Slashdot Mirror
Nikon D2H: Digital Camera + 802.11b Option
k_stamour writes "Wow, the Holy Grail of Digital Cameras! -- the Nikon D2H. Considering the ever-dropping cost of 802.11b gear, it may not be too long before WiFi is found in lower-end Digi-Cameras. The remaining cost would be to get decent performance out of a small embedded Wifi antenna.
This Nikon is Geared for Sport/Action/News Shots. Think about it: a photographer can be on a scene of a newsworthy event, and over the hours of attending, the publisher could already be printing/posting the photographer's pics before he removes the camera strap from his neck! With this cam, a WiFi access point, and Internet access, they could post their pics in real time on the web from anywhere in the world. Of course, the above conditions would need to be meet every time for real time uploads." The 802.11 access is through an optional external transceiver module, model WT-1.
And how does this Holy Grail of digital cameras interact with the Second Holy Grail of digital cameras -- battery life?
May we never see th
Bluetooth would make much more sense. Mobile networks are already everywhere and BT power consumption is much smaller that WLAN. But that wouldn't make /. headlines, would it?
Back when "Internet Appliances" were the buzz, you'd get naysayers posting on here ridiculing the idea. And in the media. They'd sneer, "Great, now I can surf the internet from my stove, or find out what is in my fridge over the web."
But this camera is an example of what most people with some foresight were thinking of when they talked about internet appliances... normally unconnected devices that get net access and gain cool features.
Now bring on the powered WiFi speakers that play streamed digital music in any room from a personal media device (TiVo-like entertainment center combined with WiFi) or home computer.
And yes, I still want a good, cheap touch-screen webpad with wifi for net access from my couch, bathroom, kitchen table, hammock outside, etc...
Think about it- 802.11b doesn't have that kind of range; even in the open, it's 300 feet tops, unless you get antennas to focus the signal, and that's not practical unless you know where the photographer is going to be.
This sounds much more like a toy for studio photography, cutting the downtime by transferring pictures in the background. The only other option is Firewire(which most true pro cameras have; prosumer digital SLRs for the most part don't). Even the microdrives, which are some of the fastest compactflash devices around, are pretty sluggish, compared to the camera directly sending the file over firewire(without even storing it, save in temporary high speed memory).
I can see this being a potential hit with the 'event' photography market- ie, like guys who set up at a kids sports games and offer portrait services. They like anything that reduces their clutter/setup time or gets the photo to their servers(for printing) faster. I didn't see the specs on the camera, but if it's cheap enough, they might bite(the event photography people don't usually invest in the several-thousand-dollar cameras, because it's not necessary).
Please help metamoderate.
Talk about your flawed logic. You say you don't think you should have to spend more than the cost of a good PC for a digital camera. Is then a Rolls Royce overpriced because it costs more than your average house. You probably think I'm crazy then for blowing $1000 on my film camera setup (Nikon N80/50mm fixed lens/24-85 zoom)What about audio? I can get a pair of binaural microphones for $65 but I still lust after the $450 Sonic Studios (and the $250 headband-mounted accessory, and their $1000 preamp). The reverse is true; if you really wanted a bitchin' setup, I'll bet you could have spent a lot more than you did on your computer. I'd love a G5 with a huge flat panel and I think I priced that at over $4000 (maybe over $5000 or even $6000, but I don't remember). I'd even love to stick with PC and get a top of the line Athlon with 4GB of RAM and half a terabyte of HD with the newest and highest end ATI Radeon.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You cannot say that product X should always be cheaper than product Y, because their price and quality are not related to each other.
Chris
As an ex-journalist who started out as a newspaper reporter/photographer, I laugh when I see what some people are envisioning for this camera. Here's a news flash. Most of the time when you're shooting news events, there's not a WiFi access spot or the time (or NEED) to set one up. While I can certainly come up with theorectical uses for it, I can come up with even more potential problems in handling things that way. A laptop and a cable is still a much better (and cheaper) solution where Internet access is available, IMO.
It seems to me that this is an example of geeks liking a new technical solution and not realizing that existing technology is better for the people who really use the equipment to get actual work done.
...but just because it's digital and wireless, doesn't automatically make it a good *camera*. Granted, I've been following the D2H and it's definitely a sweet piece of Nikon, but this is more than a toy -- it's a high-end piece of professional equipment.
The problem I'm facing right now (being on the market for a camera) is the fact that I can get a used F4 (or even an N100, maybe) for a quarter of the price of this digital camera, and still have excellent picture quality. Add in another four or five hundred dollars for a negative scanner, and I can do pretty much everything the D2H can do with less than half the cash.
Besides, any event that would require near-instantaneous transmission (sports, a riot, stuff like that) would be using VIDEO, not still shots.
It's a nice (and niche) toy, but nothing more than that.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
I've been shooting with DSLR gear for 3 years now, and I've tried a bunch of high-end cameras including the Nikon D1X and Canon 1DS.
My analysis of this new Nikon based only on the dpreview article, is that it seems fine for sports and news photography where framerates matter, but outside of that market it is difficult to see the how the improved features addresses the things that have been missing on the Nikon family of DSLR's.
The big thing that's been missing is a full-frame sensor. Why is this important? Well, all Nikon DSLRs to date, including this one, have used an imager that is 1.5 times smaller than a normal 35mm film frame. This means the sensor only sees the middle part of what would have been exposed on a normal film frame, which in turn means the camera suffers from slight myopia. All attached lenses have a virtual magnification factor of 1.5x over stated spec. As such, a nice 20mm wideangle lens becomes a dull 30mm lens, which produces a constricted view. Landscape and indoor photography generally suffers from this lack of wideangle support.
Canon addressed this problem with their (very expensive) 1DS camera which has a full-sized imager chip, but this doesn't help photographers with a gear bag full of Nikon lenses - they don't fit on a Canon. I think many photographers would have liked to see Nikon come up with a full-sized imager on their D2 series.
There are far cheaper DSLR's with high-rez sensors. Take the very affordable Fujifilm Finepix S2, for example - a handsome 6 megapixel sensor and fully Nikon lens compatible. Same magnification factor as the D2H, at 1/4 the price. Some photographers would probably find the flimsy Fujifilm body and awkward ergonomics unsuitable for pro work, but I know many photographers who'd rather save their money and buy one of those, or an old battered D1X, and then wait for Nikon to come out with the full-frame unit they have been waiting for.
It's also disappointing to see that Nikon apparently have dropped IEEE1394 and GPS support. USB2 is cheaper, dumber, slower and less reliable than firewire, and the GPS thing was a neat 'gimmick' that could have had many useful applications. The beautiful photos on the California Coastal Records Project were all shot on a D1X with a GPS attached - this permitted the photographers an exact shooting record of where the pictures were taken.
The rest of the improved features just don't justify the cost unless those 8fps are crucial to your line of business. The wi-fi stuff looks like a gimmick - consider the limited range of 802.11b - but it is conceivable to imagine an assistant photoshopping the pics you shoot from a nearby laptop. Nothing I'd pay extra for, though.
I don't recall any Nikon Digital SLR camera with a full 24x36mm sensor.
From the D1 through to the D100 and now the D2H the sensor size has been 23.7x15.5mm therefore you will need to adjust your lens collection accordingly.
Also keep in mind that not everyone that shoots a camera is shooting "action" shots or birds/animals in the distance. Wide angle lenses, along with tilt/shift lenses are important for architecture and landscape photographers.
So yes, the multiplication factor does indeed matter.
Cheers,
Zip
"The answers are always inside the problem, not outside"- Marshall McLuhan