[robthebloke]

No, it isn't. Wifi. Wifi. Wifi. They need wifi and a 'publish' button. No 'embedded' web browser required. How many phones have an 'embedded' web browser? I thought they were all software, myself.

Browsers are software, and even a small publish button will need a web browser to function, and will need constant security patches, protocol updates, etc. It will also need an operating system to handle such boring details as tcp/ip, NAT punch through, etc, which will also need to be routinely patched. You'd better make sure that OS is Linux + gnome/x based though, because otherwise you'll need to write your own OS and GUI, and write/maintain your own browser code (which will need to be kept up to date with the ever changing randomness of Facebook/Flickr/Instagram/snap chat GUIs and protocols).

Should be easy right? You only need all of that for a publish button. If Mozilla or Google can hire a dev team of 1000+ to do it, why can't pentax?

Of course, there are some alternatives that are completely unacceptable.

1. Use that terrible protocol that was designed to transfer files wirelessly between devices, Bluetooth.

2. Add wifi support to your device, and I don't know, make the device act as a html based web server so that other devices can talk to it (using their browser). I don't know, by doing that they could maybe get away without needing an OS, or web browser, or any GUI Libs, or software patches. They could even maybe do cool things like let you change camera settings, and let you take a shot wirelessly.

3. Do the same as 2, but simply pay a 3rd party to add support for you.

They could add a Bluetooth support in a few hundred lines of code, wifi support in maybe 150,000 lines; 3rd party support in zero lines; but a simple publish button would only take 20,000,000 lines of code that would need to be constantly patched.

It beggars belief why Ricoh would choose the 3rd party option over a publish button. It simply defies all logic.

Which is why a facebook DSLR should have wifi.

If you have ever wondered why software engineering is a stressful job, it's because non-technical folk are afflicted with a condition I like to call 'optimism'. You can tell these people a mile off, because they have these catch phrases that always start their sentences, things like:

"Surely it must be easy to..."
"It can't be that hard to..."
"All they need to do is...."

If you find yourself saying those words, you are not an engineer, you are simply afflicted with a bad case of optimism.

The kiddies outnumber you, and you should want THEM to pay for your DSLR obsession.

Most first time buyers of dslr's or milc's I've known, have either just become parents, or are about to embark on a once in a lifetime holiday. Anyone between the age of 18 and 30 are more concerned with earning enough money to pay the rent.

I for one think the k-s1 is a decent camera. The cost is a little high at the moment, but it will fall once the current stock of k50/k500/k5 bodies are sold off in the run up to Christmas. I'll probably pick one up early next year (20mp, no AA, good viewfinder, why the hell not?).

I find it amusing that so many people here are saying "I don't want a stylish camera, I'm not fashion conscious, therefore I won't buy it because it's not my style". The irony.

[ElJamoquio]

Browsers are software, and even a small publish button will need a web browser to function

I think you have a different definition of 'web browser' than is common. When I email from matlab, am I using a 'web browser'? What if I published to facebook or twitter? I was considering the twitter one.

This is simple. The protocol is straightforward. I've never done facebook, and I've never had to worry about the protocol changing in the future, but I'm one person who spent a couple of hours on it.

[robthebloke]

I think you have a different definition of 'web browser' than is common. When I email from matlab, am I using a 'web browser'? What if I published to facebook or twitter? I was considering the twitter one.

Email is easy, so long as you have the software stack provided by the operating system. Try emailing from a spectrum 48k, and tell me if you find it as easy.

If you publish to twitter, Facebook, et al, it's also easy (from windows, Linux, mac, android, that already provide the services you need. But again, try doing it on a commodore amiga 600, and then get back to me).

This is simple.

Optimism alert!

The protocol is straightforward.

Assuming you are building on top of an operating system that provides NAT punch through, network drivers, and has all the underlying support for https, then I'm sure it is. If you haven't got all if that, where will you be getting it from exactly? Android phones have the luxury of a the Linux kernel, and drivers provided by Samsung, Qualcomm et al. Pentax dslr's do not have that luxury.

I've never done facebook, and I've never had to worry about the protocol changing in the future, but I'm one person who spent a couple of hours on it.

And you did this in matlab (which is itself a huge software stack). Do it on a game boy, in c, without an underlying software stack or os, and then you'll be in a position to give an accurate time estimate for the work. Until then, this is simply a bad case of optimism.

You are also failing to account for api and protocol changes (and don't try to tell me they never change!). What about future trends? (Kids all use snap chat these days, after Facebook was overrun with parents).

Samsung can do this (they are the biggest phone manufacturer in the world, and as such already have the knowledge and tech in house). Pentax are starting from zero here.

Using flu card was a good engineering decision. It integrates wifi support only as far as the firmware. It gives them future buying power (hey flu card guys, if you charge us more, we can go chat to eye fi!). It's liable to have fewer bugs than in house tech. Hell, most k-s1s and k-3s seem to be bundled with the pentax flu card anyway, so it's not going to be a big deal for most people.

[stevebrot]

You know you can't Publish without a Browser.

Ummm, yes, you can publish without a browser (see comments above), but you need some sort of code that acts as a client and is able to talk the computer on the other end. You also need some sort of IP stack and connection (WiFi or wired) to the Internet.


Steve

(...have written many clients over the years...)

[ElJamoquio]

Email is easy, so long as you have the software stack provided by the operating system. Try emailing from a spectrum 48k, and tell me if you find it as easy.

If you publish to twitter, Facebook, et al, it's also easy (from windows, Linux, mac, android, that already provide the services you need. But again, try doing it on a commodore amiga 600, and then get back to me).


Optimism alert!



Assuming you are building on top of an operating system that provides NAT punch through, network drivers, and has all the underlying support for https, then I'm sure it is. If you haven't got all if that, where will you be getting it from exactly? Android phones have the luxury of a the Linux kernel, and drivers provided by Samsung, Qualcomm et al. Pentax dslr's do not have that luxury.



And you did this in matlab (which is itself a huge software stack).

I know. I'm also not a software engineer. I am far, far from a software engineer. And yet it was easy.

Do it on a game boy, in c, without an underlying software stack or os, and then you'll be in a position to give an accurate time estimate for the work. Until then, this is simply a bad case of optimism.

It's pessimism. I have no experience programming on any nintendo platform. I'm going to assume that Pentax engineers have programming on Pentax hardware.

You are also failing to account for api and protocol changes

How often has facebook API changed in a way that was not backwards compatible? It looks like they had a massive change in 2010 but I'm not sure that it wasn't even backwards compatible then.


Even if it does change every couple of years, so what? Download the firmware automatically with your wifi connection. Ask the user if they want to update the firmware. Something the user is completely familiar with.


We're also far, far away from my claim which was that I could publish to facebook without a browser. I think you agree with me now?

[JPT]

The problem I have with the reliance on the Flucard for WiFi on the K-S1 is that it ties WiFi capabilities to the storage.

Imagine I'm on holiday and taking a lot of pictures, some with the remote function. When I fill my memory card and have to change, I lose my Wi-Fi. That's a real pain for the user. It wasn't so bad for the K-3 because there was another slot, but the K-S1 doesn't have that luxury.

The secondary problem is that people like to choose their memory card, to get a faster one or shop around for price. If you want Wi-Fi, you're stuck with whatever Ricoh is selling, at whatever price they are selling it.

[monochrome]

you need some sort of code that acts as a client and is able to talk the computer on the other end. You also need some sort of IP stack and connection (WiFi or wired) to the Internet.

So are you suggesting it is possible for Ricoh to implement a 'Publish' button on a dSLR so long as it is within range of a Wi-Fi signal? How would the camera know where to publish (FB, IG, Tweet, MyBlog, Flickr)? How would one add text and location (Oh Wait. We need another feature - onboard site-recognition GPS) and little emoticons - use the LCD? And how would one view all the dialogs and touch keyboards on the LCD?

Seems a lot of horsepower and battery necessary when all you really need is a FluCard and a phone (which is already an excellent device for those functions) pr tablet to do exactly the same thing.

I'd rather they spend the engineering money on the flash sync or something really useful.

[ElJamoquio]

I'd rather they spend engineering money on stuff I actually want, too.

But if they're building a camera for someone who isn't me, they should optimize the experience for that person.

[monochrome]

The other way around. Ricoh should make a camera that serves the selfie crowd a little bit better to get them back into the serious camera life. When 90 % of you images are selfies and little crowds of friends for facebook and all those other sites, then it should stand out in that point.

Yes, they should. But not every camera. Especially if I have to pay for useless features when there is a perfectly acceptable accessory.

This is not a selfie camera. RIAC just made that up out of whole cloth. It is a very capable mid-range camera in a differently styled box.

We've killed it as far as the USA is concerned though, so good luck getting anything else we want from Ricoh.

[stevebrot]

I'd rather they spend the engineering money on the flash sync or something really useful.

I agree. WiFi + publish to the Web is sort of a G-whiz feature.


Steve

[monochrome]

Nah. I'm deleting that.

There are other, better devices for the things you've described.

I concede filling up a FluCard is an annoyance I hadn't considered. Have to think about that one, but I have to ask, if that's going to be an issue why would you shoot with a camera that only has one slot?

[robthebloke]

I know. I'm also not a software engineer. I am far, far from a software engineer. And yet it was easy.

Yes. Email protocols are easy. Especially when it has been implemented via an operating system function such as MAPISendMail (which in turn has implemented the protocol on top of the windows sockets API, which in turn has been written on top of the device driver framework, which itself abstracts the device type [usb, pci, PCI express], behind which sits a device driver provided by the hardware vendor, that ensures the correct electrical signals are passed down the wires, at exactly the correct clock cycle, to make sure the actual network chip you are using works correctly).

If you think all of that is easy, solder a network chip onto a serial or USB bus (on something basic like a spectrum 48k or C64), and re implement the entire software stack on top of it. That is what you are asking pentax to do. You maintain it is easy. I maintain that you are seriously underestimating the amount of work involved.

It's pessimism. I have no experience programming on any nintendo platform.

You are missing my point entirely. It's not that it's a Nintendo platform that is important, it's simply 'a' platform that has no networking support available ...

I'm going to assume that Pentax engineers have programming on Pentax hardware.

Question 1: which pentax cameras have native wifi support?

Question 2: how much experience have pentax engineers gained from their cameras with wifi support?

Question 3: how many pentax engineers have therefore gained experience of implementing the networking protocols (DNS, NAT, http) needed to talk to the internet (let alone Facebook)?

I'm going to hazard a guess: none.

In those cases you either hire talent, or you outsource. Pentax have gone with the latter.

How often has facebook API changed in a way that was not backwards compatible? It looks like they had a massive change in 2010 but I'm not sure that it wasn't even backwards compatible then.

For some reason I keep thinking of the underpants gnomes. You keep ignoring that important middle step where the camera can actually talk beyond the local network switch.

Web based services can and will change. Msn messenger was switched off this week. Whilst it's an extreme example, there are no guarantees that Facebook won't change their protocols in the future.

Even if it does change every couple of years, so what? Download the firmware automatically with your wifi connection. Ask the user if they want to update the firmware. Something the user is completely familiar with.

Question: When did pentax last release a firmware update for the *ist d, k100d, k-m, k-x, k-r, etc?

Answer: long enough ago to make adding Facebook support to firmware a very bad idea. If you want your camera to behave like a phone, buy a phone, or build a phone into it. Don't fill up the firmware with code that is dependent on a 3rd party making sure they never change anything.

Anyway, what about snap chat, Flickr, Dropbox, Msn/gmail storage, Instagram? If you promote one service over another, it's guaranteed you've just backed my space. If you want that stuff, tether your camera to a device that already provides support (eg phone, tablet, laptop). It offsets the support burden from pentax, and let's you use any crazy web service you want (whilst freeing pentax to develop some nice new features that actually help to take better photos)

We're also far, far away from my claim which was that I could publish to facebook without a browser. I think you agree with me now?

No I will not agree with you. The only reliable way to add Facebook support is to provide a browser. At the very least, you will need services that pentax does not have in it's firmware, and who as a company, are unlikely to have in house (unlike Samsung). You keep ignoring that very important point....

[jimr-pdx]

I'm a wilderness hiker/shooter who will cheerfully be miles away from any access points. The fewer battery drains built into the system the happier I'll be (yes LEDs too, I seldom use face-detect out there). When weather is a wildcard I will take the K-5 with its seals and its larger battery, but in decent weather I can take a K-s1 a few primes plus an extra battery, and be very happy.

[robthebloke]

I concede filling up a FluCard is an annoyance I hadn't considered. Have to think about that one, but I have to ask, if that's going to be an issue why would you shoot with a camera that only has one slot?

I think it's a necessary evil for this iteration of pentax camera.

I used to work for a middleware company deploying our tech to other software products. Whilst work was being undertaken to integrate our tech, we'd bend over backwards to implement any feature the client would ask for at the drop of a hat.

The second that integration reached the point where we knew it would be more hassle for the client to stop using our tech, than to struggle on with it, our response times would drop off somewhat!

By keeping the flu card integration at arms length (it's only going to be communication via firmware to the SD card at this point), pentax still have the option of switching to eye-fi if they want (they probably won't, but it's still leverage to get features they need implemented quickly).

I'd expect the next generation to migrate the hardware from flu into the camera body (unless it all goes badly, and expect a pentax branded eye-fi as another stop gap).

[ElJamoquio]

The only reliable way to add Facebook support is to provide a browser. At the very least, you will need services that pentax does not have in it's firmware, and who as a company, are unlikely to have in house (unlike Samsung). You keep ignoring that very important point....

Uh huh. So a browser is not required.

I bet my old phones on elderly OS's could still post to facebook, too. You don't need to support every new feature.

I'm 100% OK with the capability not being there, I'd prefer Pentax be a serious camera and Canon develop this one-button post anyway.