Reading mode: Light Dark

New feature that Canon NEEDS!

Go to last post
I realize this is off your point, but why pay Disney at all to take your pictures?? Do they have a no-cameras policy in the park?

--
Regards,
K
Ontario, Canada
(See my profile for equipment list.)
 
Only manual mode and thats it!!! Lets get back to the kind of photography where photographs were created not automated! I could just put my camera in manual mode and have such a camera BUT automated makes some of us not think and lazy. I use my camera in manual mode about 90% of the time I guess I'm lazy 10% of the time.

No more auto this and auto that! Make the people think about what they are doing!
HAA!

Tim

--
if it aint shot, go shoot it!
 
I rarely buy any of the Disney photos, the exception is usually a group shot with everyone in it, and occasionally a shot or two from the actual ride itself. We bought a photo of my son (6 years old) on Tower of Terror, and my brother-in-law bought the one of him and his 3 year old daughter on Space Mountain. Those are shots you can't get yourself. Otherwise I generally come back with around 500 pictures from a 3 day Disney trip.

Sean
FlightDeck said:
I realize this is off your point, but why pay Disney at all to take
your pictures?? Do they have a no-cameras policy in the park?

--
Regards,
K
Ontario, Canada
(See my profile for equipment list.)
Click to expand...
 
RacerX2oo3 said:
I just got back from a trip to Disneyland and was slightly
surprised to see that all of the cameras used by the Disney
photographers are Nikon. The sole exception seems to be over in
Goofy's Kitchen where they have a Canon setup. After thinking
about the ineffient way in which Disney handles their photo claim
process, I decided that Canon could probably steal this type of
photo business from Nikon if they were smart about it, and offer
something unique to there customers that would have true benefit.

Canon needs to integrate a true blue tooth wireless protocol for
accessories. In the case of a theme park like Disney this would
allow the photographers to take a picture and then use a handheld
bar-code scanner to scan the barcode on your park pass, embedding
this information into the EXIF data of the images just taken.
Guests could then go to a photo kiosk and scan their park ticket
and immediately have access to every picture taken of them in the
park, you wouldn't have to juggle dozens of photo claim tickets.
Disney photo sales would go up since you wouldn't have to wait in
line, and Disney could even setup an arrangement with a service
like Snapfish so guest could oder park pictures after they got home
from their trip.

The blue tooth port could also be used to incorporate GPS data from
an external GPS unit, remotely fire the camera, transfer thumbnail
images to a cell phone, sync time and data information to a
external source, etc.

The key to the future should be integration. A true open protocol
that allow external data to write the EXIF/IPTC data of an image
and allows the camera to output data to external devices would be a
huge asset for Canon to sell into Government agencies, and more
specialized fields. And would benefit everyone.

Now which company will be the first to integrate such a feature?

Sean
Click to expand...
I see lots of problems here.

1) Small market. Seriously small market. The cost would be prohibitively high unless they could spread the technology to other areas.

2) I think your ideas may be nice about posting them on the web. Thats fine and there are probably many ways to intergrate this.

3) Bluetooth would SUCK for this. Please can this be the last of the I want bluetooth on my camera posts EVER. Bluetooth is a slow, and I mean slow protocol. This protocol is meant for transfering smallish amounts of data over short distances. To even transfer Jpegs would cripple a bluetooth connection. Bluetooth is fantastic for keyboards, headsets, syncing pda's maybe for document printers but thats about it. Leave it there.

4) The technology really already exists! It's called WIFI and you can get it on a camera from Nikon or Canon!

Scott
--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose
 
You will need an automated paint brush if you want the paint brush to do all the thinking for you.

Tim

--
if it aint shot, go shoot it!
 
Scott,

WIFI has it's place and as you've mentioned transfering images is more suited to WIFI. However, WIFI is overkill as a method to interact with camera data. I'm talking about the ability to sync an image to a database or to write Custom EXIF data to images in the camera. The reason I mentioned BT rather than WIFI is that WIFI is generally bulky and power hungry whereas BT is not. That said, Sony has done an admirable job getting WIFI into the PSP so perhaps WIFI would be a solution that solves both issues. But regardless of the medium used, what my post was about if you read it clearly was that Canon needs a protocol that can be used to allow communication between linked devices (PDA, GPS, Notebooks, PSP's, Mobile Phones, etc.) the transport medium is relatively unimportant if the protocol is properly written.

Sean
Scott Goosman said:
3) Bluetooth would SUCK for this. Please can this be the last of
the I want bluetooth on my camera posts EVER. Bluetooth is a slow,
and I mean slow protocol. This protocol is meant for transfering
smallish amounts of data over short distances. To even transfer
Jpegs would cripple a bluetooth connection. Bluetooth is fantastic
for keyboards, headsets, syncing pda's maybe for document printers
but thats about it. Leave it there.

4) The technology really already exists! It's called WIFI and you
can get it on a camera from Nikon or Canon!

Scott
--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose
Click to expand...
 
They already have it. It's just a $1000 add on.
RacerX2oo3 said:
But
regardless of the medium used, what my post was about if you read
it clearly was that Canon needs a protocol that can be used to
allow communication between linked devices (PDA, GPS, Notebooks,
PSP's, Mobile Phones, etc.) the transport medium is relatively
unimportant if the protocol is properly written.
Click to expand...
 
Bluetooth is a pain-in-the-u-know-where.

Bluetooth doesn't have the kind of bandwidth you'll need. It's made for sending documents to the printer, or transferring files from a PDA to a laptop and vice-versa.

It eats batteries like crazy. It's a pain to keep sync'd up. Bluetooth drops for no reason, and takes some coaxing to get to re-sync. You'll quickly come to hate Bluetooth.

Bluetooth has limited range. It's 30 feet and under, but the performance can plummet beyond 10 or 15 feet.

I have blue tooth stuff, and knowing what I know now, I'd rather have donated my money and time to something far more worthwhile... like standing in line at the DMV, getting a root canal, giving money to the IRS, or visiting the proctologist.

Blue tooth might be perfect if you live on a ranch in Montana, and have nothing that can interfere and you don't need to it to work all the time, all day, every day.

I'd rather have WiFi. And specifically, I'd rather have a separate WiFi device that can attach to the USB2 port on the camera with its' own battery and antenna.

And frankly, wireless connections are pretty low on my list of improvements for Canon. I'd MUCH rather have more frames-per-second, a full frame sensor, more megapixels, better white balance, and less noise.

Now, wifi would really make sense on a sports camera. Like the 1Dmk2-n.

--

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
  • Michael Crichton
 
I get your point, but do you really think that the things you've mentioned AREN'T coming? Those are natural progressions. If you had asked me 5 years ago what would improve my TV viewing experience, I would have said "Clearer picture, better sound, richer colors". Those things have all come to pass, but the thing I wouldn't have thought of saying was "TIVO". And yet the TIVO has totally changed the dynamics of how people watch TV. And yet 5 years ago most people would have replied that it was a gimmick, after all why do I need a TIVO, my VCR works perfectly fine...

That's what I looking at here, what changes in SLR's are not a natural progression of what we already have, yet are still going to redefine how we work?

Sean
hockeynut said:
And frankly, wireless connections are pretty low on my list of
improvements for Canon. I'd MUCH rather have more
frames-per-second, a full frame sensor, more megapixels, better
white balance, and less noise.
Click to expand...
 
Now you're just being silly, and not really listening.
RacerX2oo3 said:
So lets just eliminate all the ports on the camera in that case.

PC Sync port/Hotshoe - Eliminate the Camera has a pop up flash
already. If you need a better flash wait for it to be incorporated
into the body.
Click to expand...
Bigger flash with swivel/tilt allows much more flash control & power.
RacerX2oo3 said:
Camera remote trigger - Eliminate the camera has a built in timer.
Click to expand...
Not good if you need it to release now, not 2 seconds later.
RacerX2oo3 said:
USB Port - Just use a card reader
Click to expand...
Already do this :-)
RacerX2oo3 said:
Video Out Port - Gimmick
Click to expand...
Rarely used it myself anyway.
RacerX2oo3 said:
Battery Grip - Gimmick doesn't improve image quality
Click to expand...
Sure helps capture the image by allowing a more comfortable shutter release, not to mention longer shooting with extra battery capacity.
RacerX2oo3 said:
Quick Dial tool - Gimmick doesn't improve image quality

Heck why even put a LCD on the Camera, it doesn't improve the image
quality.
Click to expand...
It's helpful seeing the composition & histogram immediately.
 
Mark,

Of course I'm being intentionally broad to prove a point. The point isn't whether this is a function that everyone needs, it a matter of it being a function that some people need and would be a huge advantage to the first company to provide it.

I work for a company that was one of the first to provide full and stable Linux Drivers for our market segment. The install base of Linux verses Windows is tiny by comparison. But we completely own that market, so much so that our closest competitor has virtually ceded that market space to us. It is now market share that we no longer have to fight for. Agencies like Government and Law enforcement are small compared to the overall photo market, but if you were a company wouldn't you like to own that market. Especially for a business model like camera's where once you have them commited to a lens system, you've got them hooked.

I can guarantee that a the FBI doesn't care too much about Dynamic Range and FPS, but offer them the ability to automatically embed a case number, GPS location, and Field officers name and the field office information into every image, etc and that is a feature that will sell you into that market. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

It may not be useful to you but that doesn't make it useless

Sean
 
But ReplayTV and Tivo are more than 5 years old!!

Actually I've had mine for years thats when it just started getting cheap!

OK that aside I understand your point. You are trying to say where is the nautral progression of technology. Cell phones have transformed to camera/MP3/PDA's. IE you looking on how to intergrate everything.

Well to some extent that has happened. I believe Nikon has GPS ability in some cameras, WIFI is now easily added on, many P&S have WIFI.

Heres the thing. Many of these features are of limited or lacking usefull scope. Yes there are very exact uses and some would pay a fortune to have but the vast majority just don't care. WIFI in camera I find nearly useless. So I can transfer images on the fly at home or if I've got my laptop near by. Well lot of good that would have done climbing Ankgor Wat or when I climb Mount Kilinmanjaro. GPS might be handy but really do I have GPS maps of these places handy? Not really!!! And I doubt many friends will actually care.

As for Disney yes you have valid points. My question is how big is the market and how much are they willing to spend. Often that answers the question for ya! Furthermore most of those types of images sales will happen almost immediately or they will never happen, ask any neighborhood sports photog. So the essense is on the now, not when you surf shutterfly when you get home.

Scott

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose
 
RacerX2oo3 said:
Mark,

Of course I'm being intentionally broad to prove a point. The
point isn't whether this is a function that everyone needs, it a
matter of it being a function that some people need and would be a
huge advantage to the first company to provide it.

I work for a company that was one of the first to provide full and
stable Linux Drivers for our market segment. The install base of
Linux verses Windows is tiny by comparison. But we completely own
that market, so much so that our closest competitor has virtually
ceded that market space to us. It is now market share that we no
longer have to fight for. Agencies like Government and Law
enforcement are small compared to the overall photo market, but if
you were a company wouldn't you like to own that market.
Especially for a business model like camera's where once you have
them commited to a lens system, you've got them hooked.

I can guarantee that a the FBI doesn't care too much about Dynamic
Range and FPS, but offer them the ability to automatically embed a
case number, GPS location, and Field officers name and the field
office information into every image, etc and that is a feature that
will sell you into that market. That's the type of thing I'm
talking about.

It may not be useful to you but that doesn't make it useless
Click to expand...
So it's useful to a niche market, similar to the 20Da which is very useful to astrophotographers but not so much to everyday shooters. Canon HAS to care about DR & fps, those are the things that their largest base of users would like to see improved. Then they will put 'nice to have' options out.

Mark
 
So what's wrong with the WTF-E1 and WTF-E1A wireless file transmitters Canon has for the EOS series? They allow you to transfer files to a computer directly as they are shot at a greater distance BT can ever achieve and at much faster transfer rates.

Seems to me these thingies do just what you want.
--
Gijs from The Netherlands
Canon 30D ~ EF-S 17-85/f3.5-5.6 IS ~ User Error.
http://www.crashdot.com
 
Adding BT seems to be overkill for such a small market. Possibly adding the ability to modify EXIF data over the USB port would be much more practical. It could possibly be done with only minor firmware modifications (the device you'd plug into would probably have to be a host device though.) With more significant firmware modifications you could probably even use something other than the USB protocol (something simpler like TTL level RS-232) to make the add-ons simpler.

Or you could just go the route Sony went with their little USB fob and sync the clocks and use software to merge the data.
 
Just for reference, Disney WORLD FLA used Nikon cameras as well, most likely because Nikon courted and then landed a big contract with Disney, AND they do use a bar-coding system to manage the photos. They give you a "Photopass" card which is bar-coded and then at every picture stop they scan the BC of that card. You have 30 days to then visit the website on the card and purchase any pics you want.

Cool idea right? Well sure if the photos were worth anything. But as you may expect they weren't. Not because of the cameras are Nikon but because the photogs just seem to be college kids that received a quick 10 minute course on pointing and shooting. (a few I talked to did know what they were doing but most just did what someone showed them to do)

I carried my Canon equip with me and shot next to the photog each and every time. My shots were far better.

And before some of you start with the sniping about me taking the opportunity to shoot my own over buying the pics from the "professionals", I will admit that I was hesitant at first, but each and every time the photog invited me to take as many pics as I wanted. One even looked at my setup, 20D, 17-40, 580 flash and said “you win you go first.” ;-)

--



Rob Kircher
My Stuff: http://www.pbase.com/rkircher
 
..that someone can develop. The future of data will be cameras without internal storage. Immediately uploaded to a website via wireless internet - to your secure site. Of course it wouldn't be a fail safe pocess as flash cards but you woulnd't need to worry about filling them up - only filling up your online storage size. Wouldn't need to worry about losing a tiny chip somewhere.
 
FlightDeck said:
I realize this is off your point, but why pay Disney at all to take
your pictures?? Do they have a no-cameras policy in the park?
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite. Disney is very camera friendly to the point where I actually carried my tripod around for 3 hours one night; set up several times and got some great shots.
--



Rob Kircher
My Stuff: http://www.pbase.com/rkircher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top