PDA

View Full Version : I'm hoping for a Camera with firewire or Airport


Chico
Dec 12, 2002, 04:50 PM
Imagine taking photos - click, click, click..., till full, then selecting download (via Airport). Then more photos... Using removable media with my firewire reader is OK, but built-in Airport would be great!! Is this possible?

Mr Jobs
Dec 12, 2002, 04:51 PM
sony alreay does this only not with airport aka 802.11b

TheInevitable
Dec 20, 2002, 12:29 PM
You're right, that would be killer to have Airport built into the digital camera, but wouldn't it be pretty slow to download big photo files? My only experience using Airport for anything but internet was in an office setting, but it was too slow to transfer files, so I just used ethernet. Is that how Airport is? Or did I have my settings wrong?

Also, which Sony camera already has that?

springscansing
Dec 20, 2002, 12:35 PM
Airport is probably too slow for big files, yes... but if you only have like 50MB total on the camera... well... you'd have to leave it there for several minutes, but its doable.

alex_ant
Dec 20, 2002, 06:14 PM
Airport would add at least $50 to the cost, add quite a bit to the size, be very bad for battery life, and offer little if any speed benefit compared to USB. Then how would you get your photos? FTP to your camera? Bluetooth would be a better idea for something like this, but I'd still prefer USB or Firewire.

Chico
Dec 21, 2002, 08:03 AM
A firewire camera seems more possible of the 2. I know there are some available at the high end. I haven't seen them in the mid-range ($300-$500).

The thought of an airport camera struck me as we were snapping pics of the kids for a Christmas card. We'd shoot pictures. Go back to the computer, take out the card, insert it in the firewire reader, download, reinsert, go back & try again. By now the kids are out of their clothes, with food in ther hair. I thought shoot - download - shoot - download... Other must have similar demands.

I suppose it could be pre-configured to download to a specific location, or into iPhoto.

MisterMe
Dec 21, 2002, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Chico
A firewire camera seems more possible of the 2. I know there are some available at the high end. I haven't seen them in the mid-range ($300-$500).

The thought of an airport camera struck me as we were snapping pics of the kids for a Christmas card. We'd shoot pictures. Go back to the computer, take out the card, insert it in the firewire reader, download, reinsert, go back & try again. By now the kids are out of their clothes, with food in ther hair. I thought shoot - download - shoot - download... Other must have similar demands.

I suppose it could be pre-configured to download to a specific location, or into iPhoto.

Why don't you just buy larger capacity memory cards? Wouldn't they be less expensive than a new digital camera?

Chico
Dec 21, 2002, 06:09 PM
Yes - a larger capacity card is a good idea. I'd like a 4 megapixel (or higher) camera for better cropping / enlargement options; so a new camera is in our near future anyway. I thought airport would be a good option.

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Chico
Imagine taking photos - click, click, click..., till full, then selecting download (via Airport). Then more photos... Using removable media with my firewire reader is OK, but built-in Airport would be great!! Is this possible?

What kind of card reader are you using that uses firewire?

chmorley
Dec 21, 2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
Airport is probably too slow for big files, yes... but if you only have like 50MB total on the camera... well... you'd have to leave it there for several minutes, but its doable. Not so. When you consider that most cameras now use USB, 802.11b would be a faster option.

It's probably the other stuff that makes it unlikely (cost, size, power).

Chris

Macmaniac
Dec 22, 2002, 09:55 AM
Instead of putting firewire onto cameras, put it on the card readers. They are so SLOW. Soon consumer cameras will be able to handle 1Gb of flash memory so you need a beefy crad reader for that. Cross your fingers for a firewire reader;)

superkatalog
Dec 22, 2002, 11:26 AM
how fast are the 1gb flash? and the "normal" old ones? and the other card standards? are they faster than usb? if not, it make no sense to make a firewire port in a camera.

MacBandit
Dec 22, 2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by superkatalog
how fast are the 1gb flash? and the "normal" old ones? and the other card standards? are they faster than usb? if not, it make no sense to make a firewire port in a camera.

This is a good point and I don't believe even some of the new faster flash formats are any faster then USB. If they are it's not by much.


To MacManiac you are correct except for a large number of current consumer level cameras can hold sizes up to 2GB. CF-Type II is on a number of sub-$500 cameras and supports MicroDrives which are up to 2GB. Though you can actually get a 1GB CF-TypeI card but they are very expensive.

TMay
Dec 22, 2002, 06:01 PM
It would be useful to have a full peer to peer Firewire II connection between camera and an on/off camera drive. This would eliminate inherently slow flash memory as a performance constraint.

Of course, it would be necessary to have a substantial power supply with the drive, but the bonus is that you could pull power for the camera via a Firewire tether.

I don't see much use for this on consumer cameras, but it would have a substantial impact on pro level cameras, especially the new full frame, high resolution cameras from Canon (13 Mpixel, 3 frames per second for 8 frames) and Kodak (14 Mpixel, 1.7 frames per second for up to 18 frames) can burn up a lot of storage quick.

What I would like to see is a device, say 3.25" x 5.25" x 1 inch, with a 3" x 4" color LCD, slide on battery pack, removable 2.5 inch drive, iTunes, iPhoto Lite, iCal, Inkwell (with some PDA functionality), Airport, Bluetooth, Rendevous, Quicktime, FM tuner, GPS, and GPRS (or whatever the hot phone setup is for awhile.

Ok. I'm done...back to the loonie bin.

irmongoose
Dec 22, 2002, 06:57 PM
Just to answer an earlier question, all the Sony Bluetooth models allow you to do this.




irmongoose

TheInevitable
Dec 23, 2002, 09:42 AM
Not many digital cameras allow you to use firewire. I only know of the Nikon D1 series. And I imagine that other similar high-end cameras do too.

It would be cool if they made more firewire enabled mid-low end cameras and there was a way connect and download to your iPod. (And maybe even view them on the new iPod 2?)

The standard compact flash card's speed is 1.2 MB per second. The newer ones MIGHT meet 2 MB, but they definetly aren't much faster than USB. chmorley said that 802.11b is faster than USB. When ever I have tried to transfer files from computer to computer using airport, it has been rediculously slow. Is there a common settings mistake I am making that makes it move so slow? Or is there something wrong with the antenna in my PBG4?

chmorley
Dec 23, 2002, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by TheInevitable
...chmorley said that 802.11b is faster than USB. When ever I have tried to transfer files from computer to computer using airport, it has been rediculously slow. Is there a common settings mistake I am making that makes it move so slow? Or is there something wrong with the antenna in my PBG4? Well, I tested my speed by transferring a folder with 25 MB of stuff in it to my wife's computer via an airport base station. The base station was downstairs, and both of our computers were upstairs. It took 3 min., 3 sec. That's not great--certainly not faster than my Sony camera via USB. In the past, setting it up as a peer-to-peer has roughly doubled the speed--probably both because of the decreased distance and not having to rely on the base station to relay information. This is probably closer to what would be needed for a camera (and closer to USB performance).

The speed I was citing in my own mind was the 11Mb/sec. speed that is the theoretical upper limit of 802.11a (did I say 802.11b? I am sleep deprived with a new son). I have only ever achieved this speed, though, with single, large files. Transferring multiple small files is considerably slower.

Not sure how this compares to your transfer rates. If yours is slower, the most obvious things I can think of are a) placement (do you get 4 bars?), or b) disabling robustness.

Chris