Slashdot Mirror
Bluetooth Digital Cameras?
WebfishUK asks: "Pretty simple question really, does anyone know when we might expect some decent cameras with bluetooth built-in to arrive on the scene? I know there are a couple out there, like the Concord Eye-Q Go Wireless and the Sony DSC-FX77 as well as all those camera phones but wondered if there where any others people knew about in the pipeline? Alternatively what about bluetooth adaptors that could be plugged into any camera with a mini USB connection?"
Imagne downloding the contents of a 1 GB microdive over bluetooth, that would take forever. Bluetooth provides approxamatly 784k/bits a sec transfer speed. This is terrible... even slower than USB 1.1
Lets compare this to USB2 which is widely used to connect digital cameras, we can get alteast 50mb/ps transfer rates from this. Which is reasonable.
Before people start suggesting 802.11b remember that this only provides around 3-4mb/sec which is not all that fantastic. Nikon have an attachment for the D100 camera which allows transfer over 802.11b.
I suggest using SCSI as a medium to connect digital cameras, after all most Digital cameras suppot the USB mass storage protocall. Gess what this is!! SCSI over USB! lets just forget the USB part and get pure 320mb/sec per channel speeds!!
Bethanie: Whore...
Fan Whore
'haven't really looked too deeply into BlueTooth (since learning of its S-L-O-W transfer speeds), but I wonder how easy it is for others - within range - to capture a photo going from camera to computer (or where ever)?
It will go well with the red eye that shows up in all my digital camera photos. Bring on the blue tooth!
This is an excellent reply. I wonder why this even made it on slashdot.....
/*too OS independant*/)
bethane, I don't think scsi is a viable alternative (cable size, identifying various devices
I don't see current flash tech taking advantage of even usb 2.0. Why not use that?
How is bluetooth under Linux? I have been thinking about getting a bluetooth adapter to play with, but how well does it work?
WiFi & Flash Memory combo cards look more promising for wireless downloading of decent resolution digital images. Although intended for PDAs, these cards might be adopted for use in cameras (if the vendor will support them and if they will fit in the camera). Or, you might wait for Fuji's Wifi digicam. Anyone know of others?
Either way, I'd look for a Wifi solution, not Bluetooth.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
There is some discussion about this on the Nokia N-Gage forum, since the N-Gage doesn't come with a camera. No one's really found anything much yet. BTW: Your Sony link appears to go to the wrong model. It should be the DSC-FX77.
While not exactly the solution you're looking for because it isn't bluetooth, the Nikon D2H is Nikon's new flagship digital SLR for sports and photojournalism. It can transmit files by 802.11b. The camera itself doesn't have the feature as standard, you need to buy an attachment.
;-)
You're looking at $5,000 for the whole kit plus lenses, etc. Definitely not an amateur solution but it is an attractive feature, especially if you're into sports shooting, and even moreso if you get a kick out of the idea that your pictures are automatically being transmitted to your laptop while you're still taking the next ones!
But then, geeky toys aside, your lovely new camera would say Nikon on it and that would be a shame.
Couldn't resist!
If you're on any sort of budget then personally I think a $25 firewire card reader is a better/cheaper idea. You can take around 400 high quality JPEGs on a 1Gb card/microdrive, copy them to your computer in a few minutes, then start shooting again. Still, if you're loaded then I guess wireless is the way to go.
Note that the Canon 1D replacement is due within a few months and it would be surprising if that didn't have wireless capabilities, either as standard or with an attachment. Price should be around the same as the Nikon D2H, maybe a little higher, but the features should leave the D2H eating dust.
I too work in a camera retail shop.
The brand-new Nikon D2h, not the Nikon D100, can transmit over 802.11b when the optional WT-1A adapter. Outside North America, it's known as the WT-1.
Mike
What you need is 802.11g thats the only wireless technology thats even remotely fast enough for downloading your homemade porn.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
If you're on any sort of budget then personally I think a $125 card reader is a better/cheaper idea. You can take around 500 high quality JPEGs on a 1Gb card/microdr, copy them to your PC in a few minutes, then start shooting again. Still, if you're loaded then I guess wireless is the way to go. Bluetooth the future not now
Alternatively what about bluetooth adaptors that could be plugged into any camera with a mini USB connection?
My wife and I have a pair of digital cameras. They both have USB plugs. But the USB cables for each are not interchangeable, with each other or with any other USB cables that we have. Only the computer end is standard; the camera end is unique to the camera. We once misplaced one of the USB cables, and it took us a month to get a replacement. We had to special-order it from the camera manufacturer, for $40.
So a bluetooth-to-USB adapter would probably only work for one (or a very few) cameras. You'd find that you have to buy it from the camera maker, because nobody else would have one that fits your camera.
Yeah, you could make the bluetooth-to-USB adapter connect to the "computer" end of the camera maker's USB cable. But that's not how they'd do it. And if you could find one that worked this way, you'd have to have the maker's USB cable anyway. Since bluetooth only works within a few meters, you might as well just connect the camera to the computer as to the adapter.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Well when I first got my wifi card for my Zaurus (linksys something-12), my first instinct was, why can't I put this in my dSLR??
So what I'm waiting for is a CF card with a small buffer ("small" meaning 256MB or so) and an antenna, which automatically uploads to my laptop whenever in range.
It would be cool if it used an open protocol like sftp or rsync but I'll settle for FTP.
I have seen the Nikon camera mentioned above, this would be a CF-sized version of the same technology.
Probably in a couple years........
Everyone is saying how slow bluetooth is and you should be using USB or 802.11b or g and that is fine provided you have those available. Bluetooth would be most useful to me for transfering images to my PDA or mobile phone for e-mailing from the scene via GPRS. This I have done with a Sony DV Cam which has bluetooth (and a built in e-mail client!).
As it happens I've been looking at good Digital Cameras and have decided on one partly because it has flash media compatable with my PDA so I can use that to send from the scene.
The initial comments here are focusing on BlueTooth for transfering images, which (personally) I think would be God-awful slow. Though it might be nice to be able to send an automagically-reduced-resolution image over a phone via BlueTooth, on occasion.
:) )
I'd be more interested in BT for other uses -- metadata on pictures, etc.
For example: Snap a picture, your palm (in your shirt pocket) gets a complete record of date, time, exposure info, and a thumbnail. So you can easily review shots with someone else around a nicer display than what your camera has.
Or: Snap a picture, your camera asks your GPS where you are and what you're facing, and the EXIM info gets a very precise record of location, direction, and field of view. So you know EXACTLY what the picture is of. (or at least exactly where it was
Or: Set up your camera on a tripod. Walk inside the picture with the rest of your family. When you're ready, hit a button on your palm (or cell phone) and slide it back into your pocket, then 3 seconds later, the picture gets taken. Want another picture? Just pull the phone back out -- no need to return to the camera to reset a timer. You can even check the thumbnail to see if you even need another shot.
Get the picture? (sorry, couldn't resist.)
I've owned 3 digital cameras, and set up at least 10 for idiots...
every one, except a logitech dual purpose (webcam/still cam) could not function to take pictures while the usb connection was in place.. they go into data transfer mode- and the shutter is not available.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I'd love to have a bluetooth camera that was smart enough to
- periodically look for a trusted computer (but only when it has images on the camera)
- automatically move images across bluetooth to the computer and then delete from local flash memory
This way I could come home from work, never actually take my camera out of my briefcase, and have an automatic sync take place. (My palm pilot should do the same thing.)
All the curmudgeonly griping about bluetooth being too slow for this kind of application is pretty shortsighted. Faster is always better, but lets make better use of what's available today.
While we're at it, why not have my briefcase incorporate splashpower.com technology so everything in the bag charges up when I set the bag down on a special landing pad at home.
Wires suck.
slashsearch.org - slashdot search. powered by google.
IEEE 1394b, aka FireWire 800
Thanks for the interesting points people have raised.
I agree that the relatively low datarates can seem as though BT isn't appropriate for upload of images. However, as a couple of people mentioned the slow data transfer isn't necessarily a problem in all situations. For instance the camera might upload at night when quite frankly it can take as long as it likes (well, within reason).
It was interesting to note how quite a few posters seemed to take an either or view - that is BT versus USB etc. I would have assumed that BT would augment a technology such as USB. This would provide the best of both worlds. When I want the pictures now I can actively seek to recover them by plugging the thing into the computer (or whatever). The BT on the otherhand would be available to 'mop up' at other times when, say the memory is getting full or it has been a while since the pictures where uploaded. Also, again as some have suggested it might be useful for controlling the device or recovery of metadata. For sure, the idea of devices talking to each other during the night is not yet commonplace but I suspect in a few years many homes will have a multimedia system which spends the night in a standby state from which it might wish to interact with other devices - if only to check they where still in the house (robbery detection even?)
Once again thanks for the discussion and just to let you know I ended up buy a Canon A80 (which has no BT) but is an excellent little camera.
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
So this means that the laptop will have to be ON in your bag, draining batteries even when you're not shooting? By the time you've done your shoot, your laptop batteries will be dead. Hurray!
IMHO, FireWire cardreader = is better.. not as sexy as wireless mind, but a hell of a lot more practical and cheaper.
Fight Crime - Shoot Back!
I can connect my canon s40 to my computer and control the camera using software on the computer. Figured this was pretty standard, but I don't have experience with many different digicams...