Samsung looking ahead to carrier-subsidized 'connected cameras'

Dpreview is in Seoul, South Korea, with Samsung. As is usually the case, most of our discussions with senior executives have been off-the-record, but we'll be publishing the interesting extracts from our conversations we can cover in the coming days and weeks. For now though, Sunhong Lim - VP Sales & Marketing in Samsung's Digital Imaging division, spoke at length to dpreview and a small group of other journalists about his vision of Samsung's role in shaping the future of cameras as mobile communication devices. 

'Customers are looking for a total solution'

Of all the major camera manufacturers, Samsung is making perhaps the most concerted effort to introduce smartphone-like features into its camera lineup. Several of its 2012 models feature WiFi connectivity, and some, like the innovative flip-screen MV800, utilize a distinctly 'app-like' graphic user interface. We asked Lim what the future holds. 

Although he wouldn't be drawn on specific plans (at least not on record) Lim told us that he believes 'customers are looking for a total solution for their images, not only capturing pictures but editing and sharing. We want to provide this solution, but in order to realize this vision the camera must be connected. This is why we are adding WiFi to our camera lineup [in 2012]'.

'Once people experience the technology they love it'

We asked Lim whether it is difficult to educate consumers in the benefits of a so-called connected-camera. He said it is, but only for certain demographics. 'The technology is brand new' he explained, 'and so is the experience. Our prime target consumers are young people because they are connected, and well-exposed to [this sort of] technology. After we've targeted those consumers we will expand our target market'.
Lim went on - 'in order to educate the experience is key. Once people experience the technology they love it and once they love it, then they buy it'.

The WB150F is capable of connecting to WiFi networks and Android smartphones, allowing you to view and share images on a wide variety of devices, as well as email and social networking websites. 

The 'experience' that Lee mentions is the experience of using Samsung's newest compacts as connected devices, capable of allowing images to be edited and shared straight from the camera. Once connected, Samsung's latest WiFi-equipped compact cameras, like the WB150F allow users to email images and share them on Facebook straight from the camera. The same technology allows photographers to browse images from their camera directly to a WiFi-equipped AllShare or DLNA enabled television, and to an Android smartphone via Samsung's MobileLink app.

'Cameras will have the same processing power as smartphones'

At present, smartphones pack more processing power than cameras, but as a consequence they also cost more. Is not unusual for unsubsidized smartphones, with their powerful processors and plentiful in-built memory to cost upwards of $500.  

We asked Lim whether he envisages digital cameras with the same processing power as modern phones in the future. Right now, he explained, 'semiconductor firms are feeding the demand for smartphones because the market is so much bigger [than it is for cameras]'. That said, Lim predicts that 'in a year or two cameras will have the same processing power and memory as smartphones'.

'Non-connected devices will be meaningless'

Although he would go on record with any comments on the possibility of cameras being released with mobile operating systems and built-in 3G/4G connectivity, we asked Lim whether he envisages so called 'connected cameras' being subsidized by wireless carriers in the future, in the same way as smartphones are today.

'In the future, maybe', Lim told us. 'Right now people use phones more than cameras. But once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless. In that case, the camera will need real-time connectivity, and [carriers] are looking for devices like this'.

'Many companies' he went on, are developing cloud services, 'but right now there aren't many devices [connecting] to that cloud. Photos and videos are the main data traffic generator, so carriers are naturally very interested in the [concept of a] connected camera. [Carrier-subsized] business models may appear in the near future. The technology is there now but we need to wait for the business model to make sense.'

Asked for his personal opinion, Lim predicted 'it will come very soon'.


Click here to read why, in our opinion, it would make a lot of sense for Samsung to launch a camera running the open-source Android platform...  

6
I own it
0
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 222
12
Dan4321
By Dan4321 (Sep 21, 2012)

A solution in search of a problem. While they have designed out the minor inconvenience of downloading your camera's photos to your computer, are people going to pay significantly more for that? Or pay a monthly subscription fee? Not to mention the shorter battery life and limited applications. IT people know the cloud is already yesterday's technology, it has largely come and gone in favor of virtualization.

0 upvotes
snake_b
By snake_b (Apr 16, 2012)

It would be nice if Samsung focused on image quality, rather than making toys.

0 upvotes
jackedup
By jackedup (Apr 3, 2012)

samsung is rocking day by day....
but camera shortcomings are are big problems.
http://www.jackedup.me/?page_id=4
check it for latest updates

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cherry890120
By cherry890120 (Mar 29, 2012)

11111111111111http://www.cx-7.info/g.gif

0 upvotes
cherry890120
By cherry890120 (Mar 29, 2012)

1111111111111111

0 upvotes
cherry890120
By cherry890120 (Mar 29, 2012)

i do not like this brand,

1 upvote
Aeros
By Aeros (Mar 25, 2012)

All that stuff, wow! I wonder if they could make it boil an egg, make a cup of coffee and toast a bagle? Then I could take a photo of my breakfast and post it to facebook.

0 upvotes
gevalia
By gevalia (Mar 23, 2012)

Non-connected devices will be meaningless? It isn't a connected device, it's a camera. camera. camera. camera. The people thay buy cameras want you to get that right first. Can you please just do that.

1 upvote
DaveAB
By DaveAB (Mar 19, 2012)

"But once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless" Well remember, this statement comes from a Sales and Marketing exec. so the statement is meant to market an idea and be provocative, even if it is exaggerating. Cameras and other gadgets will certainly not become obsolete just because they are not connected 24/7.

It should be all about consumer choice. I think cloud connectivity is a welcome addition on a camera to memory cards and USB cables, as long as you can "go offline" too if desired. I would never buy a camera in which the only means of transferring files is via the cloud, but if I can choose to do it that way, or to just transfer to my own computer from the memory card then that would be nice.

2 upvotes
fredor3
By fredor3 (Mar 19, 2012)

Try telling your future wife that as the phone camera is so good you will not be wasting money on a photographer

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 18, 2012)

Do you know what? The worst thing is that the guy from Samsung is serious. With a straight face he can say such things as "a non connected devices is going to be obsolete". Is he talking about my washing machine, dishing machine or motor saw. Or my vacuum cleaner? Or what? Is this guy for real? Maybe it is he that is obsolete?

Lets see. You are in South America, up in the Andes and you are taking images. Or no? I forgot - all devices are connected - so this one does only have a 5 GB buffer for storing temporary before uploading to the net. No flash card slot. Right! But ... ops ... the net ... 6000 meter up in the Andes. No net. Big Fail!

Hmmm ... try to buy some throw away film based camera in the next village. OK! Good plan! Hmmm .. 20 images in each camera. Also buy a HUGE bag to carry cameras.

Oops ... local village only have 4 cameras. No need for HUGE bag.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Mar 19, 2012)

You're quite right - a 'connected camera' may be of limited utility 6000 meters up a mountain in the Andes.

2 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Mar 19, 2012)

Samsung just announced a Connected Washing Machine too:
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l%253D292323%2526a%253D292323%2526po%253D67,00.asp?p=n

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 19, 2012)

A network connection was the last thing I looked for in a computer spec not so many years ago - I could not see the need. My PC did everything I needed it to do, the internet scarcely existed, ethernet was something business used to network their machines. I could not imagine a need.

Truth be told, my PC still can do all those things it ever used to do all those years ago, but I would not dream of having a PC sans network connection now.

One day you will be able to interrogate the contents of your fridge remotely, generate a shopping list, press the go button on your phone and have all your shopping delivered or ready for collection. The idea of scratching your head to draw up a shopping list, going to the shops, coming back to discover you are out of milk, it will all seem so unnecessary.

With IPv6 everything can have its own IP address, everything can be connected. Stop thinking how I did when I had my first PC and start imagining the possibilities.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

wetsleet:

If you weren't looking for a computer with the possibility of network connection 20 years ago, then you weren't paying attention.

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 19, 2012)

exactly right - and if you are not looking for a camera with 'cloud' connection the same thing applies now, or soon will. That is the exact point I was trying to make - thank you for saying in one sentence what I failed to make clear in 4 paragraphs!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

wetsleet:

Nope, you're still missing the point, to the best of my knowledge no one here objects to the idea of a camera with the possibility of a web connection.

It's the enforced web connection being the only way to get photos off of the camera that is the disastrous proposition and raises so much ire.

Look my current laptop may very well have a web connection, but I don't use that web connection to edit photos or do CAD drawings, etc. And that's not going to change without my below proposals for VR goggles, which ain't going to happen.

Put differently: It appears to be news to you that people use things called applications on a computer to do work that is not immediately uploaded to some server somewhere.

Right now Realplayer15 is playing Bach WAV files from my C drive. It will remain very difficult to do that same activity off a server for the foreseeable future. (Unless you know of very secret, and nearly fully developed, gear which is about to be released for public use.)

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 19, 2012)

Oh, I missed the bit about it being the exclusive and mandatory method to access your photos. Actually, where is that bit mentioned?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

wetskeet:

read some more and also reread those talking about exclusively built-in memory in these comments.

you also missed where early in these comments I said I didn't have any particular problem with a camera with a quick upload feature as long as there's no forced subscription fee.

in fact the iPhone is part of the way there, no card slot, must use apple software to move data to say a laptop or one must upload the photos--at least I believe the iPhone has a wifi feature.

sony, nikon, canon, samsung, olympus, etc would all be laughed out of the camera business if they'd done what apple did with the fixed battery and fixed memory.

Samsung saying "non connected means obsolete" more than kinda of suggests enforced uploads. The problem is the use of the word "obsolete", because that very much implies that other camera systems won't work without a "cloud" connection.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 19, 2012)

so you are actually shooting down Samsung's vision of the future because you would take issue with "enforced web connection being the only way to get photos off of the camera" - something which is never actually mentioned or even hinted at in the original article?

Well never mind, since criticising the article over something it never suggested is futile anyway. What pains me throughout the comments is the general reflex that the whole "cloud connected" idea is plain stupid, won't work, too expensive, adds nothing useful, no good for 'serious' photogs, etc

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

wetsleet:

Do you really not know what the word "obsolete" means?

Stop pretending that Samsung said: We're going to try putting WiFi and a 4G card in some digital cameras because we think adding quick wireless upload capacity is something people will use. Samsung said no such thing, they stupidly went on about non web connected systems being obsolete and even more stupidly went off on the "carrier subsidized" track.

FYI: carrier subsidized and built in memory almost assure enforced web connection and the carrier subsidized part most certainly implies a fee.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 20, 2012)

Note that the guy said devices - not cameras. He said non connected devices will be obsolete. I dont really know what devices he is talking about, but I have heard this claim several times for many years. And the driving force is IPv6. And yes - with IPv6 you can personally have billions of IP addresses or trillions. Th question is only - why? At the same time, the same people claims we are going to unify our devices into one, our camera-phone-computer-whatever. Lots of guesses. We will see what happens. ----- It is though rather clear to me that a camera without network connectivity is perfectly useful - if only the companies lets us buy one. Let us hope this mad future forecast is not going to be fulfilled.

0 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (Sep 20, 2012)

It is not a high priority for my camera to be connected to the "cloud". Forget about the Andes. I PPall of my photos in lightroom - which is on a computer, which is connected to the internet cloud. After I PP my images, then I might think of uploading a few of them to FB or G+. If I don't care about the quality of an image, I just shoot it with my camera phone. But if I care (which is most of the time), I will shoot with my dslr and PP.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Mar 18, 2012)

you WOULD like that dont you ? haha

just as apple WOULD like me to buy final cut proX via their app store and avid got a new customer

my camera and my work computer and or renderfarm will NEVER EVER be hooked up to the internet

you hear me samsung ? :)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

well there's always Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere, when that expensive Avid has one to many glitches.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 18, 2012)

This is a very typical idea from a loser. Just improve the quality of the camera itself, instead of adding some gudgets like features.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

The Samsung NX lenses are already better than the Sony Nex system lenses.

And the Samsung TL500 (a different name in Europe) does nicely against the Canon G12 or the Panasonic LX5.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

Anyone know the size of a raw file from a Nikon D800, or perhaps the Leica S2?

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Mar 18, 2012)

Not sure, I have heard to numbers - 36MB and 76MB.

0 upvotes
AP Hovasse
By AP Hovasse (Mar 17, 2012)

I'm a little surprised by the amount of push-back I read in the comments. People seem to be denying the present: iPhones now take more photos combined that all photos taken since the invention of photography. And the quality is getting better,there's no escaping this. Next is the issue of connectivity: looking at phones, tablets, computers, even cars, all these point to more and greater connectivity as we move forward, not less. The union of such a high tech device as a camera with internet technology has to me been too long coming. Witness the extreme surge of shared images once a decent phone camera came out. Long-time Professional photographers like me, have watched with horror how our "serious" work is being flooded by iPhone and other images. But it's inescapable, we've turned the corner, and though there will always be room for high quality work, NOTHING says it cannot be done with a small well connected device such as a phone. Can regular "cameras" catch up now? It will happen.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

Nope, the quality of most iphone jpegs is still pretty bad, though you're correct to say improved.

For high photo quality, iPhone cameras don't come close to what my 11 year old Canon G2 can do, let alone a Nikon D3s or even a Nikon D7000.

We haven't turned any corner, you've just set the bar really incredibly low.

Enjoy those boxes of red wine (analogy warning there.)

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Mar 18, 2012)

for me the iphone 4 camera is allady good enough as carry all day camera with hdr set to on, and flashlight always off

also you can lock aperture/shutterspeed and the focus with the last update

you can even lock them during filming

iam used to a d3/d700 and i know its not an "outstanding" camera, but its in my pocket, and thats what matters.

also besides the optical viewfinder its like a ricoh grd to me

yeah and the lens and the hotshoe and everything else that makes a grd great ^^

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 18, 2012)

Nah! It is photographers that take photos. Not phones and not cameras. And photographers choose cameras before phones when they take images.

That uploading is a good tool for many photographers is of course true.

That lots of snappers uploads whatever cr@p they make is also true.

But - this does not make non connected cameras obsolete. Thats just pure nonsense. And Samsung should be ashamed of a marketing department that claims such nonsense.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

inevitable crafts studio:

If you really use a D700 regularly, I'm surprised you don't carry something like a Canon S95 or Panasonic LX5 as a pocket camera, instead of the silly iphone.

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Mar 17, 2012)

"'Right now people use phones more than cameras. But once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless."
The man must be out of his gourd... :)

3 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Mar 18, 2012)

probably on drugs

0 upvotes
William Koehler
By William Koehler (Mar 17, 2012)

At a time when the telcos are clamping down on 'unlimited data' plans, I really, really doubt they feel a need to drive more demand for usage of the service. Furthermore, personally, I find most (of my own) photographs are improved by at least a little photo-processing. No way that is happening on the small LCD display on the back of a camera. At minimum it will wait until the pictures have been loaded onto a desktop/laptop with a decent sized - and calibrated - screen, plus available WiFi.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 17, 2012)

A Suiss army knife is a best seller. Its considered high quality and a good buy. It contains lots of tools, such as knives, scissors and screw drivers. Very neat.

But yet - a knife, a screw driver and a scissor is a better tool. So --- the Suiss army knife is just an emergency kit.

The same goes for all multi tools. They are handy. But if you really want to fasten some screws - a real screw driver is the right tool.

So - if I want to take pictures I want a camera - not a multi tool. But - of course - if I see something I want to photo - and the only thing I have is my phone - I use it.

Just as the Suiss army knife and a real knife both have their place so do a phone with a camera and a a camera.

Then you can discuss whether a non connected camera is useless. To some it may be. But absolutely not to me.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

Just to be contrary, most of the time the small pliers on a real Leatherman are better than most inexpensive small pliers.

0 upvotes
A-Awayda
By A-Awayda (Mar 18, 2012)

i agree, i dont realy think that wireless conectivity is vital, however, i would like the option of taging a picture directly on a social network from my camera threw wifi and even better threw 3g network.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 18, 2012)

Of course. But I have never claimed that no one wants a suiss army knife. I just said that a suiss army knife does not make scissors, knives and screw drivers obsolete. Like this strange man at Samsung did. He claimed that non connected cameras will be obsolete. Does anyone agree?

1 upvote
Michael Barkowski
By Michael Barkowski (Mar 19, 2012)

But what if the swiss army knife does well enough in non-emergency situations to satisfy the vast majority of shoppers, and therefore economy of scale simply causes scissors to become a premium niche product used only by seamstresses and professional custom greeting card designers? And the scissor companies react by no longer skimping on materials, and raising the price, and reducing availability in department stores?

0 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Mar 16, 2012)

A tablet/smart phone OS in a professional camera? It'd be the ultimate System Camera. Buy whatever add-on functions you want/need, from whatever developer is smart enough to come up with them.

If I could use existing smart phone "toys" like stop-motion animation apps with a professional-grade camera? Duh! Add the ability to pre-program camera moves - zoom and track focus, with integrated control of an outboard, motorized pan head via Bluetooth? Smooth! More than a few wildlife photographers (and private investigators) would be delighted to have a low-cost system for monitoring and controlling one or more remote cameras via iPhone from the comfort of their favorite watering hole.

The real problem for the camera makers is that, once control of the camera is opened to outside apps, it's harder for them to differentiate one model from the next. But maybe we'd be able to use a hot, new Nikon-made app on a Canon body.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 17, 2012)

In principle I agree. It would be fun to be able to use apps on your camera. Or even write your own apps. I am somewhat sceptical though. The interface to the camera functions might not be so open so you can do all that much. All you might be able to do is to upload and twitter about your images :)

Moreover - you will need a 5 inch screen on the phone. Which makes it clumsy.

0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Mar 16, 2012)

I think Samsung is completely missing the point. Like Apple, they have somehow concluded that most people want to share their unsorted, unedited photos via the internet. Perhaps some do, but only clueless snapshooters.

The more serious issue is that Samsung wants their customers to upload more photos, but carriers want to charge for every micro-bit of data that is uploaded. What is their motivation to subsidize the uploading of photos to Facebook or Flickr? Not gonna happen, not without a bitter struggle. The carriers are shamelessly fleecing their customers; and, so far, customers are not complaining—not nearly loud enough, at any rate. Somebody (maybe Apple) has to figure out how to break the carriers' stranglehold on the movement of data to and from the cloud.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 16, 2012)

Once Samsung learns how to make some high-end, quality cameras, some of us might actually listen to what they have to say.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 16, 2012)

They're called the NX system camera bodies and lenses.

Seems to me Samsung did many of the Pentax dslr sensors too.

"quality" is not an adjective either.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 17, 2012)

Samsung made the K-7 sensor. Many got tired of K-7 and bought K-5 instead. And keep their noisy K-7 unused. A K-7 is very hard to sell.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

Roland Karlsson:

For what it's worth, I was thinking of the Pentax K20D and the Samsung GX-20.

0 upvotes
abijake
By abijake (Mar 18, 2012)

I seriously looked at an NZ camera and nealy bought it. In the end the image quality was uninspiring and just (alittle) too soft. I ended up buying a Sigma DP2. I am pleased I gave Samsung a miss.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 18, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW. K20D/GX-20 are not many cameras - I count to one. And this camera was not made by Samsung.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

Roland Karlsson:

I was thinking of shared sensors.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

abijake:

A websearch turns up no references to a Samsung NZ camera.

The Sigma DP2 is a nice machine, but you can't mount other lenses on it, use it above ISO800, like the Samsung NXes one can't realistically shoot jpegs with the Sigma, and until very recently the horrid Sigma software was the only way of doing raw extraction.

Except for a problematic jpeg engine:The Samsung NXes can do all of these things, and their autofocus is better than those DP Sigmas.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ponyman
By ponyman (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm sure our government will be delighted with this. Not only will they be monitoring what we say on the 'phone & write in our emails, soon they will be adding what we photograph to their records as well ... for our own security, of course.

8 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 16, 2012)

You're absolutely right.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Mar 18, 2012)

exactly

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Mar 16, 2012)

i will be making a phone call on NX300? lol

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 16, 2012)

What else will they invent to impinge on us, The Avid Consumers?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

You mean Avid the famously glitchy--though powerful--high end video editing software, or simply avid the adjective?

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Mar 18, 2012)

@howaboutraw : i think in all your coolness you missinterpreted the avid homepage, and now think that avid is an application, while the application you meant is "media composer" by avid, just like "pro tools" by avid ;)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 19, 2012)

inevitable crafts studio:

No, I got it and was calling attention to the ambiguity.

0 upvotes
YouDidntDidYou
By YouDidntDidYou (Mar 16, 2012)

deja vu? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=40926375

0 upvotes
timccr
By timccr (Mar 16, 2012)

If you are still there talking to Samsung please could you ask them about underwater housings. If there was something like a Patima housing for the NX200 I would have bought one by now, whether I can send emails from it or not. That wouldn't work underwater anyway. Thanks

1 upvote
mpetersson
By mpetersson (Mar 16, 2012)

So a camera phone, or a phone camera? I don't know, i feel that the idea of a "catch all"-machine is pretty dated. Sure, we have lots of stuff in our phones today, and I guess we could put a lot more stuff in our cameras. But there are good reasons to separate the devices, battery time and ergonomics for instance. I doubt a camera that is actually comfortable to use, and that gives good enough results, is acutally possible to combine with an android device/phone at this stage.

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 16, 2012)

I didn't realise anybody was suggesting talking into your DSLR. I thought the idea was that your camera was connected 'the cloud', nothing at all to do with telephones. And Android is just an OS, much used on telephones but equally capable of other non-telephone uses.

1 upvote
Bruce McL
By Bruce McL (Mar 16, 2012)

Samsung makes many "connected" Android devices that are not phones. They have WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS, a camera, but no cell phone connection. Screen sizes available are 4, 5, 7, and 10 inches. Some are called tablets, some called media players.

0 upvotes
MarcusGR
By MarcusGR (Mar 16, 2012)

Well, I think that having in your pocket a quality compact camera able to perfectly replace your smart-phone (or vice-versa) is very desirable indeed. Which means that REALLY compact cameras and smartphones are no doubt going to merge into one device. It doesn't mean that you are going to talk into your MILC or DSLR, though !! Convergency will merge devices designed to fit into your pocket, its aim being quite the opposite to creating duplicates. Fine compact cameras will totally merge into smarthphones just like fine mp3 players already merged into mobiles.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
kelpdiver
By kelpdiver (Mar 16, 2012)

practically speaking, Samsung is talking about making wifi a standard feature on the camera. For me personally, I don't see smartphones getting cameras that would make me give up a decent compact, nevermind my dsrls. The iphone 4s and the nokia offerings have made the phone camera usable, but it's still single focal range and limited by the size of the lens. That problem doesn't go away.

Unfortunately, the cell carriers don't want to make it easy (without paying) to use your cell phone as the uplink for the camera, and I don't see cheap cell connections likely in the near future to make it viable to put on every camera. Amazon did it for their kindles, but that was to allow them to sell to you. And even they now sell wiifi only models.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

MarcusGR:

Really Cowan is shipping mobile phones, nope. No one who cares about sound quality pays much attention to what Apple ships for personal music players, even if a phone happens to be included.

0 upvotes
TomServoCA
By TomServoCA (Mar 16, 2012)

'Non-connected devices will be meaningless'

What utter nonsense.

12 upvotes
Martin_Kay
By Martin_Kay (Mar 16, 2012)

Yeah, that's my reaction- what tripe! I think we are approaching over saturation of being 'connected'.

3 upvotes
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 16, 2012)

Not nonsense and not at all unrealistic. Seeing how fast connectivity has grown and continues to grow I'd be surprised if not almost every electronic device will be connected within 5-10 years. And Martin, I fail to see how we could become "over saturated". Is there any kind of drawback to having a camera that don't require you to connect to another device to get the actual pictures out of it?

2 upvotes
mraines
By mraines (Mar 16, 2012)

yes cloud storage cost is 1/10 of the local SD flash storage

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 16, 2012)

mraines:

That's funny, it sure costs a lot time and or money to get 4 gigs of data to the cloud.

Ever hear of using a hard drive as local storage; it's not too hard and not too expensive.

0 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Mar 16, 2012)

You probably would laugh at that sentence in 1990 when applied to computers as well. Look at what happened now. How many of us using a computer that's not connected?

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Mar 17, 2012)

Don't disagree w/ TomServo -- but --

In addition to the image (da backbone), add a temperature reading, directional (WNW), CO2, CO, NOx pollutants ...

Might get more interesting.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

dylanbarnhart:

When I can upload, at anytime, anywhere in the world, in 5 minutes, a terabyte off of my mobile device then you may have point, though that mobile device would have to support serious editing/extraction software and a screen large enough to see the edits.

Perhaps 5 million pixels per-eye VR goggles will also get really cheap, 2 dollar--2012 usd--per pair cheap.

Perhaps it's possible, but releasing actual SG1 (look it up) tech is not the point of this Samsung marketing.

NB: VR is virtual reality.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
abijake
By abijake (Mar 18, 2012)

Connectedness of course is incredibly useful. I use Flickr and I use email. I do not yet own an iphone but I might soon.
BUT I see here that there is a deep misunderstanding by some participants on this thread about what is meaningful in photography.
Photography may be a social mediium, may be a career where customers require a defined quality output, may be fine art where images are hung on gallery walls next to watercolour, Acrylic and oil paintings. These are all valid and meanigful forms. The much vauted coming of Cloud photography does not automatically make all other expressions of photography somehow outdated or less valid.
I suspect it is the immature psyche that would contend this to be so - the arrogance of youth that sees newer as better and anything that is old to be discarded.
Connectivity and the Cloud are just more strings to the photographic bow, not a revolution to create dinosaurs of great artistic and technical traditions.

2 upvotes
Martin_Kay
By Martin_Kay (Mar 18, 2012)

I think there are inherent dangers of being 'over' connected in the sense that one is gradually losing control of privacy etc. I know things are pretty dire already...

1 upvote
Martin_Kay
By Martin_Kay (Mar 18, 2012)

The 'connectivity' of computers is something that has very craftily crept up on us. Not so long ago one was not constantly connected to the web- you had to make a conscious decision to connect- now connection is automatic. Goodness knows what is going on behind our backs as unknown entities crawl around our systems.

0 upvotes
ounbbl
By ounbbl (Jun 21, 2012)

It only makes some sense when you take it as a rhetoric-laden marketing statement; as toying with a possible future direction.

0 upvotes
Dickymint1964
By Dickymint1964 (Mar 16, 2012)

DSLR video, "connected" cameras etc etc.....does nobody just like to shoot in a studio anymore ? Standard hight quality DSLR, that all I need...just something that takes a good picture....I don't want geo tagging, Facebook upload or any other modern rubbish.......It's enough to make you go back to film !!

2 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Mar 16, 2012)

Film?... Please, watch your language.

5 upvotes
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 16, 2012)

Even in a studio connectivity would be useful. Have the camera automatically send the shots to an off-site customer for approval, easier then currently to connect to a computer etc. It surely wouldn't be a drawback in any case.

0 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Mar 17, 2012)

There will be a day when the DSLR doesn't have a storage card anymore. Look at the iPad. If you're not connected, how do you get the photos out?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

dylanbarnhart"

By connecting the ipad to your computer, a computer with itunes on it, that's how you download photos from your ipad.

Thank you for reminding everyone here of the inherent weakness in the ipad system, and check out the new very fast Samsung (Samsung quel irony) Intel Core i5 Windows 7 tablet--it mostly destroys the ipad.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 16, 2012)

Boring.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 16, 2012)

Well yes Facebook is boring, but if you mean that objections to the idea that cellphone carriers are going to be constantly connected to your photos are boring, then you haven't paid attention.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 16, 2012)

As long as I'm connected with my own photos I'm happy. Couldn't care less about facebook and the nonsense from Samsung.

1 upvote
Kurt H
By Kurt H (Mar 16, 2012)

The problem is the same wireless carriers are all complaining that they are out of bandwidth and have ot charge more for their data plans. So what you are telling me is I am supposed to send all of my photos from a 45+Mp camera over a wireless carrier that can not handle Angry Birds?

Yah thats gona work

8 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Mar 16, 2012)

Why would I want a "connected" compact camera - when I already have an iPhone?

And meanwhile, would I really want to be paying £15 per GB of 3G usage with an SLR that tried uploading every 14-bit, 36-megapixel RAW file (64Mb each) that I shoot to some "cloud" server? That would equate to about £1 per shutter press. NUTS.

The "cloud" exists for ONE purpose only - to MAKE MONEY for Cloud Operators.

Brian

5 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Mar 16, 2012)

Shoot 1920x1080 JPEGs. The world won't see the pictures any other way. Hording loads of RAW files you'll never edit, can't show anyone, and won't earn you $ either, is an odd business model.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 16, 2012)

Cy Cheze:

So we're supposed to shoot at a useless size for printing and in a format useless for colour and exposure adjustment, just to a satisfy the data restrictions of cell phone carriers?

Why not just shoot with a cell phone?

Frankly it's really insulting to see claims about what others will or won't do with raw files they've shot. Also the word is extract, editing is done to things like tiff files; that's how the raw files are preserved.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 16, 2012)

Show some imagination. The data upload does not have to be instant, nor even near instant. The data transmission can be managed, maybe trickled over night or any other periods of low usage, to optimise the carriers bandwidth usage over time, smooth out the valleys, make rent out of the available bandwidth otherwise wasted. They don't have to charge the same rates for that kind of low-priority asynchronous traffic which is just exploiting unused waste bandwidth. It is all extra marginal revenue so they could charge next to nothing and still be in profit from the exercise.
As to the cloud existing to MAKE MONEY...shock! Of course companies all exist to make a profit - or did they give you your camera for free? What is wrong with that?

1 upvote
3DSimmon
By 3DSimmon (Mar 16, 2012)

Biowizard, it will be targeted at young people who already are connected...as stated in the article, soo, your generation need only worry about gardening or playing bowls

0 upvotes
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 16, 2012)

HowaboutRAW: Definatly. I've said it before in a thread, but here it goes again. The wast majority of all photos today are viewed on screen and distributed by web. Capturing pictures in higher resolutions than this is a curiosity at best, for specialist uses in very specific situations. Thus, connectivity and hopefully openness to third party software would be much more of a quantum leap in a camera than ultra resolution which in most cases won't ever be seen even by the photographer herself since most photos never get's printer and when they do it's at a size where the resolution makes no real difference.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 16, 2012)

bewing77:

Well not sure that's true if you count ads in say a printed magazine, which are still read.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that you can't capture low res jpegs, what I'm saying is why not simply use your current cellphone to do that? Some actually care about photo quality, is it news that McDonald's doesn't server good hamburgers even if that company servers the most?

Most still photos recorded on film were never printed either--does that mean film and camera quality didn't matter?

0 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Mar 16, 2012)

Wetsleet has the right idea. It may be that we'll have to prioritize our uploads to the Cloud - choose instant, high-priced service when immediacy is important, or low-priority, off-hours uploads, like a computer backup service. Telecommunications networks operate 24/7, and the more densely we pack them with data, the cheaper data becomes for us all.

Whether it's a computer or a digital camera, painless, constant back-up to an off-site server makes a ton of sense. I shoot travel. If my work could be backed up automatically, whenever I came within range of a compatible cell network? No brainer. Much better than waiting to get to the next hotel or Internet cafe.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 16, 2012)

DaveMarx:

You mean the way it is today.

Also the constant backup in the second paragraph basically contradicts the first paragraph.

Assuming you own a computer, it would still be faster and cheaper to simply download the flash cards to a hard drive that you own.

Go right ahead a see how fast you can upload 4 gigs of data over a cell network.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

wetsleet:

Right now Canon and Samsung are NOT making monies off the Canon and Samsung still cameras that I own, and that's how it is to remain.

Frankly you sound like an idiot for suggesting, as you did, that camera makers should continue to make money off my use of their products.

0 upvotes
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 18, 2012)

HowaboutRAW: So you mean to say that the only benefit of shooting with a DSLR over a cell phone is higher resolution? Even that isn't true anymore given Nokias introduction of a high MP phone. Note that I'm not saying people want bad pictures, just that most of the time they don't need very high resolution and data size is an important factor. A DSLR can shoot better pictures than a mobile phone even at the same resolution given it's larger sensor, better AF, ergonomics, interchangeable lenses, flash possibilities etc. Now having all that, and the ability to distribute images as easily as a phone would be supremely useful for many many people.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 16, 2012)

"Customers are looking for a total solution"

OK - for what?

I have heard this total solution talk now since 1980 or something like that.

The latest home entertainment solution I bought was a mess. My wife totally refuses to even touch it - so we have a make fix solution now and the central hub is almost always off. And although it was expensive, I think the only thing I can do is bin it.

Total solutions is a dream.

OK - sometimes you get some kind of integrated thing. The iPad is a rather good book reading gadget, good image viewer, lousy image editor, a non working phone and a lousy computer and a not so good camera. And that is considered some kind of success.

When I put my digital camera in my camera collection and only uses connected devices to make images - then Samsung can come back and say - "what did we say in 2012?"

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Mar 16, 2012)

Your home entertainment system may have been the consumer electronics world's equivalent of a T-Rex, an overdeveloped creature that dies if there are no big dino carcasses to scavenge.

Little "smart phone" or "tablet," on the other hand, are the total solution the reptile world refused to imagine would ever amount to more than fuzzy shrews.

Apple and Samsung are on something of a roll. Camera sales are flat, falling, or cannibalizing eachother. At most, two "serious" camera firms are making money. Some gators and turtles did survive the collapse of the Cretaceous too.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 16, 2012)

You mean like iPad - the perfect phone, computer, camera, image viewer, image editor and book reader? Oh - I forgot - of those it only reads books and browses images good - the rest is cr@p. Ah - forget it.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 16, 2012)

Roland: Your opinion of these devices are not shared by the market it seems, as they are massively successful. And in any case, could you, or anyone else explain to me what the drawbacks would be of having a connected DSLR? At worst it's a feature you don't use, realistically though, most people would find uses for it.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 17, 2012)

Now - lets see. Lots of people buy MacDonald burgers - so they have to be the best ones. Right?

And no - I dont want a connected DSLR. Just as I dont want a connected hammer or saw. Because I see no need of it.

GPS - and geotagging I see the advantage with. But connected - no.

Every image I take is 50 MB or so. And I take a lot. If all those images were uploaded on the fly - that would be a huge traffic. I cant imagine I can get that for free or cheap.

Moreover - all those images will then be uploaded somewhere. But - in practice I use only a small fraction of all those images.

If I had my images uploaded - then only this small fraction needs to be there and only this small fraction needs backup. And only this small fraction I want to show anyone.

What would I gain by being connected? Backup maybe. Something more? Nothing I can see.

1 upvote
bewing77
By bewing77 (Mar 18, 2012)

Of course they aren't the best ones, I never stipulated that.

Why would you upload 50 MB images? For web sharing you don't need that kind of resolution, so a device like this should naturally facilitate automatic downsizing for web. And like I said in another post, most pictures today are never viewed outside a computer screen and thus huge files with massive resolution is generally not that important.

And sure, you may think you don't need connectivity, I mean, 15 years ago there where people who couldn't understand why they needed anything better than a modem for connecting their computer. Let me just throw one use out there: The moment you get home and into your wifi all images are automatically transferred to your computer and imported into LR/Aperture. And if you shoot in your studio, same thing, the pictures go to your computer right away. Useless? Not really. And like I said, even if you never use it, how is it a drawback?

0 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Mar 16, 2012)

Samsung and the reporter have over looked one key issue:

The business model will depend on the camera owner paying for his/her own wifi connection and the related bandwidth considerations.
-
I am wireless now and have my own cloud: Eye-fi card & my own web site.
This incliudes my D70000, my D5000 and my Samsung TL500.

Not to knock the idea but they should mention the required cost for a wifi connection to make it work.

1 upvote
Dafffid
By Dafffid (Mar 16, 2012)

The irony is that Samsung have not even bothered to bring decent connectivity together in the products they already have, instead they're providing components for main rivals Apple to do just that in the near future. My TV should be my hi-fi and have a dock for my Mp3 player/HD video camera, and should be linked wirelessly to my media centre and external storage, which should all be remotely controlled by my phone/tablet. (As just one theoretical example - there are plenty of others) That was all doable years ago and should be absolute standard, but Samsung sell their products individually with precious little interplay between them - compare the Samsung store in London to the Apple store, and it's an enormous missed opportunity. If they want leverage in the camera market they should be selling packages of products, offering cheap cameras with their TVs, phones and laptops, all of which have a good slice of the action, but ensuring first that they're properly integrated.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Mar 17, 2012)

Samsung just shipped a Windows 7 tablet that destroys the ipad for most uses except gaming.

0 upvotes
paolopan83
By paolopan83 (Mar 16, 2012)

The camera market is all about market segmentation... Wifi is for free in cheap camera and costs too much for professional cameras...

Beside that, wifi is just cool to transfer images without operating clumsy usb calbles :)

On the other hand would be much cooler to have just one thing (even if a little more chunky) that does beautiful photos, can make phone calls and allows you to play angry birds :)

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 16, 2012)

You dont want that. Tomorrow there will be advances in cameras ... so then your clunky thing is outdated. And tomorrow there is a better game console. So ... then your clunky thing is outdated. Tomorrow there are advances in phone technology. So ... your clunky thing is outdated. You have to rely on the companies making new clunky things that contains everything. They wont!

And some dont care for a game console. And some dont care for a camera. And ... believe me or not ... some dont even care for a mobile phone.

So - the multi thing is a dream. I more often use a knife, a screw driver a pair of scissors than my suiss army knife. The separate things simply are better.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
KitHB
By KitHB (Mar 16, 2012)

This is just Samsung thinking in a joined up way.

At the other end are their connected large screen TVs. So the cloud is intermediate storage between capturing and distributing images to family and friends. Takes the printed photograph right out of the equation.

1 upvote
FranzG
By FranzG (Mar 16, 2012)

Being a WiFi card (or circuitry) rather inexpensive nowadays, often included "for free" in other types of circuit (eg. the one that drives the LCD screen in some cases), and being its weight close to zero, I think that it would be more a matter of "religion" to exclude network connection from cameras.

Yet today I'd appreciate the possibility to transfer digital images to my PC (or other online services) without the need to use cables or remove the SD card from my camera: I think that I'll also give a try to the Eye-Fi technology for this, as my Canon supports it.

Samsung's idea is quite good, IMO.

F.

1 upvote
Andy Moreton
By Andy Moreton (Mar 16, 2012)

Samsung want to make new products and are looking for a USP, and the carriers want to make money from data plans. Notice how the customer doesn't figure in to this at all.

As for automatically backing up your vacation photos while you sleep, I don't think you would get much sleep when you get home and see the size of the bill. My network provider charges for roaming data: £3.07 per MB in EU, £6 per MB outside EU. Which means sending one single 4MB Jpeg from the far east would cost £24. No thanks. Most hotels offer Wifi these days which is likely to be a much cheaper option.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 16, 2012)

you don't think the data carriers might understand that they can't charge £24 for each photo? Not for long, anyway. The idea here is that new services would evolve, probably even new service providers. Think of the 3G Kindle type of model, nothing to do with your regular mobile phone contract. I think the idea that SIM cards are the sole preserve of Vodafone etc will fade - it will just be an internet service, nothing to do with telephones. And the market will sort out the price, after a few scare stories no doubt.

2 upvotes
abijake
By abijake (Mar 18, 2012)

"you don't think the data carriers might understand that they can't charge £24 for each photo?"

I do a REALLY uncool thing. I shoot RAW because I want 16 bit quality. Yesterday I shot 2.7 gig of photos in 2 hours. If I sent this unedited to the Cloud and wanted by bills to be kept reasonable the carriers would make a HUGE LOSS no matter HOW much they tweak schemes.

You guys just DONT GET IT DO YOU. And I dont suppose you even know what 16 bir photos are.

0 upvotes
aardvark7
By aardvark7 (Mar 16, 2012)

Where all these ideas fall down is forgetting the nature of our own human weaknesses.

It is fine having all this facility for data storage and manipulation (as that is all it is), but unless one has a very organised mind and have initially put in place suitable indexes that mean something, extracting any of the useful data becomes more complex and difficult.

I'm very logical, but often I have to search my own computer to find a particular file and that is potentially tiny in comparison.

Also, there is more and more concern over access by third parties. It will become ever more difficult to keep your privacy and make decisions over possible future risks (how many times do people regret releasing things into the web?)

Ultimately, the possibilities and nature of the cloud clash with the limitations and nature of us as humans, and such a clash may well bring more problems than solutions.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 16, 2012)

I agree with your concerns about ending up with a huge mess of unorganised uncatalogged photos (just look at any hotmail account to get an idea).
But, with photos geo-tagged and dated automatically by default life becomes much easier. I just need to know that I am looking for photos from my Easter holiday in 2012, or my trip to Columbia, etc, and suddenly the pictures are easy to find. Factor in face recognition as well and most of the heavy lifting has been done.
The privacy issues are a concern. But I am equally concerned that if my home was burgled and my NAS/PC was stolen then all my data is in bad hands also. When I travel I could mislay my backup/storage drive, etc. So the privacy issues are not new or unique to the cloud, they just have to be rethought. Personally I would want my data encrypted by the camera before it uploads.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm naturally shy of "the cloud" for all the popular reasons - privacy, my data held hostage by a service provider, FBI shutting down my service provider, hacking, etc. But equally I see the advantages of getting rid of that phase between taking a picture and having it stored off-camera, available to view/process/catalogue/share/whatever regardless of my location or whether I have my own laptop to hand.

There are answers to the hostage/FBI problems - just reverse the current backup paradigm and have your local systems download to backup your cloud data. That leaves hacking and privacy, but I've got over that with my banking services - so maybe it will hinge on uber-trustworthy service providers. Maybe even the banks, who mostly have that trust now, will see an opening to leverage their security expertise and reputation for trust with their customers - "we handle all your financial secrets and the keys to your wealth, so trust us with your photos"?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Mar 16, 2012)

Do you keep all your wealth as jewels in a shoe box under your bed? Do you distrust ATM cards and pay cash only? Is someone tapping your phone? Why do you keep getting tons of ad mail or telemarketing calls? Isn't that an amazingly clear picture of your home on Google earth?

Shouldn't photos be relatively low on the list of anxieties?

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Mar 16, 2012)

Actually - if you read the post - no, I don't keep my wealth under the bed, I don't distrust ATM cards - read the post, I trust my bank, that is what I said.
As to photos being low on the list of priorities, speak for yourself. But if my photos all went up in a puff of smoke I'd be heartbroken. They are irreplaceable. I'd be just as gutted if some punk got hold of them, I'd feel violated. So I need to trust wherever I choose to store them - trust them for safety and for security.

0 upvotes
dholl
By dholl (Mar 16, 2012)

count me out of this cloud thing

0 upvotes
abijake
By abijake (Mar 18, 2012)

Here here!!
The Cloud may have stood a chance for me but having read so many comments from Cloud Fascists here I' out of it.

0 upvotes
falconeyes
By falconeyes (Mar 16, 2012)

Samsung makes the common mistake to confuse Connectivity with Cloud. I can see why they do, because they don't see how to compete with smart phones otherwise. But that then only explains why they're going to fail.

Before the Cloud is ubiquitous, smart phones will be. And so it is via smart phones and tablets all connectivity to the Cloud will happen. Therefore, a "Cloud enabled" camera will have a "remote viewfinder" APP on the smart phone (something I see Samsung is understanding already), Sync services and other stuff which makes the camera become an augmented service to the personal cloud of devices. Bluetooth 4.0 will be a much more credible scenario for a camera than yet another carrier contract for yet another device I carry with me. If I share, I'll much more likely do via a feature like the iPad/iPhone's new iPhoto and photo journal feature.

Requires the ability to think in "systems". Something which made Apple succeed where others who tried had failed before.

1 upvote
rikkus
By rikkus (Mar 16, 2012)

"... once the cloud computing era truly dawns, a non-connected device will be meaningless"

Oh no :(

*tosses DSLR in bin*

2 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Mar 16, 2012)

Time to go back to film.

5 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Mar 16, 2012)

What's the future in connectivity?
4G / 5G / 6G .....
Now I need change only a phone.
After I need change cameras too.
Optional on DSLR and only if interchangeable!

1 upvote
ShatteredSky
By ShatteredSky (Mar 16, 2012)

Well, where are the CHEAP dataplans to make this meaningful, when uploading GB of data? Especially when roaming abroad? Backup on holidays would be nice, but there are other solutions (though less convenient).

For those trigger happy people needing instant publicity, use your smartphone for that. The most stupid thing (for now) has to be the netbooks with the OS on the server.

Btw the images I do upload are PP (at least a small bit), and quite a bit of stuff can not be done on a 3 inch screen. But then again, I am certainly belonging to a minority.

BUT I would take a completely sealed camera (à la TS3) without doors and ports with WIFI, large built in memory and inductive charging to avoid any water ingress. Could even be quite a bit larger than the TS3 for better lens, autofocus, EVF and sensor.

Cheers

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 16, 2012)

And do remember - this is not going to be for free. Once the infra structure is there and almost all use it, a large part of your income is planned to be taken by the companies owning the services. Today you can use the same Photoshop in 10 years - but tomorrow you will have to pay monthly fees. Goodbye freedom!

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 16, 2012)

What have I gained. Almost nothing - except backup and the possibility to show my 200 pictures to others. But ... those pictures are not meant to show anyone. They are working material.

Its a great mismatch between technology and usage.

There are other use cases where it matches better.

Another questionable thing is that an assumption is that image manipulation also is made in the cloud. Si - when you get home you will sit there and tweak your images on software in the cloud.

Hmmmm ... personally I would get rather annoyed if the cloud is not very responsive. An over loaded cloud or some network problems is nothing I want to have now and then.

And - the resulting LARGE images are in the wrong place when I want to print them. So - I need a very good internet connection.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 16, 2012)

So ... Samsung has a dream. The cloudy future where we all are connected including our gadgets. And where we have multi gadgets that do several things. And in this future they see themselves as important of course. Samsung is good at gadgets.

And - of course - its going in that direction. But ... how far it will go and what will happen is still written in the stars.

The last weekend I went out with my DSLR and took maybe 200 images. When coming home I downloaded them to my computer. Browsed through them and decided to make something of maybe ten of them. Thats RAW+JPEG images, maybe 50 MB a piece. So - it was 10 GB. It worked seamlessly. Nemas Problemas.

How would that work with the cloud? It has to be uploaded to some cloud service somehow, probably on the fly using 4G. And when getting home - its in the cloud.

1 upvote
Total comments: 222
12