Reading mode: Light Dark

Why WiFi? Why not Cellular???

Go to last post
S

Steven Geller

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
389
Reaction score
0
Location
Brooklyn, NY, US
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
 
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
--
Ken
Great idea!
 
Ken Seal said:
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
--
Ken
Great idea!
Click to expand...
--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
 
At least in the states there is no comparison in transfer speed. And for event photography this will be GREAT. The ability to have competitors viewing their photos as soon as they finish thier event will definitely be a selling point.

Frank
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
--
Someday I will take a good photograph - until then I will blame my equipment.
 
Not enough bandwidth. Current 2.5G services handles data rate of at most a few hundred Kbps. Even true 3G (which won't be ready for at least a couple more years, if ever) tops out at 2Mbps. Obviously, 2Mbps is not fast enough to handle the quantity of data that needs to be moved, and 2Mbps is the theoretical max speed, in practice, it usually is a lot lower.

On the other hand Wifi has proven max speed of 11Mbps for 802.11b, 22Mbps for 802.11g, and a whopping 54Mbps for 802.11a. These can handle the load better, though even 802.11b is a bit on the slow side for image transfer.
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
 
The Wifi stuff is made to work in ranges of a few hundred meters, and a celluar phone can bridge larger distances. So it needs more power to keep the signal ok.
TPW said:
On the other hand Wifi has proven max speed of 11Mbps for 802.11b,
22Mbps for 802.11g, and a whopping 54Mbps for 802.11a. These can
handle the load better, though even 802.11b is a bit on the slow
side for image transfer.
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--


MSA128A ~ MSACPC2 ~ NPFM50 ~ BCVM50 ~ LCSFX ~ LSFH58 ~ VCLMHG07A ~ HVLF1000 ~ RMDR1 ~ PSS1810
 
WiFi is great in some situation, the WiFi is spreading and more and more happenings (World Championship etc etc) will support that. On the other hand, with Bluetooth also, you could easily transfer them your nearby computer, or via you Bluetooth cellular/mobilephone if you're in the fields. But, 4-5 minutes pr picture - then it's costly....

Terje F - Norway
http://www.pbase.com/joker66
-------------------------------------
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
 
Both are waaaay too slow. 802.11b would be OK for a 2MP digicam, but is too slow for a DSLR.

802.11a and 802.11g are only barely fast enough to be usable for a high-bandwidth DSLR. Even then you couldn't just shoot constantly - they can't keep up.
 
To make a cellular call you usually have to pay, either up front on a contract or "As you go". Wifi is you your camera and your laptop (or other stoage device) on a mini wireless LAN. No network operator involved and hence no tariff.

Or Maybe I'm missing something, can you use cellular technology on some devices without havng a contract with a phone operator?

Simon.
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
--
A black box recorder and a silver one :-)

Loads of glass: A conservatory, a greenhouse, a set of 12 matching wine glasses, and a nice decanter to go with them.
A table and a whole bunch of other stuff.
 
A concern for both wireless and cel. Have no info on Canon's implementation.

Imagine a hacker sitting near press core with one or more laptops downloading unsecured wireless transmissions. Who needs a camea?
 
WiFi and (most) cellular operate at 2.4Ghz. The transfer speeds for WiFi is much faster and coverage will be available in most cities within the year. Motorola's Canopy and others are aggressively marketing to urban markets as we speak.

J
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
 
Yabut....you have to have the underlying infrastructure to support that speed past the AP (accesspoint) I get a kick out of people that buy an A or G AP and install it in their home or business and then connect it to DSL or cable!!! The have a theoretical speed of 54 Mbps on the LAN and maybe 800K on the WAN....LOL!!!
hyslopc said:
nt = no text
Click to expand...
 
Yup...too slow...even at 2 MP....Verizon is testing a 2.4Mbps cellular service now to do streaming content over a phone....that's as good as it gets for quite some time...
hyslopc said:
Both are waaaay too slow. 802.11b would be OK for a 2MP digicam,
but is too slow for a DSLR.

802.11a and 802.11g are only barely fast enough to be usable for a
high-bandwidth DSLR. Even then you couldn't just shoot constantly
  • they can't keep up.
Click to expand...
 
By definition, these high speed cameras are lower-resolution, and the services that need instant pictures are web and newspaper, neither of which require full-on 3-4MB RAW files. The real print stuff can wait, but a really nice JPEG is certainly practical over cellular...
TPW said:
On the other hand Wifi has proven max speed of 11Mbps for 802.11b,
22Mbps for 802.11g, and a whopping 54Mbps for 802.11a. These can
handle the load better, though even 802.11b is a bit on the slow
side for image transfer.
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
 
I don't know about you, but I can talk for an hour and a half straight - on a phone that has a color LCD screen, and amplifier for both the mic and speaker...none of these things are required for straight digital transmission. Plus, the phone doesn't have to be AS small as the one I carry - the battery can be bigger...I would bet that they could develop something dedicated that could connect for 3-4 hours. About the length of a typical baseball/football/basketball game...no????
Job Genders said:
TPW said:
On the other hand Wifi has proven max speed of 11Mbps for 802.11b,
22Mbps for 802.11g, and a whopping 54Mbps for 802.11a. These can
handle the load better, though even 802.11b is a bit on the slow
side for image transfer.
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MSA128A ~ MSACPC2 ~ NPFM50 ~ BCVM50 ~ LCSFX ~ LSFH58 ~ VCLMHG07A ~
HVLF1000 ~ RMDR1 ~ PSS1810
Click to expand...
--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
 
In real world use most services tend to be slower or slightly faster than dialup. If you notice how much complaining goes on when someone embeds a full sized pic on the forums you get an idea how frustating it would be.
TPW said:
On the other hand Wifi has proven max speed of 11Mbps for 802.11b,
22Mbps for 802.11g, and a whopping 54Mbps for 802.11a. These can
handle the load better, though even 802.11b is a bit on the slow
side for image transfer.
Steven Geller said:
This whole Nikon wifi thing is funny to me. Instead of needing
extra CF cards, they will need extra batteries!

I would love to see Canon do something similar with cellular
transmission. That is the ultimate implementation of the
application.

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't think the wireless transmission would work for the raw files, since the bandwidth is just too slow, but there is certainly a market for sending small jpegs via Bluetooth to a cell phone, which in turn could send it via MMS, email, etc. After all, this is what has spurred the cell phone industry, with their horrible built in cameras, to such success in Japan and Europe (and I, too, take part in this trend, sending pictures from my Nokia 3650 to my Mac via Bluetooth and occasionally emailing them, all from the phone itself). This would necessarily target a different market than the sports shooter sending raw images to his laptop on the sidelines of a football match, and I think it would be a larger one indeed.
hyslopc said:
Both are waaaay too slow. 802.11b would be OK for a 2MP digicam,
but is too slow for a DSLR.

802.11a and 802.11g are only barely fast enough to be usable for a
high-bandwidth DSLR. Even then you couldn't just shoot constantly
  • they can't keep up.
Click to expand...
 
Sure, you'd need your own cell phone and service, but many operators now offer GPRS service. With T-Mobile in the US, for instance, $10 gets you 10 mb of traffic, or $20 gives you unlimited traffic. All of this data traffic does not affect your talking minutes.
Simon Heath said:
To make a cellular call you usually have to pay, either up front on
a contract or "As you go". Wifi is you your camera and your laptop
(or other stoage device) on a mini wireless LAN. No network
operator involved and hence no tariff.

Or Maybe I'm missing something, can you use cellular technology on
some devices without havng a contract with a phone operator?

Simon.
Click to expand...
 
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