV files. Just remux the file on the fly to an MP4 and be done with it!)
Allow download of full size jpegs, not forcefully down sampled to lousy 2Mpx
Make it possible to tweak raw files in the app before downloading, so you don't have to first fiddle with the camera raw development menues just because white balance or exposure was slightly off.


----------



## retroreflection (May 24, 2016)

The only endgame in this desire for convenient sharing of images is for each and every one of your cameras to be a cellphone (or mobile internet connected device, who needs a phone?).
I have a Fuji XT-1 which has WiFi connection for remote camera control and jpeg transfer. I think it works pretty well. Apparently the 30 seconds it typically takes to connect and transfer pictures is just too hard for most users. Now's the time for me to complain about "kids these days".


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 24, 2016)

Like most things, it depends on the individual.

Some like WiFi, other's don't.

As long as the WiFi can be turned off both types of customers should be happy. 

Does the addition of WiFi add a significant cost (monetary and non monetary) to the camera these days?


----------



## LDS (May 24, 2016)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Does the addition of WiFi add a significant cost (monetary and non monetary) to the camera these days?



That depends on what WiFi you want to add. A cheap one - cheap silicon, cheap single antenna, simple security - probably very little. A pro solution - good silicon, MIMO (multiple) antennas, good range, true high-speed, good security (i.e. full WPA2 support) - a little more, and both the camera and software design needs to be adapted.

Probably "consumer" cameras are OK with the former, but pro ones would need the latter.

Beyond WiFi, you need also to develop the software to allow it to be used for different devices (OSX, Windows, iOS, Android - at least) - and keep it up to date. Nothing a company like Canon cannot do, but it does have a cost too. And company like Canon are very careful about the return of any investment, I'm afraid.


----------



## zim (May 24, 2016)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Does the addition of WiFi add a significant cost (monetary and non monetary) to the camera these days?



$599


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2016)

LDS said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly in sports, one might make use of it in rare cases too
> ...


In large events, people use wired links for just that reason....
One of the things we do at work is to monitor the WiFi bands and LTE bands for spectrum compliance. In most areas, no problems, but every now and then you find an area that is completely saturated.....


----------



## ERHP (May 24, 2016)

I figure I must lead the dullest of lives simply because I don't feel the need to share anything directly from the camera. On the ID note, they have a several quality aps for ID(Merlin for NA) and you can even go 'old skool' and bring out a book with pictures if it has to happen ASAP. Or you can use the USB port and tie in your phone(what you were going to use the wifi for anyways) and upload the image that way. Meanwhile you missed the rare African Swallow who decided to migrate while carrying a coconut.


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2016)

ERHP said:


> I figure I must lead the dullest of lives simply because I don't feel the need to share anything directly from the camera. On the ID note, they have a several quality aps for ID(Merlin for NA) and you can even go 'old skool' and bring out a book with pictures if it has to happen ASAP. Or you can use the USB port and tie in your phone(what you were going to use the wifi for anyways) and upload the image that way. Meanwhile you missed the rare African Swallow who decided to migrate while carrying a coconut.


How fast was it flying?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ERHP said:
> 
> 
> > I figure I must lead the dullest of lives simply because I don't feel the need to share anything directly from the camera. On the ID note, they have a several quality aps for ID(Merlin for NA) and you can even go 'old skool' and bring out a book with pictures if it has to happen ASAP. Or you can use the USB port and tie in your phone(what you were going to use the wifi for anyways) and upload the image that way. Meanwhile you missed the rare African Swallow who decided to migrate while carrying a coconut.
> ...


Nineveh?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2016)

Wi-Fi does not need to be expensive. I use low cost Ubiquity Access points. It takes about 2 seconds per image to upload jpegs from my G1X II, 4 seconds for my 5D MK III, a lot more for Raws, but still usable. I get reasonable security, and great coverage from a $64 unit. They have POE, so can be placed where they work best. Their range is fantastic.

http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-Enterprise-AP-Unifi/dp/B00HXT8R2O?ie=UTF8&keywords=Ubiquity&qid=1464121161&ref_=sr_1_4&sr=8-4

When I replace these I'll go to a 802.11 AC unit for $127. I have a Ubiquity router too, it gives high end features for a low price.

http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-802-11ac-Dual-Radio-Access/dp/B015PRO512?ie=UTF8&keywords=Ubiquity&qid=1464121161&ref_=sr_1_5&sr=8-5

Many do not purchase these because they require a bit more advanced setup, but even a old guy like me managed it. I was even able to repair my Ubiquity router after a lightening surge took it and my 24 port HP switch out. Inside the router is the OS on a thumb drive. That was corrupted and the thumb drive ruined. I found a image online, copied it to a new thumb drive and was back in business. Ubiquity support pointed me to the solution even though they do not officially support it. 

HP has a forever warranty on their pro grade switches, they overnighted me a replacement at no charge and included a return label for the dead one. If I ever decide to upgrade, it will be HP. It costs less in the long run.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 24, 2016)

WiFi on cameras?!?
You will be telling me that they shoot video next!


----------



## MiamiC70 (May 24, 2016)

It's 2016, every DSLR should have WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth a built in intervalometer and at minimum a touchscreen at maximum an articulated touchscreen and the ability to connect via WiFi or Bluetooth to phones, tablets and computers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

It's 2016, all countries should regulate wireless communications identically and hackers shouldn't exist.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's 2016, all countries should regulate wireless communications identically and hackers shouldn't exist.



But how will hackers exist unless there is Wi-Fi on cameras? They have hacked cars, phones, printers, but no one has taken control of a 5D MK III. They need Wi-Fi to put another notch in their belt.


----------



## MiamiC70 (May 25, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's 2016, all countries should regulate wireless communications identically and hackers shouldn't exist.
> ...



If you are really that worried. I can assume you live in a cave, have no smart phone, computer Internet, etc?
OR you can just turn it off :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Great idea! Why didn't the regulators in countries where only the 6D (N) is sold think of that?


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


You just need to be sufficiently paranoid that someone is watching.....

I have heard that there is a government van that goes around recording WiFi and LTE signals


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I like Wi-Fi in cameras. Canon is reasonably careful, but hackers will find a way if there are any weaknesses. This is a concern to sports event shooters, a hacker could delete their images and cost them a lot of dollars. They want Wi-Fi, but they want it secure. Canon did a lot of research into protection before putting it into pro level cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> MiamiC70 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


One of the best ways to keep things secure is to pair the phone to the camera using a single-use code. The camera displays a QR code, the phone reads it, and authentication is set up as a one time only link between only those two devices.


----------



## j-nord (May 25, 2016)

I see camera wifi as general DSLR advancement even though I have no use for it. It should be cheap and easy to implement. 

I definitely see where studio shooters want high speed wifi over the inconvenience of cable tethering.

For me, I want to process the photo properly or not at all. The intermediate/ half assed sharing via phone seems pointless though I recognize some people want it.


----------

