Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nikon Releases WiFi Digital Camera

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the click-upload dept.

Toys 144

LegendOfLink writes "Nikon just revealed the world's first WiFi-enabled camera! It runs 802.11b/g and allows users to send files over a network. From the blurb: "Wireless shooting automatically transfers each picture to a selected computer as soon as it is shot. Pictures can then be viewed with Nikon's powerful yet fun-to-use and easy PictureProject software. And wireless printing delivers the convenience of cable-free direct printing to PictBridge-compatible printers. All these functions are easy to implement, too. Just set them up with the Wizard utility to enjoy easy wireless capabilities that add outstanding flexibility to the digital photography experience. "

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Straight from the Camera to! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467666)

Anything that makes porn easier to make is alright in my book.

WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467673)

WTF they released a wifi camera like a year ago, at least!

Pefect timing! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467677)

With a digital camera like this, I can take pictures of all the white people looting and rioting in New Orleans.

Re:Pefect timing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467822)

While the previously mentioned [] free WiFi in that area will enable your pictures to be beamed right to us, you still can't photograph something that doesn't exist.

Um... (4, Funny)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 9 years ago | (#13467679)

This sounds more like an advertisement than anything actually useful... generally, if it includes the words 'powerful' 'fun-to-use' and 'easy' it's an advertisement. Might also be in an ad for a hooker >.>

Re:Um... (2, Insightful)

EnderWigginsXenocide (852478) | about 9 years ago | (#13467704)

Great! Now instead of hauling out a 15 bag full of camera gear I now need to add a wifi enabled computer to my kit. Oh my poor back aches at the thought of it! I'll take a camera that just records to CF media thankyou much.

Re:Um... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 9 years ago | (#13468009)

Huh? I'm sure it has built-in memory like any other camera.

The only difference would be now you don't need a standalone cable or card reader to transfer the photos. Seems like a pretty good, obvious idea to me.

Yet another bad article by Zonk (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467712)

I think Slashdot has slid down hill more in the past 2 weeks than it has in the past 2 years. This has to be the 5th "advertisement" article that I've seen in 3 or 4 days. And it isn't even new technology as many posters have already noted.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467747)

Seems like it would be pretty usefull to me. Say you get home and throw your bag down and start making dinner (or whatever), in the meantime the camera automatically starts to transfer whatever new photos you've taken. This does sound like an ad though.

Re:Um... (1)

empaler (130732) | about 9 years ago | (#13467748)

Exactly what I was thinking...
The summary was mostly a short introduction of the plucked-out marketing talk from the article - which itself probably was a WSOGMM of the original press release... Has anyone else ever heard of [] before? Anyone?

World's First? (4, Informative)

cmoney (216557) | about 9 years ago | (#13467681)

Isn't this a WiFi enabled camera from Kodak? th=6434&pq-locale=en_US []

Re:World's First? (1)

ikea5 (608732) | about 9 years ago | (#13467773)

Kodak "announced" it like more then a year ago. but you can't buy it yet. Plus the wifi part needs a add-on card. Nice job, Kodak.

Kodak not first... Nikon D2h and WT-1 (4, Informative)

i22y (10479) | about 9 years ago | (#13467792)

Nikon was the first to come out with a camera that was WiFi-capable. Nikon's D2H [] , which came out in Q3 2003, was also introduced with the Nikon WT-1 (and WT-1A in America) [] , which attached to the camera and provided 802.11b transmission right from the camera. Nikon's latest offerings, the D2Hs and the D2x, are compatible with the new WT-2 and WT-2A, which support 802.11g and some new features. While the camera itself does not have internal WiFi support, it was designed with that function in mind and the optional accessory enabled that. Canon also offers the WFT-E1 transmitter for the EOS-1Dmk2 cameras as well as the EOS-20D. This was introduced after Nikon, however it supports WiFi as well as Ethernet. Mike Isler

Re:World's First? (1)

David Rolfe (38) | about 9 years ago | (#13468178)

What's great is: while the story submission is factually incorrect, as well as including market-speak (ah, slashvertising!), I didn't see it because I've started ignoring articles posted by Zonk!

Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), RSS doesn't honor your "homepage" preferences. Maybe when the slashcode developers get some time away from their day jobs they can add in that feature!

Back on topic: If the "editors" (they don't edit, why do they call themselves that?) had done a couple seconds of research this story might have had a better headline. tnG=Search []

I apologize for the tone, I'm just a little fed up. Cheers.

Re:World's First? (1)

Txiasaeia (581598) | about 9 years ago | (#13468472)

What would be nicer, oh exalted Slashdot elder, is if they had included the actual name of the camera(s). Sure, TFA gives you all the info, but if I would have known that it was a point & shoot rather than a DSLR, I wouldn't have bothered even reading this. Honestly, this submission was as well thought-out as "Sony Releases Wi-Fi Computer" and then a description about how nifty Wi-Fi computers are (without bothering to list any specs), and how wonderful Sony is.

Re:World's First? (1)

David Rolfe (38) | about 9 years ago | (#13468544)

What would be nicer [...] is if they had included the actual name of the camera(s). [...] if I would have known that it was a point & shoot rather than a DSLR, I wouldn't have bothered even reading this. Honestly, this submission was as well thought-out as "Sony Releases Wi-Fi Computer" and then a description about how nifty Wi-Fi computers are (without bothering to list any specs), and how wonderful Sony is.

Right on. I'm not completely against "slashvertising" but c'mon, give us the meat. I might not mind the hypothetical Sony cheerleading story if also included "such and such specs with $x price-tag." This 'story' could have been more meaningful if all it said was "Nikon's got a new 8mp point-and-shoot with built-in WiFi [] . Comes out in October for around $550. Read some glowing marketing/press-release info here: Blah."


Re:World's First? (1)

uberdave (526529) | more than 8 years ago | (#13468659)

Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), RSS doesn't honor your "homepage" preferences. Maybe when the slashcode developers get some time away from their day jobs they can add in that feature!

The code can be found here [] . Go scratch your itch.

Re:World's First? (2, Informative)

Gudlyf (544445) | about 9 years ago | (#13468422)

Yep, and apparently they get it right [] .

Battery life? (4, Interesting)

winkydink (650484) | about 9 years ago | (#13467684)

I can't help but think that adding wifi will seriously hurt battery life.

Re:Battery life? (2, Insightful)

mikael (484) | about 9 years ago | (#13467927)

Would this be any different from writing to/from flashcard memory or a microdrive card?

802.11g has speed of 20 - 54 Mbits/second, or around 2.5 - 7 Mbytes/second.

Since a compressed JPEG image is around 400Kbytes, you could easy take and send a picture within a second. Even an uncompressed image might only take a second. Compare that speed to a flashcard which takes several seconds to save a compressed JPEG image.

Re:Battery life? (1)

wvitXpert (769356) | about 9 years ago | (#13467948)

Yeah, but do you really think a second of memory card writing takes the same amount of power as a second of 802.11 broadcasting?

Re:Battery life? (2, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | about 9 years ago | (#13468276)

Since a compressed JPEG image is around 400Kbytes, you could easy take and send a picture within a second. Even an uncompressed image might only take a second. Compare that speed to a flashcard which takes several seconds to save a compressed JPEG image.

Don't forget that you still need to locate a wireless access point, associate with that wireless accespoint, and then encapulsate the data for transmission over a network. Oh, and provide some 20-30mW of transmission power to achieve the normal range seen by 802.11b/g products...

Yes, yes I do think that this will use more power than a 1.7~2.0v flash card.

Not to mention that that several seconds you're quoting is probably saving a LOT more than 400kb of image, which a camera high-end enough to include wifi is bound to also do. Few of the JPEG images on my camera are under 1MB, and mine is hardly pro-sumer.
Tired of Fighting Firefox? Let Let Firefox fight you! []

Forget the download hacks... (4, Funny)

jarich (733129) | about 9 years ago | (#13467685)

What happens when someone figures out to upload pictures to it?

Honest honey! I don't know where ~those~ pictures came from!!! Honey?? Let me back in the house....


Re:Forget the download hacks... (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 9 years ago | (#13468243)

Well, my digital camera just maps in as a R/W USB drive. I took pictures at my company picnic a couple years ago, edited them all in Photoshop to give some of my coworkers glowing red/orange Terminator-style eyes, and then copied them back to the camera. When I showed off the pictures on the built-in display, I feigned ignorance (of course) and let everyone try to figure out how it could have happened. Some of the explanations were pretty funny ... the Sun coming in at a funny angle, a problem with the compression algorithm in the camera, gee, maybe so-and-so really is some kind of creature. Finally I owned up to it and explained that my camera was the new model with an on-board demon detector mode. Got a few laughs.

Not quite the first ever.. (5, Informative)

lcampagn (842601) | about 9 years ago | (#13467691)

We've seen plenty of wifi-enabled cameras before (such as the Canon EOS-1Ds), but this appears to be the first _consumer_ camera with wifi.

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 9 years ago | (#13467750)

The 1Ds is not a 'wifi-enabled' camera. There's a wifi-adapter sold seperately by canon that works with various canon professional cameras. Actually I'm not even sure it works with the might only work with the 1D Mark II and the 1Ds Mark II.

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (1)

wfberg (24378) | about 9 years ago | (#13467777)

Nope, Kodak did the first consumer camera with wifi (send karma here [] ).

Some nokia phones can work as a webcam and connect over bluetooth, which is wifi-esque -- not too mention wifi-enabled IP web/securitycameras, like the ones from axis. Doesn't really fit the bill, but a wifi/ip-enabled security camera actually makes more sense than a wified digital camera. To me, at least.

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (4, Informative)

Andy Smith (55346) | about 9 years ago | (#13467916)

The Canon 1Ds isn't wifi-enabled. You might be thinking of the Nikon D2h which has a wifi add-on and is approximately the same generation, although a little more recent. The newer generation of Canon DSLRs also have wifi add-ons available.

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (1)

nick_davison (217681) | about 9 years ago | (#13467977)

first _consumer_ camera with wifi ...Which largely defeats the value of it.

Wifi is a huge thing in pro level cameras because it means you can shoot effectively infinitely without having to stop to change out cards (including the down time of waiting to write to them before you can safely power off). Accepting being tethered by a power cable, your shoot can last as long as you want without needing to stop. When you're paying for model, make up artist and assistant time, that's huge.

The downside being that that you need a computer within range. Ideal for the studio, managable for on-location where a pro will happily carry a laptop if it gives them the freedom... ...And next to useless for the average consumer who takes shots over a long day out at the zoo, no wifi access point in sight, no laptop with them and certainly no desire to have the camera pause while it attempts to find a network and authenticate every single shot because auto power-off keeps kicking in when you only shoot a couple of shots then wander off for five minutes.

Of course, all that being said, it was home porn that drove home video camera sales, polaroid sales and early digital camera sales and so, who knows, maybe consumers will get a lot of use out of not having to, uh, pull out their floppy (I'm talking about the old Sonys, you pervert!)

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 9 years ago | (#13468114)

And next to useless for the average consumer who takes shots over a long day out at the zoo, no wifi access point in sight, no laptop with them

Perhaps it could upload to the hard drive of the iPod (or iPod-like device) that the consumer is carrying in his pocket. (of course, something like Bluetooth might be a better way to do that, and better still might be just putting the hard drive into the camera)

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (1)

NotAnotherReboot (262125) | about 9 years ago | (#13468154)

Yep, I was talking with a wedding photographer early this summer talking about his wireless camera. They take so many photos in such a short time that a computer receiving all of the pictures is the best solution.

Re:Not quite the first ever.. (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 9 years ago | (#13468416)

I am a wedding photographer [] . That's ridiculous. In all the seminars and conventions I've been to, in all the magazines and websites I read, I've never heard of any wedding photographer advocating WiFi for this reason, or any other, really. Yes, you take a lot of images (my wife and I typically shoot 2000-2500 at a wedding, RAW), but a 2GB flash card can hold 225 RAW images or 450 JPEGs from an 8MP DSLR like a Canon 1D Mark II, and can store them a lot faster than a 55Mbps 802.11g transmitter can offload them. I'd also be very worried about some kind of failure or interference that prevented my images from being transmitted or recieved. When you're just using the flash card, you know immediately you have the image. You're not going to be running to the computer every few minutes to check up on it there.

These devices are meant for commercial shooters who need to show large images to art directors immediately, or event photographers who transmit action shots from little league or high school football games to a central locations for viewing and purchasing by parents. I would say a wedding photographer relying on one of these devices is asking for trouble.

Marketing (4, Funny)

jo_ham (604554) | about 9 years ago | (#13467692)

Will they market it like those Centrino laptops that magically allow you to share your photos and do full screen, perfect quality video messaging over the internet while you're in the middle of nowhere with nary a cellphone tower, wireless access point or sign of civilization to be seen anywhere?

Re:Marketing (1)

relifram66 (899283) | about 9 years ago | (#13467798)

Imagine the possibilities! Pictures from the top of Mt Everest, sent to your home PC within seconds of taking them!

3 years too late to be the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467697)

Great feature, potential battery life issues? (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | about 9 years ago | (#13467705)

Obviously people don't like having to trail wires and connect peripherals to their PC every time they want to get data from them. Bluetooth solved this problem for PDA's, phones and the like and WiFi seems like the sensible choice for the kind of volume data transfer required for todays digital cameras. If they've equipped this thing with a good enough battery that it can make standard camera running times, it should be a useful step forward for consumers. If they haven't managed to overcome that problem, it could be a costly mistake (I don't the inconvenience of connecting devices outweighs significantly shorter battery life on a camera..)

Wi-Fi (1)

coffeisgood (910748) | about 9 years ago | (#13467709)

My, Wi-Fi camera! Never even thought of anything like that. It's something new for me. It's amazing, a camera with networking. So, what's next? :D

Useful for demonstration pictures, etc. (5, Interesting)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | about 9 years ago | (#13467718)

The gendarmes can confiscate the camera, but the photos are already on a server outside the country's jurisdiction. This should be handy for journalists, demonstrators, etc.

Re:Useful for demonstration pictures, etc. (1)

Bent Mind (853241) | about 9 years ago | (#13468090)

This should be handy for journalists, demonstrators, etc.

Or corperate espionage. I work in a secure building, Cameras are not allowed. However, with a small camera and wifi, what's to stop someone from connecting to an AP in their car? Of course, the flip-side, this isn't new. My PDA has both wifi and a camera...

Re:Useful for demonstration pictures, etc. (1)

Danger Stevens (869074) | about 9 years ago | (#13468110)

that's a really clever idea. Even to have one guy with a laptop in his backpack next to another guy taking pictures would solve the problem of seizure. A voice (metaphorically) would be much harder to silence with instant media transfer.

uhm. (2, Insightful)

mindwar (708277) | about 9 years ago | (#13467722)

should we start calling this place $lashdot alredy?

Re:uhm. (1)

EnderWigginsXenocide (852478) | about 9 years ago | (#13467732)

only when micro$oft dosen't get you modded down for flamebait.

Re:uhm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467934)

That's only because there isn't a -1, Retarded.

Re:uhm. (0, Flamebait)

Coniptor (22220) | about 9 years ago | (#13467899)

No kidding.
Every where you go these days they try to dress up advertising as a post or a conversation.
Greed and stupidity abound. meh

Almost correct (1)

dasOp (781405) | about 9 years ago | (#13467744)

While you are correct in that Nikon made the first wlan addon to a camera, that was years ago. All the major brands have them now.

What may be new is actually shooting from a distant location using wlan.

Re:Almost correct (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467873)

Not quite right, this ( [] ) is actually the first Commercial WiFi add on, and it supports pretty much any camera that has a CF slot

Whoopti Do. (4, Insightful)

L0C0loco (320848) | about 9 years ago | (#13467749)

News will be made when they nolonger encrypt the white balance information in their RAW format. Wake me up then.

Re:Whoopti Do. (1)

carguy84 (897052) | about 9 years ago | (#13467782)

Only AWB is encrypted on the new cameras(post D2X) otherwise ACR has no problem reading it.

Re:Whoopti Do. (1)

Coniptor (22220) | about 9 years ago | (#13467883)

I'm glad someone mentioned this!

But the real question is (3, Funny)

hakr89 (719001) | about 9 years ago | (#13467752)

Does it run Linux?

Re:But the real question is (2, Funny)

b3x (586838) | about 9 years ago | (#13467769)

better yet: Could you imagine what we could do with a beowulf cluster of these? slo motion hi res pics of hot grits being poured down a petrified natalie portman's pants as she buys another commercial .. errr submits another story to /.

No, I think the real question is... (1)

Virak (897071) | about 9 years ago | (#13467922)

Does it work on Linux? Or does it require some slow, fugly piece of shit windows only program?

Re:No, I think the real question is... (1)

stuuf (587464) | about 9 years ago | (#13467976)

"Nikon's powerful yet fun-to-use and easy PictureProject software." Sure sounds like a "fugly piece of shit windows only program." The only way i would buy this would be if I were sure it used something simple like FTP. But then Nikon wouldn't be able to make money selling crappy software that we shouldn't need.

It plays Doom? (2, Funny)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | about 9 years ago | (#13467763)

Imagine it: four guys sitting in a room, playing deathmatch on their cameras. Screw PSP: cameras are the new gaming rigs!

It: plays: Doom: (3, Funny)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | about 9 years ago | (#13467774)

Man, I just realized that there are _way_ too many colons in that post. It's a veritable colorama, a procto-party if you will.

Re:It: plays: Doom: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13468089)

That and it made no fucking sense.

Not the first. (1)

handmedowns (628517) | about 9 years ago | (#13467770)

I'm pretty sure Ricoh had this a few years ago.. like in 2001. I think its the RDC-i700.

Re:Not the first. (Ricoh) (2, Informative)

hatless (8275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13468630)

Yes, that Ricoh. I think rather than built-in wireless it had a TCP/IP stack, an FTP client and a PC Card slot for whatever kind of compatible network card you wanted to put in: Ethernet, wireless, whatever.

And it was definitely a consumer camera. It had a tiny lens and was designed as a flattish bar similar to old 110-film Instamatics.

Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (-1, Offtopic)

s388 (910768) | about 9 years ago | (#13467776)

oh great. a wifi digital camera or something.

also, an entire american city is underwater with many people dying, the refugees haven't been provided for, hospitals have filled their stairwells with dead, and half the region's national guard is in iraq along with many of billions of dollars

but don't worry folks, homeland security will protect you-- just continue to BUY your gadgets and what not, and we'll get through this. oh, and, keep paying your taxes (except if you're in the top 2% of richest people in america of course, if that's you, we'll give you a break) and keep supporting the current administration

if only a natural disaster could give us an opportunity for tough-guy macho posturing in the same way that a foreign attack does, well, then there'd be something to say about the catastrophe down south instead of just staring the incompetent/non-existent national rescue effort in the face.

Re:Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (1, Flamebait)

b3x (586838) | about 9 years ago | (#13467823)

shut up and go back to, where tough guy posturing consists of tucking your penis between your legs and prancing around in large cotton panties

Re:Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467839)

What, you think this is called "Slashdot: Only for Americans" ? This is typical american patriotism bullshit. Do you even realise that there are places in this world that look like this, even worse, every day? While I applaud the people surviving this and feel sorry for the losses of others, it does not concern me one bit.

Get off your high horse, let the rest of us get on with our lives and shut up.

Re:Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (1)

emandres (857332) | about 9 years ago | (#13467869)

As I've said before, soap boxes are on aisle 5.

Re:Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (1, Offtopic)

Stevyn (691306) | about 9 years ago | (#13467877)

So stop bitching to people on slashdot, drive down there, and help out. What's your point here? To guilt us into feeling bad? To motivate us to help them? Why go through the trouble? Help them now and don't worry about others. If you're intentions are to recruit slashdotters to help you on your quest to save them, you're wasting your time due to distance reasons.

Maybe I'm sounding hypocritical, but put your money where your mouth is and go help the people.

Re:Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (1)

bob122989 (912229) | about 9 years ago | (#13467889)

What the heck? Are you totally insane?? Not only did you READ this article, you ALSO commented on it! How is that any better than what you just complained about??

tell me that.

Bush bashing is for losers. (0, Offtopic)

jasonhamilton (673330) | about 9 years ago | (#13468129)

The federal government has no jurisdiction in LA. The federal government is there to assist the state. It's the state's responsibility, even during a natural disaster. If you want to talk about the roles of government, find out what they are first.

Re:Oh a Nifty Gadget of Some Kind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13468277)

if only a natural disaster could give us an opportunity for tough-guy macho posturing in the same way that a foreign attack does

This just in: Bush Administration declares war on Mother Nature.

Allow me to translate (5, Insightful)

Tim Browse (9263) | about 9 years ago | (#13467784)


Pictures can then be viewed with Nikon's powerful yet fun-to-use and easy PictureProject software.

...actually means:

The camera comes with some POS software that installs a load of annoying icons all over the place that you can't get rid of, has the look and feel of an explosion in a Winamp skin factory, and will crash and burn more often than Windows Movie Maker. Oh, and if you don't install this piece of crap, you can't use the camera.

I can see it now...

"Check out my cool wifi camera!"
"Cool, let's download some pictures onto my PC!"
"Ok, first you have to install this piece of shit called PictureProject on your system."
"Dude! Totally fuck off! Give me your SD card, and I'll put it in my $8 card reader that makes the card look like a standard drive, so you can use any software you like."
"Good point. Well made."
"Plus, we won't have to type in any WEP keys."
"Excellent! I don't have the PictureProject CD with me anyway."

Honestly, I could write a book.

Don't misunderestimate Nikon Picture Project (1)

appleLaserWriter (91994) | about 9 years ago | (#13467874)

PictureProject is a great little application. It works much like Apple's iPhoto, but seems to handle large quantities of files more easily. Serious photographers will want to use Photoshop as well, but I find PictureProject faster for browsing 5000 images than Adobe Bridge.

Re:Don't misunderestimate Nikon Picture Project (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13468319)

Misunderestimate? Perhaps you mean underestimate, or misunderstand, since misunderestimate isn't actually a word.

Re:Don't misunderestimate Nikon Picture Project (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13468446)

the president [] begs to differ.

Re:Don't misunderestimate Nikon Picture Project (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#13468605)

the president begs to differ.
Which should be taken as proof that it is, in fact, not a word.

Re:Allow me to translate (3, Insightful)

fuzheado (733418) | about 9 years ago | (#13467951)

Exactly, we should tell Canon and Nikon to use real open standards for this stuff or take a hike. From dpreview, the king of dig camera info:
The only limitation at the moment appears to be that the P1 and P2 will only send to PictureProject and not to standard FTP servers or across the Internet.
Only limitation? Sounds pretty craptacular to me.

Re:Allow me to translate (1)

sdw (6809) | about 9 years ago | (#13468290)

The Nikon WiFi support with the D2X does support standards, FTP and PTP/IP, which are both published and supported by Linux.

The ptp/ip protocol: []
Linux support for digital cameras and PTP/IP in particular: []
Raw image processing, including encrypted Nikon D2X images: [] cid=7-6459-7213 [] -0a7f-45cc-ba68-9560e9f3c061/Default.htm [] [] e=article&sid=3061 [] ml;jsessionid=E0TTJLUSVT5NSQSNDBGCKHSCJUMEKJVN?art icleID=47204433&_requestid=171509 []

Re:Allow me to translate (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | about 9 years ago | (#13467955)

that gives me an idea, having a wifi card reader so u can... oh wait nvm that's like the same thing. im waiting for the wifi cam that runs linux so you dont need to use their stupid software. and there's no way for icons that u cant get rid of, it's called shift+delete.

Re:Allow me to translate (1)

xsspd2004 (801486) | about 9 years ago | (#13468060)

Okay so:
  1. The software doesn't work in Linux.
  2. The wifi doesn't work without the software.
  3. Drum-roll please: the camera is nothing special if you use Linux.
  4. I don't know this for a fact, but a vast majority of Slashdot doesn't run Windows....
  5. Sounds like an idea for a new dept.
(from the we've just alienated half the audience dept.)

Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my life I can't get back. (Oh, wait, this is Slashdot. Nevermind.)

Dave []

Re:Allow me to translate (0, Offtopic)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 9 years ago | (#13468116)

I don't know this for a fact, but a vast majority of Slashdot doesn't run Windows....

Want to put some money on that?

Re:Allow me to translate (1)

Yehooti (816574) | about 9 years ago | (#13468272)

As much as I have appreciated Nikon's hardware, their support has been less than impressive. When I misplaced my user's manual for my 5700 last year, they wanted a fee for the pdf d/l for it. There have been other reported issues concerning their propriatary format and PhotoShop ( 24203&from=rss [] ). One of those, "I love 'em but hate 'em", relationships.

oh man (2, Funny)

dioscaido (541037) | about 9 years ago | (#13467789)

Does this mean i'll have to install an anti-virus on my camera, too?

hotspot... where? (2, Interesting)

toucci (834101) | about 9 years ago | (#13467794)

and thus, the internet was flooded with pictures of trinkets in people's bedrooms

Is that really needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467805)

Bluetooth is enough if someone really wants to transfer wire-less-ly. Its like Pimp My Ride with WiFi. I don't think its THAT necessary.

Re:Is that really needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467829)


Huh? (3, Informative)

dennism (13667) | about 9 years ago | (#13467856)

First WiFi digital camera? Then what is this [] supposed to be?

EXCELLeNT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467905)

a new product for me to spend my undeserved over-inflated IT paycheck on
I AM JACKING OFF FURIOUSLY fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap oh shit the price of gas just went up, recession, i got laid off, i'm fucked

DOes it workw with Macintosh? (0, Offtopic)

laserawesome (815822) | about 9 years ago | (#13467906)

all I want to know.

Geez... (1)

RedNovember (887384) | about 9 years ago | (#13467911)

Am I the only person that is sick and tired of what Addot has become? That "editor" Zonk has been relentlessly plugging for company after corp, and after this latest non-story in the annals of $lashdot, I'm starting to wish there were more folks on Technocrat.

Re:Geez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467959)

No, you're not. I can't stand the signal-to-noise ratio either.

In fact, your post convinced me there's no point reading this stuff. I go to the ends of the earth to block this sort of spam, for christ's sake!

Wonderful Idea... (3, Insightful)

LEX LETHAL (859141) | about 9 years ago | (#13467952)

I was just recently wondering if there were wi-fi digital cameras available. I was shopping at Target when I saw one of those Kodak 'do-it-yourself' digital photocenters with half a dozen slots for almost every type of portable storage media. Mounted on the side was a design afterthought - a bubble of plastic that housed an infared sensor. I would never use the Kodak photocenter simply because bored checkstand onlookers would be able to view my my most private pictures while I crop and edit them. However, the wi-fi add-on seemed like a natural feature.

Then I had another thought: with the advent of protable digtal cams being used to feed a modern culture of voyeurs, it's just a matter of time before there are voyeurs with protable wi-fi cam sniffers, lingering nearby to leech onto an unsuspecting data transfer. I read a few months ago about how some guys had built a bluetooth sniper rifle; unnoticed, they would stand atop tall downtown buildings and digitally eavesdrop on nearby blackberries and other pdas.

It seems the more freedom we embrace, the more we surrender.

dood (1)

seabasstin (304888) | about 9 years ago | (#13467967)

OK so its FRIDAY night and here I am commenting about pr0n making accessories, instead of getting some.

  I have to akxs, cause maybe I am missing something, but how is a journalist in the field, going to be able to upload to a remote server, when you have to first instal client software on whatever machine you are downloading to?

Also what initiates the downloads?
The camera or the desktop?
If its the camera I cannot wait to see the tiny interface for connecting.
first a list of access points, then a list of clients. oh but don't most access point use NAT?
I guess you first have to set up the access points to allow a particular port to open for that service to go trough?
and so you should first walk around the neighborhood and make sure that the persons know you might be doing this. (especially in Florida where you will go to jail for using someone else's bandwidth.

hmm this seems a little complicated, but I realize its the future.

I hope it uses Bonjour or rendezvous whatever that is called now.

hmmm, what about Linux and OSX support?

I think I will stick to the bluetooth ROB-1 cam that sony makes.
( [] )
A little bluetooth camera that connects to sony cell phones which can then send the image to others, and moves by itself, would make much more sense to use for that journalist in Gaza getting the beat down from Israeli military goons, or the guy watching some random LA cops use some black guy as a punching bag?

shoot remotely (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467969)

It doesn't say anywhere whether you will be able to operate the camera remotely from the software provided...

Does anyone know if it supports this feature?

Their previous protocol WT-2 did...

"I agree. The Remote Camera Control function offers PC control over various settings and operations, including focus and exposure adjustment, through USB cable connection of a PC installed with "Nikon Capture 4 (version 4.2)" and camera. The WT-2, however, lets you use this function without the USB cable connection, making it useful for shooting birds in their natural habitats, for instance."

from: / []

New York Times Review (1)

SpaceAdmiral (869318) | about 9 years ago | (#13467982)

Here's a New York Times video review of the camera [] .

Summary: It would be better if it could connect to the Internet.

Great for use in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13467988)

You could take any pictures you wanted with this in China, like during a protest at Tiananmen square, and have a partner nearby with an innocuous-looking bag holding a laptop... Then when the commie secret police slimeballs smash your camera (ok, that is bad) you at least still have the great pictures you took of them doing whatever bad deeds they don't want the world to see.

pretty useless. (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 years ago | (#13468118)

Come on a wifi digital camera.. what a waste of good ideas. how about something that everyone would want. a laptop hard drive in a nice small pack that has a battery and wifi.

it sits there as a wifi share either set it to join any network it finds when turned on or make it default to adhoc mode.

that would rock. " Hey I need those files, just a second, I'll download them from my backpack."

there are gobs of really cool stuff that could be done with wifi or bluetooth, yet we get useless crap like wifi enabled digital cameras.

Re:pretty useless. (2, Informative)

Peligro (912239) | about 9 years ago | (#13468421)

Pro cameras like D2X do have a need for wifi network - that is if you work in s studio enviroment or have a laptop on location with total control over your camera via wifi. Consumer cameras with wifi are more about conveniance when you enter a photo store with wifi equipped terminals, than uber-cool-must-have, useless feature on a camera.

Bah, here's what I want to see... (2, Interesting)

MayorDefacto (586113) | about 9 years ago | (#13468247)

WI-FI just seems to me to be pointless on a camera. It's not like I'm going to be out taking photos near hotspots all the time (for example, backpacking through Costa Rica) What I really want to see is a GPS-enabled camera that records not only time and date in the metadata, but also latitude and longitude. I always seem to have a hard time recalling where it was I took my photos once I have all of them on my hard drive. Imagine being able to integrate these photos with, say, Google Earth (a satellite flyover slideshow!). Or, imagine being able to search for photos using Spotlight in OS X Tiger by location. I can see real geek appeal to something like this, instead of adding a battery-sucking feature that would only be functional in a narrow slice of locations.

Re:Bah, here's what I want to see... (1)

joelsanda (619660) | about 9 years ago | (#13468367)

What I really want to see is a GPS-enabled camera that records not only time and date in the metadata, but also latitude and longitude.

That's a fantastic idea! Since Google Earth came out I've been visiting a few places I've backpacked in the past to match photos to a location. Too may trails ... not enough coordinates!

no-wires transfer, no-upload sharing (1)

montale127 (307830) | about 9 years ago | (#13468444)

isn't that what nikon + orb ( gets you?

anyone know whether this camera shoots MPEG-1 video?

I'm looking at you, Nikon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13468460)

I've purchased thousands of dollars of Nikon bodies and more thousands of dollars of Nikkor lenses in my day; all the way back to my first F in 1972. Now it's payback time:

I want 25+ million pixels in a 24mm x 36mm array that's good corner to corner and available in a back that mounts on my F3s.

Until then I don't buy shit.

'68 Democrat Convention reports in people's hands (3, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 9 years ago | (#13468530)

In 1968 Mayor Daily tried to suppress a crowd protesting the war and what they perceived as the theft of the primary elections and Democratic presidential nomination by the party elite.

He did this by ordering his police to smash the newsies' cameras.

This had always worked before.

He also has his pet union bosses block the stringing of much of the TV cabling into the convention center, hotels, and surrounds that would have carried the pictures. That was expected to work, too.

But the newsies were trying out a new technology: The "minicam". This was enormous. A "miniatureized" TV camera about as big as your torso, shoulder mounted. Hooked to a backpack full of electronics and batteries, with a big antenna sticking out. About all a strong man could carry. But just barely enough to get the signal to the next stage: A semitruck full of electronics, located within a block, terminating in a microwave dish to pipe the signal to a nearby studio.

And this was Chicago. Where all three major networks had a studio there, along with the major facilities for their cross-country video landline.

What was brand new about it the "mini"cam: It was real-time. By the time the billyclub smashed the lens the image of the billyclub had come zooming at the faces of a country full of TV watchers.


For the next three days the crowd chants "The Whole World Is Watching" as the process repeats. The country is treated to video of the National Guard and the 101st Airborne shoving crowds around with assault rifles, jeeps mounting machine guns and others mounting barbed-wire barriers, and enough teargas to fog the center of a city, plus enough repeats of police people bashing that instant replay is redundant.

And a once-well-liked Democratic party functionary's nomination is totally discredited. And the Republican wins the race.

Fast forward to near the end of the century. Video cameras that record on tape are now a consumer item. And a citizen tapes the interaction between the LA Police and Rodney King. Regardless of whether the cops were acting rightly or out of control, the scene makes for riots once it hits the news - and again when the cops are acquitted.

So is the reaction of the California governments to clean up the LA cops? Of course not! (Their gang task forces are left to run wild until their pattern of evidence-faking and perjury leads to legal challenges of their previous cases and the release nearly everybody they ever busted.) Instead they pass a law to BAN recording government functionaries (such as police) performing their functions. And the police use this to sieze any videotape made of their actions.

Videocams are in the same position that film cameras were BEFORE the Democratic Convention of '68.

Until now.

Cellphone cameras were a start. But this looks like a system that will put publication-quality radio-linked realtime news photography in the hands of the general population.

Granted it's just stills so far. But it looks to me like John Q Public just got his hands on the class of technological tool that only the network newsies have had for the last 35 years.

Just in time for the next step in the replacement of the the news establishment with the Internet-based open media. B-)

GPS (1)

RichiP (18379) | about 9 years ago | (#13468557)

If Pentax (or Nikon or any camera manufacturer) integrates a GPS receiver or, at the very least, allows one to connect a GPS receiver to the camera, then I'll be happy as a clam in sand.

At least with wifi, cameras can now send pics directly to computers or PDAs. Now if their protocols are open (like PictBridge), one can write opensource software that would stamp the camera's location onto EXIF.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>