[PentaxPoke]

I don't like how that USB wire connects from the grip into the data port requiring the door to stay open. When you are outside in a drizzle, what do you do? Pop that wire out and let it dangle?

This implementation is definitely "gadgety" I'm glad Pentax didn't go for the wireless capability in the k20d grip. I guess that is the difference between a camera company and an electronics company midset.

[krs]

I did a quick search and it appears that according to spec, USB 2.0's transfer rate is 480Mbits/sec. My wireless is 54Mbits/sec, or about 9 times slower.

Regardless of tranfer rate differences, I would rather pop the SD card out and put into my computer than transfer this way. Then there is the interesting question of WIFI keys, IP addresses, etc.... I would not find the small benefit being worth the issues....

[ricosuave]

couldn't you just get an eye-fi?
i imagine it would work on any camera with an SD card and would automatically
upload the pics to your computer or website (flickr, photobucket, etc).

[little laker]

Just how secure would your images be through a wireless transfer?

I'd sure hate to seen all of an event photographers work stolen because someone was able to download their pictures during the transfer.

Another thing that I'd be worried about is the range.
If your photographing a country fair will it work in all the buildings?

I think that I'll pass until they've had some time to prefect it.
Although I can see it's usefulness in the studio.

[nex1]

Y'all have seen the Eye Fi right?

Eye-Fi Help Site General Information

It supports encryption of the following: Wi-Fi Security: Static WEP 40/104/128, WPA-PSK, WPA2-PSK

So back to your question about security, it would be as secure as your existing wireless network. Ironically, many people will use open wireless networks.

The Eye Fi only has a range of: Typical Range: 90 feet outdoors and 45 feet indoors - this is because it doesn't have any type of external antenna, thing that sucks is that it only does JPEG no RAW or DNG format pictures etc. RAW will be saved to the card, but not transmitted. If a digital camera had Wi Fi built in the range would probably be a lot better, more like a traditional wireless card.

[vitalsax]

Eye Fi is for jpg shooters and it's slow like hell The samsung version of will cost $999.00 just for the grip ( PMA representative said)

[nex1]

I can't really think of the Eye Fi being that useful of a tool (even if it could do RAW), in almost any situation I can think of where I would possibly use it, I would just tether the camera it to a laptop instead - unless I really could get instant FAST transfers from "anywhere" (in the middle of the woods, at NASA etc). It would be like having an instant backup. Even if it did operate at normal speeds for an 802.11g device, it would start to lag shooting at 3 fps in DNG format with files 16 megs each. They need a 802.11n version!

[TourDeForce]

I would be concerned with packing yet more electronics into the unit that might even slightly degrade image quality. It is, after all, intended for capturing images.

Really, if you're taking pictures you're not processing the files. How hard is it to swap an SD card if you want someone to start scanning through images. Even if you do it yourself, it is really that much of a hastle to slide the SD card into a reader and take a few seconds to download files?

Don't get me wrong, it's very convenient and scores hight on the cool factor, but at the level of a K20D if it could possibly cost a little picture clarity, I wouldn't want it.

[nex1]

My last concern would be the wireless "taking away from image quality" - I mean the capability can already be built into the SD card itself. We are talking about two very different things (image quality and a feature). That's almost like saying "I wouldn't want XM Radio in my car if it would make my car any slower or less fuel efficient". The biggest advantage I would see is having an instant "backup" it's not the time it takes to swap SD cards that is a problem, it's what could happen to that card before you get home or to a computer. I don't always carry my laptop with me everywhere and stop to make a backup of my SD card when I go to switch to another card. I have a dozen memory cards, capacity isn't a problem. Another point of view I read in a book is a pro photographer who doesn't necessarily like to use huge memory cards, if that 1 card dies or is lost/broken then his ENTIRE photo shoot could be lost, and not just part of the photo shoot. Well, he is about as OCD as I am and he has assistants who make instant back ups on site then they take more than 1 vechicle back to the shop and they always carry 1 of the back ups in a separate vehicle. Even with all that said, I don't think the wireless is a practical application right now, in 5 years it will probably be just as standard as image stabilization is today.

[jgredline]

If it were free, I would take it, if it cost a buck, I would leave it.......

[ftpaddict]

I really, but really really don't give a damn.

[stewart_photo]

Do u want a Wi-fi feature with your K20D too?

No. And that answer applies to all Pentax cameras, not just the K20D. Instead, I would prefer Pentax continue to improve the photographic capabilities of it's cameras rather than redirect money and efforts unnecessarily towards gadgets only a comparitive handful would use. If Wi-Fi gains significant saturation in the DSLR market, Pentax will need to eventually add it. But, until then, I would hope the company simply ignores Wi-Fi entirely - along with a long list of other unnecessary gadgets.

stewart

[TourDeForce]

My last concern would be the wireless "taking away from image quality" - I mean the capability can already be built into the SD card itself. We are talking about two very different things (image quality and a feature). That's almost like saying "I wouldn't want XM Radio in my car if it would make my car any slower or less fuel efficient".

Actually, it's nothing like saying that.

I'm simply suggesting that the electronics may cause some additional heat or other effect that could degrade image quality to some small degree. I don't think it's worth it (if true), but if you do that's fine too.

I read an article about the K10D & noise and there was a definate increase in noise from one specific corner of the image sensor (lower left IIRC). Speculation was heat near the image sensor or electronic interance from other nearyby components may have been causing it. WiFi for all it's wonderful capabilities could add to such a effect. If there's a way to make it work without a penalty, by all means chuck it in there, but don't just dream up a wish list of features and expect no ill side effects from them - especially when dealing with equipment as sensitive as a DSLR image sensor.

[srooijens]

Y'all have seen the Eye Fi right?

Eye-Fi Help Site General Information

It supports encryption of the following: Wi-Fi Security: Static WEP 40/104/128, WPA-PSK, WPA2-PSK

So back to your question about security, it would be as secure as your existing wireless network.

Well, that would NOT be as secure as my existing wireless network.

WEP is pretty much useless nowadays, forget about that.
Almost as bad as an open network.

WPA-PSK is reasonable but not using preshared keys and adding 2-way authentication is still a lot better.

For anything to be connected to my network it needs to support WPA in enterprise mode with EAP-TLS authentication. Anything relying only on a preshared key will not connect to my network.

I'd be very interested in a wifi enabled camera/grip but only if I can load my own certificates for WPA in 802.1x mode, I'm not willing to compromise my networks security for it.

[ruemiser]

Realistically, I don't think Wifi is needed in an SLR unless it does not compromise power capacity loads. Also, suppose your Wireless Router is setup for no encryption and DHCP, you may be sending your photos to your next door neighbor by accident. Nor do I like broadcasting my internet connection to the masses. (If you have one, use the WEP encryption)

David