[elliott]

Imagine going up to Alaska during the salmon run and setting up a camera on a concealed tripod mount. Now you move a safe distance away and open up your tablet. Viola, you're getting a Liveview from 200 yards away. A bear approaches the camera...you wait a second more, and then trigger the shutter.

I'd like to see this magical technology to send HD video 200 yards away reliably, not to mention send it the 400+ yards that is usually recommended.

[dmytty]

I'd like to see this magical technology to send HD video 200 yards away reliably, not to mention send it the 400+ yards that is usually recommended.

Nothing magical about it. A 1080p h.264 compressed video stream (ie what the K30 does now) is 20-30 Megabits per second and that's within the 802.11n spec. Regarding range, no problem. Outdoors, the old 802.11 b/g specification calls for 95 meters (~300 feet). The current 802.11n specification roughly doubles that. And that's while staying within FCC transmitting guidelines for output power (so that you don't 'step on' your neighbor's signal). The next generation spec will do even better - MIMO with multipath processing.

So, 600 feet is easy with current technology using power transmission levels @ <1 watt, which are designed to be compatible with apartment houses having wifi lans 50 feet apart. In Alaska, a boosted signal with newer technology should get you close to your 400 yards...and that's without using your empty snack can of Pringles as an antenna (what a bear lure too)!

[elliott]

Nothing magical about it. A 1080p h.264 compressed video stream (ie what the K30 does now) is 20-30 Megabits per second and that's within the 802.11n spec. Regarding range, no problem. Outdoors, the old 802.11 b/g specification calls for 95 meters (~300 feet). The current 802.11n specification roughly doubles that. And that's while staying within FCC transmitting guidelines for output power (so that you don't 'step on' your neighbor's signal). The next generation spec will do even better - MIMO with multipath processing.

So you seem to think that these little tiny SOC things found in cell phones can do this? I'm doing good to get 20 feet and have a stable enough connection to watch 360p YouTube, even with line of sight, I don't think I'd want to have line of sight when dealing with a bear. Are we supposed to have a hotshoe mounted directional antenna to boost this weak signal? Maybe another one strapped to your head and wired to the tablet, since only boosting one side isn't very much help.

Fun experiment for you. Take your cell phone and put it into wifi hotspot mode, now take your tablet and connect it to your cell phone. Put your cell phone on the front porch and start walking down the street, when you get about 300 feet, post your reply to this thread from your tablet.

[Mattco26]

Wifi and Bluetooth doesn't just mean connecting to the internets.

Bluetooth 4.0 can be used to create a wifi 'ad-hoc' connection, or device to device connection with no wireless lan base station. Over wifi, it is certainly possible to transmit the Liveview feed - and even the 1080p HD video stream. This would allow a 'remote viewfinder' function.

Imagine going up to Alaska during the salmon run and setting up a camera on a concealed tripod mount. Now you move a safe distance away and open up your tablet. Viola, you're getting a Liveview from 200 yards away. A bear approaches the camera...you wait a second more, and then trigger the shutter. On the off chance that you're within range of a celltower, your camera could start backing up the pictures to your Fort Knox-like private server (with tinfoil shroud to keep the CIA away). Then, when the bear mauls your camera (because the iK30 shutter is loud), and you drop the tablet in despair (losing that copy), you can still sell the stunning backed up picture for enough money to replace your equipment and buy some yummy bear-captured Pacific Salmon steaks (that's what Wild Caught means right?).

Remember, this remote viewfinder scenario could easily be accomplished with an $810 K30 body and a $500 Ipad.

Instead of a story about another photographer being eaten, you have a great picture.

So remember photographers, wireless could save your life!

That sounds awesome and it's a great example of whats possible with current technology. But I think it would be a more successful product if it were a more compact mirrorless camera, not a regular sized DSLR. I think those of us more focused on the photography aspect of camera ownership would rather our cameras use every bit of their processing power, battery life and real estate to record the image and get ready for the next one asap. That speed is relative to a certain price point. That price point changes as technology matures, but it's still there. Why are the pro models so much larger and expensive? I know their bodies aren't full of empty space. Pentax makes a camera with built in GPS already. They know exactly how much it costs to integrate this into a camera. If they thought it was worth it they'd do it.

If it were so easy and cheap, and 90% of people would pay $100 more for these things then why aren't Canon or Nikon or Sony doing this? They have whole departments of people working on market research as well as product development.

[NickLarsson]

Personally I'd like an integrated GPS module if it doesn't add bulkiness to the camera.
It doesn't help to take better pictures but it's a nice feature anyway.
It would be interesting to know why Sony put one in SLTs but not in the NEX though.

Wireless connectivity would be less useful for me because I like to PP my pictures before sharing.
If I'm away from home for a long time I can use the iPad and the SD card adapter to do it.
Otherwise for a simple snapshot the smartphone is sufficient.
However, the ability to use the iPad as an external viewfinder and controller sounds fun indeed

Interesting to note why nikon didn't implement wifi in the d800 is because of slowness :
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/nikon-d800-u...-wi-fi-1082442

Anyway I guess in 2 or 3 years all these will be standard camera features, and manufacturers who dismiss them will be marginalized.

[dmytty]

So you seem to think that these little tiny SOC things found in cell phones can do this? .

Well the HD Hero and Pro people seem to think so too.

http://gopro.com/hd-hero-accessories/wi-fi-bacpac-remote-combo/

Note: The quoted performance "600 feet under optimal conditions" is with a 3 year old standard (802.11n amendment 2009) at normal transmitting powers. There has been substantial work done to improve ranges - even with itty bitty embedded antennas. A camera 600 feet away from you with near line of sight (that's optimal conditions) is not as challenging as sending back photos from Mars.

So why are these tiny little companies like Go Pro innovating faster than Nikon, Canon, etc? Maybe they just don't know any better.

About time that we get some HD Hero like footage and stills from APS-C and Full Frame sensors - RAW files to boot.

[elliott]

Well the HD Hero and Pro people seem to think so too.

http://gopro.com/hd-hero-accessories/wi-fi-bacpac-remote-combo/

I'm not seeing anything about being able to send live HD video 600 feet. What they are doing does not require a high bitrate, latency is not a huge deal either.

So was that posted from your tablet 300 feet away from your phone acting as a hotspot? The spec says it is possible, so it must be easily doable, right?

I require real world proof before I believe any marketing fluff. My experiences with wifi show that it never comes close to meeting spec.

Just a note, you're talking to an ex-wardriver who still has his Alfa AWUS036H and 18 dBi Yagi.

---

Last edited by elliott; 09-09-2012 at 01:47 AM.

[Anvh]

Well technically that's a compass function. Most gps chips have this integrated as well, or it's part of a multi-axis accelerometer. Hardly unique to the Pentax.

Actually it quite is there arent that many GPS devices for photography that record the orientation as well.
Also it's more advance then just a GPS right so all what i said was correct.

It's helpful to find them. It's a location cue.

But why do i need to know that and why is it helpful for me?

Past the point of sharing their photos? Guess I don't understand that part.

Look up facebook generation

Wifi doesn't just mean connecting to the internets.

BT 4.0 can be used to create a wifi 'ad-hoc' connection, or device to device connection with no wireless lan base station. So wifi-bluetooth would be perfect for many new functions. Over wifi, it is certainly possible to transmit the video codec (the HD video stream), which would allow the 'remote viewfinder' function. Imagine a shutter release that didn't require line-of-sight IR. That's useful for everything from studio shots to bird feeder shots to closeup wildlife - and the 'remote' setup perfectly complements Weather Resistance.

I know but don't mix things up here!
BT is what we are talking about not WIFI 2 different things

We are talking LTE vs. ethernet. I imagine a lot of pro photographers would like to be untethered at events too.

Preciesly about LTE but you changed it to ethernet the last post
LTE is simply to slow and expensive to be off any use at the moment, sure some pro's might use it but they will be shooting in low resolution JPEG with compression then.
Not the type of photography most if not all won't do.

No need to organize if there's enough metadata and analysis. For example, 'Show me pictures of the flowers I took in Grand Canyon.'

That's 2 seconds of work to add... if you lay awake about this then sure buy a logger i don't so why do i need to pay for it?

Also, I hardly recognize setting up cables as part of the scientific process. It's mundane and there's hardly any experimentation involved in swapping an SD card.

Jeez, you should work with film or slides for a change



Besides all this you haven't told me once again anything that would help me take a better photo?

[Anvh]

I think the OP's cost estimate for the development of a built-in GPS using a standard chipset was somewhat high. If a good electronics engineer couldn't complete the design in two solid weeks of work, I'd be very surprised. Add to that prototyping in an existing development body, and re-engineering to suit, say another two months full-time equivalent, and you've got 400 hours at (say) $200 per hour. That's $80,000, including overheads. Call it $100,000 to round it up and your $10 per camera becomes $2. Why would you quibble about that?

Because it won't be €10 certainly not when it also has 4G then ur looking at a price tag of at least €150 extra.
I'm not willing to pay 10% more for a camera because of features i don't use.

[Anvh]

Nothing magical about it. A 1080p h.264 compressed video stream (ie what the K30 does now) is 20-30 Megabits per second and that's within the 802.11n spec. Regarding range, no problem. Outdoors, the old 802.11 b/g specification calls for 95 meters (~300 feet). The current 802.11n specification roughly doubles that. And that's while staying within FCC transmitting guidelines for output power (so that you don't 'step on' your neighbor's signal). The next generation spec will do even better - MIMO with multipath processing.

So, 600 feet is easy with current technology using power transmission levels @ <1 watt, which are designed to be compatible with apartment houses having wifi lans 50 feet apart. In Alaska, a boosted signal with newer technology should get you close to your 400 yards...and that's without using your empty snack can of Pringles as an antenna (what a bear lure too)!

Ah but your talking about WIFI here not BT.
BT theoretical throughput is 24Mbit/s and the range is about 300 feet but you don't have MAX throughput at that range though.

So when you stand close by it might give you the 20Mbit/s you need...


Also you're forgetting something, sure BT might drain 1watt but what about the sensor and the processor for the video?

[RobA_Oz]

Because it won't be €10 certainly not when it also has 4G then ur looking at a price tag of at least €150 extra.
I'm not willing to pay 10% more for a camera because of features i don't use.

In an era when you can buy an entire HTC 4G phone for $200US, I sincerely doubt that figure.

Anyway, who says it would be the only model, for heavens sake?

[tclausen]

Ah but your talking about WIFI here not BT.
BT theoretical throughput is 24Mbit/s and the range is about 300 feet but you don't have MAX throughput at that range though.

So when you stand close by it might give you the 20Mbit/s you need...


Also you're forgetting something, sure BT might drain 1watt but what about the sensor and the processor for the video?

Well, you talk about WiFi throughput and the Bluetooth power consumption.

WiFi, blasting out 24Mbps continued, is going to be eating up batteries at no time, flat. So is, for the matter, running a GPS permanently.

I'd guess that GPS tracking + HD LiverView over WiFi support will come be delivered as an (optional) battery grip - the BG-P (Plutonium-238 powered, like Curiosity).

[Anvh]

In an era when you can buy an entire HTC 4G phone for $200US, I sincerely doubt that figure.

Anyway, who says it would be the only model, for heavens sake?

Look at tablets and what the price difference is between one with or without 3G/4G.

And which phone is that, most likely with a plan or not?



Anyway nobody says it's the only model so no idea where you come up with that idea, i'm just saying i won't want to pay extra for it.

[Anvh]

Well, you talk about WiFi throughput and the Bluetooth power consumption.

WiFi, blasting out 24Mbps continued, is going to be eating up batteries at no time, flat. So is, for the matter, running a GPS permanently.

I'd guess that GPS tracking + HD LiverView over WiFi support will come be delivered as an (optional) battery grip - the BG-P (Plutonium-238 powered, like Curiosity).

Ah yeah didn't look good enough.
Basically the BT goes up a notch and works over the WIFI so that means 3 Mbit/s for BT itself.... well there goes the dream for sure.

[RobA_Oz]

Look at tablets and what the price difference is between one with or without 4G.

$140AU for the iPad. I haven't checked Android equivalents. Somewhat less than European prices, it would seem, and I would expect that a future build would be cheaper.

The comparison, nonetheless, underlines my final point about being given a choice. Given the choice, I would take the GPS and maybe WiFi. I never use a SIM card on my iPad, because I can use a personal hotspot off my phone for that. I would take the same attitude with a similar facility on a DSLR.

Edit: it was a T-mobile HTC One S 4G before the plan.