PDA

View Full Version : wi-fi?



Riddick51
01-13-2006, 04:49 PM
wi-fi is a selling point? what next, mini commode? ROFL

coldrain
01-13-2006, 05:11 PM
What does this have to do in a Nikon DSLR forum?

K1W1
01-13-2006, 09:10 PM
Can you imagine trying to transfer 100 D50 or D70 RAW images from a camera to a PC via wifi? I for one don't have the time or patience for such a frustratingly long exercise.

coldrain
01-14-2006, 01:38 AM
Can you imagine trying to transfer 100 D50 or D70 RAW images from a camera to a PC via wifi? I for one don't have the time or patience for such a frustratingly long exercise.
IEEE 802.11g is much faster than the D70(s)'s USB 1.1.... even the slower b version will be faster.

goletitout
01-14-2006, 01:44 AM
I think Wi-Fi would a cool thing...but only if the cam doesnīt cost more because of it ;). Itīs a nice convenience feature, no real selling point for photographers.

K1W1
01-14-2006, 02:46 AM
IEEE 802.11g is much faster than the D70(s)'s USB 1.1.... even the slower b version will be faster.

Actually no.
The theoretical speed of 802.11b is about the same as USB 1.1. The actual speed is about 1/3 - 1/2 of the theoretical number. 802.11g is in actual speed about double USB 1.1 BUT how are you going to implement WiFi on a D70? Take the CF card out and put a CF WiFi card in it's place? That sort of defeats the purpose. WiFi will have to be a built in feature on new camera's. Firewire 800 would be a better option in practice.
(You will not be able to add a USB WiFi dongle to the cable attachment for those who are thinking that way. There is no way of loading the appropriate driver and implementation software without doing a firmware upgrade that is so radical it's inconceivable)

coldrain
01-14-2006, 03:10 AM
I do not get you at all. I was not at all suggesting wifi on any camera anywhere. And USB 1.1 a MUCH slower than 802.11 g. 11mbit vs 50mbit per sec theoretically is a huge difference. And if you don't believe me, try to shift some files over 802.11g some time, you will notice it actually is quite speedy.
USB itself is not a very fast protocol/standard, and 1/3 of the speed with 802.11b is not true (unless you have very crap equipment).

K1W1
01-14-2006, 03:41 AM
It's not worth getting into an argument over but the actual speeds achieved on WiFi are considerably slower than the theoretical.
The actual speed of 802.11b is around 4 Mbps
The actual speed of 802.11g is around 23 - 25 Mbps
These are perfectly acceptable for normal print sharing / Internet access type situations but are no good for large amounts of data transfer.
Obviously this will improve as new technologies are implemented (things like NIMO and newer specs when the manufacturers actually agree on a standard)

Anyway, back to the topic. I don't think WiFi is practical for image transfer at the moment (check out the so so reviews of the Kodak WiFi camera) and it certainly is not something that will be able to be retrofitted to existing cameras if it is ever implemented.

cwphoto
01-14-2006, 06:12 AM
I can't wait for a less expensive/easier to use wireless option to happen (hopefully the next round of pro-DSLRs will have this built-in without the need for FTP server).

I have a unique commercial job this Tuesday which requires frequent image consultation with the client on the job. Having images wirelessly sent to my laptop would make me around 25% more efficient for this type of work - tethered wouldn't cut it.

murrays
01-14-2006, 07:29 AM
It's not worth getting into an argument over but the actual speeds achieved on WiFi are considerably slower than the theoretical...

Especially when you can pop the card into a USB 2.0 card reader and get several times faster speed than WiFi.

-murray