Nikon Digital SLR Camera... With 802.11b!

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD2Hpg_3.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Ni...onD2Hpg_3.shtml</a><br /><br /></div>Here's more fuel on the fire regarding the "competition" between Bluetooth and WiFi. I've been saying all along that they don't really compete; they're designed for different markets. However, Nikon saw fit to throw that opinion to the wind, and has released a camera (a very <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=D2H">high-end one</a>, mind you) that can have an optional 802.11b attachment at the bottom, which can upload pictures whenever you want via FTP.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/parekh-20030725-Nikon-WiFi.jpg" /><br /><br />I think this is overkill; for all this effort, you could have integrated a Bluetooth chip into the camera itself, and this thing eats up about 20% of the battery in "normal usage" scenarios. On the other hand, 802.11b's pervasiveness might make it possible one day to walk into a Starbucks and upload your pictures. Choices, choices... ;)

[pepemosca]

Another review:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond2h/

Wow, this is a Digital Camera!

[Abba Zabba]

Sony has had A BLuetooth camera out for a very long time
(Sony DSC-FX77)

http://www.dealtime.co.uk/xPC-Sony_Cyber_Shot_DSC_FX77~FD-7185

And this latter one is slightly closer to my budget too =D

8O I've never seen this camera before. When did it first come out?

[T-Will]

802.11 all the way! Why is the attachment so huge??? My Socket WiFi card is probably 1/10 the size of that monster.

[Janak Parekh]

8O I've never seen this camera before. When did it first come out?
A few months ago, if I remember correctly.

--janak

[ppcsurfr]

:drool:

Wow!!! I want the camera...

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

[freitasm]

&lt;snip> On the other hand, 802.11b's pervasiveness might make it possible one day to walk into a Starbucks and upload your pictures. Choices, choices... ;)

Not quite. Mobile connections are more present than 802.11b. And more present than Starbucks.

Think of it like: "if I want to use Starbucks, I have to buy tokens/time from X. To use Liquidate across the road I have buy from Y, to use in Europe I have to buy from Z". Or think like "I have a mobile phone with roaming activated. I can use anywhere in the world with coverage".

I'd go for the second one. Of course how one uses the mobile connection (802.11b or Bluetooth or magnetic field) is another story :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

Not quite. Mobile connections are more present than 802.11b. And more present than Starbucks.
Absolutely true. And yet, I don't even want to think of uploading super-high-res digital images over GPRS or even 1xRTT... 8O

--janak

[jnunn]

On a high end camera where each file is multiple MB, bluetooth would be ineffective due its slow speed. I read somewhere that the bluetooth max bandwidth is 96kB/s. I cannot image a photography professional being so hampered. 802.11 makes perfect sense and perhaps the large size of this attachment includes an auxillary batter.

[Certified Optimist]

Which is why a WiFi card may make more sense than BlueTooth connecting to a phone.

The bandwidth is higher (Mb's not K's) and you usually pay per minutes of usage (phones usually per kilobyte up/downloaded), so a WiFi card should be both quicker and cheaper.

That is... if you can find a hotspot...

[maximus]

:drool:

Wow!!! I want the camera...

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

JFET sensor is cool,
No AF assist is uncool,
NEF format is cool,
Spot Metering at 20 EV is super cool,
AF at 19 EV is way super cool,
1/8000 is cool,
11 area TTL is cool,
9 Frame bracketing is cool,

but $3500 for a 4 mpixel camera ....

[revolution.cx]

You are kind of missing the point by coming at this from a consumer standpoint. This camera is for pros who have much different needs.

Although a wireless connection makes more sense in a studio environment this is still a great feature for this camera.

Bluetooth is great for a slow PDA talking to a slow phone talking to a slow cell connection. This camera can generate 10's of megabytes of data per second so even the higher speed of WiFi is barely enough.

Think of a football game where a pro photographer with a 400mm lens is snapping action shots that are continuously uploaded OTA to a computer onsite. The video producers can see a running scroll of images that they can pick and choose to use as stills on air.

[Dalantech]

jnunn beat me to it: There is no way that I'd want to transfer high resolution digital images via Blue Tooth! It would take forever to get them out of the camera...

[Duncan]

This isn't about Bluetooth vs. WiFi - it is a case of which is most appropriate for the purpose - in this case the trade-off of high power drain for high speed/bandwidth is going to be worth it.

Things only get silly when people think WiFi in a mobile phone (for example) is sensible...

Of course a camera like this is an ideal candidate for a combined WiFi/BT/GPRS wireless chip when they (inevitably) become available.

[srider]

:drool:

Wow!!! I want the camera...

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

JFET sensor is cool,
No AF assist is uncool,
NEF format is cool,
Spot Metering at 20 EV is super cool,
AF at 19 EV is way super cool,
1/8000 is cool,
11 area TTL is cool,
9 Frame bracketing is cool,

but $3500 for a 4 mpixel camera ....

You're missing the point re: 4mp. This camera is aimed at photo journalists and sports photogs, where speed is more important. Like my Canon 1D, this Nikon takes 8 frames PER SECOND! That's a LOT of data to process/store. Even upping it to 6mp would dramatically impact the processing/buffer size/speed.

Also, these cameras produce much higher quality pictures than consumer cameras. I have many 13x19in prints from my 1D which are good enough to sell. It's not just how many pixels you have, it's what you do with them :wink:

BT would be WAYYYYY too slow to keep up, in fact many on the DPReview forums wish it had 802.11g!

[theone3]

not to mention its the LENS that really counts.. you cant judge a camera by numbers, you have to see the results.

I REALLY dont understand the wifi thing...

but look at all those buttons 8O

[FredMurphy]

I'm guessing this is aimed at a professional in a studio who needs to copy lots of photos to a server quickly, rather than a tourist who wants to find a hotspot to send his snapshots home. Bluetooth might make more sense for sending holiday snaps via your mobile phone (very slowly of course).

It's great that different ideas are coming out - let the consumer decide what's best with their wallet.

[gorkon280]

On a high end camera where each file is multiple MB, bluetooth would be ineffective due its slow speed. I read somewhere that the bluetooth max bandwidth is 96kB/s. I cannot image a photography professional being so hampered. 802.11 makes perfect sense and perhaps the large size of this attachment includes an auxillary batter.

Yes and with WiFi, you could (if sony ever brings it here) use the Sony WiFi storage server that runs off of batteries. This guy would fit in a camera bag and you could probably set it up AdHoc. Failing that, the pics could be ftp'd from a WiFi equipped hotel.

[acronym]

not to mention its the LENS that really counts.. you cant judge a camera by numbers, you have to see the results.

I REALLY dont understand the wifi thing...

but look at all those buttons 8O

shutterbug did a comparison a couple of years ago between a minolta srt they bought at a garage sale and a brand new leica 6.2...

...they couldn't tell the difference in the images

[mv]

Sony already have digital cameras with BT, and they are pretty good. Wi fi for a camera? Sure i want to search for a hot spot every time i want to upload a pic... :twisted: Using BT and a GPRS BT phone i can upload them whenever i want, not just in a mac donals or an airport, thanks.

[kalex]

srider is right. I own Canon 1D which is pretty much the same as this one. - 802.11b. Its a huge camera and once u start putting Canon L lenses its becomes even more bigger. but even with 4.11 mp this camera blows away anything on the market right now, except for Canon 1ds same as mine except 11mp sensor. megapixels are only minor way to categorize cameras. it also depends on lenses, sensor size as well speed. My canon 1D produces film like pictures and even at 4mp i printed out 20 x 40 prints from it without any problems. and bluetooth will be too slow to transfer files. RAW files are about 3-5mg each so 802.11b is better than bluetooth in this case. Nikon allows for ftp transfers even while shooting.



alex

[tsg1985]

Plus, this is aimed at sporting events and news events. In that case, you need something with a much higher range than Bluetooth. Bluetooth doesn't reach to the random street where an event is occuring.

[theone3]

not to mention its the LENS that really counts.. you cant judge a camera by numbers, you have to see the results.

I REALLY dont understand the wifi thing...

but look at all those buttons 8O

shutterbug did a comparison a couple of years ago between a minolta srt they bought at a garage sale and a brand new leica 6.2...

...they couldn't tell the difference in the images
HAHA.. what film were they using? the old B&W film in the store?

seriously.. I doubt that.. There are huge visible differences in pictures taken, for example, in a 4MP consumer to a 4MP Proffesional. Its the Lens, and the CCD quality.

I dont think that cameras can be thought of like computers. You can't compare numbers, you have to see the results.

Kinda like a car, really.

[theone3]

what i really wanna know is if this has embedded IE in it 8O :lol:

[clinte]

Bluetooth camera hits the market
Low cost model from Concord
By Tony Dennis: woensdag 16 juli 2003, 15:32
A LOW-COST CAMERA, which offers 2 megapixels capacity (1600 by 1200 active pixel) and has a Bluetooth capability built-in has now become available from Concord Camera.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10514

Ailocom Wireless Camera is an intelligent security camera using Bluetooth wireless technology
http://qualweb.opengroup.org/Template2.cfm?LinkQualified=QualifiedProducts&Details=Yes&ProductID=1268

Bluetooth Camera's
http://tinylink.com/?LUtKt7zyfD

HP iPAQ h4100 Series Gets Bluetooth Qualification
http://www.brighthand.com/article/iPAQ_h4100_Gets_Bluetooth_Qualification

[Janak Parekh]

This isn't about Bluetooth vs. WiFi - it is a case of which is most appropriate for the purpose - in this case the trade-off of high power drain for high speed/bandwidth is going to be worth it.
For the moment, yes. The question is if UWB will ultimately be a better solution.

--janak

[Mr. PPC]

I designed the wireless network for News Limited at the Sydney Olympics. Photographers that were in special places (helicopters and boats, amongst other places) had to lug notebooks with them so they could send photos to the editors from remote points we had setup around Sydney.

This would have saved us cost (notebook) and made it a lot easier on the photographers.

[iomatic]

Studio professionals + WiFi + Nikon D2H = wireless shooting.

Sports/Location professionals + WiFi-on-a-PowerBook-which-has-had-WiFi-for-years = fast upload.

The bottom line is: Fast time to market = profitability.

You see, the Mac/creative market has had wireless for years; we know all about its capabilities. Most pros use PowerBooks or Power Macs for production/Photoshop/capturing with high-end backs, medium-format backs, or the aforementioned SLRs. This is NOT designed for the consumer market sitting around Starbucks and a cheap Dell, although that possibility is there.

Sorry, it's nice; but it's not for you cheap-ass Pocket PC users. Like me.

:)

[rlobrecht]

It transmits images to an ftp server via a wireless LAN selected in the camera's menu. There are two possible methods of transmissions. With the infrastructure mode, the images are sent to an FTP server via an access point that is on an intranet. With the ad hoc mode, the images are directly transmitted to an ftp server on a laptop with a wireless LAN adapter. (Images cannot be sent to a distant ftp server via an access point on the internet.)

You're not going to be using a WiFi hotspot with these babies.

[klinux]

Should have used 802.11g....

[iPaqDude]

I LUST AFTER THIS CAMERA!!!!!!! :werenotworthy:

HERE!! TAKE MY FIRST BORN!!!

[GoldKey]

Wouldn't this be idea for connecton to an external disk drive to move the pictures to as they are taken. High megapixel cameras can quickly fill up memory cards, so this might be a faster way to off load them. Would not be suprised if they had a battery powered wifi enabled HD as an accessory.

[maximus]

I'm guessing this is aimed at a professional in a studio who needs to copy lots of photos to a server quickly, rather than a tourist who wants to find a hotspot to send his snapshots home. Bluetooth might make more sense for sending holiday snaps via your mobile phone (very slowly of course).

And very expensive. If you have to pay GPRS by the kilobytes ...

[Jonathon Watkins]

I'm just waiting for Canon to come up with a 1:1 ratio for lens coversion ratios. I like 17, 24 & 28 mm wideangle shots and with the 1.5x magnification ratios on most SLR digital cameras that give me 24, 26 and 52 mm. :cry:

Still - this is an interesting move for the pros. I agree about the 802.11g. 8)