The Wi-Fi Cameras are Coming

Vcullen writes "This week will see many 'new' digicams released at CES but few will be more than cosmetic tweaks and updates on current models. However Kodak have just announced something new (for them) - a Wi-Fi enabled digital camera that enables online photo sharing and viewing without the need for a computer. It also has 256MB of internal memory and stores up to 1500 images." Of course, to actually get on a wireless network, a special card is required for the camera, and the firmware has yet to support WEP, so one has to wait until a Q3 2005 update to join most authenticated networks.

Comments

1500 images?

[thesatch]

maybe if they're the size of postage stamps...

Great

[DrKyle]

Now I don't have to stop and swap cards when they get full, but swap batteries because I'm constantly uploading them to my server.

Too easy.

[Forge]

This is in the relms of "That's so obvius, the guy who patented it died laughing" :).

I mean a wifi camera is neaded by a lot of people. Let's say you are a jurnalist and want to take pictures where it's not exactly alowed. With wifi, the pics can get out imediatly so that if someone takes your camera to destroy incriminating pics you can let them have it (while recording that "transaction" too).

Wonderful idea!

[ZeeExSixAre]

This could link up very well with a pocket-sized hard drive unit sitting in a pocket or photographer's vest. The pictures would automatically be downloaded to the hard drive while shooting. Since 1GB drives are pretty much the norm for shooting (with the exception of the 4GB flash drives), and photos can run upwards of 15-20MB/photo in RAW, this would be a photojournalists/sports photographer's dream not to have to switch out cards every 50 or 80 pictures. This is definitely something to consider, especially when many high-end cameras can take 8 pictures/second in burst mode, with a buffer able to hold 30 or more pictures before writing to flash.

Average Joe would not only benefit greatly by not needing to connect cables to the computer to transfer files, but this is likely to open up a digital convergence gateway where cameras, computers, and phones can transfer photos to each other. We all know that media sharing has become the next big thing, not just in P2P, but in a hardware sense, too.

Think about it - how many times have you taken pictures at a party with your digicam, and your friends ask you, "I want a copy of that pic!" Now you can without batting an eye!

Re:Wonderful idea!

[aardwolf204]

yes but bluetooth is slow. and the point of the grandparent poster is so that sports photographers have more storage space. I think he is looking at it all wrong. wifi or bluetooth are just going to suck up batteries. a much better, and faster solution would be to use multiple CF cards and an iPod or similar storage device with card reader hooked up to a wifi adapter. Fill up a card, eject it and pop it in the ipod, it should sense the card and automatically download, transmit and format while your poping in another blank card.

the ipod with CF adapter and Wifi adapter would be plenty small enough to keep in your pocket and has its own battery. keeps drain off camera battery and lightens camera. also if wifi is unavailable the ipod just keeps the pics on HDD. with the wifi in camera option your SOL if theres no access point, not to mention bandwidth concerns with 20MB raw, or like other poster said, processed jpegs

Re:Hardly a first

[ZeeExSixAre]

This is the first consumer-level implementation... definitely a milestone. How many of your non-photographer friends would pay $1000 for an SLR that doesn't fit in their pocket and does WiFi?

Why is this better than a cellphone?

[rufusdufus]

My cell phone can take pictures and send them [at broadband speed!] over email, or to the local bluetooth network, or over the infrared port, all built in with no "special card" or extra gadgets needed. That and its an mp3 player to boot.
Why would I want a WiFi camera?

Re:Why is this better than a cellphone?

[rufusdufus]

This doesnt answer the question really; if I needed higher quality images on the go, I would want a camera with Bluetooth so I could use my phone to send pictures over internet. But Wifi is useless because I need to be within a few dozen feet of an open access point, which is only a few dozen feet from a USB port.

Re:Why is this better than a cellphone?

[kopenoptop]

"The aperature is too damn small, everything comes out grainy, blured, and the quality is just plain crappy."

I find that a little hard to belive. Any photographer can tell you that the smaller the aperature (physical size not number), the larger the depth of field in the picture. Meaning more things would be infocus (not blurred). More likely, most cell phone cameras suck because they have horrible lenses that point at bad sensors.

Re:wireless cameras have been here for years

[TheUnknownOne]

Megapixels are not everything. Cell phone cameras have a sensor, and lense about the size of a corn kernel. This is not good for taking any half way decent pictures.

Re:Hardly a first

[morcheeba]

Nikon's adapter is $450 and goes on a $2000 camera. I think that drastic price reduction (albeit to a more rational level) and moving features into a different market segment is innovation.