Why WiFi? Why not Cellular???

Just clarify something for me...

That photographer on the sidelines that is transferring his images to his notebook to send out then and there...how much faster is that notebook, on the sidelines...transmitting? It's obviously using wireless internet service...would be the same speed as a direct cellular transmission from the camera...

Brad Nishida 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...

Click to expand...

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX

If its built-in, as long as the camera is powered, wouldn't you be able to track a stolen camera? I think they are passing some law that requires cell phone companies to work with authorities for tracking people in case of emergencies...so some kind of technology exists...

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...

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX

I wonder a bit about that myself. One applicatioin mentioned was just sending the pictures to a laptop on the sidelines where they are previewed by parents, fans, etc. and sold at the during the game. Also presumably the press has access to high speed in larger venues nearby. Also a laptop has the ability to evaluate crop and resize the pictures to be sent to minimize tranmition time. Plus the availibility of public access points is increasing.

Steven Geller said:

That photographer on the sidelines that is transferring his images
to his notebook to send out then and there...how much faster is
that notebook, on the sidelines...transmitting? It's obviously
using wireless internet service...would be the same speed as a
direct cellular transmission from the camera...

Brad Nishida 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...

Click to expand...

--
EOS 1D, 28-70 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 550EX

Click to expand...

Job Genders said:

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.

Click to expand...

Cellular telephones put out less than a watt of power, and usually only about 300 milliwatts (the cell site can raise or lower the power if needed, depending on how far away you are from the tower). The reason they have the distance is the fact that the cell tower is 100 feet (or more) tall.

WiFi can be used across 10+ miles with consumer equipment.

More if you're able to build a passive repeater.

J

Scott W said:

Job Genders said:

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.

Click to expand...

Cellular telephones put out less than a watt of power, and usually
only about 300 milliwatts (the cell site can raise or lower the
power if needed, depending on how far away you are from the tower).
The reason they have the distance is the fact that the cell tower
is 100 feet (or more) tall.

Click to expand...