[MJSfoto1956]

I agree with this (although not the Apple comment, that company precisely refuses to open their system). I have long found that camera companies are missing the boat on software and connectivity. Even wifi support seems half-hearted. Only Samsung is trying to integrate modern features (like Android) in some of their cameras.

Well unlike most camera manufacturers, while Apple's system is indeed "proprietary" it is a stretch to call it "closed" -- not only do they have rich SDKs available for developers (and lots of training and infrastructure to support it) but it is clear that their ecosystem ENCOURAGES people to enhance their products with the result that thousands of developers are indeed getting wealthy adding value to the Apple environment. To my knowledge, close to nobody is getting rich extending CanNikSonPentPanaFuj APIs!! So I actually think the Apple model is an appropriate model: camera manufacturers need to "open up" their systems, but they can continue to keep the crown jewels to themselves. I would be fine with that.

Now perhaps your argument really is: camera manufacturers are incompetent when it comes to software and will never be able to bring the kinds of resources to solve the problem the way that Apple (and Google) has. As such, their only choice will be to move to a completely open system and hope the market will fill in the blanks. If so, then you may have a point. But I see all sorts of issues with that approach -- namely how does a small company like Nikon support such "enhancements"? Note that they WILL have to take the angry phone call when some such 3rd party "enhancement" breaks things. There is a real cost (and risk) involved.

I do agree that perhaps Sony's approach could eventually prove to be a winner: let your iPhone/Android device be the "controller" and let the camera guts simply be API's and mechanical. This way, new features/enhancements can be added simply by downloading them to your iPhone/Android. I see this as the real killer of P&S cameras.

Michael

[bdery]

Well unlike most camera manufacturers, while Apple's system is indeed "proprietary" it is a stretch to call it "closed" -- not only do they have rich SDKs available for developers (and lots of training and infrastructure to support it) but it is clear that their ecosystem ENCOURAGES people to enhance their products with the result that thousands of developers are indeed getting wealthy adding value to the Apple environment. To my knowledge, close to nobody is getting rich extending CanNikSonPentPanaFuj APIs!! So I actually think the Apple model is an appropriate model: camera manufacturers need to "open up" their systems, but they can continue to keep the crown jewels to themselves. I would be fine with that.

Now perhaps your argument really is: camera manufacturers are incompetent when it comes to software and will never be able to bring the kinds of resources to solve the problem the way that Apple (and Google) has. As such, their only choice will be to move to a completely open system and hope the market will fill in the blanks. If so, then you may have a point. But I see all sorts of issues with that approach -- namely how does a small company like Nikon support such "enhancements"? Note that they WILL have to take the angry phone call when some such 3rd party "enhancement" breaks things. There is a real cost (and risk) involved.

I do agree that perhaps Sony's approach could eventually prove to be a winner: let your iPhone/Android device be the "controller" and let the camera guts simply be API's and mechanical. This way, new features/enhancements can be added simply by downloading them to your iPhone/Android. I see this as the real killer of P&S cameras.

I understand what you mean relative to my choice of terms. Proprietary is probably better indeed regarding Apple.

I don't think many manufacturers could support an ecosystem of developpers and apps. Nor do I think it's necessary, really. It would probably mean slower processing when actually taking pictures, more bugs, etc.

What I would like is some sort of standard support for connectivity. When I want to take a snapshot of my kids to quickly post on the web (call it facebook or anything else) it's more convenient to use a smartphone than a DSLR. Any actual publishing must be done through lightroom, which requires removing the card, transfering pictures, then publishing. Longer, much less simple. Transfering images to the computer or any storage support also cannot be done live except by using special cards. Some newer Nikon cameras have wifi but from what I read, it's not really efficient either.

In short I think manufacturers need to let their DSLRs enter the connected universe. The sooner the better.

[monochrome]

In short I think manufacturers need to let their DSLRs enter the connected universe. The sooner the better.

When I know I'll want to upload to Instagram (I refuse to use Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn) I slip an Eye-Fi Mobi card into my K3, it instantly and seamlessly connects to my iPhone (and/or iPad) over a WPA encrypted, Direct-Mode, closed Wi-Fi Profile, I shoot (jpeg). It transfers to the Eye-Fi folder on my iPhone virtually instantly and I can open Instragram, attach the photo and upload. The only benefit to using the phone directly is using the camera app installed in Instagram.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone wants full-time internet installed in a pro-grade dSLR. Sure, I get Wi-Fi to upload to your business server or to control the camera remotely or to view images (or video rushes) as shot on an iPad, but Facebook with a K3? Maybe on the K500 or even K50.

I'd consider disabling internet access for pro-grade cameras a feature, not a bug.

[bdery]

When I know I'll want to upload to Instagram (I refuse to use Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn) I slip an Eye-Fi Mobi card into my K3, it instantly and seamlessly connects to my iPhone (and/or iPad) over a WPA encrypted, Direct-Mode, closed Wi-Fi Profile, I shoot (jpeg). It transfers to the Eye-Fi folder on my iPhone virtually instantly and I can open Instragram, attach the photo and upload. The only benefit to using the phone directly is using the camera app installed in Instagram.

Whatever the network you like, the idea stands. You need another device to share the picture. ANd you need to purchase a card which costs, by itself, some 5-10% of the price of the camera.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone wants full-time internet installed in a pro-grade dSLR. Sure, I get Wi-Fi to upload to your business server or to control the camera remotely or to view images (or video rushes) as shot on an iPad, but Facebook with a K3? Maybe on the K500 or even K50.

Why this distinction? We K-3 users are to sophisticated to want to share our pictures?

The world is getting connected, and one of the most advanced electronic gadget available is lagging behind. And it's not just facebook, google+ or the like. I would love my pictures to transfer instantly to my NAS for archiving. I would like to easily upload to Smugmug without using the lightroom plugin. That's just me. I'm not judging people who use Instagram although I personally don't like nor use that network. Whatever your means of sharing, connecting the camera is the next logical step and there is no technical reason why it shouldn't happen.

[monochrome]

Whatever your means of sharing, connecting the camera is the next logical step and there is no technical reason why it shouldn't happen.

There must be a technological reason why it shouldn't happen or it would have happened.

I can't quite get my arms around the idea of a browser window in the camera LCD. I would still need a second device to do any online posting.

I just don't see the problem with offering a third-party accessory (or branded partner accessory) to those who want the utility now, while allocating scarce R&D resources to other, more universally necessary technologies.

It is probably a priority decision for Ricoh. There's so much to do and in-camera connectivity just doesn't rise to the top - yet.

[audiobomber]

Maybe continue this philosophical discussion of web posting and such in its own thread? The K-3 doesn't have any internet buttons, and that suits me just fine.

[Rondec]

Whatever the network you like, the idea stands. You need another device to share the picture. ANd you need to purchase a card which costs, by itself, some 5-10% of the price of the camera.



Why this distinction? We K-3 users are to sophisticated to want to share our pictures?

The world is getting connected, and one of the most advanced electronic gadget available is lagging behind. And it's not just facebook, google+ or the like. I would love my pictures to transfer instantly to my NAS for archiving. I would like to easily upload to Smugmug without using the lightroom plugin. That's just me. I'm not judging people who use Instagram although I personally don't like nor use that network. Whatever your means of sharing, connecting the camera is the next logical step and there is no technical reason why it shouldn't happen.

The thing to me about uploading directly from my camera is that (a) I don't feel like I can really assess my photos on the tiny LCD screen on the camera -- at least with a tablet, I can assess a little better if it is a crappy photo or not. Plenty of times something that looks OK on the little screen doesn't look OK to me on a larger screen. And (b) I like editing photos that I post, even for facebook type things. I have a feeling that more K3 owners are like me, but who knows. I certainly won't be surfing the web directly from my camera (and wouldn't) or play angry birds on it or anything like that.