Bluetooth Digital Cameras? 46
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?"
I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [furby.com] 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!!
'The omlette' has gone south (Score:2)
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?
Re:I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score:2)
Re:I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score:1)
SCSI and Firewire however share many common elements.
Re:I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score:2)
Re:I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score:2)
SCSI seems to be a convenient place to throw stuff since you can many SCSI devices in a machine, 255 LUNs on 15 SCSI IDs, maybe 16 if you can have multiple LUNs on a controller, not sure, haven't tried, and that's just per controller.
Also in Linux generally you use IDE cd burners with SCSI emulation.
Re:I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score:3, Interesting)
As a different approach, if Bluetooth had a universal storage protocol like USB-Storage or CF/PCMCIA or SD/MMC/whatever, a camera might directly store a new photo on an iPod-like fileserver in the backpack, connected via Bluetooth. Or imagine a "wireless USB stick" as a storage medium, remaining in your pocket while you access or store some files on it. Bandwidth would certainly be too weak for vide
802.11b on Nikon D2h, not D100 (Score:3, Informative)
The brand-new Nikon D2h [nikonusa.com], not the Nikon D100, can transmit over 802.11b when the optional WT-1A [nikonusa.com] adapter. Outside North America, it's known as the WT-1.
Re:I work in a digital camera reatailer (Score: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.
Wow, 50 megs per picosecond is reasonable?! I would have though that it is downright fantastic! What kind of transfer speeds are you used? 8^)
BenyCan others intercept your photo's? (Score:2)
Re:Can others intercept your photo's? (Score:1)
Re:Can others intercept your photo's? (Score:1)
There are problems with the security and Bluetooth, naturally. Though there are problems with all popular wireless technologies that I know about. (Not that this makes it better, just to point out that wireless security is hard.)
The weakest point in BT as in any protocol is the user. If the user doesn't take the proper protections then a transmission can be monitored. But it'
Red eye digital cameras (Score:5, Funny)
Bluetooth under Linux? (Score:1)
Re:Bluetooth under Linux? (Score:1)
And to even out the sarcasm, pretty well.
WiFi: combo cards, Fuji, or others? (Score:2)
Either way, I'd look for a Wifi solution, not Bluetooth.
Still looking (Score:2)
Re:Still looking (Score:1)
I've had a couple of comments on my sig. Here's the deal. I don't care if you vote Republican, Democrat, Green or Communist, just don't vote for the shrub.
Re:Still looking (Score:2)
Nikon D2H (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [canon.co.uk].
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.
Re:Nikon D2H (Score:1)
Re:Nikon D2H (Score:2)
Bluetooth smootooth (Score:1)
Re:Bluetooth smootooth (Score:1)
I don't think that even the OSDN personal's will help with that..
Re:Bluetooth smootooth (Score:1)
One problem with adapter ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:One problem with adapter ... (Score:1)
Class A ~100m
Class B ~10m
Class C ~1m
As far as I know, all Bluetooth-USB adapters on the market are for PCs. The Bluetooth stack runs on the PC, so this is why you don't get the "other end" (IE Bluetooth-USB at the camera side) as the stack would have to be integrated into the adapter. Or the camera manufacturer would have to run the stack on the camera (processor intensive!).
With regard to security, Bluetooth allows for authenticated (IE with a PIN number to allow
Re:One problem with adapter ... (Score:1)
Re:One problem with adapter ... (Score:1)
While some camera manufacturers chose
One problem with the notebook... (Score:2)
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 che
Re:One problem with the notebook... (Score:1)
Wrong, with current mobile processors you get run-times of eight hours when working, if it's in your bag idle'ing away most of the time it can prbably be even more. So it should be able to last an average sports event.
Re:One problem with adapter ... (Score:2)
Re:Bluetooth??? How about WiFi CF cards? (Score:2)
Bluetooth out in the field (Score:2)
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 s
Thinking outside of the box (Score:2)
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 a
the adapter idea wouldn't work (Score:2)
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.
how about this (Score:2, Interesting)
- 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 i
Active Control & Passive Upload (Score:1)
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
Re:Active Control & Passive Upload (Score:1)