[Kunzite]

I can attach a keyboard to my phone... which already have one

[mecrox]

If a complete "instagramation" of photography is the future, I'd rather be left behind.

I don't think it is. It's about connectivity. What the user does with that is up to the user. They may send their picture to Facebook but they may just as easily send it to their hard disk or dropbox account or to an app on a cloud server which can take a RAW file, let you edit it and return you a jpeg. "Social media" is a red herring.

[tclausen]

Don't be so certain camerra makers aren't aware and aren't working behind the scenes.

From what I hear, Pentax Ricoh has worked extensively with Apple attempting to establish very close tieing to tablets. Step One was to tie using Eye-Fi cards, which they have done well coordinating with Eye-Fi engineers (see MX-1, GR and Q10 and Q7). Step Two will be to build Wi-Fi into the camera FW itself. Apple, however, declined to open their API tp RAW file sharing and processing - specifically RAW processing applications - because they are extremely jealous of tablet battery life. Apple believe power consumption to process RAW files on tablets is a large power drain, which would reflect poorly on APPLE!!!!

Aristophanes, it isn't just the camera manufacturers who are stubborn.

Not sure that I fully understand the trashing of Apple here....the photo library will gladly store DNGs, and make them available to apps requesting them, although the built-in photo app (and iPhoto) will access only jpeg's or the embedded jpeg in a DNG.

I happily use my iPad for (rudimentary) RAW processing (editing app's on a tablet are not up to snuff, nor is color management on tablets) - and I use it permanently for transiting RAWs to an external disk and my webdav server.

Oh, and I take RAW only.

[kenafein]

Kenafein, I don't have a tablet, but i see these folding keyboards for sale. They seem to be able to hook up the portable keyboards to a tablet, that then is equivalent to a laptop. I guess :-)

True enough; but they are not quite as comfortable, and they defeat the purpose of having a small device. They also have docking stations to make them more like a PC. It's just not there for me, yet. If I'm at home, I'll use the PC or Laptop, and if I'm on the go, I'll use my phone; but i hate typing on the phone. I do understand that the market is heading that way. Full desktops are becoming obsolete. It's hard for me to let them go. I've had a desktop since their infancy(8086/8088), all the way through today. I am not a casual user, so I'm pretty sure I'll have one for a good long time.

My iPad 2(didn't buy it) is a pretty amazing device, for what it does well. My favorite attribute is the battery life, however, it is mostly used as a toy for my daughter.

---

Last edited by kenafein; 06-18-2013 at 01:26 PM.

[monochrome]

Not sure that I fully understand the trashing of Apple here....the photo library will gladly store DNGs, and make them available to apps requesting them, although the built-in photo app (and iPhoto) will access only jpeg's or the embedded jpeg in a DNG.

I happily use my iPad for (rudimentary) RAW processing (editing app's on a tablet are not up to snuff, nor is color management on tablets) - and I use it permanently for transiting RAWs to an external disk and my webdav server.

Oh, and I take RAW only.

I think that was the point I've been trying to make to Aristophanes, but I'm just not being heard.

Pentax is actively engaged in Wi-Fi technology and more proofs of that are coming. Apple is partially participating, but specifically declined to allow Pentax to create a robust RAW processing app (because Apple feel it drains their battery). In effect you are syaing your tablet serves as a viewing medium and intermediate step for files that need further processing - as Apple sees their tablets.

Aristophanes first argued that stupid Japanese camera companies aren't doing anything with connectivity. Then, having read a rebuttal, responds that stupid Japanese camera companies let three years elapse before starting work.

I have to ask - what is the point of posting here and stirring everyone up? We have three new cameras and more on the way. There are good and interesting things to discuss. But we've spend 10's of pages discussing little red dots in the viewfinder and then a derivative feature with an argumentative "authority" who has yet to post, that I have seen, a single link to a factualm report, source or study to back up his broad claims about the industry, consumers, trends, camera companies, camera company profits - or anything else upon which he claims authority.

I guess I'm finished here.

Well OK then - tell me now what the next distruptive technology is going to be so I can start engineering my response in advance.

[mamethot]

No one can do right. Why blame camera companies for not using Apple's extra dongle and blame the same camera companies of having their own Wifi dongle? Anyone thinks that Nikon sees wifi as an extra feature ? Maybe. What I think is that they see an opportunity to get more of the consumer's money. Just the same as with other accessories. Example: wired shutter release is 20$, really!? I can buy one on the bay for 2$ shipped overseas.

They probably get more than 40$ worth of marketing, research or whatever money for each wifi dongle sold. When their accountants eventually report that sales are in decline, another very smart analyst will probably suggest that the marketing must not be working so well anymore. When they find that it's because the wifi should now be included in camera instead of an extra feature, they will change. If they don't, tough luck for them.

I too believe that avoiding wireless networking is non-sense and a must for camera companies to survive for a while. Else they will just die sooner. Actually, let's push the idea a bit further...Why not equip cameras with mobile data connection right away and be done with inter connectivity.

[tclausen]

I don't think it is. It's about connectivity. What the user does with that is up to the user. They may send their picture to Facebook but they may just as easily send it to their hard disk or dropbox account or to an app on a cloud server which can take a RAW file, let you edit it and return you a jpeg. "Social media" is a red herring.

Hmm, both agree and disagree. Social media is a fad, surely, at least that's how I see it.

"Cloud" (*1) based editing...it t may work - but shipping RAW files over WiFi en masse is a somewhat time-consuming affair.....shipping RAW files across the Internet to a storage and/or RAW "cloud" (*1) processing service takes serious dedication.

Example: I spent some time in Japan, took about 8GB of photos in a day, in RAW. Back at the hotel, I WiFi'ed them over to my iPad and my wireless HD, that took about the same time as dinner, but that was OK as such. Transferring from the wireless HD through the hotel Internet to my storage server took all through the night, until well after breakfast. This was without expecting any "processing" or "editing", just upload for backup & access.

(*1) - "Cloud"....pet-peeve of mine...I do not know what the heck that is, but the best I can figure, it's a marketing term with absolutely no semantic content, roughly isomorphic with what we called "a server, accessible over the internet" back in my youth when the dinosaurs still roamed the planet - but victim to a bunch of marketing abuse.

[tclausen]

I think that was the point I've been trying to make to Aristophanes, but I'm just not being heard.

Pentax is actively engaged in Wi-Fi technology and more proofs of that are coming. Apple is partially participating, but specifically declined to allow Pentax to create a robust RAW processing app (because Apple feel it drains their battery). In effect you are syaing your tablet serves as a viewing medium and intermediate step for files that need further processing - as Apple sees their tablets.

Well, I think that's not really what I am saying. Yes, my tablet is an intermediate step....but the reason for that is, that I've not yet found a good way of doing color mgmt on a tablet (how the heck do you calibrate any tablet screen?) and secondarily because a tablet screen is just too small to do serious photo editing on.......and no, I do not want a 27" iPad

<SNIP>
Well OK then - tell me now what the next distruptive technology is going to be so I can start engineering my response in advance.

Sorry, can't tell you that....filed a patent on "next disruptive technology", though. As you used that phrase in your previous post, please report to the IPR Enforcement Department with your checkbook to pay due settlements

[monochrome]

I think the more telling post is the prior one describing how long it takes to move RAW files.

[tclausen]

I think the more telling post is the prior one describing how long it takes to move RAW files.

Yup. I would submit that if one *was* to us a "cloud based editing", then anything but low-to-medium jpeg just simply wouldn't be viable.

[mecrox]

Hmm, both agree and disagree. Social media is a fad, surely, at least that's how I see it.

"Cloud" (*1) based editing...it t may work - but shipping RAW files over WiFi en masse is a somewhat time-consuming affair.....shipping RAW files across the Internet to a storage and/or RAW "cloud" (*1) processing service takes serious dedication.

Example: I spent some time in Japan, took about 8GB of photos in a day, in RAW. Back at the hotel, I WiFi'ed them over to my iPad and my wireless HD, that took about the same time as dinner, but that was OK as such. Transferring from the wireless HD through the hotel Internet to my storage server took all through the night, until well after breakfast. This was without expecting any "processing" or "editing", just upload for backup & access.

(*1) - "Cloud"....pet-peeve of mine...I do not know what the heck that is, but the best I can figure, it's a marketing term with absolutely no semantic content, roughly isomorphic with what we called "a server, accessible over the internet" back in my youth when the dinosaurs still roamed the planet - but victim to a bunch of marketing abuse.

Point taken, though I suppose I am fortunate. I live in a fibre area here so have a very fast connection with unlimited data usage. It costs less than my old standard-issue "broadband" connection. One reason, I'd guess, is that the telco here, BT, is on a massive spree to push fibre as a means of delivering TV to the home (I can get full a TV service over fibre for only five bucks a month if I want), so many urban areas are being furnished with fibre connections from the exchanges to the telco's street cabinets. Only the last few hundred metres are copper. Still, this or even fast gigabit stuff is the future for most broadband, at least in many countries. Moving RAW files won't be a big deal for ever. I'd say using a cloud-based editing service would likely be viable for me right now.

However, that still doesn't get the camera companies off the hook, imho. They have been slow in implementing wifi and waking up to tablets, apps, tethering and all the rest. Perhaps this is being rather harsh but I'd guess that most folks find the general lack of connectivity a bit of a hassle since it's become a given in other areas of life.

Imho, cloud means a network of computers which is used to for services (i.e., doing stuff with data) and storage run from said computers. A range of different devices can connect to this cloud and from anywhere. But perhaps we all have our own definitions of that one.

[tclausen]

Point taken, though I suppose I am fortunate. I live in a fibre area here so have a very fast connection with unlimited data usage. It costs less than my old standard-issue "broadband" connection. One reason, I'd guess, is that the telco here, BT, is on a massive spree to push fibre as a means of delivering TV to the home (I can get full a TV service for only five bucks a month if I want), so many urban areas are being furnished with fibre connections from the exchanges to the telco's street cabinets. Only the last few hundred metres are copper.

Well, that's fine - at home, I have blazing fast Internet....alas, it's rarely at home I want to upload photos to the "cloud"....

However, that still doesn't get the camera companies off the hook, imho. They have been slow in implementing wifi and waking up to tablets, apps, tethering and all the rest. Perhaps this is being rather harsh but I'd guess that most folks find the general lack of connectivity a bit of a hassle since it's become a given in other areas of life.

Not sure if they've been "slow" but anything that can push them to move forward, with courageous caution, is good.

Imho, cloud means a network of computers which is used to for services (i.e., doing stuff with data) and storage run from said computers. A range of different devices can connect to this cloud and from anywhere. But perhaps we all have our own definitions of that one.

So, in other words, what you mean by "cloud" is simply that thing which we've - since the late 70'es or so - called "the Internet".....

[Rondec]

I think it is foolish to draw conclusions based in either what people who frequent this forum or, professional photographers in general, need or want. The number of people who want to edit photos anywhere, more than dropping a filter on them in instagram, is quite small. Most people are quite happy shooting purely jpegs and if they can cross-process, do some general editing on their camera and then upload the bunch to facebook, they will be satisfied.

We, of course, would not be. We need a dedicated computer with a calibrated screen, but we are actually a small segment of the world's population. That's the problem with drawing any conclusions from forum surveys...

[tclausen]

Somehow, double-post. Sorry

[mecrox]

So, in other words, what you mean by "cloud" is simply that thing which we've - since the late 70'es or so - called "the Internet".....

Yes, I thought you might say that but no, not really. The internet is a network of computers, but that is all. A cloud is a network of computers but it is a) distinct from other networks, and b) the network's purpose is to sell services and provide storage as a distinct entity. Apple, Adobe, Amazon, Flickr and co do offer that and each one is distinct from the other. Those are clouds, properly speaking. I can rent space or a server from Amazon's services but I can't do that from the internet - it's a network but not a service. I agree that used rather vaguely, cloud could mean anything, or nothing.

In your other post, you mention that many years may pass before there is enough speed and bandwidth to make editing RAW files over the net an easy option. I'm not at all sure that's the case. In about 2001, I think, the fastest internet connection I could buy was 512 kb down (I cannot recall the up speed). Now it's 76 megs down and 19 megs up. And the UK is far from the most connected country. I'm not suggesting those speeds and bandwidth to match will appear everywhere or overnight. But they may become much more ubiquitous surprising fast if past growth rates continue into the future. The driver, at least here, is television.